US kills Iran's General Soleimani

i know nothing said:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...akistan-middle-east-afghanistan-a7534851.html

Maybe we should also forget about Obama's mission to kill Osama Bin Laden as well? He did so much to build bridges and trust with the Pakistani's right? It's a total joke that his supporters are apoplectic with rage at Trump's drone attack when he sent ground troops in an airborne attack against an ally. How many new Jihadi's do you think he created? It's partisan ********.

It seems that some peoples blind hatred of the current U.S. President is affecting their judgement. I think you should look for a better example than Obama...;)
Click to expand...

Did Obama do that much, it was the intelligence agencies that did the work, he just agreed to the final mission.
 
jamoor said:
Hawaii isn't british.

Vietnam is still communist and they still continued regardless of the USA embargoes. So the vietnamese won on practically every front.
Click to expand...

Really? It has a centralised planned economy? China isn't even a Communist country these days.
 
i know nothing said:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...akistan-middle-east-afghanistan-a7534851.html

Maybe we should also forget about Obama's mission to kill Osama Bin Laden as well? He did so much to build bridges and trust with the Pakistani's right? It's a total joke that his supporters are apoplectic with rage at Trump's drone attack when he sent ground troops in an airborne attack against an ally. How many new Jihadi's do you think he created? It's partisan ********.

It seems that some peoples blind hatred of the current U.S. President is affecting their judgement. I think you should look for a better example than Obama...;)
Click to expand...

There is quite a large difference between assassinating a top general from an actual sovereign nation, and assassinating the leader of a rogue/terrorist organisation.
 
Jono8 said:
What do you think that would achieve, other than further resentment of the west/USA, and generations of future terrorists who have had their family and homes destroyed?

Surely the more prudent tactic is that which Obama was taking by trying to build bridges and trust by agreeing on a nuclear deal with Iran and the international community. That is just all in the bin now and for what?

Mindless bombing of the middle east has not and will not get us anywhere.
Click to expand...

It's hardly mindless and it provides a rather strong deterrent!

As for Obama - and for what indeed... Iran was happily targeting coalition forces right through his presidency.
 
Jono8 said:
There is quite a large difference between assassinating a top general from an actual sovereign nation, and assassinating the leader of a rogue/terrorist organisation.
Click to expand...
Not as much of a difference as you'd like in order to elicit a difference response to those questions you asked though, would it?;)
 
jamoor said:
Just tell me the name of the parties that rule each country. Hint - it begins with a C.
Click to expand...

They are Capitalist countries, they are not centrally planned economies. It doesn't matter what the name of the parties in charge are, that's so simplistic that you'd have to be a ******* idiot to be presenting that as an argument.
 
Maajid Nawaz has been rather on point again:


https://www.facebook.com/Maajid-Nawaz-135775283156412/
Maajid Nawaz said:
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

10) they will read the above thread and turn very binary on me, by accusing me of being pro-Trump or pro-Saudi rather than understanding the mixed picture I’m painting, without ever having had a relationship with anything in the Middle East, beyond Facebook.
Click to expand...

And:

Maajid Nawaz said:
Analysis - legitimate liberal concerns about feared Iranian military escalation after Trump’s bold gambit, and my considerations in reaction:

1) Concern: striking #Soleimani was in violation of international law
Consideration: Trump designated IRG as a terror group. If you reluctantly accept Obama’s strike against Bin Laden, and recently Trump’s of Baghdadi, it isn’t *technically* much different,though it is in reality

2) Concern: in reality the IRG is also Iranian military (Iranian Revolutionary Guard) & so (even though its backing of militia in Lebanon, Syria & Iraq is irrefutable) it is also *more* than a terror group. It is the national army of a state. So they may still respond with war

Consideration: this is true & is why this is Trump’s bold gambit. But, so far indications are Iran hasn’t declared traditional war against US & won’t do so. Rather, if she attacks again via her proxies, she is now uncertain whether Trump will reply again *directly* against Iran

3) Concern: This is a declaration of war, leaving Iran no option but to reply with war
Consideration: in fact by attacking UK ship in Hormuz, kidnapping sailors,missiles at Aramco,downing US drone,killing US contractor& raiding US embassy,Iran had already effectively declared war

4) Concern: killing Soleimani will further endanger US & Arab lives
Consideration: hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians (and many Iraqis) were already tortured,bombed,slaughtered or gassed due to Soleimani & his proxy militia. He was already killing, and planning more deaths

6) Concern: this was a violation of Iraqi sovereignty& Iraqi PM complained
Consideration: Iraq’s sovereignty was already(erroneously)violated by Bush. Post ISIS, US troops are in Iraq at behest of current gov. As are Iranian proxy militia. In other words, Iraq is a conflict zone

7) Concern: Iran may incite attacks on US interests globally, via proxies
Consideration: true, but Soleimani attack changes rules of game, in a way not done since invasion of Iraq. Iran no longer knows if a direct attack will be the American reply. Proxies are no longer deniable

8 ) Concern: I don’t trust Trump to engage in war
Consideration: Understandable. But you shouldn’t trust anyone. Like the world, war is a messy business. It was Obama who initiated drone strike assassinations & “Presidential kill lists” without congressional oversight. Not Trump.

9) Concern: Ok but I wish to defend international norms & their being chipped away at
Consideration:understandable. But Iraq & then Syria already pretty much destroyed this. This strike may herald an end to a period of unchecked slaughter in Middle-East, facilitated lots by Iran

10) Concern: I’m scared of war.
Consideration: yes. So were all the children tortured to death in Syrian jails, in front of their parents, by Assad’s regime that Soleimani was instrumental in maintaining via his proxy death squads sent to Syria
Click to expand...
 
dowie said:
It's hardly mindless and it provides a rather strong deterrent!

As for Obama - and for what indeed... Iran was happily targeting coalition forces right through his presidency.
Click to expand...

Do you think killing this general will stop Iran's aggression towards coalition forces in the region, and also work towards them not obtaining nuclear weapons?
 
dowie said:
It's hardly mindless and it provides a rather strong deterrent!

As for Obama - and for what indeed... Iran was happily targeting coalition forces right through his presidency.
Click to expand...

A strong deterrent :rolleyes:

You mean unifying a large part of the region into hating the US more and demanding dead bodies. Within a few hours of the huge bomb deterrent of yours an Iranian TV presenter offers $80million for trumps head. If anything it has only stocked the flames more.
 
truthseeker1 said:
A strong deterrent :rolleyes:

You mean unifying a large part of the region into hating the US more and demanding dead bodies. Within a few hours of the huge bomb deterrent of yours an Iranian TV presenter offers $80million for trumps head. If anything it has only stocked the flames more.
Click to expand...

LOL, hello Iranian shill... you can't help yourself can you...
 
Roar87 said:
They are Capitalist countries, they are not centrally planned economies. It doesn't matter what the name of the parties in charge are, that's so simplistic that you'd have to be a ******* idiot to be presenting that as an argument.
Click to expand...
What were the americans fighting against? Authoritarian regimes or centrally planned economies?
 
Jono8 said:
Do you think killing this general will stop Iran's aggression towards coalition forces in the region, and also work towards them not obtaining nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...

I don't know - it doesn't seem likely, it does give them pause for thought - introduces direct consequences and gives them significantly more risk/uncertainty if they chose to carry on with that behaviour.

One thing that does seem to be clear - not given a direct response hasn't worked over the past couple of decades! They've been fairly unchecked in terms of direct responses to their actions by any state actors aside from by Israel (cyber attacks aside).
 
Roar87 said:
Really? It has a centralised planned economy? China isn't even a Communist country these days.
Click to expand...

China is a difficult one, the latest PM is dragging China back into being a proper Communist country again by state control in its citizens, he felt that it was drifting too much towards capitalism and is now pumping out Communist propaganda like no tomorrow. There was a stark difference from when i was over there in 2012 and again in late 2018.
 
dowie said:
It's hardly mindless and it provides a rather strong deterrent!

As for Obama - and for what indeed... Iran was happily targeting coalition forces right through his presidency.
Click to expand...
A strong deterrent against what? Not being aligned to the West, being good little boys and girls that buy US products and boycott Russia, like they should?

The US not only has no respect for other nations' sovereignty, it has no respect for anyone not towing its line, buying its products, or doing what it tells them.
 
i know nothing said:
Still doesn't get you the answers you wanted though does it?;) Future generations of terrorists, mindless bombing of the Middle East...?!!!!;)
Click to expand...

No, but neither does whataboutism...

I would still argue that killing a top general of a sovereign country is vastly worse in relation to those things, because it is very easy to be seen as a completely direct attack on their country (because it is). An attack on Al Queida/Obama is an attack on people who already vehemently hate the west. An attack on a top Iranian official is very likely to turn vastly more people in Iran and in that region against the USA/the west.
 
dowie said:
One thing that does seem to be clear - not given a direct response hasn't worked over the past couple of decades!
Click to expand...

I would say getting them to sign up to an internationally agreed resolution to prevent them from developing nuclear weapons was progress and was working.

Now, because of Trump's actions, they have essentially abandoned it completely. So now what happens if they pursue getting a nuclear weapon due to the USA's aggression toward them?

We likely will end up with a very angry Iran, hell bent on developing nuclear weapons, as it will see that as the only way to prevent further US aggression.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom