US kills Iran's General Soleimani

Just gonna leave this here...

Capture.png


Doubt there's much chance of it passing but Bernie S is introducing a bill to require these kind of actions to have to pass through Congress first. Makes sense.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SenSanders/status/1213257221045403648

Republicans will never stand for this. They'll oppose it bitterly.
 
Rand Paul isn't happy.

In an interview with Fox News on Friday, the Kentucky senator said, “I think, that there will be an escalation, that there will be a war with Iran.”

Paul, who has garnered a reputation as perhaps the most staunchly anti-interventionist Republican in Congress, added, “I do fear that the Iranians are going to escalate this… I do not see any avenue or any way that talks could begin again. And I have been one in favour of talks. But I think, unfortunately, diplomacy is dead now in the Middle East with Iran.”

(Source).
 
There isn't much global love for Iran or rather the Iranian regime but how would the Yanks react if, during the troubles, we had blown up a known IRA leader on the tarmac at JFK or Boston Logan airport? They'd have gone ape, not to mention warming up Old Sparky if they caught the perpetrator. And this guy was a serving high rank military officer, not a partisan like Bin Laden or the ISIS people.

I'm no SJW but what happened to due process? If the guy was guilty of mass murder then why not a snatch and grab then put on trial at The Hague, as happened with the Balkan war criminals? Not to mention judge, jury ad executioner via a drone so zero risk to the assassin - don't even look the guy in the eye.

Staying away from anything USA and American owned and operated airlines seems a good idea for the next several months. Of course in practical terms, Iranian recourse is pretty limited. If they go for Israel or any other western interest in the area, the Yanks will just light them up. The UN is pretty much toothless at least if it comes to condemning the USA.

Not a good start to the new decade so far as world peace is concerned.
 
Umm I have literally 1200h on MW2 and have had so many chopper Gunners that whatever you think is obsolete noob. L2p.

:D

Much of the time, some exceptions aside, these people are just interested in what is going on and not trying to pass themselves off as experts as you incorrectly see it.

And it is those exceptions that my comments were aimed at.

it's more a debate on the principles of it. Was it justified etc.

I realise that most are talking about the "why" which is completely understandable and my comments are not aimed at those, but some are also talking about the "how" and specifically how they'd do things differently, which was my point about internet experts.
 
The cause/effect game fascinates me. I mean, generally, all one needs to do in order to lay the "cause" at the "other side's" feet is pick a different spot on the time line. Just pick a side, and then pick a spot on the time line that suits you.
Yes, it is true of many different scenarios from family tiffs to world wars. It's that "but you did this so that's what I did what I did" syndrome.
 
The UN is pretty much toothless at least if it comes to condemning the USA.

.

The UN has been toothless for years, when they decided genocide in Darfur was alright and too much work to try and stop.

Maajid Nawaz telling it like it is....

10 signs to watch for by people posting who know nothing about the Middle East but will now talk as if they do:

1) before yesterday they’d never heard of #Soleimani & still struggle to remember what his first name was

2) they’ll proactively and without invitation, condemn “America in the region” without saying anything at all about “Iran in the region”, thinking this wins them brownie points from brown people from the region.

It doesn’t.

3) at some stage, they’ll either accidentally tweet out or otherwise approve of official Iranian state propaganda & voices sent by the theocratic regime, without realising, because they have absolutely *no idea* how to recognise Iranian proxy propaganda voices

4) their narcissistic obsession with hating Trump will be what really guides their Middle East “analysis”, not what’s objectively happening on the ground even at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dead Arab civilians caused by Iran’s militias, and the medieval theocratic oppression of millions of Iranians inside Iran

5) just as they’ll struggle to recall #Soleimani’s first name, they think watching Aziz Ansari on Netflix (no offence my bro ) qualifies as “knowing a Muslim voice” in order to then pronounce their emotionally charged “hot takes” on Middle East politics in “defence of Muslims”

6) they will be unable to recognise or even name Iran’s terrorist militias everywhere in the world (responsible for war crimes that were often on par with or worse, than ISIS in Syria & elsewhere) and all the wars Iran has interfered in

7) they will be unable to tell you which is Soleimanis largest & most effective terror group, who leads it and which country it practically runs entire regions in.

8 ) they’ve never heard the word “Hashd” and cannot tell you what it means

9) nor could they name the entire Arab countries & populations who absolutely despised & hated Soleimani as a genocidal maniac & who will be dancing in the streets with joy right now
 
There won't be any war, Democrats are just using the situation for election campaigning by trying to paint Trump as some massive warmonger who will ignite WW3 if he's re-elected for a second term, it's all very reminiscent of Brexit with the WW3 scaremongering that happened here, basically trying to scare the sheep into thinking war will break out if they vote a particular way.
 
This could actually finish Trump off at the impeachment trial. Whilst Republicans might have just followed party lines before I suspect quite a few of them might now consider removing him.
 
There won't be any war, Democrats are just using the situation for election campaigning by trying to paint Trump as some massive warmonger who will ignite WW3 if he's re-elected for a second term

It's all very reminiscent of the 'Hillary will start WW3 if she's elected' fearmongering that we heard from hysterical Trump supporters during the 2016 election.

This could actually finish Trump off at the impeachment trial. Whilst Republicans might have just followed party lines before I suspect quite a few of them might now consider removing him.

Nah, Republicans love a good Middle East conflict. They'll back Trump all the way on this. Rand Paul is an outlier, and only because he's a libertarian who runs as a Republican because he knows he couldn't get elected if he ran as a member of the Libertarian Party.
 
10 signs to watch for by people posting who know nothing about the Middle East but will now talk as if they do:

1) before yesterday they’d never heard of #Soleimani & still struggle to remember what his first name was

2) they’ll proactively and without invitation, condemn “America in the region” without saying anything at all about “Iran in the region”, thinking this wins them brownie points from brown people from the region.

It doesn’t.

3) at some stage, they’ll either accidentally tweet out or otherwise approve of official Iranian state propaganda & voices sent by the theocratic regime, without realising, because they have absolutely *no idea* how to recognise Iranian proxy propaganda voices

4) their narcissistic obsession with hating Trump will be what really guides their Middle East “analysis”, not what’s objectively happening on the ground even at the expense of hundreds of thousands of dead Arab civilians caused by Iran’s militias, and the medieval theocratic oppression of millions of Iranians inside Iran

5) just as they’ll struggle to recall #Soleimani’s first name, they think watching Aziz Ansari on Netflix (no offence my bro ) qualifies as “knowing a Muslim voice” in order to then pronounce their emotionally charged “hot takes” on Middle East politics in “defence of Muslims”

6) they will be unable to recognise or even name Iran’s terrorist militias everywhere in the world (responsible for war crimes that were often on par with or worse, than ISIS in Syria & elsewhere) and all the wars Iran has interfered in

7) they will be unable to tell you which is Soleimanis largest & most effective terror group, who leads it and which country it practically runs entire regions in.

8 ) they’ve never heard the word “Hashd” and cannot tell you what it means

9) nor could they name the entire Arab countries & populations who absolutely despised & hated Soleimani as a genocidal maniac & who will be dancing in the streets with joy right now

In other words: 99% of people in western countries.

Before yesterday he was only mentioned once in every thread in every forum and sub forum and that was a passing reference in 2015 to him liberating his home town.
 
The question is, what will this actually achieve? Soleimani can easily be replaced by someone equally repulsive, and Iran will play the victim while using his assassination as an excuse to stir up more trouble in the ME.
 
The question is, what will this actually achieve? Soleimani can easily be replaced by someone equally repulsive, and Iran will play the victim while using his assassination as an excuse to stir up more trouble in the ME.

Not easily replaced, people like him take considerable time to amount the influence he had. Sure you can replace him but will they have his standing/network i very much doubt it.

I
 
Not easily replaced, people like him take considerable time to amount the influence he had. Sure you can replace him but will they have his standing/network i very much doubt it.

I

They've already replaced him with Brigadier General Esmail Ghaani, who has been the deputy commander of Soleimani's Quds Force since 1997. In other words, a guy with the same pedigree as Soleimani, all the networks, and nearly as much experience.
 
Back
Top Bottom