The PokéCommunity Forums

The PokéCommunity Forums (https://www.pokecommunity.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic (https://www.pokecommunity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   News US-Iran crisis intensifies after general assassinated (https://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=429054)

VisionofMilotic January 3rd, 2020 1:55 PM

US-Iran crisis intensifies after general assassinated
 
The United States last night attacked Baghdad airport, killing multiple people including it's target one of Iran's top government officials Qassem Soleimani. This CNBC article I think does a fair job of recapping the underlying conflicts between Iran and US over the past couple of years that are coming to a head here.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/03/top-iranian-general-qassim-soleimani-killed-in-us-airstrike-in-baghdad-pentagon.html

Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif calls the assassination of their top general an act of international terrorism by the United States, and says that the "U.S bears responsibility for all consequences in it's rogue adventurism."

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo says that the U.S was performing a pre-emptive strike to defend itself, and that they have intelligence showing Soleimani had planned an "imminent" attack on Americans deployed in the region.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/03/qasem-soleimani-killing-pompeo-says-airstrike-response-threat/2802844001/

Pompeo has not disclosed intelligence evidence of a plot at the this time, and UN official Agnes Callamard argues the airstrike is a violation of International Law.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/03/us-airstrike-that-killed-qassim-soleimani-of-iran-violates-human-rights-law-un-official-says/

Here are worldwide reactions to this volatile situation.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/03/world/iran-killing-triggers-global-alarm-we-are-waking-up-more-dangerous-world/

This is arguably an act of war, one that threatens to also engulf Iraq again as this attack was carried out without the approval of the Iraqi government by the United States on Iraq's soil. I would expect some form of response by Iran, and then another response by the United States. I don't know how far this will escalate, but global affairs are not off to a good start in 2020...

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 2:21 PM

So far from what I read, Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of over 500 US soldiers, worked on the attack on the US Embassy ( An act of war, as any Embassy is considered the soil of the home country ), and was largely considered the most dangerous terrorist since Osama Bin Laden.

The U.S. has been in a quiet war with Iran for four decades, and been in a proxy war with them in Iraq for over almost two decades, it is good that there was finally a punch back to this monster.

Nanusmightyena January 3rd, 2020 2:37 PM

While what Trump did was probably deserved, there’s a good chance it’s gonna cause WW3.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 2:48 PM

What Trump did, whether the guy deserved it or not, was pretty par for the course for his stupidity and inability to actually follow through on anything he promises.

You do not kill a foreign diplomat on a third party's soil without even informing that country that you will be undertaking military action. Did anyone from Iraq die in the attack? If they did, that's a whole other clusterfuck.

As for Trump's inability to keep a promise, let's not forget that he was supposedly pulling troops out of the Middle East? Now he's sending them back, and let's not pretend he hasn't been spoiling for open war with Iran for months now. Every time the US pokes its nose into the middle-east, things get worse not better and it is high time the US government stopped acting like the world's authority on everything because every country they interlope in ends up worse than where they started.

We don't need yet another Gulf War.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 3:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109259)
Did anyone from Iraq die in the attack?

The only info I have seen is that an Iraqi military/militia commander was also killed in the attack. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, along with Hezbollah commander Naem Qasm.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 3:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109268)
The only info I have seen is that an Iraqi military/militia commander was also killed in the attack. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, along with Hezbollah commander Naem Qasm.

Oh good, so this did result in the death of a military official of an allied nation... on that allied nation's soil... without those allies knowing the attack was coming. Truly stupidity knows no bounds.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 3:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109274)
Oh good, so this did result in the death of a military official of an allied nation... on that allied nation's soil... without those allies knowing the attack was coming. Truly stupidity knows no bounds.

Yeah but obviously the counter question is if the situation was a clear and present danger to US troops what else were they supposed to do? Warning Iraq would have ended with the target being informed because of how corrupt Iraq is currently with Iran.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 3:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109276)
Yeah but obviously the counter question is if the situation was a clear and present danger to US troops what else were they supposed to do? Warning Iraq would have ended with the target being informed because of how corrupt Iraq is currently with Iran.

Well I'm sure now that they've brought tensions up a few million notches there's no US troops in danger. That fixes that.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 3:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109279)
Well I'm sure now that they've brought tensions up a few million notches there's no US troops in danger. That fixes that.

Wouldn’t the attack on the embassy, already suggest an escalation by Iran that put troops and US personal in danger? This attack did not happen out of no where, the embassy attack was a game changer and obviously there were plans for future attacks.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 4:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109281)
Wouldn’t the attack on the embassy, already suggest an escalation by Iran that put troops and US personal in danger? This attack did not happen out of no where, the embassy attack was a game changer and obviously there were plans for future attacks.

Has he been definitely linked to any of that?
I'm not necessarily saying that there should not have been a strike against this guy, but this was definitely a poorly conceived plan.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 4:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109309)
Has he been definitely linked to any of that?
I'm not necessarily saying that there should not have been a strike against this guy, but this was definitely a poorly conceived plan.

The embassy attack was from an Iranian backed Hezbollah militia, the leader of whom was meeting with the commander when he was killed. I haven’t seen a communique from Iran that said they ordered the attack, but obviously Hezbollah isn’t going to do something that could lead to war with out getting the okay from their Iranian masters, and the meeting with Iran’s number two just days after obviously suggest that they were preparing what to do next.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 4:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109312)
The embassy attack was from an Iranian backed Hezbollah militia, the leader of whom was meeting with the commander when he was killed. I haven’t seen a communique from Iran that said they ordered the attack, but obviously Hezbollah isn’t going to do something that could lead to war with out getting the okay from their Iranian masters, and the meeting with Iran’s number two just days after obviously suggest that they were preparing what to do next.

What I'm hearing is a lot of conjecture and not a lot of evidence.
But even if there was conclusive evidence, this particular plan for carrying it out was a bad one for reasons already outlined.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109322)
What I'm hearing is a lot of conjecture and not a lot of evidence.
But even if there was conclusive evidence, this particular plan for carrying it out was a bad one for reasons already outlined.

Obviously we are not going to get detailed information for security purposes, I mean what evidence are you looking for here? The best the public is going to get is what members of Congress and Administration officials say.

Also if I may ask, how else would you suggest they carry out the plan?

Maedar January 3rd, 2020 5:46 PM

Know how folks complain when Iran citizens shout "DEATH TO THE GREAT AMERICAN SATAN!"?

Well, they surely aren't gonna stop doing that NOW.

gimmepie January 3rd, 2020 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109324)
Obviously we are not going to get detailed information for security purposes, I mean what evidence are you looking for here? The best the public is going to get is what members of Congress and Administration officials say.

Also if I may ask, how else would you suggest they carry out the plan?

If they can't even definitively say, at the least "there is concrete proof", I see little reason to believe them.

Either confer with Iraq's government or strike him somewhere else. He's high profile, I doubt they'd have much trouble finding him somewhere that wouldn't cause quite so much trouble. If need be, you can always prep/evacuate likely targets as needed until the operation is over. I don't claim to have all the answers here, but given how much of a mess of things this makes, I can't imagine it's the best way of doing things.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 6:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109350)
If they can't even definitively say, at the least "there is concrete proof", I see little reason to believe them.

What concrete proof are you looking for? He is the top military leader in Iran, he is responsible for crisis and attacks across the Middle East, he was meeting with the top leader of Kata'lb Hizballah days after attacks on the embassy. What further proof do you need?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109350)
Either confer with Iraq's government or strike him somewhere else. He's high profile, I doubt they'd have much trouble finding him somewhere that wouldn't cause quite so much trouble. If need be, you can always prep/evacuate likely targets as needed until the operation is over. I don't claim to have all the answers here, but given how much of a mess of things this makes, I can't imagine it's the best way of doing things.

Informing the Iraqi Government could lead to him being tipped off that something was about to happen, there was an Iraqi general there, so it is not impossible to believe that there were members of the Iraqi government sympathetic to the Iranian regime.

Also while he could be targeted elsewhere, as he traveled across the Middle East, doing so would not have taken out the leader of Kata'lb Hizballah as well, and it would potentially allow any plans made during the meeting to go forward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar
Know how folks complain when Iran citizens shout "DEATH TO THE GREAT AMERICAN SATAN!"?

Well, they surely aren't gonna stop doing that NOW.

So the choice is to take out one of the worst terrorists in the world, or... make sure the Iranian people hate us less?

Maedar January 3rd, 2020 6:49 PM

Craziest part, Trump is actually stupid enough to think this will incite a rebellion in Iran. How dumb can someone get?

VisionofMilotic January 3rd, 2020 7:09 PM

I am of an age where I can remember the start of the Iraq war. Thwarting the alleged Soleimani plot sounds uncomfortably close to the script used for invading Iraq. We did a "pre-emptive strike" there too, and it was based on false intelligence of weapons of mass destruction in the country. So my default position is skepticism until we can examine all of the evidence ourselves, and not just take Trump's word or Pompeo's.

As much as this situation reminds me of Iraq, Trump's infinitely crazier than Bush, as even George Bush specifically ruled out assassinating Soleimani, understanding that it would be a potentially irreversible point of escalation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-obama-bush-and-bibi-all-passed-on-killing-qassem-soleimani

Trump also has to know this, but wants to open that Pandora's box.

I cannot see the United States as victims acting only in self-defense though I'm American. I see this as part of a larger pattern of actions by Trump to try to make peace with Iran impossible, starting with tearing up the Iran Nuclear deal and burying them in sanctions, though Iran was abiding by the terms agreed. We took further punitive action against Iran for the Saudi Arabia oil field attack that the Houthis of Yemen actually claimed responsible for, not Iran.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/20/politics/trump-announces-iran-sanctions/index.html?no-st=9999999999

We similarly accused Iran of attacking a Japanese oil tanker, despite protests from the actual owner of the ship that they were not struck by any Iranian mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil-tanker-owner-disagrees-with-us-that-mine-caused-blast-near-iran.html

I watched a very interesting interview this afternoon on Democracy Now with award-winning journalist Amy Goodman. She invited Ro Khana on her show, and I thought what he had to say was perhaps the most informative of all of the guests. Congressman Khana had an amendment in the national defense authorization that would have prevented any offensive action against Iran and any funding for it, but the Pentagon forced this language to be taken out of the bill, and now Trump just so happens to be doing this very thing, taking offensive action in Iran and can't be held accountable by Congress. Here's the link if anyone wants to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAFr_s4ZOd8

I don't believe the doublespeak by the United States government that they don't want escalation in Iran. Yes, they do.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 7:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109365)
We similarly accused Iran of attacking a Japanese oil tanker, despite protests from the actual owner of the ship that they were not struck by any Iranian mine.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/14/oil-tanker-owner-disagrees-with-us-that-mine-caused-blast-near-iran.html

Yeah but the mine did bear a striking resemblance to mines that the Iranian military displayed during parades, and did come at a time when Iran was taking over and attacking ships in the area.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-news-us-shows-limpet-mine-parts-case-against-iran-in-tanker-attacks-today-2019-06-19/

A Revolutionary Guard boat also approached the tanker later and removed an unexploded mine.

https://apnews.com/6a48842e263541a5b3451f0d41dee01a

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109365)
I watched a very interesting interview this afternoon on Democracy Now with award-winning journalist Amy Goodman. She invited Ro Khana on her show, and I thought what he had to say was perhaps the most informative of all of the guests. Congressman Khana had an amendment in the national defense authorization that would have prevented any offensive action against Iran and any funding for it, but the Pentagon forced this language to be taken out of the bill, and now Trump just so happens to be doing this very thing, taking offensive action in Iran and can't be held accountable by Congress. Here's the link if anyone wants to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAFr_s4ZOd8.

I doubt this would be considered an offensive action considering it was in retaliation for the embassy attack, and killed two key components of the group that attacked the embassy, thus the Congressman's language would be moot.

VisionofMilotic January 3rd, 2020 7:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109370)

I doubt this would be considered an offensive action considering it was in retaliation for the embassy attack, and killed two key components of the group that attacked the embassy, thus the Congressman's language would be moot.

It would be considered an offensive action for that very reason, If It's retaliatory then it's not strictly defensive. It is also an act of aggression.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 7:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109377)
It would be considered an offensive action for that very reason, If It's retaliatory then it's not strictly defensive. It is also an act of aggression.

Unless of course the attack was also to prevent further attacks such as the one seen at the embassy.

VisionofMilotic January 3rd, 2020 8:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109379)
Unless of course the attack was also to prevent further attacks such as the one seen at the embassy.

Something that could maybe be happen in the future is not imminent danger. That's making an example to frighten, it is not self-defense. You can believe the United States should have drone striked the airport-- I do not, I don't believe this was an appropriate level of force in response to the embassy attack even if the people we killed really were behind it, and it will have political repercussions beyond what we saw at the embassy. I think Trump just made us less safe. However, even if you think this was a good thing, it's still would be considered offense. Trump wouldn't have been able to act so unilaterally with Iran if the defense authorization act hadn't been gutted, and I think removing that ammendent is evidence that the United States has setting the stage for a conflict for some time, undermines our government arguement that they don't want an escalation.

EnglishALT January 3rd, 2020 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109394)
Something that could maybe be happen in the future is not imminent danger. That's making an example to frighten, it is not self-defense.

Considering the general was a known terrorist leader and plotter, meeting with a group had just attacked US soil, it is hard not to imagine that their discussion did not involve plans and preparations for future terror attacks, thus fulfilling the requirement for self defense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109394)
However, even if you think this was a good thing, it's still would be considered offense.

Preventing a meeting between terrorists that had attacked us previously and showed every intention of attacking again, is offensive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109394)
Trump wouldn't have been able to act so unilaterally with Iran if the defense authorization act hadn't been gutted, and I think removing that ammendent is evidence that the United States has setting the stage for a conflict for some time, undermines our government arguement that they don't want an escalation.

Doubtful, even if it had been passed, the amendment allowed for an attack with congressional authorization. Is Congress really going to prevent an attack that could very well stop another attack on the embassy or US personal and forces in the Middle East just days after the previous embassy attack? No, they would have authorized it, as not doing so, would make them even worse when the next attack happens and it is reported that they could have stopped it.

VisionofMilotic January 4th, 2020 8:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109398)
Considering the general was a known terrorist leader and plotter, meeting with a group had just attacked US soil, it is hard not to imagine that their discussion did not involve plans and preparations for future terror attacks, thus fulfilling the requirement for self defense.



Preventing a meeting between terrorists that had attacked us previously and showed every intention of attacking again, is offensive?



Doubtful, even if it had been passed, the amendment allowed for an attack with congressional authorization. Is Congress really going to prevent an attack that could very well stop another attack on the embassy or US personal and forces in the Middle East just days after the previous embassy attack? No, they would have authorized it, as not doing so, would make them even worse when the next attack happens and it is reported that they could have stopped it.


This is why the Pentagon had the amendment against offensive action in Iran stricken from the Defense Authorization Act. If the language had not be removed Trump would have been forced come to Congress and make a case presenting evidence to get approval. Facts would be necessary. No, not even this congress would have approved something as general as, "it is hard not to imagine that their discussion did not involve plans..." You would have to prove that you were in imminent danger. Assassinating a government official because of the possibility of an embassy being vandalized again does not look like self-defense, it looks like a punitive action, and a reckless one because of the scale of our response in relationship to what happened, and also because it is based on conjecture that these were the operatives behind past attacks-- we believe, and assuming they were then they could have been plotting a future riot together.

Now when you say the general is a "plotter" and a "terrorist" are you are referring to Soleimani being the head IRGC/ the external wing Qudz? If this is what you are talking about I want to make sure you understand that IRGC is a part of the military structure in Iran's political system, and has been for 40 years. It is similar to a combination of the CIA and US Special forces. Soleimani's position would parallel to a defense secretary here in the United States.

In fact the United States worked with Soleimani and his very militia previously against the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11, he was actually an opponent of Isis and is credited with keeping them from taking over Iran.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/03/when-united-states-qasem-soleimani-worked-together/

This is not to say that Soleimani was not an oppressive figure or that I supported him or that there aren't serious internal problems within Iran and their military, I think the same could be said of the United States and our government, that doesn't mean if someone were to go to assassinate officials from our department of defense it would be justifiable or wise.

The designation of the IRGC as a terrorist group is quite new. Trump controversially labelled the country's own military terrorists just back in spring, and it is yet another link in a long chain of aggressive actions the United States has been taking since Trump got in office to isolate and antagonize Iran, and destabilize the peace in the region we had obtained under the Obama administration, and it undermines the narrative that the United States wants to de-escalate and is just defending themselves but they keeping getting attacked randomly by Iran.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran/u-s-officially-designates-irans-revolutionary-guards-a-terrorist-group-idUSKCN1RR1BE

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 2:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109570)
This is why the Pentagon had the amendment against offensive action in Iran stricken from the Defense Authorization Act. If the language had not be removed Trump would have been forced come to Congress and make a case presenting evidence to get approval. Facts would be necessary. No, not even this congress would have approved something as general as, "it is hard not to imagine that their discussion did not involve plans..." You would have to prove that you were in imminent danger. Assassinating a government official because of the possibility of an embassy being vandalized again does not look like self-defense, it looks like a punitive action, and a reckless one because of the scale of our response in relationship to what happened, and also because it is based on conjecture that these were the operatives behind past attacks-- we believe, and assuming they were then they could have been plotting a future riot together.

Well lets break this down, because time would have been a factor Trump would have had to have gone to the Gang of 8 for authorization, a full deliberation of Congress would have been useless as not only would it be sharing classified material openly, but time being the issue, and Congress moving at a snail's pace, would not be able to accomplish authorization in the required time. The intelligence Gang of 8 consists of.

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
Adam Schiff (D-CA-28), Chair
Devin Nunes (R-CA-22), Ranking Member

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Richard Burr (R-NC), Chair
Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair

Leadership in the United States House of Representatives:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12), Speaker of the House
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-23), Minority Leader

Leadership in the United States Senate:
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Leader
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Minority Leader

4 Republicans, 4 Democrats, David Nunes, Richard Burr, Kevin McCarthy, and Mitch McConnell have shown support for the attack on twitter, that leaves the 4 Democrats being the only ones who could have opposed this. 4 Democrats, opposing the killing of the leader of Kata'lb Hizballah, who had just attacked the embassy, and a man responsible for the killings of 500 to 600 Americans.

Yeah, I am sorry but there is no way that those 4 top Democrats are going to take responsibility, in an election year, to not stop these two people if presented the opportunity. Especially since such a meeting between the general and Kata'lb Hizballah, could very well result in another embassy attack or deaths of US personnel.

It would be Benghazi 2.0 right before the 2020 election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109570)
Now when you say the general is a "plotter" and a "terrorist" are you are referring to Soleimani being the head IRGC/ the external wing Qudz? If this is what you are talking about I want to make sure you understand that IRGC is a part of the military structure in Iran's political system, and has been for 40 years. It is similar to a combination of the CIA and US Special forces. Soleimani's position would parallel to a defense secretary here in the United States.

I am fully aware of his position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109570)
In fact the United States worked with Soleimani and his very militia previously against the Taliban in the aftermath of 9/11, he was actually an opponent of Isis and is credited with keeping them from taking over Iran.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/03/when-united-states-qasem-soleimani-worked-together/

That is great, but lets not bury what kind of mass murderer this man was.

He planned a strike on US soil, that would have killed US civilians, along with the Saudi Ambassador in 2011.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/01/04/iran-agents-once-plotted-kill-saudi-ambassador-dc-case-reads-like-spy-thriller/

He instructed his militia leaders in Iraq to step up their attacks on U.S. targets in Iraq using weapons provided by Iran.

Two weeks before he moved rockets that could target helicopters into Iraq.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-soleimani-insight/inside-the-plot-by-irans-soleimani-to-attack-us-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z

He is responsible for the building and shipping of IED and other weapons into Iraq to destabilize the country and fuel a civil war that targeted US troops between 2005 to 2007 which claimed the lives of over 600 US troops and injured thousands more.

He also allegedly had direct planning, financing, and directing of the 2012 terror attack against the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/inside-the-twisted-terrible-reign-of-iranian-general-qassem-soleimani/

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109570)
This is not to say that Soleimani was not an oppressive figure or that I supported him or that there aren't serious internal problems within Iran and their military, I think the same could be said of the United States and our government, that doesn't mean if someone were to go to assassinate officials from our department of defense it would be justifiable or wise.

If for two decades the US had been leading attacks in a undeclared war against a country and it's personnel, killing hundreds of it's troops and civilians, and targeting its embassies, along with planning an attack on it's home soil. Would you not expect that country to consider the man who planned and led those operations to be a target for attack?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic (Post 10109570)
The designation of the IRGC as a terrorist group is quite new. Trump controversially labelled the country's own military terrorists just back in spring, and it is yet another link in a long chain of aggressive actions the United States has been taking since Trump got in office to isolate and antagonize Iran, and destabilize the peace in the region we had obtained under the Obama administration, and it undermines the narrative that the United States wants to de-escalate and is just defending themselves but they keeping getting attacked randomly by Iran.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran/u-s-officially-designates-irans-revolutionary-guards-a-terrorist-group-idUSKCN1RR1BE

While IRGC may be new to it's designation as a terrorist group, Qassem Suleimani is not, he was on the terror list during the Obama Administration.

https://www.hudson.org/research/11436-obama-strikes-a-deal-with-qassem-suleimani

Peace? Peace? Are you serious?

Again I point out that this man was shipping weapons into Iraq as recently as October and telling the militias there to step up the targets and attacks.

Lets look at this "peace" we achieved under Obama with Iran, we already covered the Benghazi attacks and the planned bombing on U.S. soil.

We have the capture of US soldiers on January 12, 2016 which resulted in release of pictures of them bound, a direct violation of the Geneva convention.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/irans-photographs-navy-sailors-war-crime-or-just-outrage

Iran through its use of Hezbollah was responsible for shipping countless number of drugs into Europe and America, the money of which was used to further finance terror operations.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

They engaged in various acts of cyber espionage targeting the state department and various other civilian targets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/world/middleeast/iran-hackers-cyberespionage-state-department-social-media.html

I could go on and on, but I think it is rather clear that Iran, despite the nuclear accord, was still willing to act in a non peaceful manner, in attempts to humiliate and hurt the U.S.

gimmepie January 4th, 2020 3:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109687)
If for two decades the US had been leading attacks in a undeclared war against a country and it's personnel, killing hundreds of it's troops and civilians, and targeting its embassies, along with planning an attack on it's home soil. Would you not expect that country to consider the man who planned and led those operations to be a target for attack?

Wait. You haven't been? That doesn't sound like the America I know. You've changed America.

Dark humour about American warmongering aside, I'm kinda with Alt on Obama with this one. He was better than Bush or Trump sure, but that's not setting the bar very high. Obama was pretty good domestically but he wasn't much better for the Middle-East than other Presidents have been.

Maedar January 4th, 2020 3:40 PM

ALT, seriously, stop and read what you read. It's kind of terrifying.

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 3:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10109708)
ALT, seriously, stop and read what you read. It's kind of terrifying.

Can you please elaborate on what you find 'terrifying'?

Maedar January 4th, 2020 3:55 PM

America is not a nation of war-mongering conquerors, ALT.

You WANT war? You WANT to slaughter innocents just to prove your point?

What did Iran EVER do to you??

If we turn into what you describe, Iran is NOT the brutal, godless terrorist nation you claim it is. WE are.

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 4:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10109711)
America is not a nation of war-mongering conquerors, ALT.

You WANT war? You WANT to slaughter innocents just to prove your point?

What did Iran EVER do to you??

If we turn into what you describe, Iran is NOT the brutal, godless terrorist nation you claim it is. WE are.

I don't want war either, I don't believe a massive war in Iran benefits America or the world.

That all being said, it is wrong to ignore Iran's aggression over the last two decades, something must be done to say that they need to stop. Targeting a key figure that has killed thousands of people, and hundreds of US soldiers, and was preparing to unleash even more attacks seems to send a pretty clear message that the US will no longer tolerate the actions of Iran against them anymore.

What happens next is not up to the US but Iran, if Iran does not want war, and I hope they do not, then they can see this as a chance to change their attitude and stop targeting US troops and embassies, if they want to go to war with the US, then they can counter attack and kill even more people and continue along the bloody path they have chosen for the past two decades.

Maedar January 4th, 2020 4:19 PM

Quote:

I don't want war either, I don't believe a massive war in Iran benefits America or the world.
A few posts ago you seemed surprised that Pie would even suggest Peace. You also defended the killing of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Naem Qasm; the Iraqi government could very well call Trump a war criminal and murderer for such. You seem completely unconcerned with the deaths of innocents, so where does it end?

What's your solution? Do we, as Trump said, "bomb the s*** out of them and leave Iran a deserted ruin? (In other words, genocide.) Do we target their families, another method he recommended? Do we invade, kill the political and religious leaders, and subjugate the citizenry? (In other words, invade the place and take over, exactly what crazy conspiracy theorists always say ISIS is going to do to us.) Do we seize the oil fields? (In other words, become no better than thieves.) Do we force the Muslim citizenry to abandon their faiths and become Christians? (Become a new version of the Taliban?)

See where I'm going? When all is said and done, who's the actual terrorists here?

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 4:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10109717)
A few posts ago you seemed surprised that Pie would even suggest Peace. You also defended the killing of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and Naem Qasm; the Iraqi government could very well call Trump a war criminal and murderer for such. You seem completely unconcerned with the deaths of innocents, so where does it end?

I am sorry, innocent? Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was the commander of Kata'ib Hezbollah, the group that led the attack on the US embassy last month and thus an attack on US soil. Naem Qasm was the deputy leader of Lebanon Hezbollah, a militant group recognized as a terror organization all over the world. How can you call these people innocent?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10109717)
What's your solution? Do we, as Trump said, "bomb the s*** out of them and leave Iran a deserted ruin? (In other words, genocide.) Do we target their families, another method he recommended? Do we invade, kill the political and religious leaders, and subjugate the citizenry? (In other words, invade the place and take over, exactly what crazy conspiracy theorists always say ISIS is going to do to us.) Do we seize the oil fields? (In other words, become no better than thieves.) Do we force the Muslim citizenry to abandon their faiths and become Christians? (Become a new version of the Taliban?)

See where I'm going? When all is said and done, who's the actual terrorists here?

Right now, again the decision is up to Iran, they are the ones who have pursued a quiet war against the US for the last two decades, one that the US has largely ignored. What happens next is up to them.

LDSman January 4th, 2020 4:34 PM

Good riddance to a terrorist.

It is interesting seeing seeing who calls it an assassination and who doesn’t.

Maedar January 4th, 2020 5:00 PM

Quote:

Right now, again the decision is up to Iran, they are the ones who have pursued a quiet war against the US for the last two decades, one that the US has largely ignored. What happens next is up to them.
ALT, Iran did not start this.

Trump did.

Now, here's an explanation of why another Gulf War is folly:

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-invasion-iran-would-be-suicidal-110411

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 5:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10109729)
ALT, Iran did not start this.

Trump did.

Was it not an Iranian backed and controlled group by the name of Kata'ib Hezbollah that attacked the US embassy just last week?

Maedar January 4th, 2020 5:17 PM

Quote:

Was it not an Iranian backed and controlled group by the name of Kata'ib Hezbollah that attacked the US embassy just last week?
WHY does that give us the right to attack Iraq? In case you didn't know, Iraq is more an enemy to Iran than we are.

THINK about that.

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 5:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10109735)
WHY does that give us the right to attack Iraq? In case you didn't know, Iraq is more an enemy to Iran than we are.

THINK about that.

What are you even talking about? We attacked the leader of the terrorist group that engaged in the attack, and the general from Iran that approved the attack and has been supplying the group with weapons. We did not attack the Iraqi government, we attacked a member of the Iranian government, and as documented in the lower posts Iran has been at war with us for two decades.

Maedar January 4th, 2020 6:00 PM

Quote:

We attacked the leader of the terrorist group that engaged in the attack, and the general from Iran that approved the attack and has been supplying the group with weapons
In other words, we acted as judge, jury, and executioner, blatantly pulling an assassination of foreign leaders.

Kind of like how World War 1 started with the assassination of Archbishop Francis Ferdinand.

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 6:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10109752)
In other words, we acted as judge, jury, and executioner, blatantly pulling an assassination of foreign leaders.

Kind of like how World War 1 started with the assassination of Archbishop Francis Ferdinand.

Or, like we did to Osama Bin Laden and various other targets and terrorists for the last decade or so...

Maedar January 4th, 2020 6:09 PM

Quote:

Or, like we did to Osama Bin Laden and various other targets and terrorists for the last decade or so...
Wait, wait, are you actually admitting Bin Laden is dead? That Obama did indeed, kill him, something that is often doubted by his detractors?

I should mention, btw, that Bin Laden was being pursued for both national and international criminal charges, and even so, Pakistan was very angry at us after the mission for violating their sovereignty.

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 6:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10109755)
Wait, wait, are you actually admitting Bin Laden is dead? That Obama did indeed, kill him, something that is often doubted by his detractors?

I should mention, btw, that Bin Laden was being pursued for both national and international criminal charges, and even so, Pakistan was very angry at us after the mission for violating their sovereignty.

I really do not want to talk about the Bin Laden raid, He is dead, Obama killed him, it was the right call, Pakistan was mad but who cares. All of that has nothing to do with the current topic.

gimmepie January 4th, 2020 6:19 PM

Why are we all forgetting that the reason there's so much anti-US sentiment in the Middle-East is because past American governments have invaded over false pretences for the sake of controlling oil supplies and forcing their values onto other cultures? I'm not going to condone the burning down of the US Embassy, but let's stop pretending that the US are the good guys here. There are no good guys in these wars - although I guess a debate could be made for Iraq since they largely just seem to be in a really unfortunate location.

Also, I don't Bin Laden is a good comparison. He was wanted internationally for well known, confirmed crimes. I'm not okay with the violation of sovereignty, but the strike itself I'm okay with. The attempted assassinations of Fidel Castro would be a better example, although there's the issue of the absence of a third party.

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 6:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109760)
Why are we all forgetting that the reason there's so much anti-US sentiment in the Middle-East is because past American governments have invaded over false pretences for the sake of controlling oil supplies and forcing their values onto other cultures? I'm not going to condone the burning down of the US Embassy, but let's stop pretending that the US are the good guys here. There are no good guys in these wars - although I guess a debate could be made for Iraq since they largely just seem to be in a really unfortunate location.

That argues that before Iraq, everything was fine in the Middle East in terms of anti-US sentiment. Before Iraq, there was the US presence in Saudi Arabia, or the support of Israel, or any number of things that was used to attack the "Great Satan"

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109760)
Also, I don't Bin Laden is a good comparison. He was wanted internationally for well known, confirmed crimes. I'm not okay with the violation of sovereignty, but the strike itself I'm okay with. The attempted assassinations of Fidel Castro would be a better example, although there's the issue of the absence of a third party.

It may not be the best comparison, but it was a leader of an organization who had engaged in terrorist acts, and was seen as a clear and present danger to make future attacks against the US. Castro to my knowledge on the other hand largely kept to himself outside the Cuban Missile Crisis.

gimmepie January 4th, 2020 6:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109763)
That argues that before Iraq, everything was fine in the Middle East in terms of anti-US sentiment. Before Iraq, there was the US presence in Saudi Arabia, or the support of Israel, or any number of things that was used to attack the "Great Satan"

Can't imagine why anyone would be mad about supporting Israel... oh wait, Palestine exists. Anti-American sentiment just about anywhere there's anti-American sentiment generally comes from the US thinking it's the centre of the universe and sticking their nose in wherever they please, doing whatever they please. Not that the US is the only place guilty of this, but we're talking about the US.



Quote:

It may not be the best comparison, but it was a leader of an organization who had engaged in terrorist acts, and was seen as a clear and present danger to make future attacks against the US. Castro to my knowledge on the other hand largely kept to himself outside the Cuban Missile Crisis.
He was a foreign leader on foreign soil with no real evidence of wrongdoing against the US. That's the similarity.
If this were a case in a court of law and you tried to prosecute with the flimsy conjectural evidence the US government seems to have, you would be laughed out the building. I'd like to think that maybe the standard for ordering an assassination on foreign soil should be higher than that.

This entire situation is a mess and a large part of that is because of the US leadership making stereotypical US leadership decisions.

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 6:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109765)
He was a foreign leader on foreign soil with no real evidence of wrongdoing against the US. That's the similarity.
If this were a case in a court of law and you tried to prosecute with the flimsy conjectural evidence the US government seems to have, you would be laughed out the building. I'd like to think that maybe the standard for ordering an assassination on foreign soil should be higher than that.

This entire situation is a mess and a large part of that is because of the US leadership making stereotypical US leadership decisions.

No real evidence?

Do you deny he met with militia leaders in October instructing them to step up attacks, as well as provided them with weapons from Iran?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-soleimani-insight/inside-the-plot-by-irans-soleimani-to-attack-us-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z

Do you deny that as leader of Iran's military he helped finance and direct thousands of terror plots in Iraq and Syria?

I mean this all is fact, his trail of crimes and bodies has been well known and documented across three US Administrations and across the world.

Edit: Or you know we could just ask those that attacked the embassy who was in command, they were quite clear.

"Outside the embassy, the protesters flung rocks at the gate while others carried banners with President Trump’s face crossed out and chanted, “No, no, America! … No, no, Trump!”

They scrawled “No to America!” and “Soleimani is my commander” on the embassy walls — referring to Iran’s pointman for Iraq, Revolutionary Guards commander Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani.

Qais al-Khazali, leader of the Iranian-backed Asaib Ahl al-Haq militia, and several other senior militia leaders were among the protesters."

https://nypost.com/2019/12/31/hundreds-of-iraqis-attempt-to-storm-us-embassy-in-baghdad/

gimmepie January 4th, 2020 9:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109767)
Snip

Last I checked random things screamed by protesters aren't the best source of evidence. Nor are meetings between political factions that could be about anything. There's a reason that site doesn't even give the same "American intelligence" line about that - it's conjecture. If it's not strong enough for a court, and this isn't, it shouldn't be strong enough to authorise assassination.

As for Iran having influence in Iraq, that's none of the US' business.

EnglishALT January 4th, 2020 9:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmepie (Post 10109786)
Last I checked random things screamed by protesters aren't the best source of evidence. Nor are meetings between political factions that could be about anything. There's a reason that site doesn't even give the same "American intelligence" line about that - it's conjecture. If it's not strong enough for a court, and this isn't, it shouldn't be strong enough to authorise assassination.

As for Iran having influence in Iraq, that's none of the US' business.

So let me get this straight Soleimani meets with these forces in October, supplies them with weapons, these forces then attack the embassy, spray painting “Soleimani is my commander” on the walls, and then days later he returns to meet with the commander of the very same forces and there is no evidence?

In court not only would you lay out the facts but you would have experts come in and testify on them to show that Soleimani was engaging in behavior that he has done for over a decade when it comes to commanding foreign militias for Iran's interest.

Her January 4th, 2020 10:54 PM

It’s a testament to the longevity of Rupert Murdoch’s stranglehold on Western media that far-right propagandists, or centrist apologists, don’t even have to be paid to do their job, they don’t have to know how they’ve been manipulated - it’s almost automated at this point, allowing a true illusion of self-determination with spreading hatred they believe to be wholly original and solely defined by them. With such a successful decades-long dehumanisation of the Middle East, any and all actions undertaken to further destabilise the region is universally seen as a good thing by those people; the Forever War of recent decades need not end if there are brown people still left to shake their geopolitical fist at, if there’s always a new enemy to justify the ransacking of government coffers for private interests. There will always be a justification.

Maedar January 5th, 2020 5:16 AM

Iran's actual heads of state say: "We are complying with America's nuclear deal."
Republicans say: "Don't believe them, they're a bunch of liars!"

A mob of Iranian citizens say: "“No, no, America! … No, no, Trump!”
Republicans say: "They are deadly serious! This is a threat to America!"

Angry Mob screaming, "Death to the Great American Satan!"
Republicans shout: "TERRORISTS!"

But Just-as-Angry Mob shouting, "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!"
And Republicans say, "Aw, they don't mean it."

Sounds kinda dumb, doesn't it?


On a related note, Trump has just threatened war crimes against Iran.

In his midnight tweetstorm, he said, I quote:

Quote:

“Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently……..hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have………targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!”
i should point out, the destruction of cultural heritage sites is a war crime under the United Nations, in a rule targeting not only ISIS and Al Qaeda but all combatants on any side:

Quote:

The UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution Friday condemning the unlawful destruction of cultural heritage and warning the Islamic State extremist group, al-Qaeda and other combatants that such attacks may constitute war crimes.

The resolution approved by the UN’s most powerful body expands previous measures which were limited to the illicit trafficking in looted cultural items to fund terrorism, and focused on Iraq and Syria where Islamic State extremists have destroyed ancient sites including Palmyra.

The newly adopted measure targets not only IS, al-Qaeda and its affiliates but all parties to conflicts.
This is no idle rule. A radical Islamist militant named Ahmed al-Faqi al-Mahdi is already doing nine years’ in prison at the Hague for destruction of cultural heritage sites in Timbuktu.

To put this in terms everyone can understand, I am reminded of the famous scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana Jones (a character Trump compared himself to at least once) points a grenade launcher at the Nazi troops carrying the Ark of the Covenant, threatening to destroy the artifact rather than let them have it. The evil archaeologist Belloq (one of film history's biggest narcissists and an overall big jerk) calls Indy’s bluff, however, correctly reminding him that “we are simply passing through history. This, this *is* history.” (Yeah, that's right, the villain is not only calling out the hero, he's making a valid point while doing so.)

The president of the United States is threatening Iran with cultural extinction. No matter how you spin it, that is a war crime. Threatening a war crime is also war crime. And this president must be held accountable for it, whether while in office or afterward as need be.

Edit: It doesn't look like Iraq is as happy with Trump as he assumed they'd be:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/05/iraqs-parliament-calls-for-expulsion-of-us-troops/23893552/

EnglishALT January 5th, 2020 11:04 AM

Iran has announced on state tv that they are officially pulling out of the nuclear deal, it was largely a sham at this point anyway, but now they have made it official.

LDSman January 5th, 2020 12:02 PM

Many Iranian Americans support the death of the terrorist general.
One such protest.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/4374204-iranian-americans-celebrate-death-of-general/amp/

The US doesn’t support the ICC and mostly doesn’t care what the UN says.

Kanzler January 5th, 2020 9:16 PM

If Soleimani was as talented as everyone says he was, then I wonder if his assassination might impair Iran's ability to work through its proxies in the Middle East. If he had mysteriously died by poison then you've probably saved some American lives down the line and get away with it, but destroying him in a brazen airstrike only serves to give Iran an obvious reason to retaliate and makes things more chaotic for all the other actors not named the US or Iran. I think the scariest aspect of the confrontation as it currently stands is Israel or Saudi Arabia. They might receive retaliation or be provoked into attacking Iran or its proxies, at which point you can't help but think it'll spiral into open conflict and the US would have to respond in kind.

Kolar™ January 5th, 2020 11:37 PM

US did a good job, Iran is a country who promotes terrorism, human trafficking etc etc. They deserved it.

VisionofMilotic January 7th, 2020 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109687)
Well lets break this down, because time would have been a factor Trump would have had to have gone to the Gang of 8 for authorization, a full deliberation of Congress would have been useless as not only would it be sharing classified material openly, but time being the issue, and Congress moving at a snail's pace, would not be able to accomplish authorization in the required time. The intelligence Gang of 8 consists of.

United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence:
Adam Schiff (D-CA-28), Chair
Devin Nunes (R-CA-22), Ranking Member

United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Richard Burr (R-NC), Chair
Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chair

Leadership in the United States House of Representatives:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA-12), Speaker of the House
Kevin McCarthy (R-CA-23), Minority Leader

Leadership in the United States Senate:
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Majority Leader
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Minority Leader

4 Republicans, 4 Democrats, David Nunes, Richard Burr, Kevin McCarthy, and Mitch McConnell have shown support for the attack on twitter, that leaves the 4 Democrats being the only ones who could have opposed this. 4 Democrats, opposing the killing of the leader of Kata'lb Hizballah, who had just attacked the embassy, and a man responsible for the killings of 500 to 600 Americans.

Yeah, I am sorry but there is no way that those 4 top Democrats are going to take responsibility, in an election year, to not stop these two people if presented the opportunity. Especially since such a meeting between the general and Kata'lb Hizballah, could very well result in another embassy attack or deaths of US personnel.

It would be Benghazi 2.0 right before the 2020 election.

I am willing to acknowledge that the courage of our sold out democratic lawmakers hangs by a thread, and that the war machine-driven foreign policy we have receives bipartisan support. That being said, the prospect of war with Iran-- which Trump is begging for by assassinating two senior military leaders in the Baghdad airport is such a special level of lunatic that it has even the neoliberals like Pelosi scrambling to place some form of check and balance on Trump right now, resurrecting the war powers resolution to limit his authority with regard to Iran.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/06/house-to-vote-on-limiting-trumps-military-powers-regarding-iran.html

A full deliberation of congress and sharing the material would not be pointless if there is no clear evidence for the claim of imminent danger the decision to drone this guy was based on. This precedure could have exposed lies from the White House, and then they might not have gotten to carry out the assasination they wanted. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the Trump administration has yet to demonstrate a specific and imminent threat to us, only a generalized fear.

In his CNN interview Friday when Pompeo was asked about the specific nature of the threats Pompeo talked out of both sides of his mouth.

"I can't talk too much about the nature of the threats. But the American people should know that the President's decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives. No doubt about that, actively plotting in the region to put thousands of Americans at risk. We know he's behind dozens of attacks throughout region."

He does not say how he knows this. Then we were treated to this word salad.

"I am not going to tolerate killing of Americans on Dec 27th-- Americans killed in Iraq. Then we watched intelligence flow in to show Soleimani travels throughout region and work to put Americans at risk. Time to take this action, plot to deter further aggression from Qassem Soleimani and iranian regime, as well as de-escalate situation."

This reads like a free verse poem. The Trump administration has to show that there was an imminent threat in order to carry out an assassination. We're supposed just to sit down and shut up and fall in line? Why should we just trust this guy whose been pushing us to attack Iran since 2014? We don't need any impirical evidence to evaluate? We should just kill someone primarily because of their reputation as our opponent, and on the word of Robert Hook, Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump that the White House really has some good intelligence that they are not showing us and a catastrophe will strike if we don't do these killings now. That is a psychological form of black mail to manipulate the public. Yeah sorry, the very government that has lied us into wars in the middle East like Libya, Syria, Afghan and Iraq needs to answer questions before receiving a license to kill in Iran too.

This could be false intelligence, which is why it has to be shared objectively now or another half a million people may end up dead for no reason just like they did in Iraq. The first responsibility of congress is to check and balance the executive branch, nowhere is this more important than initiating wars, which is what Trump is trying to do.

The more information begins to surface the more horrifying this assasination is. The prime minister of Iraq is saying that Soleimani was in the airport on a peace mission trying to improve relations with Saudi Arabia. The guy we just blew away to Kingdom Come could just as easily have been carrying a diplomatic response as hatching a plot. If it is the former then it is our leader this time who just made the world more unsafe.

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/06/soleimani-peace-mission-assassinated-trump-lie-imminent-attacks/

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109687)

That is great, but lets not bury what kind of mass murderer this man was.

He planned a strike on US soil, that would have killed US civilians, along with the Saudi Ambassador in 2011.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/01/04/iran-agents-once-plotted-kill-saudi-ambassador-dc-case-reads-like-spy-thriller/

He instructed his militia leaders in Iraq to step up their attacks on U.S. targets in Iraq using weapons provided by Iran.

Two weeks before he moved rockets that could target helicopters into Iraq.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-soleimani-insight/inside-the-plot-by-irans-soleimani-to-attack-us-forces-in-iraq-idUSKBN1Z301Z

He is responsible for the building and shipping of IED and other weapons into Iraq to destabilize the country and fuel a civil war that targeted US troops between 2005 to 2007 which claimed the lives of over 600 US troops and injured thousands more.

He also allegedly had direct planning, financing, and directing of the 2012 terror attack against the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/inside-the-twisted-terrible-reign-of-iranian-general-qassem-soleimani/

As for Soleimani being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, it is problematic to assasinate him on that basis since his militia was killing American troops while they were occupying Iraq--when we had unjustly invaded the region and were waging an illegal war to get oil.
I am not unsympathetic to our fallen countrymen and women. It's tragic that well-meaning American soldiers were used by the government in this way and ended up in the path of guerilla warfare from Iranian-backed militias, fighting and dying on a false pretext so that the military industrial complex could enrich itself here at home. The troops didn't deserve to die, and neither did the people we were invading. It was a no-win situation. This is why I am anti-war, because that is the horrible reality of what it looks like trying to hold a country that does not want you there. It is why I am for exhausting every diplomatic tool, no matter how much of a concession it may be to stop another Iraq. This is why I don't support shooting our opponents first and asking questions later right outside Baghdad airport. I believe it could lead to Iraq 2.0

If two nations do go to war however a distinction does ultimately need to be drawn between warfare against armed forces and saying in a vacuum that Soleiman the mass murderer killed hundreds of Americans. Those hundreds of Americans shouldn't have been sent over there. I wish all of the people were alive today. If you make war on a nation however then the troops killed trying to take control of the country for you is not the same set of circumstances as an act of terrorism against civilians like 9/11. This doesn't make the impact of loss of these American lives any less, there is nothing to prevent or our own government officials from assasination however for consequences of their role in our wars if we assassinate Soleimani on a basis as broad what he did at war. This is a slippery slope that we are using as the basis of this killing.

Most of the deaths we know for fact Soleimani is directly responsible for took place within the context of our occupation of Iraq, av decade that left half a million people dead, more displaced and wounded, homes destroyed, raided, mass arrests people tortured and detained, governments broken for nothing, all based on lies of the government telling us to kill this guy too. I think it would be more constructive and relevant to a conversation about foreign policy if we explain how his militias came to be fighting the United States, than reduce the discussion to caricatures where one party is the "monster" as you term it.

I am not going to have a conversation about Benghazi as grounds for his assination because this is a theory about something he was involved with, with words like "allegedly" and "supposedly" and "could have" peppered throughout the links you have posted, rather than something we know, and the same is so for him supposedly having a plot to attack America once that never came to fruition if this was even so. Nothing is more final than death. If you believe our government should kill him or anyone then that decision needs to be based on just the hard facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10109687)

Peace? Peace? Are you serious?

Again I point out that this man was shipping weapons into Iraq as recently as October and telling the militias there to step up the targets and attacks.

Lets look at this "peace" we achieved under Obama with Iran, we already covered the Benghazi attacks and the planned bombing on U.S. soil.

We have the capture of US soldiers on January 12, 2016 which resulted in release of pictures of them bound, a direct violation of the Geneva convention.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/irans-photographs-navy-sailors-war-crime-or-just-outrage

Iran through its use of Hezbollah was responsible for shipping countless number of drugs into Europe and America, the money of which was used to further finance terror operations.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/obama-hezbollah-drug-trafficking-investigation/

They engaged in various acts of cyber espionage targeting the state department and various other civilian targets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/25/world/middleeast/iran-hackers-cyberespionage-state-department-social-media.html

I could go on and on, but I think it is rather clear that Iran, despite the nuclear accord, was still willing to act in a non peaceful manner, in attempts to humiliate and hurt the U.S.


If you don't want to use the word peace with regard to Iran, then how about less of a mess than we have now? Instead of just feeling hurt and humiliated now there is no incentive for Iran not to enrich uranium and build weapons. The population of the country is suffering, food is unaffordable because of the crippling sanctions we slapped on them. Any moderates left will probably be swept out of office in Iran in backlash for the Soleimani assasination and replaced with hardliners. We have Sunnis and Shiites, moderates, hardliners, reformers all united in mourning now and justifiably hating America. 50 people were just killed in the chaos of stampede of the chaos of his funeral marches alone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-live-updates/2020/01/07/896c70a2-30d5-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html

Iraq, which was in a precarious position technically aligned with both the U.S and Iran, now may have to go all in with Iran. Their parliament has voted to expel us out of the country for fragrantly undermining their sovereignty by killing on their soil an official of the government they invited in to help them defeat Isis, and Trump threatening Iraq with illegal sanctions now if they dare tell us to leave.

Iran promising to hit back 30 sites in retribution for this assination, and Trump going for the machine gun threatening to hit 50 in Iran, not sparing even the civilians who could die if he hits the cultural heritage sites, threatening essentially human rights violations.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-threatens-iran-attacks-52-sites-n1110511

We could also see a resurgence of Isis in the north as we just killed the guy who demolished Isis. Isis, the terrorist group that emerged out of the instability that OUR regime change wars caused, was previously being contained by Iran and the Kurds. Trump is doing his best to burn all bridges with both of them.

We're telling any Americans to flee the region for their lives right now. If this was an effort to deter aggression then Trump failed miserably.

Isis may not be the worse of our problems, Iran was doing naval exercises with Russia and China a little earlier this December.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/asia/china-russia-iran-military-drills-intl-hnk/index.html

It is not out of the realm of possibility that you could pull them into this dispute too. Neither Obama or Bush wanted to kill Soleimani because they recognized this would be such a major escalation that it would probably lead to war. That does not mean they had a positive view of him, but our personal feelings won't change that he is respected in the middle east even outside of Iran. If the US and Iran want to de-escalate they stll may not be able to because they can't control the reaction of everyone on the region. I hope that this does not happen, but these are possible geopolitical consequences that need to be considered with his death, and the question is if the threats were truly more imminent to you before you had killed. #NoWarWithIran

Maedar January 7th, 2020 11:12 AM

Know what's amazing?

Obama: Took down Osama bin Laden, a known terrorist leader wanted internationally, and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Viewed by Republicans as worst president in history and a traitor.

Trump: Took down an Iranian general whom nobody even heard of with no solid evidence of terrorist activities. Viewed by Republicans as a hero and "true American".

Unbelievable.

LDSman January 7th, 2020 1:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10110736)

Trump: Took down an Iranian general whom nobody even heard of with no solid evidence of terrorist activities. Viewed by Republicans as a hero and "true American".

Unbelievable.

He's actually well-known. Not sure why you're insisting otherwise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/obituaries/qassem-soleimani-dead.html

EnglishALT January 7th, 2020 3:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10110736)
Know what's amazing?

Obama: Took down Osama bin Laden, a known terrorist leader wanted internationally, and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Viewed by Republicans as worst president in history and a traitor.

Trump: Took down an Iranian general whom nobody even heard of with no solid evidence of terrorist activities. Viewed by Republicans as a hero and "true American".

Unbelievable.

That honestly speaks to how pathetically partisan we as a country have become and the gulf that divides us.

It is not hard to imagine that if reversed it would be Republicans saying that Obama is trying to get a war with Iran to distract from problems at home, with Democrats saying that taking out Osama Bin Laden was unnecessarily provocative of us going into an ally Pakistan.

Sothis January 7th, 2020 4:49 PM

I don't like that many innocent civilians were killed just to take out this one guy whom no one heard of. People lost family members, friends, mothers, fathers, people who were just at a fucking airport.

It's no lie that the US and Iran have beef ever since Trump pulled the nuclear deal but if there's no hard evidence about this guy other than he was a general? Come on. Don't risk the lives of millions for one man.

EnglishALT January 7th, 2020 5:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitri (Post 10110856)
I don't like that many innocent civilians were killed just to take out this one guy whom no one heard of. People lost family members, friends, mothers, fathers, people who were just at a fucking airport.

It's no lie that the US and Iran have beef ever since Trump pulled the nuclear deal but if there's no hard evidence about this guy other than he was a general? Come on. Don't risk the lives of millions for one man.

I only heard that five people died, three were terrorists, the other two I assume were security. Trump did not bomb an airport but use a targeted drone attack to take out a car at the airport.

Edit: Breaking News Iran responded by using cruise missiles and ballistic missiles to target US bases all over Iraq.

This seems like a rather limited response but may not be the only response given by Iran, however it does clearly ratchet up the tensions.

Edit Again: No deaths, and more than a few missiles missed, this could be Iran backing down, or preparing terror attacks and claim deniability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic
I am willing to acknowledge that the courage of our sold out democratic lawmakers hangs by a thread, and that the war machine-driven foreign policy we have receives bipartisan support. That being said, the prospect of war with Iran-- which Trump is begging for by assassinating two senior military leaders in the Baghdad airport is such a special level of lunatic that it has even the neoliberals like Pelosi scrambling to place some form of check and balance on Trump right now, resurrecting the war powers resolution to limit his authority with regard to Iran.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/06/house-to-vote-on-limiting-trumps-military-powers-regarding-iran.html

We can both realize that for so many, like Pelosi, political calculations are the most important. If there is a war ( which seems far less likely now ) then Trump owns it, he would own it even if Democrats signed off on the strike. However if he did nothing, and comes off looking weak ( as many Democrats accused him of before the strike ) and Iran attacks again, then he has a tool to bludgeon the left with.

I guess the question I have to ask is this, which do you think Pelosi believes would hurt the Democrats more, another Iraq War in which Republicans and Bush were blamed, or another Benghazi in which Democrats were blamed for failing to act.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic
A full deliberation of congress and sharing the material would not be pointless if there is no clear evidence for the claim of imminent danger the decision to drone this guy was based on. This precedure could have exposed lies from the White House, and then they might not have gotten to carry out the assasination they wanted. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the Trump administration has yet to demonstrate a specific and imminent threat to us, only a generalized fear.

That is great, but more than likely the General was not planning to stick around Iraq while Congress deliberates his fate. If the plan was to kill him to prevent another attack, there is a limited opportunity to do that. Otherwise he retreats to Iran, and the preparations begin on the next stage of attack by Hizbollah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic
In his CNN interview Friday when Pompeo was asked about the specific nature of the threats Pompeo talked out of both sides of his mouth.

"I can't talk too much about the nature of the threats. But the American people should know that the President's decision to remove Soleimani from the battlefield saved American lives. No doubt about that, actively plotting in the region to put thousands of Americans at risk. We know he's behind dozens of attacks throughout region."

He does not say how he knows this. Then we were treated to this word salad.

"I am not going to tolerate killing of Americans on Dec 27th-- Americans killed in Iraq. Then we watched intelligence flow in to show Soleimani travels throughout region and work to put Americans at risk. Time to take this action, plot to deter further aggression from Qassem Soleimani and iranian regime, as well as de-escalate situation."

This reads like a free verse poem. The Trump administration has to show that there was an imminent threat in order to carry out an assassination. We're supposed just to sit down and shut up and fall in line? Why should we just trust this guy whose been pushing us to attack Iran since 2014? We don't need any impirical evidence to evaluate? We should just kill someone primarily because of their reputation as our opponent, and on the word of Robert Hook, Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump that the White House really has some good intelligence that they are not showing us and a catastrophe will strike if we don't do these killings now. That is a psychological form of black mail to manipulate the public. Yeah sorry, the very government that has lied us into wars in the middle East like Libya, Syria, Afghan and Iraq needs to answer questions before receiving a license to kill in Iran too.

This could be false intelligence, which is why it has to be shared objectively now or another half a million people may end up dead for no reason just like they did in Iraq. The first responsibility of congress is to check and balance the executive branch, nowhere is this more important than initiating wars, which is what Trump is trying to do.

Honestly what do you expect? For Pompeo to come on and play the secret video files they have recorded, maybe secret phone conversations? Maybe he could bring up a few spies from inside the Iranian regime and have them infront of the camera?

I can understand by being frustrated by the lack of information, however lets be realistic here, the more concrete information is going to be given out to those like the Gang of 8 in Congress, because of how much risk it puts on the intelligence community to reveal where they got it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic
The more information begins to surface the more horrifying this assasination is. The prime minister of Iraq is saying that Soleimani was in the airport on a peace mission trying to improve relations with Saudi Arabia. The guy we just blew away to Kingdom Come could just as easily have been carrying a diplomatic response as hatching a plot. If it is the former then it is our leader this time who just made the world more unsafe.

https://thegrayzone.com/2020/01/06/soleimani-peace-mission-assassinated-trump-lie-imminent-attacks/

So he was on a peace mission, he just so happened to be visiting a terrorist leader responsible for attacking the US Embassy on such a mission, as well as the deputy leader for Lebanon Hezbollah. For a peace mission, he sure was visiting some of the top leadership of Iran's proxies for war.

By the way, just before he arrived in Baghdad, he was in Syria, to coordinate with Iran’s proxys on what to do next against the US, further strengthening the point that he came to Baghdad to plan with the proxys in Iraq.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/tracked-targeted-killed-qassem-soleimanis-final-hours

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic
As for Soleimani being responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, it is problematic to assasinate him on that basis since his militia was killing American troops while they were occupying Iraq--when we had unjustly invaded the region and were waging an illegal war to get oil.
I am not unsympathetic to our fallen countrymen and women. It's tragic that well-meaning American soldiers were used by the government in this way and ended up in the path of guerilla warfare from Iranian-backed militias, fighting and dying on a false pretext so that the military industrial complex could enrich itself here at home. The troops didn't deserve to die, and neither did the people we were invading. It was a no-win situation. This is why I am anti-war, because that is the horrible reality of what it looks like trying to hold a country that does not want you there. It is why I am for exhausting every diplomatic tool, no matter how much of a concession it may be to stop another Iraq. This is why I don't support shooting our opponents first and asking questions later right outside Baghdad airport. I believe it could lead to Iraq 2.0

Wait let me get this straight, you say you are anti war because Iraq was an illegal war ( It wasn't ) for oil, but in the same paragraph you seem to wave off attacks that were planned, prepared, and funded by Iran. Without Iran, there would have been no attacks! There would have been no militia, at least sizeable militia, in Iraq.

Lets also not forget that it wasn't just US servicemen that were targeted by this militia, Iran was funding and orchestrating a full on Sunni vs Shia civil war in Iraq that killed thousands upon thousands of civilians, a civil war that they continue to try and push to today. That blood is on Soleimani's hands.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic
If two nations do go to war however a distinction does ultimately need to be drawn between warfare against armed forces and saying in a vacuum that Soleiman the mass murderer killed hundreds of Americans. Those hundreds of Americans shouldn't have been sent over there. I wish all of the people were alive today. If you make war on a nation however then the troops killed trying to take control of the country for you is not the same set of circumstances as an act of terrorism against civilians like 9/11. This doesn't make the impact of loss of these American lives any less, there is nothing to prevent or our own government officials from assasination however for consequences of their role in our wars if we assassinate Soleimani on a basis as broad what he did at war. This is a slippery slope that we are using as the basis of this killing.

Most of the deaths we know for fact Soleimani is directly responsible for took place within the context of our occupation of Iraq, av decade that left half a million people dead, more displaced and wounded, homes destroyed, raided, mass arrests people tortured and detained, governments broken for nothing, all based on lies of the government telling us to kill this guy too. I think it would be more constructive and relevant to a conversation about foreign policy if we explain how his militias came to be fighting the United States, than reduce the discussion to caricatures where one party is the "monster" as you term it.

Last time I checked Soleimani was not an Iraqi general, he was not even an Iraqi national, he was not acting in some kind of power for Saddam's Government. He was acting on behalf of Iran's Government to hurt the U.S. and draw Iraq into a civil war in which they hoped to come out the winner by creating a puppet state in Iraq.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic
If you don't want to use the word peace with regard to Iran, then how about less of a mess than we have now? Instead of just feeling hurt and humiliated now there is no incentive for Iran not to enrich uranium and build weapons. The population of the country is suffering, food is unaffordable because of the crippling sanctions we slapped on them. Any moderates left will probably be swept out of office in Iran in backlash for the Soleimani assasination and replaced with hardliners. We have Sunnis and Shiites, moderates, hardliners, reformers all united in mourning now and justifiably hating America. 50 people were just killed in the chaos of stampede of the chaos of his funeral marches alone.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-live-updates/2020/01/07/896c70a2-30d5-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html

My response to that is what else is new? Iran has been getting around the enrichment process and building weapons in military sites, unable to be inspected by nuclear inspections for months if not years. Iran's leadership continues to kill dissidents and moderates, as we saw in the uprisings in the early 2010s.

So what has changed? Honestly the only thing that has changed is that the US took off the table the man responsible for largely orchestrating Iran's foreign policy of funding militias and engaging in terrorism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic
Iraq, which was in a precarious position technically aligned with both the U.S and Iran, now may have to go all in with Iran. Their parliament has voted to expel us out of the country for fragrantly undermining their sovereignty by killing on their soil an official of the government they invited in to help them defeat Isis, and Trump threatening Iraq with illegal sanctions now if they dare tell us to leave.

The Iraq vote was largely meaningless as it did not include a timetable for leaving, it was symbolic and was abstained by half of Iraq's parliament.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic
Iran promising to hit back 30 sites in retribution for this assination, and Trump going for the machine gun threatening to hit 50 in Iran, not sparing even the civilians who could die if he hits the cultural heritage sites, threatening essentially human rights violations.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-threatens-iran-attacks-52-sites-n1110511

Right now it is looking like the only response was a few missiles, I would count that as a major win for the Trump administration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic
We could also see a resurgence of Isis in the north as we just killed the guy who demolished Isis. Isis, the terrorist group that emerged out of the instability that OUR regime change wars caused, was previously being contained by Iran and the Kurds. Trump is doing his best to burn all bridges with both of them.

Doubtful, ISIS leadership is beyond decimated, it's fighters having fled back home, and it's funding largely dried up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VisionofMilotic
Isis may not be the worse of our problems, Iran was doing naval exercises with Russia and China a little earlier this December.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/27/asia/china-russia-iran-military-drills-intl-hnk/index.html

Neither will happen, China won't risk the economic disaster, especially after some of the sanctions have been lifted, and Russia does not have the capability at this point to wage a massive war across Europe.

Maedar January 8th, 2020 6:25 AM

Quote:

Right now it is looking like the only response was a few missiles, I would count that as a major win for the Trump administration.
Actually, right now, pretty much everyone sees it as his biggest mistake to date.

LDSman January 8th, 2020 6:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111028)
Actually, right now, pretty much everyone sees it as his biggest mistake to date.

Only some see it that’s way. Not even close to “everyone”.

And it’s looking likely that Iran shot down a passenger plane.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-plane-crash-shootdown-ukraine-boeing-latest-a9275051.html%3famp

Maedar January 8th, 2020 7:34 AM

Why is it that so many people keep thinking Trump will somehow metamorphosize into a capable leader? He has none of the requirements necessary to successfully lead this nation. Not only does he lack wisdom, intelligence and empathy, he has no understanding of diplomacy, negotiation, history or world cultures. His mental state is in question with every rash decision he makes. Trump is obviously jealous of anyone and everyone in government who knows more about international situations than he does. He has never been a success in business; his business failures and six bankruptcy filings have left countless people devoid of their savings and contractors unpaid for work done for him. He rants about the NFL when his only experience in football was running the USFL into the ground. No American banks would grant him loans he sought, so he turned to the Russians for his money. For Trump, his office is just a setting for another game show in which he can scream "You're fired!" at anyone and everyone who disagrees with him or challenges his decisions. It seems his appeal is mostly for bullies and those who are as stubbornly ignorant as he.

Case in point, LDSMan, read this.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/07/trump-walks-back-threat-to-commit-war-crimes-against-irans-cultural-sites/23896373/

Specifically, read the replies.

Seeing you guys try so hard to agree with everything he says without admitting he made mistakes never fails to amuse me.

And yes, it's everyone, the international outcry shows that the only folks behind him are his sycophant yes-men who would indeed defend him if he stood on the corner of 5th Avenue and shot someone.

LDSman January 8th, 2020 8:12 AM

Yes, yes, you hate Trump. Doesn’t bother me.

You subscribe motives to me that don’t exist. Trump was better than Clinton. That’s all. I certainly don’t think everything he does is great nor is he the person you describe. Not all that relevant to the discussion at hand.

Why should anyone care about online comments?

No thoughts on the possibility that Iran just killed a plane full of people?

Sothis January 8th, 2020 10:11 AM

Deadly plane crash in Tehran earlier, killing many from my country, so its a bit personal but the over all death count is ridiculous, my deepest condolences.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/middleeast/plane-crash-victims-iran-intl/index.html

These people were trying to flee, it's really sad.

Maedar January 8th, 2020 2:24 PM

LDS, my opinion of Trump's complete failure in trying to bully Iran is best summed up here:

https://politizoom.com/2020/01/08/the-stupidity-is-unprecedented/

And before anyone criticizes me about how course this editorial is, Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh are even courser.

EnglishALT January 8th, 2020 2:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitri (Post 10111100)
Deadly plane crash in Tehran earlier, killing many from my country, so its a bit personal but the over all death count is ridiculous, my deepest condolences.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/middleeast/plane-crash-victims-iran-intl/index.html

These people were trying to flee, it's really sad.

This is so terrible and it is starting to look like it was an accident, Iran possibly shooting down the plane because they thought it was a US aircraft.

So far Iran is refusing to release the black box which would either confirm that, or help explain why a relatively new aircraft suddenly crashed, which could save lives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111194)
LDS, my opinion of Trump's complete failure in trying to bully Iran is best summed up here:

https://politizoom.com/2020/01/08/the-stupidity-is-unprecedented/

One of the worst terrorists in the world, the second in command for Lebanon Hezbollah, and the leader of Iraq’s Hizbollah is dead, the resulting counter attack was a few rockets that resulted in no US casualties. Can you please explain how that is a failure?

Maedar January 8th, 2020 2:32 PM

Uh, ALT, they are not obligated to release the black box to us.

In fact, asking them anything is going to be a chore given what Trump did.

EnglishALT January 8th, 2020 2:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111197)
Uh, ALT, they are not obligated to release the black box to us.

In fact, asking them anything is going to be a chore given what Trump did.

They do not have to release the black box to anyone, Boeing, the EU, Japan, no one that is right. However if this was an accident that caused a pretty new plane to catch fire, a model that is flown by tens of thousands everyday. Then releasing it could save many more lives and allow Boeing to figure out what is wrong with their model.

That is of course, if there was anything wrong with the plane.....

Maedar January 8th, 2020 2:40 PM

Trust me ALT, Trump has ruined any chance of trust between this country and any other.

This poll was actually taken BEFORE the assassination of General Soleimani, and I do believe it's gotten worse since:

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/trump-ratings-remain-low-around-globe-while-views-of-u-s-stay-mostly-favorable/

Quote:

One of the worst terrorists in the world, the second in command for Lebanon Hezbollah, and the leader of Iraq’s Hizbollah is dead, the resulting counter attack was a few rockets that resulted in no US casualties. Can you please explain how that is a failure?
First, one could say that Trump is the bigger terrorist. You could argue that Soleimani was defending his own people from invaders engaged in an illegal occupation, with the goal of looting their oil fields.

This was not a military operation to remove an enemy leader. This was murder.

Trump had no authority to order an air strike with the intent of killing him, he had no approval from Congress (something you condemned Obama for, I might add) he committed a blatant war crime by threatening to bomb historic and cultural sites.

AND, I might add, I'm sick of Republicans saying that Democrats are siding with Iran. Biden said, bluntly, "No one will mourn Soleimani." And besides, I do believe at this point that even if Rep. Omar were to breakdance on his grave, Trump's blindly loyal sycophants would say her sympathies lie with him.

EnglishALT January 8th, 2020 2:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111200)
Trust me ALT, Trump has ruined any chance of trust between this country and any other.

This poll was actually taken BEFORE the assassination of General Soleimani, and I do believe it's gotten worse since:

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/01/08/trump-ratings-remain-low-around-globe-while-views-of-u-s-stay-mostly-favorable/

So, because the Iranians hate Trump, they are right to not release a black box that could save tens of thousands of lives?

I am not suggesting they release it to the US government, they can give it to Boeing, they can give it to an intermediary, someone, anyone that could be trusted to figure out how this plane went down.

Not doing so, will only further the belief that Iran accidentally shot down their own plane and is trying to cover it up.

Maedar January 8th, 2020 2:53 PM

Quote:

So, because the Iranians hate Trump, they are right to not release a black box that could save tens of thousands of lives?
Why would they? He tore up the nuclear deal, and has now murdered one of their generals.

ALT, let me ask a simple question: Are you not suggesting that the President has the right to order the death of anyone he chooses?

EnglishALT January 8th, 2020 3:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111209)
Why would they? He tore up the nuclear deal, and has now murdered one of their generals.

Because it could save tens of thousands of innocent lives, people who fly on this exact same model of plane every day.

Quote:

ALT, let me ask a simple question: Are you not suggesting that the President has the right to order the death of anyone he chooses?
If they provide a clear and present danger to the US or US military he does.

Quote:

First, one could say that Trump is the bigger terrorist. You could argue that Soleimani was defending his own people from invaders engaged in an illegal occupation, with the goal of looting their oil fields.
Wait are you suggesting Solemani was an Iraqi General from the Saddam regime?

Quote:

This was not a military operation to remove an enemy leader. This was murder.
Who was meeting with proxy’s who had just attacked a US embassy.

Quote:

Trump had no authority to order an air strike with the intent of killing him, he had no approval from Congress (something you condemned Obama for, I might add) he committed a blatant war crime by threatening to bomb historic and cultural sites
We can go through the laws, but I would suggest the Authorization of War after 9/11 and the War Powers Act of 1973 disagree with you.

Quote:

AND, I might add, I'm sick of Republicans saying that Democrats are siding with Iran. Biden said, bluntly, "No one will mourn Soleimani." And besides, I do believe at this point that even if Rep. Omar were to breakdance on his grave, Trump's blindly loyal sycophants would say her sympathies lie with him.
Literally no one in this thread are saying the Democrats are siding with Iran.

Maedar January 8th, 2020 3:13 PM

Quote:

Because it could save tens of thousands of innocent lives, people who fly on this exact same model of plane every day.
As the nuclear deal could have.

Quote:

If they provide a clear and present danger to the US or US military he does.
And all the proof Trump and Pompeo have offered, is their word, which to sane Americans, is garbage.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/04/politics/trump-iran-soleimani-strike-concerns/index.html

Quote:

We can go through the laws, but I would suggest the Authorization of War after 9/11 and the War Powers Act of 1973 disagree with you.
Quoting from Wikipedia,

Quote:

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the U.S. president's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States congressional joint resolution. It provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization," or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
I saw no proof of any attack upon the United States, except Trump and Pompeo's word, which again, is garbage. Furthermore, where was this reasoning when Obama launched the strike that killed bin Laden?

LDSman January 8th, 2020 3:14 PM

Iran wasn’t following the nuclear deal to begin with.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/iran-news-breaks-iran-nuclear-deal-limit-uranium-enrichment-donald-trump-warning-today-2019-07-08/

EnglishALT January 8th, 2020 3:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111224)
As the nuclear deal could have.

So because Iran is mad at Trump, they want to endanger thousands of innocent lives?

By the way the nuclear deal of which Iran was already violating, only prevented them from enriching Uranium for a bomb for 15 years. If Iran plans to nuke Israel then the deal did not save any lives, it just postponed the attack.


Quote:

And all the proof Trump and Pompeo have offered, is their word, which to sane Americans, is garbage.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/04/politics/trump-iran-soleimani-strike-concerns/index.html



Quoting from Wikipedia,



I saw no proof of any attack upon the United States, except Trump and Pompeo's word, which again, is garbage.
Let’s ignore that Soleimani went to Iraq in October and prepared his terrorist proxies with Iranian made weapons and plans to attack the US.

Before he flew to Iraq he was in Lebanon briefing Hezbollah on the next step forward after the US Embassy attack, he flew to Iraq and met with the leader that attacked the Embassy and who he had given weapons to in October. It was clear they were planning their next action after the Embassy attack.

Quote:

Furthermore, where was this reasoning when Obama launched the strike that killed bin Laden?
I was never against such a strike.

Maedar January 8th, 2020 3:21 PM

Quote:

So because Iran is mad at Trump, they want to endanger thousands of innocent lives?
Would you be concerned about ANY number of lives on their side if they, for example, killed VP Pence with no proof of wrongdoing? Or if they threatened to, say, blow up Mt. Rushmore, the Golden Gate Bridge, and Disneyworld?

Look at it that way. People would be screaming for their blood. Just like Iran is now screaming for ours.

Quote:

Let’s ignore that Soleimani went to Iraq in October and prepared his terrorist proxies with Iranian made weapons and plans to attack the US.
Link to proof please. Trump's word does not count.

Edit: Here is the Wikipedia page detailing the Embassy attack:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_attack_on_the_United_States_embassy_in_Baghdad

Soleimani is mentioned twice, once to show that one of the attackers spray-painted "Soleimani is our leader" on the wall, and again to say that his death occurred in the aftermath.

Is the vandalism proof that he was behind the attack? NO. But it seems enough proof to you, it seems.

EnglishALT January 8th, 2020 3:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111233)
Would you be concerned about ANY number of lives on their side if they, for example, killed VP Pence with no proof of wrongdoing? Or if they threatened to, say, blow up Mt. Rushmore, the Golden Gate Bridge, and Disneyworld?

Look at it that way. People would be screaming for their blood. Just like Iran is now screaming for ours.

You are right I would be looking for war, however if a plane suddenly exploded killing hundreds of people, I would be up for doing everything possible to get the information out, that would stop more jets from exploding.


Quote:

Link to proof please. Trump's word does not count.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/tracked-targeted-killed-qassem-soleimanis-final-hours

LDSman January 8th, 2020 3:25 PM

The Obama admin designated Soleimani as a terrorist.
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/pages/tg1320.aspx

Edit:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1Z301Z

Maedar January 8th, 2020 3:28 PM

Seems rather vague, but it only reinforces what I already knew. Still see no justification for assassinating him. Sure, he was a bad man, but Trump's actions were extreme.

As detailed in this article from the same web page you linked to, reinforcing my original point that what Trump did was a failure:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/qassem-soleimani-iraq-iran-us-trump-war

EnglishALT January 8th, 2020 3:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111240)
Seems rather vague, but it only reinforces what I already knew. Still see no justification for assassinating him. Sure, he was a bad man, but Trump's actions were extreme.

Wait so he works with Hezbollah Lebanon on what to strike next, he met with Hisbollah Iraq in October to give them weapons and sign off on attacks against the US, he arrives in Iraq days after the embassy attack to talk with the leader of the embassy attack and you say there is no justification? It is abundantly clear that they were planning the way forward after the embassy attack and he was meeting with his terrorist proxies.

“ The Revolutionary Guards commander instructed his top ally in Iraq, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and other powerful militia leaders to step up attacks on U.S. targets in the country using sophisticated new weapons provided by Iran, two militia commanders and two security sources briefed on the gathering told Reuters.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1Z301Z

LDSman January 8th, 2020 3:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111240)
Seems rather vague, but it only reinforces what I already knew. Still see no justification for assassinating him. Sure, he was a bad man, but Trump's actions were extreme.

As detailed in this article from the same web page you linked to, reinforcing my original point that what Trump did was a failure:

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/qassem-soleimani-iraq-iran-us-trump-war

The fact he was a terrorist who targeted the US is justification.

Maedar January 8th, 2020 3:43 PM

Which brings me back to my original point:

With no formal declaration of war, and no proof of any plans to target American interests, Trump ordered him killed.

The President of the United States does NOT have the authority to have anyone he wants assassinated.

Furthermore, the fact remains, he violated the Geneva Convention by threatening to destroy Iran's cultural and historical sights. That makes Trump a war criminal from this point on.

EnglishALT January 8th, 2020 3:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111247)
Which brings me back to my original point:

With no formal declaration of war, and no proof of any plans to target American interests, Trump ordered him killed.

Are you denying he had met with terrorists in October and told them to further their attacks on US targets, terrorists that then attacked the embassy, and who he then met with days later?

To not call that plans to target American interests is absurd.

Quote:

Furthermore, the fact remains, he violated the Geneva Convention by threatening to destroy Iran's cultural and historical sights. That makes Trump a war criminal from this point on.
Uh huh, on one hand I do not like the targeting of cultural or historical sites.

On the other hand, if Iran believes the US is going to play just as dirty as they and by extension their proxy’s do, it may give them pause in attacking.

So when he actually does attack those sites I will condemn it, until then, if it’s to scare Iran into thinking the US will no longer fight with one hand tied behind its back, I can see the value.

LDSman January 8th, 2020 3:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111247)
Which brings me back to my original point:

With no formal declaration of war, and no proof of any plans to target American interests, Trump ordered him killed.

We’ve provided proof that the general was engaged in terror plots making him a legitimate target.
Quote:

[B]The President of the United States does NOT have the authority to have anyone he wants assassinated.
. True enough. Taking out a terrorist is an authority he does have. One many presidents have exercised.



Quote:

Furthermore, the fact remains, he violated the Geneva Convention by threatening to destroy Iran's cultural and historical sights. That makes Trump a war criminal from this point on.
making a tweet isn't a violation. Actually taking out a cultural site without a legitimate military reason is a violation.

Maedar January 8th, 2020 4:14 PM

Quote:

We’ve provided proof that the general was engaged in terror plots making him a legitimate target.
No, you haven't.

Quote:

True enough. Taking out a terrorist is an authority he does have. One many presidents have exercised.
By whose definition of "terrorist"?

Quote:

making a tweet isn't a violation. Actually taking out a cultural site without a legitimate military reason is a violation.
Threatening to do so in ANY way, verbal or otherwise, is a violation.

LDSman January 8th, 2020 4:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111259)
No, you haven't.



By whose definition of "terrorist"?



Threatening to do so in ANY way, verbal or otherwise, is a violation.

https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/pages/tg1320.aspx
Obama administration thought he was a terrorist.

By any reasonable person’s definition.

Threatening to do so is not a violation. Prove otherwise.

EnglishALT January 8th, 2020 4:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10111259)
No, you haven’t.

Can you please explain then, why he was in Lebanon before traveling to Iraq, discussing US operations in the region, and then traveled to Iraq and met with the commander of Hizbollah, who in October he had given weapons and instructions to?

It seems fairly evident that he was planning something big, and was going around briefing those that could be effected, or that would be carrying out the attack.

Sothis January 8th, 2020 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10111195)
This is so terrible and it is starting to look like it was an accident, Iran possibly shooting down the plane because they thought it was a US aircraft.

So far Iran is refusing to release the black box which would either confirm that, or help explain why a relatively new aircraft suddenly crashed, which could save lives.

Yeah I saw that it was made in 2016 and was last inspected on the 6th so it's really troublesome to think about at best. These planes are all made by the same company so :/
Hard to know what is the truth really.

EnglishALT January 8th, 2020 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitri (Post 10111399)
Yeah I saw that it was made in 2016 and was last inspected on the 6th so it's really troublesome to think about at best. These planes are all made by the same company so :/
Hard to know what is the truth really.

I am starting to lean toward it was shot down, I hope Iran will release the black box recorder, but I have been reading, for example this is what a former FAA accident investigator had to say.

"Guzzetti, the retired head of the FAA’s accident investigation division, said the details of the crash publicly available suggested the plane was brought down deliberately.

“To me it has all the earmarks of an intentional act. I don’t know whether it was a bomb or a missile or an incendiary device,” he said.
If the video of the flaming plane is accurate, “I can’t conceive of a failure that could cause that much of a conflagration,” he said.

An engine fire, for example, would take a substantial period “to consume the airplane,” said Guzzetti, who was an air safety investigator and engineering specialist at the National Transportation Safety Board for 18 years before joining the FAA.

The abrupt cutoff of flight-tracking data emitting from the plane also indicated that it was “a sudden catastrophic event that created a power loss throughout the whole airplane,” he said"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/ukrainian-passenger-plane-with-180-crashes-in-iran/2020/01/07/7e214eb4-31cc-11ea-91fd-82d4e04a3fac_story.html

I hate to speculate but the only information we have right now is the video of the plane on fire, Iran saying it was a malfunction, and the flight suddenly stopped broadcasting at the time of the accident.

User Anon 1848 January 9th, 2020 7:56 AM

I don't hate Trump but he campaigned as an anti-war candidate and he shouldn't even be flirting with the idea of war with Iran. Things easily could've escalated to that point if Iran retaliated by killing US soldiers or citizens. Putting America First doesn't have to mean occupying other countries. He has enough domestic issues to worry about as it is. I don't know who this meant to please other than the war hawks in his cabinet and around the world.

EnglishALT January 9th, 2020 1:19 PM

The NY Times has obtained a video showing the missile hitting the Ukrainian jet right after takeoff, pretty much putting an end to the speculation of what happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/video/iran-plane-missile.html

Sothis January 9th, 2020 9:01 PM

Yes our PM says the same too, according to his intelligence.
Because Canada was the second highest casualties, at 63.

Obviously I don't agree with how aggressive the Us is being to Iran, seemingly from nowhere because we'd heard nothing about it in a while before this :/ But they shouldn't shoot down a plane, like its obviously a passenger jet.

Nah January 11th, 2020 6:12 AM

So now Iran has said that they did shoot down the plane:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51073621
https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Stating something along the lines of how because of the fact that it was shortly after the US killed Soleimani and the plane was allegedly flying too close to a military facility, that they mistook it for an American military craft or missile and so shot at it.

EnglishALT January 11th, 2020 6:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nah (Post 10112626)

Stating something along the lines of how because of the fact that it was shortly after the US killed Soleimani and the plane was allegedly flying too close to a military facility, that they mistook it for an American military craft or missile and so shot at it.

I still don't understand why Iran did not shut down the airport, that seems so dangerous to keep their airport open, and flights coming and going while a military operation was going on.

However it's good that we finally have confirmation from Iran.

Maedar January 11th, 2020 8:23 AM

To absolutely nobody's surprise, one of Trump's aids is falling back on the administration's all-purpose contingency plan: Blame Obama!

https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/trump-spokesman-tries-to-defend-iran-strike-by-attacking-obama-but-it-completely-backfires/

It didn't go over well...

Edit: In incredible Irony, Trump is now pushing for more NATO presence in the Middle East:

https://www.politico.eu/article/us-president-donald-trump-asks-for-nato-help-in-middle-east/

This will likely go over even less well.

VisionofMilotic January 11th, 2020 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
We can both realize that for so many, like Pelosi, political calculations are the most important. If there is a war ( which seems far less likely now ) then Trump owns it, he would own it even if Democrats signed off on the strike. However if he did nothing, and comes off looking weak ( as many Democrats accused him of before the strike ) and Iran attacks again, then he has a tool to bludgeon the left with.

I guess the question I have to ask is this, which do you think Pelosi believes would hurt the Democrats more, another Iraq War in which Republicans and Bush were blamed, or another Benghazi in which Democrats were blamed for failing to act.

The Iraq War because the scale of the disaster would be far greater in
terms of lives lost, and the media coverage would wage on and on
indefinitely until the war was over which was 8 years in the case of Iraq. In order to escape blame Democrats had to be perceived as the party that would be the alternative to war, they would not be in a stronger position than the Republicans if they had authorized a drone strike that led to another Iraq. Obama for instance did not hold office as a senator when the Iraq War resolution was voted on. He was separated from that whole fiasco. He suffered no political repercussions because he had no vote on record. He was able to criticize the Iraq war and make a campaign promise out of ending the war, presenting a less hawkish face to the public in the general election than the war's proponent John McCain, who came off as just another 4 years of Bush's policies. The shadow of the Iraq War loomed over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary too, making for an unfavorable contrast between her and Obama. She was deservedly bludgeoned over the head for her pro-war vote. John Kerry also shot himself in the foot by voting for the Iraq war. Bush may have started the war, but Kerry's position was ultimately the same as Bush's, thus it nullified the criticism of Bush, making it not a conversation about which candidate was going to get us out of the war, but turning it into which one was in a better position to win the war. Kerry was rightly viewed as just a more cowardly version of Bush, and Bush was re-elected.

There would have been political loss if Democrats obstructed Trump and
American personnel were harmed or killed overseas as a result of their
inaction, but there would have also been a political loss if Democrats
supported a poorly-hatched foreign policy decision that plunged us into war, and the size of the loss would be far worse. Trump can be the one steering the ship, but they can all still go down with his ship.

Ultimately they should make their calculations based on what evidence is
presented to them at the time, and what was more likely. They would be crazy to just rubber stamp something this important with their eyes closed.

For what it's worth I'm glad that the U.S and the Iranians at this time are pulling back, and that nobody was harmed in the military base, and there's a visible grace period where we should be able to de-escalate. I say this knocking wood, hoping that the political situation doesn't alter yet again by the time I finish writing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
That is great, but more than likely the General was not planning to stick around Iraq while Congress deliberates his fate. If the plan was to kill him to prevent another attack, there is a limited opportunity to do that. Otherwise he retreats to Iran, and the preparations begin on the next stage of attack by Hizbollah.

The United States has become the boy who cried wolf after the Iraq War. If this is not true then you have killed a senior statesman #2 in the government of a country you already have hostile relations with, and they can retaliate against you. That's what they did, and now 176 people were accidentally killed in a plane crash because Iran thought it was us again in the dark. Shame on both of our nations. Iran and the United States both have blood on their hands. 56 people killed in a stampede of devastated mourners just trying to go to a funeral. 10 people died in the airport strike total, not just Soleimani. This is a waste of human life, dead Iraqis, Canadians, Iranians, Germans, Afghans, Swedes , Ukrainians, and we risked war for no real reason, and our situation did not change for the better. What did Iran do? They turned around and brought in another general just like Soleimani to take his place.

The only thing we accomplished is infuriating Iran and making the situation in the middle East more caustic. We fortunately are not at war today at least, which is one blessing at least, but the shiites hate us even more now as we killed a popular general of theirs. They won't forgive or forget this, and all we have to show for this is a bunch of innocent people gone. Not to mention all the people will die indirectly because they can't afford food and don't have access to their medicine because of the sanctions we then had to place on Iran as a response to their military action, though there isn't much left in Iran to sanction been sanctioned by the United States, we were already down to taking even cancer treatment drugs from the Iranians.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/08/14/u-s-sanctions-are-killing-cancer-patients-in-iran/

This is not a game so Trump can appear to not look weak. This was not a win for Trump. It still led to a mess. Both of our nation's are probably guilty of violating international law.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/iran-plane-crash-likely-caused-violations-international-law-both-tehran-ncna1113646

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
Honestly what do you expect? For Pompeo to come on and play the secret video files they have recorded, maybe secret phone conversations? Maybe he could bring up a from inside the Iranian regime and have them infront of the camera?

I can understand by being frustrated by the lack of information, however lets be realistic here, the more concrete information is going to be given out to those like the Gang of 8 in Congress, because of how much risk it puts on the intelligence community to reveal where they got it.

It's one thing to have an unattributed source for national security interests, it's another to have no evidence and and pretend that you are protecting someone who doesn't exist so you don't have to answer questions. They won't even tell congress what the threat is specifically. This is phonier than the Iraq war. Your administration didn't even bother to go through the charade of a propaganda campaign. For Iraq the White House read off detailed eye witness testimony that was fabricated, they misquoted intelligence from foreign governments, fake documents were circulated like the Niger Uranium forgery, the dogy dossier and the September dossiers.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/feb/15/curveball-iraqi-fantasist-cia-saddam

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/leadup-iraq-war-timeline

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/07/yellowcake200607

https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/08/how-the-iraq-war-was-sold/

Drone striking Soleimani is a leap based simply on blind faith in the American government must have unseen evidence that they would show you if they could, but it's too sensitive. Mother knows best

I am being realistic, realistic that this a morally bankrupt white house with literally some of the very same Bush administration people who have come back in a revolving door to tell you to trust them like Gina Haspel and Brian Hook. There was no concrete information to take to the gang of 8, which is why they chose to circumvent congress to kill Soleimani because they had no case against him. Even in the classified setting of congress it was the same vague information you would know if you read the newspaper. If they had anything specific then our vice president Mike Pence, who was just out there peddling conspiracy theories about Soleimani being behind 9/11, would not be trying to respond to criticism about how insulting this briefing was by saying it wasn't really the full briefing to account for why it is so general. Trump would also not be out there fast-talking, inventing things that our statesmens say was never in the briefing like four embassies about to be blown up in an effort to make himself look less irresponsible for serving the country this nothing burger to suit his political interests.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-claims-iran-general-qassem-soleimani-was-plotting-to-blow-up-our-embassy-before-strike/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-s-evolving-account-soleimani-s-imminent-threat-n1113846

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-and-pence-demand-trust-then-lie-blaming-soleimani-for-benghazi-and-9-11-933915/

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
So he was on a peace mission, he just so happened to be visiting a terrorist leader responsible for attacking the US Embassy on such a mission, as well as the deputy leader for Lebanon Hezbollah. For a peace mission, he sure was visiting some of the top leadership of Iran's proxies for war.

By the way, just before he arrived in Baghdad, he was in Syria, to coordinate with Iran’s proxys on what to do next against the US, further strengthening the point that he came to Baghdad to plan with the proxys in Iraq.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/tracked-targeted-killed-qassem-soleimanis-final-hours

Putin met with Assad after the assination of Soleimani. You couldn't
disprove that they were not deliberating about what action they could potentially take against the United States over Iran. Should we go escalate with Russia now too? Of course not!
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/putin-meets-assad-rare-syria-visit-iran-tensions-200107150701410.html

In fact Russia's deputy foreign minister has met with Hassan Nasrallah. It would be suicidal to take the next step from that to go assasinate someone in the Russian government. This is not enough to kill someone over. It would be an act of war.
https://www.foxnews.com/world/senior-russian-official-in-damascus-for-talks-with-syrian-leaders

What's even more disturbing is that not only did the prime minister of Iraq say that Soleimani was coming for peace talks, he says that the United States also knew this and gave approval for Soleimani to visit, encouraging these negotiations to foster relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. What he's describing sounds like we set him up.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/qassem-soleimani-death-iran-baghdad-middle-east-iraq-saudi-arabia-a9272901.html

Pompeo says this is all Iranian propaganda, (though the source is Iraq and not Iran) and that they knew of no peace mission. One of these two men is a liar, either Pompeo or Abdul-Mahdi. I take the word if the Iraqis over the United States in this instance, as they are the neutral party, contrary to Pompeo saying it is Iranian propaganda. Furthermore Pompeo has urged Trump to kill Soleimani before. He is the Lady Macbeth who has screeched to attack Iran more than once. That much we know for a fact at least.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/killing-of-soleimani-follows-long-push-from-pompeo-for-aggressive-action-against-iran-but-airstrike-brings-serious-risks/2020/01/05/092a8e00-2f7d-11ea-be79-83e793dbcaef_story.html

https://www.salon.com/2020/01/08/who-needs-john-bolton-mike-pompeo-has-been-pushing-trump-into-war-with-iran-all-along/

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
Wait let me get this straight, you say you are anti war because Iraq was an illegal war ( It wasn't ) for oil,


"Of course it's about oil; we can't really deny that," - General John Abizai

This is the head of the head of the U.S. Central Command and Military Operations in Iraq telling you that they were there for the oil. There's far more evidence that we invaded Iraq for their oil then there is right now that Soleimani was out to blow up some Americans last week. There are memos from the British government that show them brazenly lobbying not be cut out of their fair share of the oil too.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/secret-memos-expose-link-between-oil-firms-and-invasion-of-iraq-2269610.html

Before we invaded Iraq the oil was nationalized. It was not open to the British and American oil companies that have set up in Iraq today, companies that profited from the suffering of the people, including Haliburton the oil business that then-vice president Cheney once ran.

In 1998 Kenneth Derr, then CEO of Chevron, said, "Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas-reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." Now Chevron does, along with BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, you name it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-cheney-and-halliburton.html

https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/19/opinion/iraq-war-oil-juhasz/index.html

https://waronwant.org/media/shell-blasted-iraq-oil

There were no weapons of mass destruction, both the United States inspectors and the United Nations spent years in Iraq looking for this fairytale, and found nothing. Iraq didn't even have Scud missiles. Iraqi scientists explained they had no chemical weapons. You invaded them unjustly. The war was illegal, breaching the United Nations Charter.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/07/usa.iraq1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm


Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
in the same paragraph you seem to wave off attacks that were planned, prepared, and funded by Iran. Without Iran, there would have been no attacks! There would have been no militia, at least sizeable militia, in Iraq.

You say that without Iran there would have been no attacks and no militia. Did you not got to a war? The reason I don't like war is because the wars I am most familiar are the ones where soldiers are trying to kill each other until one side emerges as the victor. Of course, it is a terrible thing war. I'm not waving off anything, I'm the one crying out let's talk and let's negotiate so nobody is killed, but he US said no! They went off to invade the region. I take military action off the table unless it's the most extreme situation like the holocaust or if someone is attacking you. If you choose to go down that road then waging war cannot just be right for you and wrong for the people of the region you are invading.

Yes, Soleimani was an Iranian commander, that didn't remove him from the conflict between Iraq and the United States however, as his country is Iraq's neighbor. What happened is that he formed an alliance with Iraq. People trying to build a coalition to drive out a mutual threat is also something that I would expect of war. The United States was trying to seize control of Iraq. It would be in his nation's interest to prop up Iraq because Iran is next door. What happens to Canada would concern us as Americans naturally, and vice versa I hope.

John Bolton, who was not only Trump's former National Security adviser but the architect of the Iraq War, told Israeli officials after the Iraq invasion that, "Everybody wants to go to Baghdad. Real men go to Tehran." It was pretty clear what he meant by that, his ambition was to invade Iran.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/john-bolton-has-wanted-war-with-iran-since-before-you-were-born/

You support sending a drone to kill Soleimani because you thought he could be a threat. Here was a far less subtle threat then what you claim to be in danger from. Your tanks rolled into the region, and said his country was next.

I don't condone many of things that Soleimani has done. This is why I think war should be avoided at all costs, I'll it say again. You can't just say without Iran there wouldn't be attacks since you've attacked Iraq. The horror of war is not just the suffering and death of the people you are conquering, it's our own loyal troops who are going to get shot down. It's even more heartbreaking when we had no good reason to be on that soil. Iraq hadn't been trying to attack us.

You say Soleimani just wants to kill the Americans. I think that's not likely since a year earlier he was helping the Americans defeat the Taliban after we were the victims of 9/11 and he played an important role in restoring order in Afghanistan. I think we could learn more about what's going on in the region and strengthen our foreign policy if we ask why it is that someone who was willing to work with us just a minute ago so quickly turned against us? Did we do anything that might have inflamed tensions that we could not do in the future like start a game war?

This is important to understand not to justify the tragedy of anyone's death. It's so we can make better informed foreign policy decisions. There is an international community of people we have to work within like it or not. We are all connected to each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
Iran was funding and orchestrating a full on Sunni vs Shia civil war in Iraq that killed thousands upon thousands of civilians, a civil war that they continue to try and push to today. That blood is on Soleimani's hands.

Remember that the Shiites were the oppressed population in Iraq. The Shiites mostly lived in poverty, they couldn't hold office and were banned from taking part in their religious processions publicly under Sadaam Hussein, who was a Sunni. Soleimani is a Shiite who was unhappy with the way his people lived. It's not accurate to just say he started civil war. That makes it sound like there was no underlying dispute. I don't condone any violence against the Sunnis. I don't condone the way the Shiites were treated either. It is possible to look at things from both sides. I don't also see that this is a conflict the United States needs to take a side over and kill Soleimani for.

I didn't say Soleimani did not have blood on his hands. Yes, he does. He is the equivalent of the CIA. How many nice agents carrying out black ops do you know? The question is was the United States in imminent danger from this person? Is this about regime change again, or is it about self-defense? If it's the former then it was an offensive action against Iran, not defensive and Trump needed to go congress to make a declaration of war, and I would be against that too. I don't think Iran has done enough directly to us to warrant sending more soldiers over there in front of militias.

I would also caution any Americans who want to start hunting the world for monsters abroad, as they might be surprised to learn what their own
government is doing. Trump funded and armed the Saudis as they waged the genocide against the people of Yemen, he did so even over the objections of the congress. What about the blood of those people on his hands? I think the Saudi Arabian government has done far more to destabilize the region than Iran.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vetoes-resolution-to-end-us-participation-in-yemens-civil-war/2019/04/16/0fabc312-60a1-11e9-bfad-36a7eb36cb60_story.html

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/10/26/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-war-yemen.html

I will readily acknowledge with you that Soleimani and his military has blood on it's hands. Are you willing to agree at least that we also have blood on our hands?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
My response to that is what else is new? Iran has been getting around the enrichment process and building weapons in military sites, unable to be inspected by eear inspections for months if not years. Iran's leadership continues to kill dissidents and moderates, as we saw in the uprisings in the early 2010s.

Iran was abiding by the terms of the the nuclear deal. This is from the IAEA, it isn't me saying it. Iran was not enriching their uranium to the point of getting a nuclear weapon.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear/iran-is-complying-with-nuclear-deal-restrictions-iaea-report-idUSKCN1LF1KR

After Trump not only reneged on the promise America made to Iran, but kicked them on the way out of the door by putting punishing sanctions on them, then yes, Iran did stop meeting comittments as they had no incentive to anymore. Europe and China tried to see what they could salvage of the deal, and keep Iran from leaving the table altogether. Now that we assassinated the general Iran has made clear that they will no longer comply with any of the restrictions of the deal. This does not serve the National security interests of the United States or the international community to keep goading a country until they develop nuclear capabilities. Before the deal they had the capacity to make 10 bombs if they wanted. Why would you want them to go back to that?

As for Iran's leadership killing moderates and dissidents, yes, that is awful I agree. You say that you understand Soleimani's position, but I want to draw your attention to the fact you that Soleimani was part of the external wing of the Quds force. He was not ayatollah-- whose regime is still firmly entrenched. To be clear this domestic policy will not alter at all by removing Soleimani. If it did, that would still be an act of war against a nation if that was your interest. It is not a defense action if your goal is to change their regime.

The United States has a habbit of trying to topple governments with a nonchalant attitude to what comes next. Don't like the Iranian government now? Neither do I. I wish the American CIA hadn't in overthrown Mossadeq who was democratically-elected, and then forced the Shah on the Iranian people over so the country would be a puppet state for the USA and give them a juicy share of the oil. The United States is okay with puppets so long as they control the strings. After years of the dictatorship the people revolted against the Shah's reign, and now there is the reactionary government in Iran we see today.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cia-assisted-coup-overthrows-government-of-iran

So ask yourself what your goal is for Iran before you start taking out the country's administrators, and saying it won't make a difference. Make sure it's going to yield the results you think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
So what has changed? Honestly the only thing that has changed is that the US took off the table the man responsible for largely orchestrating Iran's foreign policy of funding militias and engaging in terrorism.

Does Iran run out of generals when Soleimani dies? No, they already popped in another in his place who is more of a hardliner than Soleimani.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
Doubtful, ISIS leadership is beyond decimated, it's fighters having fled back home, and it's funding largely dried up.

Because the person you just killed played a central role in crushing Isis. Iraq isn't as confident as you that Isis won't come back to their region, and they told the American government not to assasinate Soleimani and we did it anyway, potentially endangering their lives now. They are scared that Isis will return.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://time.com/5761448/why-iraqis-are-worried-about-an-islamic-state-resurgence-after-soleimanis-death/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwistpDFmvfmAhXiYd8KHaBGCZUQqOcBMAB6BAgAEAI&usg=AOvVaw1WppTYDQ_Jvx5jQefHSjBv

This was Soleimani's purpose for working with the iraqi government. If you took out the person who could protect them then there better be strong evidence that Iran was going to do imminent harm to the United States. There isn't. You could indirectly lose a lot more lives in the future. This is an opportunity for Isis and Al-Qaeida to regroup because now Iran and the United States are focused on one another instead of a potential mutual threat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
The Iraq vote was largely meaningless as it did not include a timetable for leaving, it was symbolic and was abstained by half of Iraq's parliament.

Tell me what you are doing in Iraq? You say Isis is gone for good. That was the purpose of why the United States was supposed to be in Iraq. If the country asked you to leave and you said yourself there isn't a threat from Isis then why are are you here? Whether Iraq is powerful enough to stand up to you and enforce their request isn't the point. You say that you had to defend yourself and are so in danger, then why would you want to stay there and place Americans in harm's way if the country doesn't want you there? Iraqis have been demonstrating against the United States for several months unhappy with your presence and the conditions they are living in, and isn't all being organized by Soleimani. This is not the behavior of a panicked nation who shot in self-defense because they were afraid for their lives, this sounds more like the behavior of a bullying country that has their boot on Iraq's face so it can remain the launchpad for our military operations. This is why people in the middle East are afraid of America. Is that the image you want people to have of us?

Quote:

Originally Posted by EnglishALT (Post 10110866)
Neither will happen, China won't risk the economic disaster, especially after some of the sanctions have been lifted, and Russia does not have the capability at this point to wage a massive war across Europe.

Russia has the capability to not only hit a United States military base abroad, but they can hit the United States directly from across Europe as they have hypersonic missiles that can wage long-range war swiftly, and can do so quickly.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/us/politics/russia-hypersonic-weapon.html

The same is true of China. If you went to war with Iran, you would be testing China since they are Iran's top trading partner and oil consumer, they have an economic interest in keeping Iran afloat, and they ignore the United sanctions and continue to work with Iran.

Also who would have constituted your allies if Iran had shot to kill? The United States is the loyal henchman for Saudi Arabia and Israel, did they have our backs? No. They ducked and ran for cover. Netenyahu made it clear that this was an Iranian-American conflict and we were on our own. Trump didn't coordinate this attack with Europe, they found out about it after we had already killed Soleimani, and most countries were horrified. We were isolated from many of our traditional allies, even our own country wasn't united about this. It was split along party lines, and protests against war were popping up all over the country. It doesn't sound like this bothered you, but I was disturbed.

Look, I am glad both nations de-escalated. I don't want a nuclear war either. I think it's dangerous however to do something like this with no expectation of retaliation. It isn't something to play around with. We got off the hook this time, but had Iran's missiles killed Americans in that military base it would have been war. Was this an experiment really worth it to take down one man? I am inclined to say no based on all the information I currently have.

Whether they think Soleimani deserved to die or not, most Americans seem to agree that killing him made us more unsafe.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/01/09/killing-soleimani-made-us-less-safe-trump-reckless-iran-poll/2835962001/

EnglishALT January 11th, 2020 4:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10112661)
To absolutely nobody's surprise, one of Trump's aids is falling back on the administration's all-purpose contingency plan: Blame Obama!

https://www.alternet.org/2020/01/trump-spokesman-tries-to-defend-iran-strike-by-attacking-obama-but-it-completely-backfires/

It didn't go over well...

Honestly, Obama holds a lot of responsibility for how Iran currently is, so many of his actions would more than likely be worthy of impeachment if they came to light during his administration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maedar (Post 10112661)
I swear, you still think Trump is so popular? Answer me this, ALT, when was the last time a sovereign nation put an $80 million bounty on the U.S. President's head? Iran would never have dared do that to Reagan, either Bush, Clinton, or Obama, but they realize Trump is a weak and incompetent President.

To carry this over from another thread, Iran has possibly already attempted to assassinate Trump.

An Iranian national was captured not too far away from Mar-A-Lago carrying $22,000 in cash, and multiple weapons.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iranian-man-arrested-near-trump-mar-a-lago-resort-today-had-weapons-cash-2020-01-10/

o1a1d1s1 January 11th, 2020 6:18 PM

Well, US already proved that it can win a few battles but overall, the war is always lost. An enemy is weak, but roots are still there. No rockets, no fire and certainly no words can change the weight of a history already written. In order to end this, people must stop with their meddling. They must leave each other alone. Of course this won't save civilians from their demise, since they're always in the wrong.
Killing Saddam was utterly stupid. And people knew that back then. Yet they didn't cared. In the end this greed turn out to be unprofitable. How many billions of dollars lost? And no american dream achieved. Only hatred was founded.

Sothis January 12th, 2020 5:40 PM

What I don't like is how wars are always taken to the middle east, killing innocent civilians. Then when some try and seek asylum they are denied and called "terrorists" and other shit, obviously racism. You can't destabilize these nations and think people aren't going to flee for their safety.

EnglishALT January 12th, 2020 5:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitri (Post 10113241)
What I don't like is how wars are always taken to the middle east, killing innocent civilians. Then when some try and seek asylum they are denied and called "terrorists" and other muk, obviously racism. You can't destabilize these nations and think people aren't going to flee for their safety.

That is a good point, but it would probably help if the increase in asylum seekers did not also follow an increase in crime, rape, sexual attacks, and terrorism, or that they came over in so many waves that it overwhelms the local economy and nations.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:48 AM.


Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.

Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.