General Question

elbanditoroso's avatar

If Trump lies about things like weather forecasts, why should we believe him on the question of who bombed the Saudi Arabia oil fields?

Asked by elbanditoroso (26413points) 1 week ago

He says it was Iran.

But he lies constantly – the weather forecast just being the most recent.

Why should anyone believe anything Trump says?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

51 Answers

ragingloli's avatar

The Yemeni Huthi Rebels already claimed that attack for themselves.
Yet the colonies still try to blame Iran for it.
As for your question, you should consider any claim that comes out of that current regime to be a lie until proven otherwise by trustworthy, independent third parties.

SEKA's avatar

Q: How do you know when trump is lying?
A: His mouth opens.

Plain and simple, I don’t believe him

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated
stanleybmanly's avatar

If Trump says good morning, everyone within earshot checks their watch.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

I don’t think he gets up in the morning and says “I’m going to lie about . . . .”

He just opens his mouth !

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I don’t think he intentionally lies, just wants to make countries ,and people he doesn’t like look bad, and countries and people he does like look good even if it’s a total lie like most of the time.

tinyfaery's avatar

I don’t believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

Demosthenes's avatar

Well, didn’t it come from Pompeo first? Do you believe Pompeo over Trump?

I think the word is still out on who was behind this, despite the Houthis’ claims (ISIS certainly took responsibility for some attacks they ended up having nothing to do with).

That said, I really hope the hawks don’t use this as justification to go to war with Iran. But they’ve been searching for an excuse to go to war with Iran all year.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@Demosthenes I think you mean BOLTON was just fired, not Pompeo.

Demosthenes's avatar

Fix’d. I get the two confused.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated
Response moderated
flutherother's avatar

Well that’s the problem with Trump. You really can’t believe anything he says as lying comes so naturally to him. An added problem is that Trump’s source for such information should be the intelligence services of the United States which Trump has said he doesn’t trust. The administration is a mess.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s just the trouble. When NOTHING from the President can be accepted at face value, effective government is eliminated, and the concept of public service is reduced to a standing joke.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
johnpowell's avatar

To make things worse they just leaned on NOAA to lie under the threat of firing for the stupid sharpie thing. AND THEY FOLDED.. So it is not only what Trump says. Trust in the entire government has been eroded. And I live here. Imagine if you are another country and the United States asks for military help.. This is a shitshow.

Response moderated
stanleybmanly's avatar

JPs point is well taken. The fool himself an inveterate liar, has made it clear that refusal to participate in the lies is grounds for reprisals. And for those insisting that it is the liberals, press, security agencies, academics, scientists, etc. doing the lying…well good luck with that silly shit!

flutherother's avatar

Twenty minutes after Trump’s tweet on 1 September saying that Alabama was in the path of the Hurricane Dorian the National Weather Service in Birmingham Alabama, part of NOAA, had to issue this tweet: “Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The system will remain too far east.”

Trump got it wrong but like some First Secretary of the Communist Party of Russia in the 1950’s he refused to admit it and forced his officials to back him.

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Yellowdog's avatar

basically, I’m reading a lot of regurgitation of circular reporting of things that were never said, with the purpose of obtusification—not conveying actual information. What you are reporting is so far from reality that it is hopelessly confusing and impossible to discern truth.

One thing that is apparent is that you don’t have a clue about what’s going on in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Newsflash: Iran has been abducting oil tankers and disrupting international oil trade in the middle east for about ten weeks. A lot of nations need the United States intervention. The U.S. is energy independent and does not need this for ourselves. Trump is, however, tanking the Iranian economy.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog “you don’t have a clue about what’s going on in Iran and Saudi Arabia”

You’re right wait until Wednesday, Trump will Tweet all the secret meetings and outcomes to the world! SMH

Yellowdog's avatar

There is noting secret going on—your circular news sources have to present an extremely distorted view of the world, and oddly misplaced and misprioritized picture of world events, to justify the inane hatred of all things Trump. That’s why none of it makes any sense to you.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

It is not “to justify the inane hatred of all things Trump.”

It is a sixth grader running the USA into the ground; he has a lot of practice going bankrupt, grabbing pussy and talking in secret without any member of the USA diplomatic corp with his BFF Putin.
Just saying!!
And oh oh, he’ll move to his new Trump Towers in the Ukraine, because there is no extradition treaty with Ukraine after he leave office.

stanleybmanly's avatar

There’s that hatred thing again. The fool fks up! Now any notice or talk of it is proof of biased media invention and irrational liberal hatred. He isn’t a disgusting lying fkup. We are all just dupes of the media.

Yellowdog's avatar

The satellite imagery suggests the missiles came from Iran or Iraq. You can tell by what sides of the targets were struck.

There are those on this site who are stating that the word of Iranian leaders is more credible than what the evidence clearly shows, if its a chance to smear the President.

Motive for the attack is pretty clear to those with even a piquancy of what’s been going on on the world stage the past ten months.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Anyone who believes by now that Trump has more credibility than Iranian leaders or for that matter a box of fortune cookies is beyond delusional.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@stanleybmanly . . . or more credibility than a large bowl of orange Kraft Mac & Cheese.

Yellowdog's avatar

If you live between Russia and Sweden, in northern Norway, you don’t blame the Swedes for damage that came from the Russian side. You might also want to look at the motives of the nations involved.

ragingloli's avatar

Saudia Arabia is not Norway. It is a barbaric dictatorship that supplied almost all of the alleged 9/11 terrorists.
And. Driving up their oil prices with this “unfortunate” event would count as a good motive, would it not?
And. If you want to make your asinine comparison even slightly credible, the scenario would be that Norway recently invaded Sweden, and that Sweden admitted that they are responsible.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
ragingloli's avatar

Remember how congress passed a law to end military exports to Saudi Arabia, and president Hilary Clinton vetoed it?
Remember how President Hilary Clinton submissively tweeted
“Saudi Arabia oil supply was attacked. There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom as to who they believe was the cause of this attack, and under what terms we would proceed!”
Remember how Hilary Clinton’s AG blocked the release of an FBI report detailing the connections between the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi Government?

I bet you do not.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@ragingloli Never happened but change Clinton to . . . . “Kraft Mac & Cheese” you have a winner.

jca2's avatar

what·a·bout-er·y
/ˌ(h)wədəˈboudərē/
noun BRITISH
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
“all too often, well-intentioned debate descends into whataboutery”

Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated (Unhelpful)
stanleybmanly's avatar

The op’s last line is worth repeating “why should anyone believe anything Trump has to say?” What answer is there to that one?

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther