Quote:“I met with some of our great generals and they just seem to feel that it was” an attack, Trump replied to a reporter’s question at a White House coronavirus briefing. “This was not some kind of a manufacturing-explosion-type of event. This was, seems to be, according to them — they would know better than I would — they seem to think it was an attack. A bomb of some kind.”

Quote:But three US Defense Department officials told CNN that as of Tuesday night there was no indication the explosion was an attack. The officials, who declined to be identified so they could speak freely, said they don't know what the President is talking about.
One official pointed out that if there were indications an attack of this scale had occurred, it would trigger automatic increases in force protection for US troops and assets in the region.

(08-05-2020 09:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So three DOD officials don't think it was an attack... and according to Trump, three generals he spoke to feel that it was...

And you take from this, not that there is not always a 'single opinion' about why something happened... but instead that Trump is engaging in 'word salad'? What is a slip-up here? What is a 'lack of filter in unrelated threads'??

A reporter asked him about it... and he answered... so it wasn't a lack of filter in an unrelated thread... Even if it turns out that it wasn't an attack, that doesn't mean that there weren't three people who thought it was. What is wrong with what he said?

(08-05-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 09:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So three DOD officials don't think it was an attack... and according to Trump, three generals he spoke to feel that it was...

And you take from this, not that there is not always a 'single opinion' about why something happened... but instead that Trump is engaging in 'word salad'? What is a slip-up here? What is a 'lack of filter in unrelated threads'??

A reporter asked him about it... and he answered... so it wasn't a lack of filter in an unrelated thread... Even if it turns out that it wasn't an attack, that doesn't mean that there weren't three people who thought it was. What is wrong with what he said?

Is it responsible for POTUS to suggest something in the Middle East was an attack before there is verified evidence of it being an attack? Does that potentially ease or inflame tensions?

Also, his response is based on how the generals "seem to feel" or "seem to think." NOT GREAT RATIONALE, BOB.

The issue isn't that there could be multiple opinions and he spoke on them, but that he doesn't have the sufficient mental capacity to recognize when to not speak the first words that come to his mouth. Look at how other world leaders have responded when discussing the explosion - a world leader saying that this may have been an attack puts a lot of weight behind that theory.

(08-05-2020 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 09:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So three DOD officials don't think it was an attack... and according to Trump, three generals he spoke to feel that it was...

And you take from this, not that there is not always a 'single opinion' about why something happened... but instead that Trump is engaging in 'word salad'? What is a slip-up here? What is a 'lack of filter in unrelated threads'??

A reporter asked him about it... and he answered... so it wasn't a lack of filter in an unrelated thread... Even if it turns out that it wasn't an attack, that doesn't mean that there weren't three people who thought it was. What is wrong with what he said?

Is it responsible for POTUS to suggest something in the Middle East was an attack before there is verified evidence of it being an attack? Does that potentially ease or inflame tensions?

Also, his response is based on how the generals "seem to feel" or "seem to think." NOT GREAT RATIONALE, BOB.

The issue isn't that there could be multiple opinions and he spoke on them, but that he doesn't have the sufficient mental capacity to recognize when to not speak the first words that come to his mouth. Look at how other world leaders have responded when discussing the explosion - a world leader saying that this may have been an attack puts a lot of weight behind that theory.

Of course, the fact that the POTUS in question is Trump has zero to do with your opinions. You quite often take his side on things.

BTW, Ham's name is not "Bob". Are you slipping back into your old ways of sarcasm and demeaning?

(08-05-2020 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 10:19 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 09:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So three DOD officials don't think it was an attack... and according to Trump, three generals he spoke to feel that it was...

And you take from this, not that there is not always a 'single opinion' about why something happened... but instead that Trump is engaging in 'word salad'? What is a slip-up here? What is a 'lack of filter in unrelated threads'??

A reporter asked him about it... and he answered... so it wasn't a lack of filter in an unrelated thread... Even if it turns out that it wasn't an attack, that doesn't mean that there weren't three people who thought it was. What is wrong with what he said?

Is it responsible for POTUS to suggest something in the Middle East was an attack before there is verified evidence of it being an attack? Does that potentially ease or inflame tensions?

Also, his response is based on how the generals "seem to feel" or "seem to think." NOT GREAT RATIONALE, BOB.

The issue isn't that there could be multiple opinions and he spoke on them, but that he doesn't have the sufficient mental capacity to recognize when to not speak the first words that come to his mouth. Look at how other world leaders have responded when discussing the explosion - a world leader saying that this may have been an attack puts a lot of weight behind that theory.

Of course, the fact that the POTUS in question is Trump has zero to do with your opinions. You quite often take his side on things.

BTW, Ham's name is not "Bob". Are you slipping back into your old ways of sarcasm and demeaning?

The Bob thing is a reference to a line from Mad Men.

And the first comment you made doesn't add much to the conversation - if you want to argue why you believe Trump wasn't mistaken to make the comment he did, or why you don't think what POTUS said matters, go for it. But that comment just deflects from the point of the post.

(08-05-2020 10:05 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Is it responsible for POTUS to suggest something in the Middle East was an attack before there is verified evidence of it being an attack? Does that potentially ease or inflame tensions?

Also, his response is based on how the generals "seem to feel" or "seem to think." NOT GREAT RATIONALE, BOB.

The issue isn't that there could be multiple opinions and he spoke on them, but that he doesn't have the sufficient mental capacity to recognize when to not speak the first words that come to his mouth. Look at how other world leaders have responded when discussing the explosion - a world leader saying that this may have been an attack puts a lot of weight behind that theory.

(08-05-2020 10:56 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  *** ETA to the above....

It seems to me that a lot of us actually appreciate people who say what they think as opposed to giving politically correct answers all the time which really say nothing (leaders of other nations).

From "a League of Their Own'
Duggan to Dottie : What do you think? (about her pitching)
Dottie : Well, she's battling...
Duggan (angrily) : WHAT do you THINK?
Dottie : She's done, she's throwing Grapefruits up there.

The PC answer she originally gave would have only served to work against her professional opinion of the situation. How is that 'good'?

I realize that some may not appreciate the more direct means of commentary and of course, there are times when it can be unnecessarily insulting.. and Trump has certainly done that... way too often

But here, I want honest commentary and not some 'let's be sure not to offend anyone', especially if they may be in some way culpable. Gioven how long and often the left (I mean leaders of the left) have been offending Trump and people who voted for him, or even those who didn't or won't, but would have over 'their 'candidate far in excess of what we have here... based on innuendo and supposition far more unbelievable than we have here, I find this complaint to be rather 'convenient'.

Now if he had suggested that it was an attack from Syria or an attack from rebels or an intentional act by the leadership there... I'd agree he'd better have some more proof... but that isn't what he said, and you have literally no idea whatsoever what facts he does and does not have.


Whether it was an attack or not, it certainly seems that storing high explosives in populated areas makes it a prime target for an attack.

(08-05-2020 11:10 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Plus, if there are explosive material poorly stored, that would seem to be an easy target...

(08-05-2020 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right, he could have made it worse by speculating who the attack came from.

I still think it's irresponsible for POTUS to spit ball like he did

Quote:- he didn't provide rationale as to why the "generals (unclear if there were actually three as you keep mentioning) seem to feel it was an attack." This isn't a situation where an opinion matters, it's a situation where facts and then analysis should lead the way - public speculation about an intentional act so early on could have unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Quote:The implications of an attack on Beirut's port are far different than an industrial accident. Can we agree on that? If we can agree, doesn't it behoove our Commander in Chief to wait for more information to come in to provide the public with his personal theory?

Quote:Think about it, it's not like Trump went through the gamut of possible options - he started the presser by saying "It looks like a terrible attack."

I believe there is a time and place for everything, and providing a speculative theory about the exact cause of the explosion a few hours after happened seems to be a bit too soon.

(08-05-2020 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There's reason to investigate whether this was intentional or not, but that's not how POTUS discussed it.

We're having a more reasonable conversation here than our Commander in Chief did.

(08-05-2020 01:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There's reason to investigate whether this was intentional or not, but that's not how POTUS discussed it.

We're having a more reasonable conversation here than our Commander in Chief did.

a) we won't be investigating unless they invite us in.

b) you have absolutely NO idea what conversations he had.

c) please remind me of the color for today? Is it red, he doesn't listen to his experts or blue, he does but we don't like their conclusions today? I can't keep up.

(08-05-2020 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right, he could have made it worse by speculating who the attack came from.

I still think it's irresponsible for POTUS to spit ball like he did

Okay... you don't like much of anything he does... I get it. I don't consider reporting the professional opinion of his military advisors to be 'spit balling'.

These people are professionals and advisors to the POTUS... My father used to work directly for Colin Powell in such a capacity. Explosives wasn't his area, but he would have been giving him his professional opinion, and it would be treated as such. They don't spit-ball. Obviously the evidence they see in the explosions supports the idea that there were other chemicals and weapons involved and not merely the reported chemicals. They can't prove what those chemicals or weapons were because they don't have ALL the evidence.

Quote:- he didn't provide rationale as to why the "generals (unclear if there were actually three as you keep mentioning) seem to feel it was an attack." This isn't a situation where an opinion matters, it's a situation where facts and then analysis should lead the way - public speculation about an intentional act so early on could have unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Wait... so now he has to explain the thinking of others to everyone? Good lord, You complain when you think he doesn't listen to professionals and now you complain when he does.

The 'three' comment was a mistake by me... conflating two lines... you just can't help but get lost in minutiae.... Whatever... You have Presidential Military Advisors (he did use the plural), a named, retired ATF explosives investigator and a named, CIA Middle East expert all suspecting the same thing.... so that's at least 4 and could be 50.... and then you have three 'unnamed, DOD officials' who could quite literally be anybody in the DOD.

Quote:The implications of an attack on Beirut's port are far different than an industrial accident. Can we agree on that? If we can agree, doesn't it behoove our Commander in Chief to wait for more information to come in to provide the public with his personal theory?

Again, you call it his 'personal' theory. Did you even read your own article?

I think we agree on the different implications... but we disagree on what those implications are. The government carelessly storing high explosives in such an area isn't an industrial accident. Again, if the US government were storing seized explosives at the Port Authority Terminal in NYC, would you call that an 'industrial accident'?

As I said, the government has already admitted that they failed for 6 years to secure the explosives. Our military experts apparently told the President that they thought it was an attack. He reported that to the press.... and he even said it was their opinions, their EXPERT/PROFESSIONAL opinions.

Quote:Think about it, it's not like Trump went through the gamut of possible options - he started the presser by saying "It looks like a terrible attack."

I believe there is a time and place for everything, and providing a speculative theory about the exact cause of the explosion a few hours after happened seems to be a bit too soon.

and yet he'd already consulted with his advisors... hmmmm. You simply assume that he didn't consider the options. Maybe you don't have any idea what was considered?

Seriously, there are tell-tale signs of different types of explosions. The fact that you think that people like the ATF explosives expert and the Military don't consider the facts and instead just throw wild speculation at the President... ANY President is troubling.

(08-05-2020 02:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 01:42 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 11:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You're right, he could have made it worse by speculating who the attack came from.

I still think it's irresponsible for POTUS to spit ball like he did

Okay... you don't like much of anything he does... I get it. I don't consider reporting the professional opinion of his military advisors to be 'spit balling'.

These people are professionals and advisors to the POTUS... My father used to work directly for Colin Powell in such a capacity. Explosives wasn't his area, but he would have been giving him his professional opinion, and it would be treated as such. They don't spit-ball. Obviously the evidence they see in the explosions supports the idea that there were other chemicals and weapons involved and not merely the reported chemicals. They can't prove what those chemicals or weapons were because they don't have ALL the evidence.

Quote:- he didn't provide rationale as to why the "generals (unclear if there were actually three as you keep mentioning) seem to feel it was an attack." This isn't a situation where an opinion matters, it's a situation where facts and then analysis should lead the way - public speculation about an intentional act so early on could have unforeseen and unintended consequences.

Wait... so now he has to explain the thinking of others to everyone? Good lord, You complain when you think he doesn't listen to professionals and now you complain when he does.

The 'three' comment was a mistake by me... conflating two lines... you just can't help but get lost in minutiae.... Whatever... You have Presidential Military Advisors (he did use the plural), a named, retired ATF explosives investigator and a named, CIA Middle East expert all suspecting the same thing.... so that's at least 4 and could be 50.... and then you have three 'unnamed, DOD officials' who could quite literally be anybody in the DOD.

Quote:The implications of an attack on Beirut's port are far different than an industrial accident. Can we agree on that? If we can agree, doesn't it behoove our Commander in Chief to wait for more information to come in to provide the public with his personal theory?

Again, you call it his 'personal' theory. Did you even read your own article?

I think we agree on the different implications... but we disagree on what those implications are. The government carelessly storing high explosives in such an area isn't an industrial accident. Again, if the US government were storing seized explosives at the Port Authority Terminal in NYC, would you call that an 'industrial accident'?

As I said, the government has already admitted that they failed for 6 years to secure the explosives. Our military experts apparently told the President that they thought it was an attack. He reported that to the press.... and he even said it was their opinions, their EXPERT/PROFESSIONAL opinions.

Quote:Think about it, it's not like Trump went through the gamut of possible options - he started the presser by saying "It looks like a terrible attack."

I believe there is a time and place for everything, and providing a speculative theory about the exact cause of the explosion a few hours after happened seems to be a bit too soon.

and yet he'd already consulted with his advisors... hmmmm. You simply assume that he didn't consider the options. Maybe you don't have any idea what was considered?

Seriously, there are tell-tale signs of different types of explosions. The fact that you think that people like the ATF explosives expert and the Military don't consider the facts and instead just throw wild speculation at the President... ANY President is troubling.

My issue with the thrust of your argument is we don't have evidence that our military advisers did what you allege in the bold.

You are 100% correct that Trump reported that to the press, but when other military representatives were asked, they basically refuted the idea that the military thinks it was an attack. Frankly, three unnamed DOD officials are equally as credible as this POTUS, unfortunately, this POTUS is who makes the headlines.

I don't think his advisers threw unverified information at POTUS, I think they carefully chose what they wanted to tell him and likely gave him a complete picture of all possibilities. I think that the discussion was more detailed and nuanced than POTUS made it out to be.

By the way, Esper has now publicly stated that most believe the explosion was an accident, but that information was still being collected. You know, discussing the issue in a way where he provides information about the most likely outcome, without jumping to a conclusion. You may call that PC, but it's important for leaders to provide the entire picture (which Trump did not do).

(08-05-2020 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 01:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There's reason to investigate whether this was intentional or not, but that's not how POTUS discussed it.

We're having a more reasonable conversation here than our Commander in Chief did.

a) we won't be investigating unless they invite us in.

b) you have absolutely NO idea what conversations he had.

c) please remind me of the color for today? Is it red, he doesn't listen to his experts or blue, he does but we don't like their conclusions today? I can't keep up.

You're conflating issues here - are you doing that intentionally?

(08-05-2020 02:59 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 02:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 01:45 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There's reason to investigate whether this was intentional or not, but that's not how POTUS discussed it.

We're having a more reasonable conversation here than our Commander in Chief did.

a) we won't be investigating unless they invite us in.

b) you have absolutely NO idea what conversations he had.

c) please remind me of the color for today? Is it red, he doesn't listen to his experts or blue, he does but we don't like their conclusions today? I can't keep up.

You're conflating issues here - are you doing that intentionally?

How is responding to what you said, almost line by line... conflating issues?

My entire issue is that you are making comments with absolutely zero support for them... other than your clearly slanted opinion... loosely supported by three, unnamed 'officials'... and directly in conflict with two named professionals and 'generals' who report directly to the President.