Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25
  1. #21
    Kieran
    Certified Gamer
    Kieran's Avatar
    Join Date:
    June 2018
    Location:
    Bucks County, Pennsylvania
    Posts:
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentGuns View Post
    The US is allied with one of the most reactionary nations in the world with an extensive track record of human rights violations and possible links to terror funding (including possibly 9/11). They legit killed a journalist, chopped him up, put him in suitcases and dissolved the remains. Stop playing the "but muh terrorism" angle.


    None of this has anything to do with the topic. It's a matter of US knew someone was about to attack their citizens. President of US kills guy plotting to kill his own people, and prevents future conflict and deaths from occuring. There is literally nothing wrong with that sequence, and any sane person would do the same thing in that position. It's not aggression, it's self defense.

    In response to post by @roux (too lazy to edit), I really don't care about some of the scummy shit the US has done in the past in the context of this argument, nor am I justifying it. That doesn't mean it was wrong of the president to kill a threat who was plotting to kill US citizens. That is reasonable and justifiable action. US has done some bad shit which was wrong. Doesn't mean we are wrong to stop someone who is about to do shit to our people.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Kieran For This Useful Post:
    Strayyz (01-18-2020)

  3. #22
    SilentGuns

    SilentGuns's Avatar
    Join Date:
    August 2008
    Location:
    Estonia
    Posts:
    4,369
    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran View Post


    None of this has anything to do with the topic. It's a matter of US knew someone was about to attack their citizens. President of US kills guy plotting to kill his own people, and prevents future conflict and deaths from occuring. There is literally nothing wrong with that sequence, and any sane person would do the same thing in that position. It's not aggression, it's self defense.

    In response to post by @roux (too lazy to edit), I really don't care about some of the scummy shit the US has done in the past in the context of this argument, nor am I justifying it. That doesn't mean it was wrong of the president to kill a threat who was plotting to kill US citizens. That is reasonable and justifiable action. US has done some bad shit which was wrong. Doesn't mean we are wrong to stop someone who is about to do shit to our people.
    Of course, as long as they have proof and consider the wider consequences and do everything in their power to avoid a hot war.

    Someone mind sharing a link to the proof, if it is up? Not that i support iran or some reactionary general, just curious.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SilentGuns For This Useful Post:
    CIU (01-16-2020), idealist (01-15-2020), TheZZL (01-16-2020)

  5. #23
    idealist
    Dazed and Confused

    idealist's Avatar
    Join Date:
    March 2009
    Posts:
    4,655
    Blind patriotism is retarded. The military industrial complex will continue to churn out profits for the rich and corpses for the poor. Anyone who believes otherwise is playing themselves. Its sad that 'the greatest nation on earth' was built on a foundation of death, destruction, and exploitation. So to all of you seriously clamoring for war with Iran or Russia or whoever... Have fun throwing your life away for the various corporations that control our spineless government at this point. Why sacrifice everything you know for corporate greed via strategic resource control.

    I'm all for defending yourself domestically. Exporting terrorism is not a business I'm proud to play a part in as an American though.

  6. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to idealist For This Useful Post:
    BoM (01-15-2020), CIU (01-16-2020), Dom (01-15-2020), Eskomo (01-17-2020), James (01-16-2020), Korean Ninja (01-16-2020), Phoenix_ (01-15-2020), SilentGuns (01-15-2020), ThRza (01-15-2020)

  7. #24
    CIU
    Banned
    Banned

    Join Date:
    July 2019
    Posts:
    17
    Part 1

    The major event that people will point to for the justification of the killing of Soleimani is the attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad. I wish to provide some context as to this event.

    Before I move on, let me cover the airstrike that prompted this all. The United States just days before this launched airstrikes against Kata’ib Hezbollah (which is apart of PMF-Popular Mobilization Forces, which is Iran backed). They have fought the United States in the past, and Isis as well as supported the Syrian government during the civil war. Most of their fighting post-US withdrawal was centered against Isis as they fought alongside other Shia Iraqi paramilitary groups forming PMF and the Iraqi government, including the Battle of Mosul against Isis. One of the reasons the United States is against this group in the civil war is that they are supporting the Syrian government and are also against the FSA (Free Syrian Army). As far as I found, the last prior engagement before 2019-20 they had directly with the United States was in July 2010 they were suspected of sending threats to American bases in Iraqi, and in February 2010, a firefight with “suspected” not confirmed members occurred near the Iranian border. The last confirmed attacks besides unconfirmed rocket attacks I can find from this organization were in 2008-2009, which there were, in fact, numerous cases. Moving on forward ten years to 2019 in July the U.S. started to fear backed Iranian militias with Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, Joan Polaschik and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Michael Mulroy both issuing statements saying they feared Iranian influence and possible attacks from rogue Iranian militias.

    Finally, we arrive at the first attack that allegedly kicked this whole thing off on December 27, 2019; an estimated 30 rockets had been fired at a former Iraqi airbase called k-1, which was currently held by Iraqi special forces who took it from the Kurds. This attack killed an Iraqi-American U.S. civilian contractor and wounded American and Iraqi’s. This attack was suspected once again not confirmed to of been by Kata’ib Hezbollah. The group never claimed the attack, and the only evidence was an unnamed report and the fact they used Katyusha missiles and that a Shiite militia had some, but they went on to admit that “Iran-backed groups, however, are not likely the only ones with access to such weapons.” As a reminder in Kirkuk where this happened, there are a ton of actively fighting groups, including Isis; there were also rocket attacks previous to this, which were much smaller and less eventful. However, none proved to be tied to Kata’ib Hezbollah. Kata’ib Hezbollah even outright denied involvement in this. The United States, in retaliation to these attacks, responded by three days later, bombing the headquarters of Kata’ib Hezbollah. They targeted three Kata’ib Hezbollah locations, one in Iraq two in Syria targeting weapons depots and command centers. Reportedly killing 25 and injuring more than 55. This airstrike was condemned immediately by the Iraqi government, Iraqi Armed Forces, and Iran. This is what sparked the protests.

    Reportedly the “attack” occurred post a funeral for Hezbollah militiamen who were killed by the United States airstrike. After the funeral, an angry mob broke out that consisted of some Iraqi Shiite militiamen, where they encroached upon an entrance to the U.S. embassy compound once there Iraqi Security Forces permitted them passed a security point. Once permitted and allowed past, they began chanting anti-American and Israeli chants. They threw stones, set fire to a reception area, and raised a PMF flag and graffiti. They proceeded to respond to this by deploying Marine Security Guardsmen and Security Service on the roof of the embassy. Some of the protesters were wearing clearly marked militia uniforms. They then deployed tear gas onto the protesters, after which the protesters set three trailers on fire. This was when Iranian backed Iraqi forces became involved joining in the protest, mainly leaders such as a PMF commander. To my knowledge, I have yet to see any reports that any of the protesters were visibly armed. Eventually, later in the day, the protests died down, and they went on to set up tents so they could prepare a sit-in in protest to the United States. Kata’ib Hezbollah claimed that protesters had no intention of storming the embassy and that they would continue the sit-in until U.S. troops left Iraq. Many protesters outside of the embassy attack cited prior U.S. airstrikes as motivations for this protest as well as United States airstrikes on PMF positions. Many in Tahrir Square protesting as this soon became a protest across Iraq also added that people in the Green Zone (the embassy attack) do not represent them and that they wish for a peaceful change. Nothing came of this. There were no deaths or serious injuries; no gunshots were fired, and the main compound was never breached. The result of this which I feel more aptly should be labeled a violent protest rather than an orchestrated attack. This resulted in a few burned buildings and the United States sending 100 United States marines to defend the embassy.

    After the protests, Donald Trump accused Iran of orchestrating the attack. Pompeo then claimed head members of the PMF were responsible for the attack. I think it’s misleading to frame this as an orchestrated attack while it was a violent protest it does not seem premeditated and if it was meant to be more then a protest, the PMF clearly has the capability to turn this into something more deadly or worse then what we saw, and it was apparent they were a part of the protests. Iran denied they were responsible for the demonstrations, which besides Iranian back groups being there doesn’t seem to be much evidence Iran orchestrated this either. Israel also condemned and held Iran responsible for the attack. The United States then called on Iraq to resist Iranian influence and that they would be preemptive striking Iranian-backed paramilitary groups in Iraq. This being a massive escalation of force.

    The United States then lead a drone strike killing Soleimani and nine others, including deputy chairman of PMF and commander of Kata’ib Hezbollah, as well as other groups. The U.N. has already stated this isn’t covered in article 51 as the U.S. can not prove Soleimani was a threat imminent threat to others. Isis even praised the killings saying that the murder of Soleimani was a divine intervention helping jihadists.

    Let’s look at this through the lens of legality, was it legal for the U.S. to kill Soleimani? One of the main arguments for the justification of killing Soleimani was that it was not assassination but rather an act of self-defense. The main article of international law that is being cited is article 51 of chapter 7 of the United Nations charter. Which states

    “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
    self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
    international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security
    Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it
    deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”

    As mentioned, Agnès Callamard, someone whose job at the UN is to look into special killings like this has already stated this it flat out is not protected by article 51. The administration has failed to prove that he was an imminent threat to the United States; if look below, you will see me explain and clarify most of my points as I respond to KAG, Phoenix_, and others.

  8. #25
    CIU
    Banned
    Banned

    Join Date:
    July 2019
    Posts:
    17
    Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Phoenix_ View Post
    I think the amount of hate Trump is getting for the Iran situation is completely unreasonable. I'm not even a Trump supporter and I think he's getting too much shit for this. Like mentioned before, high ranking Generals planned this attack and Trump merely signed off on this. We were acted upon and we retaliated, simple as that.
    Quote Originally Posted by KAG View Post
    Donald Trump HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLANNING FOR THE DEATH OF THE IRANIAN GENERAL.
    I think it's silly that people are implying that they believe a large portion of people assumed Trump had sole responsibility for this. People generally aren’t arguing that trump “created” this plan, and he has liability because he made it. The argument is that because he had the final say and authorized this plan, he is responsible for the consequences of what he signed off on, which makes logical sense. The only person on this thread that suggests this is BoM’s first post, which is clearly meant for the sake of a joke. Aswell people arguing Soleimani was killed because they fear threats to more embassies and who try to downplay his involvement forget that in June 2019 months before all of this Trump authorized the death of Soleimani if he had been involved in the killing of any American with Pompeo backing his decision. This directly opposes the narrative of imminent threat of embassies. While Trump still has insisted that he did provide an imminent threat, but also stated that it's irrelevant whether or not he did. As for Trump's involvement, it’s also reported that he initially chose to strike back at Shia militias which he was advised to do but instead opted for the extreme option of killing the second most important person in Iran following his decision in June this was prompted by him watching video from the embassy protest. The U.S. Defense Department also stated that this strike was done “at the direction of the President”. The administration once again admitted that four embassies were targeted, but Pompeo contradicted and also stated it wasn’t known where or when the attacks would take place. While Trump obviously did not meticulously craft this plan, he was the one who passed off on this plan and chose to kill him. He bears an enormous if not full blame for this action. I hope this makes clear that Trump, while not creating the plan, understood it signed off on it and bore the responsibility for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAG View Post
    information of locations comes at the expense of time wasted and missed opportunity. Compare this to the Bin-Laden raid which also had a large amount of American deaths behind him. If we halted our efforts to execute him for the 9/11 attacks, how is that different from attacking Soleimani for his attacks on American Embassies?
    This is a false equivalence. First, let's talk about American deaths more specifically civilian American deaths, Bin Laden was directly responsible for almost 3,000 American civilian deaths in 9/11 alone. Soleimani was held accountable from the supposed attacks by Kata’ib Hezbollah since he is head of the Quds force and arms Kata’ib Hezbollah, who might have been responsible for the death of one U.S. civilian contractor. For comparison, this would be like Mike Pompeo being held accountable for the actions of Ukraine’s armies and Pro-kiev militias, the Free Syrian Army, and the Kurds hell, even Saudi Arabia; this also includes a lot more groups. Also, as for “attacks” on embassies there to my knowledge has only been one attributed to him, which resulted in zero deaths and once again hasn’t been proven publicly to be orchestrated by him. The difference, as I have pointed out to between Soleimani and Bin Laden, is because we haven’t established Soleimani is an immediate threat. The White House administration has been contradicting themselves constantly, and even if we operate under the assumption, he is the threat they claim he is and is responsible for the actions they claim he is he would still be nowhere near the realm of dangerous Bin-Laden was. This is also different because Bin-Laden was the head of a Terrorist organization Soleimani was a State Head. If they only killed PMF leaders like the heads of Kata’ib Hezbollah, which are listed as terrorist organizations and not Soleimani, this would not be anywhere near the level escalation we saw.

    Also, we did halt our effort to execute Bin-Laden; we knew his location for weeks before we killed him, and before that, when we made quick judgment, we ended up killing innocent people we assumed was Bin-Laden.

    Also, clarifying the aims of the killing Soleimani again, they are not even clear as I mentioned Trump ordered to kill him months before all of this. Aswell Pompeo continually pushed for this months before that as well Trumped reportedly told associates post strike that “he was motivated to strike Soleimani for domestic political gain” and to sway Republican Senators to support him during his impeachment trial. As well when he chose, it reportedly stunned his advisers (once again showing he does have responsibility for this action) by selecting the most extreme measure. Also, multiple members of congress, such as Chris Murphy and Mike Lee, stated that the Administration never informed them of the supposed Imminent danger to embassies and such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kieran View Post
    None of this has anything to do with the topic. It's a matter of US knew someone was about to attack their citizens. President of US kills guy plotting to kill his own people, and prevents future conflict and deaths from occuring. There is literally nothing wrong with that sequence, and any sane person would do the same thing in that position. It's not aggression, it's self defense.
    No, not every sane person would repeat this course of action. First off, with how you frame this, you leave out many variables, mainly one being dragging the United States into open conflict with another country. Soleimani wasn’t just another terrorist leader; he was a high ranking member of a state with the United States killing him the U.S. knowingly risks sending their own people to go and die in a war effectively killing their own people. As for the argument for self-defense, as you can read above, I don’t believe this is justified enough to be compliant with article 51. As well from what it seems like we don’t have concrete evidence, this is self-defense with as I mentioned Pompeo admitting we don't know when or where we would get attacked and with Trump contradicting himself to the point where it shows the excuse of the imminent threat to embassies is not genuine. The only incident of embassies being ‘attacked’ resulted in zero deaths. Only one reported U.S. death that can be attributed to Kata’ib Hezbollah in recent memory, which is not even under his direct control with them being apart of PMF and him providing support to PMF. I feel it is not the logical, simple step to immediately kill 25 people, the heads of the PMF, and Iran’s second in command; this is a massive escalation of force that is arguably not following international law.

    You frame this wrong because you lay this out as if its a cut and dry situation with a small set of variables. However, we are dealing with a massive proxy war and international tensions and laws. This is why you are seeing people say its good Soleimani is dead, but the way it was done was wrong. This is because it isn't a black and white issue like you are attempting to make it seem.

    Luckily it seems tensions have calmed down for now and make no mistake; we are already in a proxy war in the Middle East against Iran. But the level of escalation of force was so reckless it could have quickly brought the United States into open conflict. I am against this attack for this and multiple other reasons I have laid out in the post. I think killing Soleimani is a mistake as his death leads to escalation with Iran and making it easier on jihadist groups in the middle east as Isis themselves stated. And just like Obama’s horrendous drone strikes, we are once again allowing and breeding more anti-American sentiment in the middle east. And if it was Soleimani’s plan to provoke Americans, we have played right into his trap. If we wished to as multiple U.S. representatives stated not to let Iraq fall to Iranian influence in this proxy war, we have just failed miserably by playing into what Soleimani wanted. We will be feeling the effects of our actions for decades to come. The biggest fear is that the United States and its military-industrial complex with our ties to Saudi Arabia and foreign interest will be brought into another war where the average man on both sides suffer. I would not be surprised if, in the future, we will be reading this as an example of another failure of American foreign intervention.

    Sources:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nt/2793781001/

    https://www.politico.com/news/2019/1...ck-iraq-091585

    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...130210231.html

    https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Rel...athan-hoffman/

    http://in.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-50093520100713

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-on-iraqi-soil

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-c...ry?id=67949811

    https://www.stripes.com/news/middle-...irkuk-1.612677

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1YX0GR

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/w...-militias.html

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/nat...tions-n1113271

    https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...st-june-report

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/11...-iraq-lebanon/

    https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...mminent-threat

    http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...urrentPage=all

    https://time.com/5758250/qasem-solei...n-retaliation/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/u...suleimani.html

    https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Rel...nt-of-defense/

    https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates...ay-2020-01-11/

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51021861

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-i...-idUSKBN1Z301Z

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/w...neral-n1109961

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-...ke-11578619195

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sole...ry?id=68056126

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...aham-suleimani

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/u...iran-news.html

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CIU For This Useful Post:
    BoM (01-16-2020), idealist (01-16-2020), Tyymunk (01-16-2020)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •