• Notice regarding image hosts and attachments. See here.

US kills Iran's General Soleimani

dowie said:
conflating somewhat different scenarios though aren't we....



Never claimed they didn't - doesn't make it true though.



No they aren't and no it doesn't really work like that - the US acted in response to aggression from Iran... Iran, if they've got a death wish, can of course attempt to respond to that but they'd be pretty dumb to do so.
Click to expand...

Its not conflating two different things though is it. Your claim is that Iran is arming proxies and attacking US soldiers. The opposite side is that the US is arming proxies that are attacking Iranian soldiers.

And as said, yes I agree, the US acted in response to aggression from Iran. Yet you consistently fail to admit that Iran acted in response to aggression from the US.

If you refuse to grasp even that simple fact then there’s no hope in continuing this conversation.

Unfortunately it looks like the **** really may have hit the fan now. Let’s hope that Europe and Canada don’t get dragged into a potentially steaming mess that Trump has made.
 
dowie said:
Not necessarily, but it will almost certainly get the promised response from the US. Hope they get a plenty high value targets - these **** have had it coming for a long time tbh... and it is about time they were affected directly by it.



LOL you are funny at times - if by "Iran" you're talking about the regime then there are plenty in the current regime who do indeed hate the west.

If you're talking about ordinary Iranians then that is a different ball game - big young generation there who aren't too happy with the oppressive regime they live under.
Click to expand...

So now it’s “plenty in the current regime”? Not Iran then?

Of course there are some in government that hate the west. There’s plenty in western governments that hate Iran too, does that mean the US and Europe hate Iran?

If that’s the case then it just backs up the point I’ve been making all along...
 
Amp34 said:
Its not conflating two different things though is it. Your claim is that Iran is arming proxies and attacking US soldiers. The opposite side is that the US is arming proxies that are attacking Iranian soldiers.

And as said, yes I agree, the US acted in response to aggression from Iran. Yet you consistently fail to admit that Iran acted in response to aggression from the US.

If you refuse to grasp even that simple fact then there’s no hope in continuing this conversation.

Unfortunately it looks like the **** really may have hit the fan now. Let’s hope that Europe and Canada don’t get dragged into a potentially steaming mess that Trump has made.
Click to expand...

The US seems to be defending assets, not proactively attacking Iranian assets though, there is a difference.
 
I'm pretty sure I read earlier that patriot missile systems were on high alert earlier, lets hope they caught the majority of those rockets.
 
Trusty said:
The US seems to be defending assets, not proactively attacking Iranian assets though, there is a difference.
Click to expand...

Which assets are they?

The proxy battles have been going on in several countries - Yemen, Syria and Iraq for starters. Only Iraq has any US assets, and the attack that the US apparently responded to was an attack on an Iraqi base that had Americans in.

The fact that the US (and others) are now being shown the door by the Iraqis suggest those directly affected don’t agree with your assertion.
 
So much disinformation going on at the moment LOL - be interesting to see what actually happened in the morning.
 
AhhBisto said:
No but I blame you for the stupid **** you just said.
Click to expand...

So people die at someone's funeral, an event he can't have had any influence over, aside from celebrity, you know, being dead.

You have people dying to watch a football match, because of celebrity, yet you only blame the brown person?

Frankly, who you blame is the least of anybody's concern given that logic.
 
Amp34 said:
Its not conflating two different things though is it. Your claim is that Iran is arming proxies and attacking US soldiers. The opposite side is that the US is arming proxies that are attacking Iranian soldiers.
Click to expand...

On a very simple level... it seems to be what people like to do these days. The US has funded rebel groups in Syria, that isn't with the intent of specifically going after Iran but rather they want to back group's opposing the regime (and for good reason!) - yes Iran is supportive of the regime.

That is somewhat different to actually backing groups and guiding them with the express purpose of attacking coalition forces - that is something Iran has done on and off for several years and well before the Arab spring/Syria etc..

That extends way beyond just supplying arms too - when the local Shia militia groups used to carry out attacks at Basra airport because the nimrod had been spotted on the tarmac by one of their dickers working on base then they were doing it on behalf of... you guessed it: Iran. Back when they couldn't penetrate the armour on British warriors (APC vehicles) guess which country stepped up to supply a different device... in fact guess which country funded most of them and was basically behind policy and whether they were going to carry on killing coalition troops or stop for a bit and only kill the new (at the time) ING (later absorbed into the Iraqi army) or police etc.. that got rather confusing as some police units were infested with Shia militiamen anyway so you'd get police cars attacked and the people behind it were in the same militia as some of their police colleagues. It wasn't just funding either - they directed this stuff, they had republican guard types in country.

And as said, yes I agree, the US acted in response to aggression from Iran. Yet you consistently fail to admit that Iran acted in response to aggression from the US.
Click to expand...

Because they didn't - you're insisting on conflating different things - taking pot shots at the coalition in Iraq pre-dates anything in Syria... I'm well aware that the US and Iran have history but you might as well come up with some argument about the US was the aggressor because of X event in the 70s or 80s etc.. when it is BS. This was an attack in response to Iranian aggression, in Iraq, something that hasn't previously been responded to with direct action in this manner and has been going on for a couple of decades!

If you refuse to grasp even that simple fact then there’s no hope in continuing this conversation.
Click to expand...

If you carry on making simplistic comparisons, expecting acknowledgement of "simple facts" to build simple arguments with no room for nuance then yes, you're right, there isn't much conversation to be had.
 
dowie said:
No they aren't and no it doesn't really work like that - the US acted in response to aggression from Iran... Iran, if they've got a death wish, can of course attempt to respond to that but they'd be pretty dumb to do so.
Click to expand...
So every one of Iran's attacks is unprovoked and unrelated to anything the US has done?

You can't honestly believe that.
 
XeNoN89 said:
https://news.sky.com/story/iran-launches-revenge-rocket-attacks-at-us-troops-in-iraq-11903432

Finally being picked up by our news channels
Click to expand...

I do wonder if the funeral deaths tipped the balance a bit... like if they were 50/50 on a response before the funeral deaths then the potential for mass public unrest tomorrow if they still hadn't responded would be huge and any dictatorship/theocracy is inherently unstable, needs to keep any public anger etc.. in check...
 
FoxEye said:
So every one of Iran's attacks is unprovoked and unrelated to anything the US has done?

You can't honestly believe that.
Click to expand...

You're trying that "so you're saying" thing, again! The confusion is yours - please feel free to quote and ask questions about what I've actually posted - if you have to rephrase stuff into your own made up argument then it isn't going to go anywhere constructive.
 
All current images that are doing the rounds BTW purporting to show the aftermath at Al Asad are old images from Syria, etc.
 
dowie said:
You're trying that "so you're saying" thing, again! The confusion is yours - please feel free to quote and ask questions about what I've actually posted - if you have to rephrase stuff into your own made up argument then it isn't going to go anywhere constructive.
Click to expand...
No I'm not.

It's just the impression you give, because you justify every US attack as a response to Iranian aggression.

It's nonsense. I'm sure even you don't believe that the US purely responds defensively to Iranian aggression. I'm sure you don't.

But you sure talk as if you believe that.
 
Jono8 said:
I'm sorry if you cannot appreciate the difference. It is quite obviously a vastly different scenario though.
Click to expand...
I've already addressed all of this above, sorry that you can't reply to it.;)

Don't forget, it was you that started this by talking about "mindless bombing" and about creating "generations of future terrorists who have had their family and homes destroyed" in your rush to present Obama as a poster child for peace when he clearly wasn't. Let's not lose sight of that!;)
 
Amp34 said:
Which assets are they?

The proxy battles have been going on in several countries - Yemen, Syria and Iraq for starters. Only Iraq has any US assets, and the attack that the US apparently responded to was an attack on an Iraqi base that had Americans in.

The fact that the US (and others) are now being shown the door by the Iraqis suggest those directly affected don’t agree with your assertion.
Click to expand...

I'm talking generally, the US hasn't been proactively attacking Iranian assets, they have been defending it's own assets at the request of certain countries in the ME.

Yes, Iraq wants the US out, this is proof that Iraq has been infiltrated by Iranian influence.

Maybe have a scan through this..

https://thesoufancenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Iran’s-Playbook-Deconstructing-Tehran’s-Regional-Strategy-by-The-Soufan-Center.pdf

Thats not to say i think the West should be anywhere near the ME though, the place is generally a tinderbox.

Do you think more Iranian influence in the ME is a good thing?
 
Last edited:
Reading on Twitter, apparently US planes are in the air as of 10 minutes ago.

IRGC have stated that if they've taken off from UAE, then the UAE are targets for retaliation...
 
Rroff said:
All current images that are doing the rounds BTW purporting to show the aftermath at Al Asad are old images from Syria, etc.
Click to expand...
Yep that's the problem with Twitter, you have to dig through all the fake news and dodgy reports to find the actual reality of a breaking situation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom