US kills Iran's General Soleimani

[Hades]

I wonder if that 'mistaken' leaked letter mentioning troop movements just before the missile attack could be related? The press thought they meant more troops but perhaps it was actually moving troops out of the way.

/TinFoilHat

 

[Sankari]

This is how Zero Hedge is reporting the latest developments:

https://i.~ibb.co~/wW02csR/Capture.png

A gold star to the first person who spots the problem here.

Remember, ZH claims to be part of the stunning and brave 'new media' that was supposed to replace the 'legacy media.' Based on the quality of their reporting, I don't think the 'legacy media' has anything to fear at this stage.

 

[Yadda]

This is how Zero Hedge is reporting the latest developments:

https://i.~ibb.co~/wW02csR/Capture.png

A gold star to the first person who spots the problem here.

Remember, ZH claims to be part of the stunning and brave 'new media' that was supposed to replace the 'legacy media.' Based on the quality of their reporting, I don't think the 'legacy media' has anything to fear at this stage.

"No suggestion" morphed into "no question". Dear me.

 

[Roar87]

The US didnt even bother intercepting any and they could have done easily with those patriot systems. They knew it was going to be pathetic.

The US isnt going to care about one chopper, they have 1000s of them.

If you think Patriot can "easily" intercept ballistic missiles I have some bad news

 

[jpaul]

R4news-am - they're/Iran now reporting the plane had been preparing to turn around with the onboard problems,
so the voice recorder should be revelatory, however they're saying some of the black box 'memory cards' are damaged, collision with a drone is also couched

 

[RoboCod]

I don't think we really know whether the fact that mostly incidental stuff was hit was intentional or happy chance anyhow.

The points of impact look quite intended to me.

It looks like a simple show of force. One that appeases the Iranian hardliners with an actual attack and (lies) of US deaths but also doesn't incite the Americans further by doing just that (not killing any Americans).

 

[Orionaut]

If you think Patriot can "easily" intercept ballistic missiles I have some bad news

Also, sometimes the costs (Falling debris etc) of intercepting a missile can be greater than those of allowing it to hit its target, especially if it is off course anyway and over densely populated areas.

(Not to mention using up very expensive and hard to replace hardware for little actual benefit)

I dare say these days, incoming trajectories are analysed and the decision of whether or not to intercept will take these factors into consideration.

 

[dowie]

Either way, it's a good job it didn't kick off like dowie thought it was going to.

You do seem to have some trouble with reading comprehension sometimes anyway.... in particular noting a conditional "if" and what a post is in response to. Which might also explain why you spent several posts not understanding that when both myself and RoboCod commented on your claim re: not targeting US parts of the airbase you didn't quite understand that this wasn't a disagreement that the attack was seemingly symbolic/for domestic Iranian consumption but a comment that they literally destroyed some US equipment*

Anyway... the risk of it kicking off was clearly there - not like you didn't think that was quite possible too

You were on here last night and following live too, right Rroff? It was very tense for a while, wasn't it?

*see again the photos literally showing this - IIRC RoboCod works for the RAF

The points of impact look quite intended to me.

It looks like a simple show of force. One that appeases the Iranian hardliners with an actual attack and (lies) of US deaths but also doesn't incite the Americans further by doing just that (not killing any Americans).

 

[MookJong]

Unless things escalate the Iranian response seems nothing more than theatrics to propogandise to their own people.

My pet tinfoil theory is that the Iranians gave Solemani up and were ok for him to be killed while on foreign soil. He must have been a threat to the Mullahs in some respect and at a time of infighting and demonstrations inside the country, removing a populist who could have rallied support for a military coup might not be a bad idea.

 

[Nasher]

Someone probably did give him up, unless the Americans had been following him for some time. But there are much more subtle ways to do things.

 

[Yadda]

You do seem to have some trouble with reading comprehension sometimes anyway.... in particular noting a conditional "if" and what a post is in response to. Which might also explain why you spent several posts not understanding that when both myself and RoboCod commented on your claim re: not targeting US parts of the airbase you didn't quite understand that this wasn't a disagreement that the attack was seemingly symbolic/for domestic Iranian consumption but a comment that they literally destroyed some US equipment*

Anyway... the risk of it kicking off was clearly there - not like you didn't think that was quite possible too



*see again the photos literally showing this - IIRC RoboCod works for the RAF

You get a bit excited sometimes. That's ok but try not to get so carried away.

 

[dowie]

You get a bit excited sometimes. That's ok but try not to get so carried away.

Are you going to repeatedly quote me with inane comments again?

 

[Yadda]

Are you going to repeatedly quote me with inane comments again?

I keep reading and re-reading your post and I can't for the life of me see any reference to "if there are casualties". It may be that my comprehension skills are lacking like you say but to me it just reads like you had a raging little war-boner.

Can you help me out? Here it is again:

No chance he's backing down now... expect more than the 52 targets too now... like it's clearly been heightened rather quickly. Gonna be a rather target rich environment if they're silly enough to get their airforce involved - feel sorry for the Iranian pilots if they do have to fight... they don't stand much chance.

Those B52s that moved across to Diego Garcia might get to see some action now!

 

[Amnesia]

Unless things escalate the Iranian response seems nothing more than theatrics to propogandise to their own people.

My pet tinfoil theory is that the Iranians gave Solemani up and were ok for him to be killed while on foreign soil. He must have been a threat to the Mullahs in some respect and at a time of infighting and demonstrations inside the country, removing a populist who could have rallied support for a military coup might not be a bad idea.

Iraqi prime minister says Qassem Soleimani was in Iraq to 'discuss de-escalating tensions between Iran and Saudis' when he was killed - and claims Trump had asked for help mediating talks after embassy attack.

If he was given up and all part of the plan then why are the Iraqis so angry and asking americans to leave

 

[dowie]

I keep reading and re-reading your post and I can't for the life of me see any reference to "if there are casualties". It may be that my comprehension skills are lacking like you say but to me it just reads like you had a raging little war-boner.

Can you help me out? Here it is again:

I've already helped you out - like I said look at the post it was made in direct reply to (even quoted in the post) and the post above that. It was in response to the claim that Iran's airforce was involved... why are you now throwing in something about "if there are casualties"? That wasn't the condition it was based on.

"if they're silly enough to get their airforce involved"

I've already explained this the first time you asked here:

That comment you quoted was based on " if they're silly enough to get their airforce involved" see posts it is in response to - the quoted one and the one above it. For obvious reasons, if they had gotten their airforce involved then the USAF would have been involved pretty quickly too.

For reference - the post it quoted was here:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/33272857/

and the post directly above that and which that post was in relation to is here:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/33272856/

Why deliberately ignore context and the explanation you've already been given?

 

[Yadda]

I've already helped you out - like I said look at the post it was made in direct reply to (even quoted in the post) and the post above that. It was in response to the claim that Iran's airforce was involved... what are you now throwing in something about "if there are casualties"?

"if they're silly enough to get their airforce involved"

I've already explained this the first time you asked here:



For reference - the post it quoted was here:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/33272856/

and the post directly above that and which that post was in relation to is here:

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/33272856/

Why deliberately ignore context and the explanation you've already been given?

I asked you why it didn't kick off (like you thought it was going to),

Why do you think it didn't kick off?

and you replied,

Because no Americans were killed and beyond some equipment damage it seems to have been more of a symbolic attack for domestic consumption. That comment you quoted was based on " if they're silly enough to get their airforce involved" see posts it is in response to - the quoted one and the one above it. For obvious reasons, if they had gotten their airforce involved then the USAF would have been involved pretty quickly too.

None of that was mentioned in your "No chance he's backing down now..." post.

 

[dowie]

I asked you why it didn't kick off (like you thought it was going to),
[...]
None of that was mentioned in your "No chance he's backing down now..." post.

Because you're talking about separate things - I've answered why it didn't kick off - do you not agree? It was seemingly a symbolic attack and it didn't result in any US casualties?

The other comment is in relation to something that never even happened - the Iranian airforce didn't get involved... I mean that is rather self explanatory if you're asking why didn't it kick off on the basis of the Iranian airforce getting involved....

Do you understand - are you deliberately misunderstanding what has been said here?

 

[Roar87]

I keep reading and re-reading your post and I can't for the life of me see any reference to "if there are casualties". It may be that my comprehension skills are lacking like you say but to me it just reads like you had a raging little war-boner.

Can you help me out? Here it is again:

At the time we all believed there were 20+ American casualties

 

[neckbeardthethird]

Breaking news on Sky that UK government are looking into 'concerning reports' that the plane was shot down.

 

[XeNoN89]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1215309192086675459