News US-Iran crisis intensifies after general assassinated

[EnglishALT]

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]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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/poli...nited-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-...ionary-guards-a-terrorist-group-idUSKCN1RR1BE

 

[EnglishALT]

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.

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.

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/poli...nited-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/hist...i-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-...ani-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/

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?

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-...ionary-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/...respionage-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]

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]

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

 

[EnglishALT]

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

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

 

[Maedar]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

Good riddance to a terrorist.

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

 

[Maedar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.