US kills Iran's General Soleimani

Iran doesn't seem to be having a very good day - 5.0 magnitude earthquake just now in the eastern part of the country and a Boeing 737 crashed shortly after take off.
 
So I
StriderX said:
Guess we'll find out how trigger-happy Trump really is. Also while it's sordid in the extreme, it'd be interesting to see if the simulations of a US-IRAN war are accurate (though they were biased towards Iran).
Click to expand...

I guess the "trigger-happiness" of Iran is pretty clear.
 
As a pilot who has to regularly speak to 'Iranian Air Defence' before we fly into Iranian airspace this is indeed worrying.

Agencies are reporting they accidentally shot it down.
 
Rroff said:
Iran doesn't seem to be having a very good day - 5.0 magnitude earthquake just now in the eastern part of the country and a Boeing 737 crashed shortly after take off.
Click to expand...

In before the tin foil hat brigade rock up with theories about HAARP and other such conspiratorial crap.
inferno said:
Agencies are reporting they accidentally shot it down.
Click to expand...
Which agencies are those? Got a link?
 
dowie said:
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.



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 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.
Click to expand...

You’re first making the assumption that the US isn’t guiding its proxies to attack Iranian assets, which in itself is a leap of logic that probably won’t stand up.

Were also discussing perceived justification here. This is not whether you or I think it’s right or wrong, but the justification each side is using to attack the other. The US, whether intentionally or not, has caused the death of many Iranian military personnel. They have armed and given tactic approval for them to be used against Iran. There are obviously nuances, but the reality is just that. No different to Iran doing the same against the US.

If the US weren’t in Iraq, backing (in many cases) the opposing side, would Iran have attacked them? Probably not. In the same way if Iran wasn’t in Syria they probably wouldn’t have been attacked either.

As you point out, this proxy war has been going on for a while. The hardline elements in both the US and Iran seem to love it, as do US proxies and allies in the region (it gives them an excuse to act the way they do - Saudi and Israel being two).

Going back to the discussion about Iran hating the west. The politics is extremely complex in Iran. It has two very different sides, with the moderates trying to bring Iran back into the fold, and the hardliners trying to sabotage it. The moderates were the cause of the Nuclear deal, the hardliners are the cause of the attacks. The actions of Trump over the last couple of years have played directly into the Hardliners hands, and the assassination of an Iranian general is just the icing on the cake for them. They can now claim (somewhat legitimately) that Iran held out an olive leaf to the US, and now not only did the US (Trump) rip it up, he’s now “murdered” the messenger.

Iran needs to change some of its leadership, but it needs to do so on its own terms. These actions are just legitimizing and solidifying the support for the hardliners. Obama and his administration understood this, Trump doesn’t seem to. That or Netanyahu and Saudi got him to do their bidding - both were against the nuclear deal from the start, because it brought Iran in from the cold and damaged their political aims in the region.
 
Trusty said:
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?
Click to expand...

US proxies have been proactively attacking Iranian assets however. That’s the issue. Iran has (again in their view) been defending their allies assets. Just because we don’t necessarily think their assets are on the right side doesn’t change that. They don’t think US “assets” are on the right side either.

And again, same with the infiltration comment. Flip the argument around and view it from the Iranian side. They could equally argue that the Iraq was infiltrated by Saudi and US influence over a number of years too. For obvious reasons (leading back to coups and occupations) you can see why Iran would’t want that to happen...

The final question is a “how long is a piece of string” question. Do you think Saudi influence in the ME is a good thing? Better than Iran’s influence? Saudi are the main regional competitors, not necessarily the US. The whole place is a mess. We “ally” with Iran to fight ISIS, but are against them in Yemen, where we support Saudi, whose religious denomination is the main backer of ISIS. Most of the weapons being used in all these fights are being supplied by the US and Russia, not necessarily to opposing sides.

This is what you get from decades of political interference and proxy fighting. Iran, ironically, is one of the more stable countries in the region and with some actual help could sort out its hardline problem. But as usual it’s better to keep everything in turmoil it seems.
 
dowie said:
Well stick to what I've posted instead of wasting time with "so you're saying" or basing arguments on your impression or some projection of a view you have for me... just because I'm not always going to make a simple point doesn't mean that trying to then project some simplified point onto me and argue against that is valid... it isn't, it's just a waste of time.
Click to expand...

Your whole argument with me seems to be that the US are retaliating against unprovoked Iranian actions.

If it’s not then that means you at least partially agree with me... In which case what are you arguing about?

So which is it?
 
So who shot down that airliner then? Far too coincidental.

I assume the US shot down all the missiles. The US leave it at that or they'll fire a few cruise missiles in response.
 
StriderX said:
While i'm sure the Afgan-Iraq War veterans currently whispering in Trump's ear are masturbating themselves to death right now, so are practically everyone else interested in controlling the ME.

Seem's that only Europe is tired of this situation.
Click to expand...


So true. Potentially thousands of deaths on both sides because hardliners seem to want a war.

Hopefully some sensible countries can step in and tell the “children” to start behaving themselves. Unfortunately Trump has an impeachment and massive unfavourable popularity ratings to fight and the Iranian hardliners have pride in the game now so...
 
The Ukrainian plane crash in Iran can't be a coincidence. It took off from Tehran and 'crashed' soon after.

Who is more likely to have shot it down though? Could America have thought it might be a military plane and accidentally targeted it? Or did Iran accidentally hit it with a missile?

170 people dead.
 
VincentHanna said:
The Ukrainian plane crash in Iran can't be a coincidence. It took off from Tehran and 'crashed' soon after.

Who is more likely to have shot it down though? Could America have thought it might be a military plane and accidentally targeted it? Or did Iran accidentally hit it with a missile?

170 people dead.
Click to expand...

  • The plane "disappears" instantly from radar / communication only minutes after takeoff.

  • Apparently it was was directly in an area where the Iranian Air Defense was focused.

  • Only hours ago, Iran has escalated a massive international conflict with missile strikes.

  • Video emerges of a firey wreck plunging out of the sky in the exact area the plane ought to have been
It doesn't sound great really. I have often flown over Iraq and it has always put me on edge knowing how easily things can spark off in the region. Its becoming a longer and longer route with the increasing number of no fly countries and regions.
 
VincentHanna said:
The Ukrainian plane crash in Iran can't be a coincidence. It took off from Tehran and 'crashed' soon after.

Who is more likely to have shot it down though? Could America have thought it might be a military plane and accidentally targeted it? Or did Iran accidentally hit it with a missile?

170 people dead.
Click to expand...



Do you have any evidence? No? then SHHHHH

Wonder what the liberals with paranoia problems are going to come out with next now it's all over.
 
CaptainRAVE said:
  • The plane "disappears" instantly from radar / communication only minutes after takeoff.

  • Apparently it was was directly in an area where the Iranian Air Defense was focused.

  • Only hours ago, Iran has escalated a massive international conflict with missile strikes.

  • Video emerges of a firey wreck plunging out of the sky in the exact area the plane ought to have been
It doesn't sound great really. I have often flown over Iraq and it has always put me on edge knowing how easily things can spark off in the region. Its becoming a longer and longer route with the increasing number of no fly countries and regions.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that only a short time ago the Iranian President appeared to put out a statement referencing the downing of the IranAir flight by the US Navy in the 80's.
 
deuse said:
Do you have any evidence? No? then SHHHHH

Wonder what the liberals with paranoia problems are going to come out with next now it's all over.
Click to expand...

Paranoia?

It's too early to have all the facts/evidence really, BBC report states:

It is unclear whether the incident is linked to the Iran-US confrontation.
Click to expand...

So it might be, or it might not be. Why would you just hand-wave it away though?
 
VincentHanna said:
Paranoia?

It's too early to have all the facts/evidence really, BBC report states:



So it might be, or it might not be. Why would you just hand-wave it away though?
Click to expand...


Most liberals I know have paranoia problems. "infamy infamy they've all got it in for me "



And you watching the BBC is just funny. Go and watch a live feed.
And lets wait to see what happened to the plane.

RIP to the dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom