US kills Iran's General Soleimani

Jono8 said:
No it isn't. I didn't say he was a "poster child for peace". I was simply describing how his stance towards Iran was more diplomatic.
Click to expand...
Oh Jesus wept... you wrote; "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". If that is not you holding Obama up as an example of how you think peace should be achieved, then what is it? Come on!:rolleyes:
 
Amp34 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, I haven't made that assumption. But again the focus of its operations was originally the uprising in Syria and fighting ISIS, now it seems that Trump's been persuaded by Russia, Turkey to... well I mean we don't need to get diverted - you've read the news.


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.
Click to expand...

I was commenting on actual justifications here and what I think is right or wrong, I think you're discussing something else in that case - I mean if we get into perceptions then well the US is the great satan etc..etc..

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.
Click to expand...

"somewhat legitimately" - that's a dubious take, if anything the West has been rather restrained for years with regards to Iran in comparison to their actions in the region, we've gone for sanctions and condemnation... not much of a response to the attacks on shipping, random missile attacks on Saudi oil facilities and multiple attacks from proxies over the years.

This again just seem to boil down to a more wordy and slightly more detailed version of - Foxeye's "oh the west has done stuff too" while the argument relies on conflating things of a rather different scale, different motivation and under rather different values.

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.
Click to expand...

On the other hand - allowing them to go unchecked for so long hasn't helped much. Trump's move clearly rattled them and despite all the bluster they wanted an exit, balancing their domestic worries against not wanting to get their ass kicked by a US now prepared to respond directly to the shenanigans they've been pulling off for years. Trumps gambit might well pay off here re: the actual issue it was in response to - proxy attacks by Iran on coalition forces/US in Iraq.
 
Jono8 said:
No it isn't. I didn't say he was a "poster child for peace". I was simply describing how his stance towards Iran was more diplomatic.
Click to expand...

Which it was.

Certainly brokering a deal with Iran and then making sure they adhered to it with regular inspections was more diplomatic/peaceful than tearing up that deal for no reason and against the wishes of your allies (including the UK)
 
i know nothing said:
Oh Jesus wept... you wrote; "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". If that is not you holding Obama up as an example of how you think peace should be achieved, then what is it? Come on!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

?

Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth.

I was literally just stating how i thought Obama's stance towards Iran was more prudent in the long term (by agreeing a nuclear deal with them).

That doesn't mean i think he was the "poster child for peace" worldwide or across the rest of the middle east.. :confused:
 
VincentHanna said:
One of four things happened

1) A near brand-new plane had a technical issue causing it to crash
2) Iran shot it down on purpose
3) Iran shot it down by mistake
4) America shot it down by mistake, thinking it was a military target/imminent threat.
Click to expand...

I'll take number 3 pls Bob...

The US would be hard pressed to cover it up if they shot down an airliner by accident - it isn't like random USAF people in AWACs aircraft, various HQs etc.. watching events unfold are all going to keep quiet about something like an airliner getting shot down. So if it is number 4 we'll likely find out rather quickly.
 
What's interesting about the plane crash, is according to the data, the plane essentially took off normally, climbed normally to 8000 feet, than immediately suffered some sort of instant, totally catastrophic failure. This either caused it to break up in the air, or hit the ground with such force the whole thing was obliterated.

It just seems weird, with no other indication that anything was wrong... I think it looks more and more like it was hit by some sort of missile,

/armchair speculation, but maybe from something like one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misagh-2 ?
 
robgmun said:
I'm betting on No. 3 with an outside chance of No. 4, i certainly don't think it was shot down on purpose
Click to expand...
Yup, that's what I'm thinking too. Iran fires a load of missiles at US bases. They then expect a possible retaliation and when a large blip appears on their radar they assume it's a US military aircraft such as an AWACS and decide to take it down.
 
Jajmq0



I suspect it was shot down.

Edit: Okay, I give up - how do you post an image? Is it a problem using Flickr?
 
Last edited:
Wonder if Trump/America will use this as a reason to hit Iran's Nuclear facilities. Hope not as it will probably start a full on war.

Trumps threat to hit 52 targets for any retaliatory attacks is worrying.
 
esmozz said:
Jajmq0


I suspect it was shot down.

Edit: Okay, I give up - how do you post an image?
Click to expand...
Click the little image icon to the right of the 'insert smiley' button and enter the image location from somewhere like imgur. It must be the actual image though and not a webpage with the image on it.
 
Jono8 said:
But the alternative, is likely either a nuclear capable Iran, or war with Iran.

It is naive to think, that somehow all confrontation and animosity with Iran can be stopped in an instant.

What is prudent, is to try and build bridges and trust first and see where that can go. Now that is all lost, and it will likely take decades again before any sort of trust or relationship can be built up again.

Seriously, all those in favour of this operation and the collapse of the nuclear deal, what do you propose as a realistic alternative?
Click to expand...

i know nothing said:
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!;)
Click to expand...

Jono8 said:
That is a complete fabrication and complete misrepresentation of what i said. What is the point in even having a conversation with you if you have to resort to that?

Also, do you have something wrong with your eye? You seem to be winking an awful lot :p
Click to expand...

i know nothing said:
It's exactly what you said. Here's your original post in case you forgot what you wrote.;)
Click to expand...

You are clearly trying to fabricate what Jono8 said here. And I presume purposefully ignoring the fact that under Obama Iran agreed to stop building a bomb and adhered to it into Trump's term. Trump reneged and now, unsurprisingly they are now pursuing building a bomb. It's obvious what you do now - deflect and whataboutery as whenever the US or Trump are critcised you immediately pivot to 'but what about Iran'/'but what about Obama'. No doubt you also cared a great deal about 'her emails'.

Obama had a great deal of faults but the JCPOA was one of his greatest ahcivements only to be ruined because someone has thin skin and couldn't take a light roasting at the White House Correspondents' Dinner.
 
Last edited:
Troop said:
Wonder if Trump/America will use this as a reason to hit Iran's Nuclear facilities. Hope not as it will probably start a full on war.

Trumps threat to hit 52 targets for any retaliatory attacks is worrying.
Click to expand...

Well he isn't known to be a man of his word so who knows what he will do.
 
How fast does America's non existent hypersonic interception missile travel to take out a plane taking off to 8,000 ft...never mind the target acquisition time....


Tin foil hats for 'USA' did it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom