US drone strike takes out top Iranian general

[Better call Saul]

That can't be a good thing!!!! 

 

Although the UK foreign secretary has urged for de escalation..... 

Like anyone will listen to you mate!! 

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50979463

[Angry Haggis]

Game changer. One could position that it’s a welcome deflection for the Trump group ahead of indictment process. Aside show if you like - but a very concerning one. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Angry Haggis

[Thommo414]

As someone with a bit of Iranian in me, this is a ****ing terrifying development. Can assure that no good will come from this for either the Iranians, Americans or anyone in between. Have no doubt Boris will have us involved very soon as well

[ri Alban]

Russia "America have crossed a red line"

 

WW3 just to beat impeachment. Hopefully the UK stay out of this.

[superjack]

9 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

 

WW3 just to beat impeachment. Hopefully the UK stay out of this.

Totally agree however I believe that boris will be desperate to show trump that he can be trusted to.drop.bombs when the usa tell us.

[The Real Maroonblood]

3 minutes ago, superjack said:

Totally agree however I believe that boris will be desperate to show trump that he can be trusted to.drop.bombs when the usa tell us.

Special relationship and all that shite.

[OBE]

Russia has crossed many red lines.

[jack D and coke]

2020 has started well then....

Without attempting to defend that halfwit wasnt there a bombing the other day on American targets though? 

[Shanks said no]

All US citizens warned to leave Iraq immediately

[Tazio]

3 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

2020 has started well then....

Without attempting to defend that halfwit wasnt there a bombing the other day on American targets though? 

But not by the Iranian government though. 
I can’t really think of a precedent for this sort of behaviour. A country just sending a drone into another country and blatantly killing such a senior figure. Hey but it’s ok as it was a terrorist they killed, or more correctly someone they declared a terrorist. 
And now it will be time for our PM to payback for all the loyalty and support he got during the election. Meanwhile any sensible government will keep their head down and not get involved. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 minute ago, Tazio said:

But not by the Iranian government though. 
I can’t really think of a precedent for this sort of behaviour. A country just sending a drone into another country and blatantly killing such a senior figure. Hey but it’s ok as it was a terrorist they killed, or more correctly someone they declared a terrorist. 
And now it will be time for our PM to payback for all the loyalty and support he got during the election. Meanwhile any sensible government will keep their head down and not get involved. 

The last sentence will certainly rule out our government.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

14 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

All US citizens warned to leave Iraq immediately

 

Leave Iran immediately.

[Shanks said no]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Leave Iran immediately.

No, its leave IRAQ immediately, is this about to blow across 2 countries?

 

Pompeo due live on CNN shortly

[JimKongUno]

Corbyn will be raging . The yanks have killed 1 of his heroes

[jack D and coke]

5 minutes ago, Tazio said:

But not by the Iranian government though. 
I can’t really think of a precedent for this sort of behaviour. A country just sending a drone into another country and blatantly killing such a senior figure. Hey but it’s ok as it was a terrorist they killed, or more correctly someone they declared a terrorist. 
And now it will be time for our PM to payback for all the loyalty and support he got during the election. Meanwhile any sensible government will keep their head down and not get involved. 

I wasn’t sure I’m always a bit confused this time of year I just recall something about an embassy being bombed or something I couldn’t remember exactly what it was. 
It’s certainly upped the stakes and you have to pray Johnson will keep our nose out of this. 
Some start to the year. Australia is literally a burning hell on earth and now this. 
 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 minutes ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

No, its leave IRAQ immediately, is this about to blow across 2 countries?

 

Pompeo due live on CNN shortly

 

My mistake, had only heard them say Iran eariler hadn't heard it was also Iraq.

[Don Dan]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/03/air-strike-kills-qassim-soleimani-head-irans-elite-quds-force/
 

Wont be missed. 

[jack D and coke]

2 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/03/air-strike-kills-qassim-soleimani-head-irans-elite-quds-force/
 

Wont be missed. 

Neither would Trump be. What’s your point?

[Don Dan]

2 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

Neither would Trump be. What’s your point?

That I would agree with. However 

Adam Schiff, the Democratic chair of the House intelligence committee, said Congress did not authorise the strike.

"Soleimani was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him," he said on Twitter.

"But Congress didn’t authorise and American people don’t want a war with Iran. All steps must now be taken to protect our forces against the almost inevitable escalation and increased risk."

Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate, said "no American will mourn Solemani's passing".

Im not alone in my thinking. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

21 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

2020 has started well then....

Without attempting to defend that halfwit wasnt there a bombing the other day on American targets though? 

 

There was, a US contractor was killed and several US & Iraqi troops were injured by a mass rocket attack by suspected Iranian backed militia.

Then the American's bombed a pro-Iranian Shia paramilitary group killing about 25 fighters, which had been blamed for the above attack.

Pro-Iranian demonstrators then stormed the US embassy in Baghdad.

Then the US kills the Iranian General.

 

How far this goes entirely depends upon what response Iran takes next as retaliation, as there is a clear upping of the ante by the American's by return.

[Shanks said no]

3 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

My mistake, had only heard them say Iran eariler hadn't heard it was also Iraq.

I was the same, thought the newsreader had made a mistake. Here's the official script

 

Location:  Iraq

Event:  Due to heightened tensions in Iraq and the region, the U.S. Embassy urges American citizens to heed the January 2020 Travel Advisory and depart Iraq immediately.  U.S. citizens should depart via airline while possible, and failing that, to other countries via land.  Due to Iranian-backed militia attacks at the U.S. Embassy compound, all public consular operations are suspended until further notice.  U.S. citizens should not approach the Embassy.  The U.S. Consulate General in Erbil is open for visa and American Citizen Services appointments, including passport issuance.  U.S. citizens in Iraq or those concerned about family in Iraq should contact the Department of State at +1-202-501-4444 or toll-free in the U.S. at 1-888-407-4747.

Actions to Take:  

· Do not travel to Iraq

· Avoid the U.S. Embassy

· Monitor local and international media for updates          

[Ribble]

5 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

That I would agree with. However 

Adam Schiff, the Democratic chair of the House intelligence committee, said Congress did not authorise the strike.

"Soleimani was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him," he said on Twitter.

"But Congress didn’t authorise and American people don’t want a war with Iran. All steps must now be taken to protect our forces against the almost inevitable escalation and increased risk."

Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate, said "no American will mourn Solemani's passing".

Im not alone in my thinking. 

 

Whether or not anyone will mourn Soleimani will become a tiny spec of irrelevance, the fall out of his death i fear will not

[jack D and coke]

11 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

That I would agree with. However 

Adam Schiff, the Democratic chair of the House intelligence committee, said Congress did not authorise the strike.

"Soleimani was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him," he said on Twitter.

"But Congress didn’t authorise and American people don’t want a war with Iran. All steps must now be taken to protect our forces against the almost inevitable escalation and increased risk."

Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate, said "no American will mourn Solemani's passing".

Im not alone in my thinking. 

Not necessarily arguing that point for sure. 

6 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

There was, a US contractor was killed and several US & Iraqi troops were injured by a mass rocket attack by suspected Iranian backed militia.

Then the American's bombed a pro-Iranian Shia paramilitary group killing about 25 fighters, which had been blamed for the above attack.

Pro-Iranian demonstrators then stormed the US embassy in Baghdad.

Then the US kills the Iranian General.

 

How far this goes entirely depends upon what response Iran takes next as retaliation, as there is a clear upping of the ante by the American's by return.

Increased terrorism is the likely outcome I’d imagine. 
Great. 

[Don Dan]

3 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

Whether or not anyone will mourn Soleimani will become a tiny spec of irrelevance, the fall out of his death i fear will not

It will be interesting to see how Iran does respond. I very much doubt it will be on a big scale. I suspect it will be more low level tit for tat actions. I can see them trying to attack an American warship in the gulf region some thing along these lines I would imagine. 

[Justin Z]

44 minutes ago, Tazio said:

But not by the Iranian government though. 
I can’t really think of a precedent for this sort of behaviour. A country just sending a drone into another country and blatantly killing such a senior figure. Hey but it’s ok as it was a terrorist they killed, or more correctly someone they declared a terrorist. 
And now it will be time for our PM to payback for all the loyalty and support he got during the election. Meanwhile any sensible government will keep their head down and not get involved. 

 

There is unfortunately a precedent for close to that--Barack Obama in Pakistan and Yemen. Even American citizens have been killed that way.

But yeah, you're right that there's not a precedent for this unilateral of an unconstitutional action by the commander-in-chief, with no oversight from or consultation with the legislative branch of the government, directly against a key figure in a foreign government.

 

 

[Justin Z]

27 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

That I would agree with. However 

Adam Schiff, the Democratic chair of the House intelligence committee, said Congress did not authorise the strike.

"Soleimani was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him," he said on Twitter.

"But Congress didn’t authorise and American people don’t want a war with Iran. All steps must now be taken to protect our forces against the almost inevitable escalation and increased risk."

Joe Biden, a Democratic presidential candidate, said "no American will mourn Solemani's passing".

Im not alone in my thinking. 

 

This is "ends justify the means" thinking you're not alone in--and of the worst kind.

[skodef]

1 hour ago, The Frenchman Returns said:

All US citizens warned to leave Iraq immediately

Extremel dangerous from America.Will not make the region a safer place.Can you imagine if Iran had assassinated a US general in say Colombia. 

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

Russia "America have crossed a red line"

 

WW3 just to beat impeachment. Hopefully the UK stay out of this.

Ww3. No one will stay out of it whether they want to or not.

[Ray Gin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kila]

Oil prices spiking

 

Mmhmmm...

[3fingersreid]

Trump “ so Boris this trade deal you want , part of the deal is where we go fighting ,YOU come too, okay ?”

 

[indianajones]

4 minutes ago, kila said:

Oil prices spiking

 

Mmhmmm...

 

What these wars are really all about.

 

 

[ri Alban]

7 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Ww3. No one will stay out of it whether they want to or not.

We could at least what a couple of years. 👍

[Justin Z]

This is worth keeping in mind too. I want all of them out.

 

https://twitter.com/WalkerBragman/status/1212958471240462338

 

[Taffin]

20 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

This is "ends justify the means" thinking you're not alone in--and of the worst kind.

 

What other way is there to justify the means of an action, if not the outcome?

 

 

[Justin Z]

7 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

What other way is there to justify the means of an action, if not the outcome?

 

Are you actually trying to start a philosophical debate on the morality of consequentialist, post-hoc justification for unlawful actions in this middle of this thread?

 

This is definitely not the place.

 

Edit: But here, if you need a starter--Deontological ethics

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Justin Z

[ri Alban]

America assassinates the dude who helped them with the Taliban,  Isis and Al Qaeda. Mental!

[Justin Z]

Just now, ri Alban said:

America assassinates the dude who helped them with the Taliban,  Isis and Al Qaeda. Mental!

 

And Trumpists had immediately started crowing about how a "terrorist" is dead like everything is so black-and-white and simple.

[Tazio]

The American/Israeli PR campaign ramped up seriously after the last time Israel invaded Lebanon and were seen off by Hezbollah. They are banking on the fact that Iran isn’t an Arab nation and Shia is a minority sect of Islam and doesn’t have the mass support of the population of the Middle East. 

[AlphonseCapone]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

And Trumpists had immediately started crowing about how a "terrorist" is dead like everything is so black-and-white and simple.

 

Tbf all sides are at the black and white game. 

[Justin Z]

Just now, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Tbf all sides are at the black and white game. 

 

Mostly, yeah. Absolutely maddening.

[Taffin]

20 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Are you actually trying to start a philosophical debate on the morality of consequentialist, post-hoc justification for unlawful actions in this middle of this thread?

 

This is definitely not the place.

 

Edit: But here, if you need a starter--Deontological ethics

 

 

Why is it not the place? You brought it up and referred to it as the worst kind of 'ends justify the means' thinking.

 

The outcome of not taking action directly correlates with someone's motives for instead taking an action imo. I don't believe you can fully isolate those two things. I fully accept that's my opinion and others have a different view, but it would be great if we could hold those beliefs without making little digs at others like suggesting someone's viewpoint is the worst kind of something as if there is something wrong with it...it's an equally justifiable way of thinking as yours.

 

Thanks for the link but I never did like reading deontology and I doubt I will now.

 

 

 

EDIT: I should apologise though for debating your answer as it was a perfectly valid answer to my question, just not one I agree with.

 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Taffin

[alwaysthereinspirit]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Russia "America have crossed a red line"

 

WW3 just to beat impeachment. Hopefully the UK stay out of this.

Out of world war 3? That would be an absolutely amazing bit of diplomacy. They'd talk about that for time immemorial. 

Or at least for the two weeks before its all gone.

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Out of world war 3? That would be an absolutely amazing bit of diplomacy. They'd talk about that for time immemorial. 

Or at least for the two weeks before its all gone.

Less likely to have WW3 if we do stay out of it.

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Why is it not the place? You brought it up and referred to it as the worst kind of 'ends justify the means' thinking.

 

The outcome of not taking action directly correlates with someone's motives for instead taking an action imo. I don't believe you can fully isolate those two things. I fully accept that's my opinion and others have a different view, but it would be great if we could hold those beliefs without making little digs at others like suggesting someone's viewpoint is the worst kind of something as if there is something wrong with it...it's an equally justifiable way of thinking as yours.

 

Thanks for the link but I never did like reading deontology and I doubt I will now.

 

It is exactly the worst kind of such thinking because the agent involved actively and knowingly violated the constitution (read: the ****ing law), and his motivation was plainly his own personal benefit, while serving in the role of the highest office of the United States.

 

I don't give a **** if drone striking another country's high ranking military official inside the borders of a third country when that is the background. There is a right and many wrong ways to do things and this ****wit continues to do various versions of the latter in everything he does--every. single. thing.

[jack D and coke]

22 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

America assassinates the dude who helped them with the Taliban,  Isis and Al Qaeda. Mental!

Really? Honestly you’ve got to laugh  

[Cruyff]

This is going to lead to war between America and Iran. Which wouldn’t be something like the Iraq one, Iran has a powerful military, this will be more like WW3 If ground forces become involved. 

 

Trump came into the Whitehouse with no Iran Crisis. Ripped up the Nuclear Deal, started mouthing off, began sanctions on Iran and it has lead to this point. He has created this situation out of a relative peace.

[Don Dan]

20 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

What other way is there to justify the means of an action, if not the outcome?

 

 

In these sort of instances you make and take decisions on what the outcome could be based on the actions you take. In this particular instance the action they’ve taken is to take out a man who has in one way or another dogged the Americans over the past twenty years or so. I guess the outcome they are gambling on is only a small (can’t think of an adjective to express myself properly here) retaliation. 

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

It is exactly the worst kind of such thinking because the agent involved actively and knowingly violated the constitution (read: the ****ing law), and his motivation was plainly his own personal benefit, while serving in the role of the highest office of the United States.

 

I don't give a **** if drone striking another country's high ranking military official inside the borders of a third country when that is the background. There is a right and many wrong ways to do things and this ****wit continues to do various versions of the latter in everything he does--every. single. thing.

 

I'm not arguing the validity of this killing. I agree with you, they shouldn't have done it. I think that though because the end don't justify the means (ie someone's personal gain in no ways justifies that, had he posed an immediate threat to innocent people then I'd argue it was justified). What I don't agree with is that the logic of 'ends justifies the means' is flawed. And I respect your opposing viewpoint just now how you questioned it.

 

But it's a futile thing to argue about and as such I apologise for engaging over it. 

Edited January 3, 2020 by Taffin

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I'm not arguing the validity of this killing. I agree with you, they shouldn't have done it. I think that though because the end don't justify the means (ie someone's personal gain in no ways justifies that, had he posed an immediate threat to innocent people then I'd argue it was justified). What I don't agree with is that the logic of 'ends justifies the means' is flawed. And I respect your opposing viewpoint just now how you questioned it.

 

But it's a futile thing to argue about and as such I apologise for engaging over it. 

 

All good.

 

And for what it's worth I totally agree--I don't think it's always incorrect to engage in utilitarian justification (or even often incorrect)--but in this particular case? It absolutely cannot be abided with this set of facts.