US drone strike takes out top Iranian general

[Justin Z]

20 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I just can't see how you can make someone else culpable for the actions another agent takes under some kind of self defence when the action they took weren't defending themselves from any threat which was what riAlban was using as his example and is also the example in your car crash scenario.

 

 

Also, I forgot this bit, sorry. My scenario was explicitly laid out so as to be about perception. Driver A's nose went into the intersection very suddenly and I was sure to say that Driver B "probably didn't even need to swerve" to avoid Driver A, but because it all happened so suddenly it was a quick decision made in the heat of the moment. We don't have perfect information and the human tendency to make errors can be exacerbated--sometimes severely--by external factors. The law recognises this and I feel we ought to recognise it, generally, as well.

 

Obviously you're right, the Iranians weren't defending against any actual threat. What did they perceive in that moment? What did they see on their instruments? Only they know. In the background of what they saw and what they were feeling and judging, was their recently killed military leader and the ringing in their ears of the US raining hellfire down on the cultural sites of their nation, their entire history.

[redjambo]

11 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

To the tinfoil hat brigade of course it's Trump's, no sorry the West's fault.

 

That's a bit unfair. By taking out Soleimani, the US were kicking the proverbial hornets nest, and they knew that to be the case. If the hornets start stinging themselves in all the confusion, I don't think the US can sit back with a reassuring smile and say "It wasn't us".

[Jambo-Jimbo]

27 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

That's a bit unfair. By taking out Soleimani, the US were kicking the proverbial hornets nest, and they knew that to be the case. If the hornets start stinging themselves in all the confusion, I don't think the US can sit back with a reassuring smile and say "It wasn't us".

 

Sure the US kicked the hornets nest, but anything which Iran did in response to that and the results of that response, lays squarely with Iran and nobody else.

 

[redjambo]

16 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Sure the US kicked the hornets nest, but anything which Iran did in response to that and the results of that response, lays squarely with Iran and nobody else.

 

 

That's a very simplistic approach to the principle of cause and effect with which I have to disagree.

[Justin Z]

4 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

That's a very simplistic approach to the principle of cause and effect with which I have to disagree.

 

And by disagreeing, you are in no way a tinfoil hat wearer as Jambo-Jimbo levelled earlier in the thread.

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

And by disagreeing, you are in no way a tinfoil hat wearer as Jambo-Jimbo levelled earlier in the thread.

 

Can I take it off then? It's starting to itch.

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

Can I take it off then? It's starting to itch.

 

Mate.

[ri Alban]

[Jambo-Jimbo]

29 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

That's a very simplistic approach to the principle of cause and effect with which I have to disagree.

 

It all depends upon how far back you want to apply cause & effect to a situation, because we could be here all day saying if they didn't do that and if they didn't respond to that, and before long we'd end up with, if the Shah hadn't have been deposed and if the Shah hadn't been placed there to begin with and if and if and if and if the Ottaman Empire had won WWI and if the Russians hadn't invaded Persia, and eventually probably sometime next Tuesday we'd end up with, if Adam hadn't have been so horny none of this would have happened.  😄

 

By the way I hope you don't think I was meaning you with my tinfoil hat comment, in fact it was to no one in particular, it was more an observation.

[Mikey1874]

The US has an understanding of cause and effect.

 

Not releasing intelligence on Iran's involvement in the bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 (Lockerbie) being revenge for the Americans shooting down an Iranian passenger plane the year before, parts of which the US covered up or denied for a while. 

[redjambo]

32 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

It all depends upon how far back you want to apply cause & effect to a situation, because we could be here all day saying if they didn't do that and if they didn't respond to that, and before long we'd end up with, if the Shah hadn't have been deposed and if the Shah hadn't been placed there to begin with and if and if and if and if the Ottaman Empire had won WWI and if the Russians hadn't invaded Persia, and eventually probably sometime next Tuesday we'd end up with, if Adam hadn't have been so horny none of this would have happened.  😄

 

By the way I hope you don't think I was meaning you with my tinfoil hat comment, in fact it was to no one in particular, it was more an observation.

 

I can see what you're trying to argue, JJ, but in this case the two events were close enough in time and setting that not only can a causal link be legitimately argued but that it is valid. I guess we'll just have to disagree about that.

 

No worries about the tin foil hat observation. I like a good laugh. I just felt that your comment was a bit over-dismissive of folk's views that were in my eyes reasonable enough not to be dismissed as being a product of paranoia or conspiracy theory, which is why I commented on it.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

12 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I can see what you're trying to argue, JJ, but in this case the two events were close enough in time and setting that not only can a causal link be legitimately argued but that it is valid. I guess we'll just have to disagree about that.

 

No worries about the tin foil hat observation. I like a good laugh. I just felt that your comment was a bit over-dismissive of folk's views that were in my eyes reasonable enough not to be dismissed as being a product of paranoia or conspiracy theory, which is why I commented on it.

 

I'll tell you my reasoning why I think Iran and Iran alone are responsible and it is cause & effect, timing & setting.

 

Iran had options, choices in how they could respond to the killing of Soleimani but Iran choose one option which placed the crew of that air defence battery under a state of high alert and with it a huge amount of stress & fear, because that crew would have been on high alert expecting American retaliation to the Iranian missiles which had been launched a matter of a couple of hours previously.

If Iran had chosen a different option, such as to disrupt shipping or to get one of their proxies to attack American interests or indeed sit back and do nothing, than that air defence battery crew wouldn't have been placed under the same stress levels as they were on the night in question, simply because they wouldn't have been expecting an imminent retalitory attack from the American's and in fear of their lives.

 

Tin foil hat - I apologise if anybody thinks I was being over-dismissive of peoples reasonable views, that was not my intention in the least.

[Sharpie]

8 hours ago, ri Alban said:

As ex Police officer, Bob. What's your take on responsible? Personally, I think other people's actions can be responsible for my actions. But as above, Taffin thinks we're all responsible for our own actions. 

 

8 hours ago, ri Alban said:

As ex Police officer, Bob. What's your take on responsible? Personally, I think other people's actions can be responsible for my actions. But as above, Taffin thinks we're all responsible for our own actions. 

Justin Z has done a much better and more professional explanation than I can I am sure, but just so you know I wasn't taking a swipe at Ri Alban, I'll give my thoughts. Irans man was killed by orders of a President who acted it seems completely on his own judgement. Yes he had aides who advised but he was the one who said strike. My reading and watching hisw justifications would not appear to meet the standards required by his own country,s policies and some International policy. Assassination it seems is covered by rules, one is Imminent Danger, there seems to be great doubt in this case that was present. Lacking that two words Congress should have been advised, there are other intricacies but the general consensus is that the action was wrong, unfair in ways as it may seem it appears to me that the General as a result of these circumstances was assassinated in an action that was carried out unlawfully.As a policeman I have dealt with housebreakings , robberies and rapes. When you leave your house locked and secure you cannot in my mind be held responsible for someone breaking in and taking your property, if you leave the door wide open and a sign saying help yourself then tough on you.

I have also dealt with the shopkeeper taking his days earnings to the bank, this is not an action to have someone remove the cash from him.

The last one rape, I find it difficult to accept that a girl who dresses well and makes herself look good is inviting forced sexual relations.

The main point of my subject post was that the situatins relative to Iran, and Japan could not be more different. Iran was almost a spur of the moment action, with motivations that some of us see others don't, deflection for one, pressure from others another. Japan was involved in a lawfully declared war, which they had started by a raid causing much damage and loss of life. Thousands of allied servicemen had died as a result of Japanese action. The Japanese of the day still had people of old beliefs where surrender was not an option. The allies primarily United States knew that many thousands would die if the war continued to the Japanese Mainland, there had been carpet bombing in Europe, China had been heavily bombed by the Japanese and there was a new weapon that one bomb would ac hieve the same result, it was used, all done under the auspices of the rules of war, which did not seem to be the case in the Iran incident.

We are all responsible for our own actions and reactions.

Edited January 13, 2020 by bobsharp

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I'll tell you my reasoning why I think Iran and Iran alone are responsible and it is cause & effect, timing & setting.

 

Iran had options, choices in how they could respond to the killing of Soleimani but Iran choose one option which placed the crew of that air defence battery under a state of high alert and with it a huge amount of stress & fear, because that crew would have been on high alert expecting American retaliation to the Iranian missiles which had been launched a matter of a couple of hours previously.

If Iran had chosen a different option, such as to disrupt shipping or to get one of their proxies to attack American interests or indeed sit back and do nothing, than that air defence battery crew wouldn't have been placed under the same stress levels as they were on the night in question, simply because they wouldn't have been expecting an imminent retalitory attack from the American's and in fear of their lives.

 

Tin foil hat - I apologise if anybody thinks I was being over-dismissive of peoples reasonable views, that was not my intention in the least.

 

Again, I can see where you are coming from. However, one of the other things that the US did by taking out Soleimani and subsequently declaring that a host of sites, including cultural ones, throughout Iran were now being treated as targets, was to say to the Iranians "Nothing is now off the agenda. We will hit anyone, anywhere, and we will do it whenever we want". By doing so, they raised the level of neurosis and fear within Iran to very high levels, and we saw the result of that. You may disagree, but I don't think the Iranian missiles launched earlier were a crucial factor. Fear was already ramped up to such a level that an event like the shooting down of the passenger jet was just waiting to happen.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by redjambo

[Jambo-Jimbo]

9 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Again, I can see where you are coming from. However, one of the other things that the US did by taking out Soleimani and subsequently declaring that a host of sites, including cultural ones, throughout Iran were now being treated as targets, was to say to the Iranians "Nothing is now off the agenda. We will hit anyone, anywhere, and we will do it whenever we want". By doing so, they raised the level of neurosis and fear within Iran to very high levels, and we saw the result of that. You may disagree, but I don't think the Iranian missiles launched earlier were a crucial factor. Fear was already ramped up to such a level that an event like the shooting down of the passenger jet was just waiting to happen.

 

 

Likewise I can see where you are coming from, and you make a valid point about Trump ramping up the tensions with his announcement about cultural sites.

 

Your last sentence happens all too often, if it hadn't have been a passenger plane it would have been a hospital or an air raid shelter or some other civilian building, it happens every time.

[coconut doug]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I'll tell you my reasoning why I think Iran and Iran alone are responsible and it is cause & effect, timing & setting.

 

Iran had options, choices in how they could respond to the killing of Soleimani but Iran choose one option which placed the crew of that air defence battery under a state of high alert and with it a huge amount of stress & fear, because that crew would have been on high alert expecting American retaliation to the Iranian missiles which had been launched a matter of a couple of hours previously.

If Iran had chosen a different option, such as to disrupt shipping or to get one of their proxies to attack American interests or indeed sit back and do nothing, than that air defence battery crew wouldn't have been placed under the same stress levels as they were on the night in question, simply because they wouldn't have been expecting an imminent retalitory attack from the American's and in fear of their lives.

 

Tin foil hat - I apologise if anybody thinks I was being over-dismissive of peoples reasonable views, that was not my intention in the least.

 

It’s not realistic to suggest that any country do nothing in the event of a hostile attack such as the one on Suleimani. The USA have been spoiling for a war on Iran for many years and IMO this act was perpetrated to provoke one. In normal times Iran’s retaliatory strikes would have been met with a disproportionate escalation . The USA have started wars for less e.g.Vietnam. Ironically the lack of escalation by the USA may be explained by Trump’s apparent dislike of war or the shooting down of a civilian aircraft.

 

    Trump, the master strategist that he is, reacted with a statement that no Americans had been killed or harmed and so no offence committed and Iran seemed to take a view that some honour had at least been satisfied. The trouble was the Iranians just like everybody else could not take Trump at his word. They have always known the USA’s intentions and surely must have expected war was imminent given the sudden actions of the USA and probably still is. A reason for the actions of the trigger happy Iranian missile battery, perhaps.

 

      Trump whatever his other failings is not a naked warmonger, neither is he in total control of the USA’s foreign policy. His forthcoming impeachment has weakened his control and left him susceptible to manipulation from several hawks within his own party. We all know the quality and veracity of the information provided by the security agencies and so I believe Trump was forced into this action and took the first route out.

 

    Why was Suliemani targeted and killed at all? What has he actually done to annoy the USA so much? The USA are claiming that he was planning 4 assaults on USA embassies but I don’t really think this is credible and in any case this doctrine where you can kill to prevent possible future actions against you is nothing more than a licence for brutal oppression by the powerful.

Suleimani as far as i can see was very successful in defeating ISIS and they seem delighted at his death. The USA after the humiliations of the Syrian war needed to make a gesture and a show of their strength and intention. Iran are no threat to the USA or to the UK but they are to Israel and Iran’s defeat of ISIS and the countries backing ISIS brings forward the need to provoke a war with Iran.

        The attack on Suelmani was as I understand it an attack on a man travelling on a diplomatic passport in a country where he was invited (Iraq) by the president of that country in good faith to act as an honest broker in peace talks at the behest of the USA administration. If that is true and I have no reason to doubt it then clearly once again American exceptionalism wins and the normal rules do not apply to them. If that is true and the Iraqi president amongst others claims that it is why has there been little or no mention of it in the MSM?

 

   Whatever else happens over these events you can be sure that war against Iran will be considered very soon and that war will be posited on something equally convincing as the future threat on four US embassies.

 

     The American statement about the potential destruction of iran’s cultural heritage again shows the USA’s unwillingness to observe international law and its readiness to identify with the actions of ISIS and The Taliban. Surely Trump didn’t manufacture that statement all by himself, I don’t think that’s his style.

 

I have hundreds of Tin Foil hats.

 

 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

48 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

It’s not realistic to suggest that any country do nothing in the event of a hostile attack such as the one on Suleimani. The USA have been spoiling for a war on Iran for many years and IMO this act was perpetrated to provoke one. In normal times Iran’s retaliatory strikes would have been met with a disproportionate escalation . The USA have started wars for less e.g.Vietnam. Ironically the lack of escalation by the USA may be explained by Trump’s apparent dislike of war or the shooting down of a civilian aircraft.

 

    Trump, the master strategist that he is, reacted with a statement that no Americans had been killed or harmed and so no offence committed and Iran seemed to take a view that some honour had at least been satisfied. The trouble was the Iranians just like everybody else could not take Trump at his word. They have always known the USA’s intentions and surely must have expected war was imminent given the sudden actions of the USA and probably still is. A reason for the actions of the trigger happy Iranian missile battery, perhaps.

 

      Trump whatever his other failings is not a naked warmonger, neither is he in total control of the USA’s foreign policy. His forthcoming impeachment has weakened his control and left him susceptible to manipulation from several hawks within his own party. We all know the quality and veracity of the information provided by the security agencies and so I believe Trump was forced into this action and took the first route out.

 

    Why was Suliemani targeted and killed at all? What has he actually done to annoy the USA so much? The USA are claiming that he was planning 4 assaults on USA embassies but I don’t really think this is credible and in any case this doctrine where you can kill to prevent possible future actions against you is nothing more than a licence for brutal oppression by the powerful.

Suleimani as far as i can see was very successful in defeating ISIS and they seem delighted at his death. The USA after the humiliations of the Syrian war needed to make a gesture and a show of their strength and intention. Iran are no threat to the USA or to the UK but they are to Israel and Iran’s defeat of ISIS and the countries backing ISIS brings forward the need to provoke a war with Iran.

        The attack on Suelmani was as I understand it an attack on a man travelling on a diplomatic passport in a country where he was invited (Iraq) by the president of that country in good faith to act as an honest broker in peace talks at the behest of the USA administration. If that is true and I have no reason to doubt it then clearly once again American exceptionalism wins and the normal rules do not apply to them. If that is true and the Iraqi president amongst others claims that it is why has there been little or no mention of it in the MSM?

 

   Whatever else happens over these events you can be sure that war against Iran will be considered very soon and that war will be posited on something equally convincing as the future threat on four US embassies.

 

     The American statement about the potential destruction of iran’s cultural heritage again shows the USA’s unwillingness to observe international law and its readiness to identify with the actions of ISIS and The Taliban. Surely Trump didn’t manufacture that statement all by himself, I don’t think that’s his style.

 

I have hundreds of Tin Foil hats.

 

 

Is this the same innocent Sulaimani banned from the UN from travelling anywhere world wide since 2007? That Sulaimani?

He was a terrorist and is now dead. He reaped what he sowed. Finally. Being given a military uniform doesn't make you legal.

Martin McGuinness had some type of military title too I believe. Lots of civilians of a certain ilk thought he was something special. 

How are things in Tehran this morning?

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 

It’s not realistic to suggest that any country do nothing in the event of a hostile attack such as the one on Suleimani. The USA have been spoiling for a war on Iran for many years and IMO this act was perpetrated to provoke one. In normal times Iran’s retaliatory strikes would have been met with a disproportionate escalation . The USA have started wars for less e.g.Vietnam. Ironically the lack of escalation by the USA may be explained by Trump’s apparent dislike of war or the shooting down of a civilian aircraft.

 

    Trump, the master strategist that he is, reacted with a statement that no Americans had been killed or harmed and so no offence committed and Iran seemed to take a view that some honour had at least been satisfied. The trouble was the Iranians just like everybody else could not take Trump at his word. They have always known the USA’s intentions and surely must have expected war was imminent given the sudden actions of the USA and probably still is. A reason for the actions of the trigger happy Iranian missile battery, perhaps.

 

      Trump whatever his other failings is not a naked warmonger, neither is he in total control of the USA’s foreign policy. His forthcoming impeachment has weakened his control and left him susceptible to manipulation from several hawks within his own party. We all know the quality and veracity of the information provided by the security agencies and so I believe Trump was forced into this action and took the first route out.

 

    Why was Suliemani targeted and killed at all? What has he actually done to annoy the USA so much? The USA are claiming that he was planning 4 assaults on USA embassies but I don’t really think this is credible and in any case this doctrine where you can kill to prevent possible future actions against you is nothing more than a licence for brutal oppression by the powerful.

Suleimani as far as i can see was very successful in defeating ISIS and they seem delighted at his death. The USA after the humiliations of the Syrian war needed to make a gesture and a show of their strength and intention. Iran are no threat to the USA or to the UK but they are to Israel and Iran’s defeat of ISIS and the countries backing ISIS brings forward the need to provoke a war with Iran.

        The attack on Suelmani was as I understand it an attack on a man travelling on a diplomatic passport in a country where he was invited (Iraq) by the president of that country in good faith to act as an honest broker in peace talks at the behest of the USA administration. If that is true and I have no reason to doubt it then clearly once again American exceptionalism wins and the normal rules do not apply to them. If that is true and the Iraqi president amongst others claims that it is why has there been little or no mention of it in the MSM?

 

   Whatever else happens over these events you can be sure that war against Iran will be considered very soon and that war will be posited on something equally convincing as the future threat on four US embassies.

 

     The American statement about the potential destruction of iran’s cultural heritage again shows the USA’s unwillingness to observe international law and its readiness to identify with the actions of ISIS and The Taliban. Surely Trump didn’t manufacture that statement all by himself, I don’t think that’s his style.

 

I have hundreds of Tin Foil hats.

 

 

 

Some people collect stamps, others baseball cards, but I've never heard of someone with so many tin foil hats, how long have been collecting them?

 

[coconut doug]

7 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Is this the same innocent Sulaimani banned from the UN from travelling anywhere world wide since 2007? That Sulaimani?

He was a terrorist and is now dead. He reaped what he sowed. Finally. Being given a military uniform doesn't make you legal.

Martin McGuinness had some type of military title too I believe. Lots of civilians of a certain ilk thought he was something special. 

How are things in Tehran this morning?

 

 

You are comparing this guy to Martin Mcguinness.  Absolutely ridiculous comparison. 

 

Seems he was deemed a terrorist and his crime was materially assisting the Assad regime. Who knew the Iranians supported Assad?

He assisted the U.S. in their fight against the Taliban and fought and won many battles against ISIS. The Assad regime were his allies and so no great surprise he would materially assist them. A good thing too for many Syrians as his actions and those of Iran and others stopped Syria being over run by ISIS. 

Do you remember what ISIS did to the people in the areas they controlled? Do you remember what they did to they Coptic Christians and the Yazidis amongst others?

I tend to regard those who assisted ISIS as the terrorists and not those who opposed them. 

 

Do you not accept that playing a part in inviting Suleimani to Iraq and then murdering him is a breach of international law and an act of terrorism?

Do you not think that a threat to damage and destroy cultural sites is an act of terrorism reminiscent of the Taliban in Afghanistan or ISIS in Syria or even the holocaust?

 

Were Mandela and Ghandi not classified as terrorists and was Mandela not regarded as a terrorist by many of the current Conservative Party. 

 

I think we all know one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 

[coconut doug]

5 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Some people collect stamps, others baseball cards, but I've never heard of someone with so many tin foil hats, how long have been collecting them?

 

 

Since i joined JKB.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

14 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Since i joined JKB.

 

Good enough reason, this place at times.

[Sharpie]

11 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

You are comparing this guy to Martin Mcguinness.  Absolutely ridiculous comparison. 

 

Seems he was deemed a terrorist and his crime was materially assisting the Assad regime. Who knew the Iranians supported Assad?

He assisted the U.S. in their fight against the Taliban and fought and won many battles against ISIS. The Assad regime were his allies and so no great surprise he would materially assist them. A good thing too for many Syrians as his actions and those of Iran and others stopped Syria being over run by ISIS. 

Do you remember what ISIS did to the people in the areas they controlled? Do you remember what they did to they Coptic Christians and the Yazidis amongst others?

I tend to regard those who assisted ISIS as the terrorists and not those who opposed them. 

 

Do you not accept that playing a part in inviting Suleimani to Iraq and then murdering him is a breach of international law and an act of terrorism?

Do you not think that a threat to damage and destroy cultural sites is an act of terrorism reminiscent of the Taliban in Afghanistan or ISIS in Syria or even the holocaust?

 

Were Mandela and Ghandi not classified as terrorists and was Mandela not regarded as a terrorist by many of the current Conservative Party. 

 

I think we all know one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 

 

Soliameni is in a way described by many who have information similar to McGuiness basically a terrorist. He was allegedly actively involved in preparing strategies for terrorist groups and providing the means to carry them out. In all the reports I have seen American, International,  have agreed that he was a very bad person and responsible by aiding and abetting terrible things to be done. The arguements I have seen were not that the assassination was not warranted but that the way it was carried out, and the reasons given made it wrong.

Trump certainly is not a lover of war, or at least in his serving on one, but his very serious threats to such as North Korea, Iran and others would indicate if he has the opportunity he would declare war.

[redjambo]

41 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Is this the same innocent Sulaimani banned from the UN from travelling anywhere world wide since 2007? That Sulaimani?

He was a terrorist and is now dead. He reaped what he sowed. Finally. Being given a military uniform doesn't make you legal.

Martin McGuinness had some type of military title too I believe. Lots of civilians of a certain ilk thought he was something special. 

How are things in Tehran this morning?

 

 

Sulaimani was indeed a bad guy, but he could have been taken out of the game in a more circumspect way that didn't place direct blame on the US. Taking him out also left a power vacuum, and we only know too well with our interventions in the Middle East what problems that can create. By getting rid of one terrorist, you can be creating thousands more and thus perpetuating the problem. In addition, the US could have desisted from inflaming an already red hot situation by bragging that it was targeting Iranian cultural sites.

 

It's often not a question of what you do, it's how you do it. And the one thing you don't do is corner an opponent so thoroughly, when you don't actually need to, that they just decide "what the feck" and go all out.

 

And, with all due respect, AlwaysThere, that last line in bold was ridiculous. Someone disagrees with you so you claim he must live in Teheran. That's Trump-level of debate, sorry to say.

[redjambo]

30 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Some people collect stamps, others baseball cards, but I've never heard of someone with so many tin foil hats, how long have been collecting them?

 

 

For the connoisseur:

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

23 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

For the connoisseur:

 

 

Certainly a lot better than those pointy ones.

I think I'd look just dandy in the bottom right one.

 

[coconut doug]

17 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

 

Soliameni is in a way described by many who have information similar to McGuiness basically a terrorist. He was allegedly actively involved in preparing strategies for terrorist groups and providing the means to carry them out. In all the reports I have seen American, International,  have agreed that he was a very bad person and responsible by aiding and abetting terrible things to be done. The arguements I have seen were not that the assassination was not warranted but that the way it was carried out, and the reasons given made it wrong.

Trump certainly is not a lover of war, or at least in his serving on one, but his very serious threats to such as North Korea, Iran and others would indicate if he has the opportunity he would declare war.

 

Who are the many that describe him this way? his wikipedia cites an alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the USA and his material assistance to Assad as his terrorist crimes. 

 

I actually do not care if he is a "very bad person". I absolutely expect that he is ruthless but what i am sure of is that he worked for Iran  as a soldier and was not an independent like Mcguiness. He carried out orders just like many of the SS had to do or the orders given to bomber squadrons in the UK during the war when they were sent to bomb Dresden or other civilian targets. I would however appreciate a link to your sources that show he was aiding and abetting (Scottish police phrase i think).

 

What troubles me is the notion that the USA had the right to do this or in fact did the right thing even if it was against international law because there was a desirable outcome. None of us know what really happened we merely speculate on the info we have and it is the control of this info that moulds public opinion. I know i'm not getting much info from the Iranian/Syrian side and i know that dissenters and truth providers (Assange, Greenwald, Manning) are now massively suppressed so if people are going to tell us he is a terrorist they should tell us precisely what he is responsible for. Not his country but him as an individual. 

 

Trump has been shafted by NK. he knows the USA cant do much here and so was merely grandstanding. NK has a border with China so any aggression is likely to be limited. His notion that the USA could do business with Russia scared the hawks who need the tension to support their agenda. I don't think Trump actually gets it with the Russia thing but has to go along with it, the raison d'etre of the USA depends on it. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

28 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Sulaimani was indeed a bad guy, but he could have been taken out of the game in a more circumspect way that didn't place direct blame on the US. Taking him out also left a power vacuum, and we only know too well with our interventions in the Middle East what problems that can create. By getting rid of one terrorist, you can be creating thousands more and thus perpetuating the problem. In addition, the US could have desisted from inflaming an already red hot situation by bragging that it was targeting Iranian cultural sites.

 

It's often not a question of what you do, it's how you do it. And the one thing you don't do is corner an opponent so thoroughly, when you don't actually need to, that they just decide "what the feck" and go all out.

 

And, with all due respect, AlwaysThere, that last line in bold was ridiculous. Someone disagrees with you so you claim he must live in Teheran. That's Trump-level of debate, sorry to say.

 

Not Trump's style though is it, he's gotta take the credit.

But your right though it could have been done better, car could have hit an IED or been attacked by masked gunmen, unless of course the US wanted to make sure Iran got the message loud and clear, as is often the case with these things, there are usually a lot of things going on in the background, that us mere plebs never get to hear about, unless files get leaked etc etc.

 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

31 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

You are comparing this guy to Martin Mcguinness.  Absolutely ridiculous comparison. 

 

Seems he was deemed a terrorist and his crime was materially assisting the Assad regime. Who knew the Iranians supported Assad?

He assisted the U.S. in their fight against the Taliban and fought and won many battles against ISIS. The Assad regime were his allies and so no great surprise he would materially assist them. A good thing too for many Syrians as his actions and those of Iran and others stopped Syria being over run by ISIS. 

Do you remember what ISIS did to the people in the areas they controlled? Do you remember what they did to they Coptic Christians and the Yazidis amongst others?

I tend to regard those who assisted ISIS as the terrorists and not those who opposed them. 

 

Do you not accept that playing a part in inviting Suleimani to Iraq and then murdering him is a breach of international law and an act of terrorism?

Do you not think that a threat to damage and destroy cultural sites is an act of terrorism reminiscent of the Taliban in Afghanistan or ISIS in Syria or even the holocaust?

 

Were Mandela and Ghandi not classified as terrorists and was Mandela not regarded as a terrorist by many of the current Conservative Party. 

 

I think we all know one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 

I didn't say he was like McGuinness. I said some civilians looked at them both with the same awe. When in fact they were both low life scum bag cowards who fed on peoples fears. His fighting of ISIS was for his own self preservation. Not to save the world.

Mandela and Gandhi were probably two of the most quintessential examples of a freedom fighter you could ever see. Not to mentioned in the same breath as any one of the two murdering terrorists. JMO.  

[OTT]

I think if Iran targeted a US general in Iraq there would be hell to pay. 

 

Therefore I don't think the US were right to do this. I also think credibility wise after the Iraq war they have a lot of making up to do. Remind me if we ever found those WMD's again?

[alwaysthereinspirit]

46 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Sulaimani was indeed a bad guy, but he could have been taken out of the game in a more circumspect way that didn't place direct blame on the US. Taking him out also left a power vacuum, and we only know too well with our interventions in the Middle East what problems that can create. By getting rid of one terrorist, you can be creating thousands more and thus perpetuating the problem. In addition, the US could have desisted from inflaming an already red hot situation by bragging that it was targeting Iranian cultural sites.

 

It's often not a question of what you do, it's how you do it. And the one thing you don't do is corner an opponent so thoroughly, when you don't actually need to, that they just decide "what the feck" and go all out.

 

And, with all due respect, AlwaysThere, that last line in bold was ridiculous. Someone disagrees with you so you claim he must live in Teheran. That's Trump-level of debate, sorry to say.

That's not what I meant with the last line. I meant what is happening in Tehran this morning in general with regards to the demonstrations. Every day Iranians are not happy.

Sorry if it came over as flippant towards another poster.

[redjambo]

Just now, alwaysthereinspirit said:

That's not what I meant with the last line. I meant what is happening in Tehran this morning in general with regards to the demonstrations. Every day Iranians are not happy.

Sorry if it came over as flippant towards another poster.

 

My apologies. I read it completely wrong (and not for the first time). No need for you to say sorry for someone else misinterpreting your statement.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

My apologies. I read it completely wrong (and not for the first time). No need for you to say sorry for someone else misinterpreting your statement.

👍

[Jambo-Jimbo]

5 minutes ago, OTT said:

I think if Iran targeted a US general in Iraq there would be hell to pay. 

 

Therefore I don't think the US were right to do this. I also think credibility wise after the Iraq war they have a lot of making up to do. Remind me if we ever found those WMD's again?

 

Seem to recall they found two bottles of extra strong weed killer in a shed at the back of Saddam's Presidential Palace.

WMD's if your a dandelion tho.

[Sharpie]

15 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Who are the many that describe him this way? his wikipedia cites an alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the USA and his material assistance to Assad as his terrorist crimes. 

 

I actually do not care if he is a "very bad person". I absolutely expect that he is ruthless but what i am sure of is that he worked for Iran  as a soldier and was not an independent like Mcguiness. He carried out orders just like many of the SS had to do or the orders given to bomber squadrons in the UK during the war when they were sent to bomb Dresden or other civilian targets. I would however appreciate a link to your sources that show he was aiding and abetting (Scottish police phrase i think).

 

What troubles me is the notion that the USA had the right to do this or in fact did the right thing even if it was against international law because there was a desirable outcome. None of us know what really happened we merely speculate on the info we have and it is the control of this info that moulds public opinion. I know i'm not getting much info from the Iranian/Syrian side and i know that dissenters and truth providers (Assange, Greenwald, Manning) are now massively suppressed so if people are going to tell us he is a terrorist they should tell us precisely what he is responsible for. Not his country but him as an individual. 

 

Trump has been shafted by NK. he knows the USA cant do much here and so was merely grandstanding. NK has a border with China so any aggression is likely to be limited. His notion that the USA could do business with Russia scared the hawks who need the tension to support their agenda. I don't think Trump actually gets it with the Russia thing but has to go along with it, the raison d'etre of the USA depends on it. 

 

In an unusual situation in todays world Republicans and Democrats in the USA for a start.

You actually in my opinion ruin your whole point by stating you do not care that he is a bad person, that is difficult to understand.

Aiding and abetting certainly a phrase used in Scotland, in my police experience also used in Canada and in training at one of the USA's premiere law enforcement Academy's heard it used there also. Not sure what it would be in other langauges but am pretty sure it will be thus.

There is as you say a feeling particularly that the man needed killing, but so far other than avid Trump supporters no one or very few feel that it was the right thing to do under the reasons Trump and his acolytes have given.

We may have different access to news items, I am retired not particularly ac tive and can spend lots of time listening to news broadcasts and reading reports form entities with normally diverse opinions. I am quite satisfied with what I have been told that this man was although a general in the Iranian army, and high in the political agenda, he did comingle with the less than legal and humane groups. Terrorists etc.

I am not sure the description shafted by North Korea is the best, he has been outmanouvered and strategised by a crafty, cruel, and self  indulgent dictator. He has also been used endlessly by Putin who either has something on him, or he is so witless he cannot see he is being used ruthlessly.

Using the SS as any example of propriety is to be polite absolutely inane. They murdered millions of defenceless people, they carried out the orders but in again I use the term many cases did so for their own profit and personal wealth.

With regards to bombing Dresden, Berlin, Essen the Ruhr were also targets, are were London, Birmingham and Liverpool. Devastating terrible but parts of a war declared, when man gets in to such a conflict they slip into old animal instincts sad but true.

[Taffin]

3 hours ago, bobsharp said:

 

In an unusual situation in todays world Republicans and Democrats in the USA for a start.

You actually in my opinion ruin your whole point by stating you do not care that he is a bad person, that is difficult to understand.

Aiding and abetting certainly a phrase used in Scotland, in my police experience also used in Canada and in training at one of the USA's premiere law enforcement Academy's heard it used there also. Not sure what it would be in other langauges but am pretty sure it will be thus.

There is as you say a feeling particularly that the man needed killing, but so far other than avid Trump supporters no one or very few feel that it was the right thing to do under the reasons Trump and his acolytes have given.

We may have different access to news items, I am retired not particularly ac tive and can spend lots of time listening to news broadcasts and reading reports form entities with normally diverse opinions. I am quite satisfied with what I have been told that this man was although a general in the Iranian army, and high in the political agenda, he did comingle with the less than legal and humane groups. Terrorists etc.

I am not sure the description shafted by North Korea is the best, he has been outmanouvered and strategised by a crafty, cruel, and self  indulgent dictator. He has also been used endlessly by Putin who either has something on him, or he is so witless he cannot see he is being used ruthlessly.

Using the SS as any example of propriety is to be polite absolutely inane. They murdered millions of defenceless people, they carried out the orders but in again I use the term many cases did so for their own profit and personal wealth.

With regards to bombing Dresden, Berlin, Essen the Ruhr were also targets, are were London, Birmingham and Liverpool. Devastating terrible but parts of a war declared, when man gets in to such a conflict they slip into old animal instincts sad but true.

 

Not sure I'm following the part in bold. Are you suggesting that when at war, civilians become legitimate targets? 

 

Apologies if not and it's just how I'm reading it.

[Sharpie]

No apology required, I am not suggesting civilians are legitimate targets, I just thought using one city as an example was an incomplete suggestion and that other cities on both sides suffered as much devastation and civilian death.The greatest tragedy is that civilian casualties have just become a consequence of war, in manufacturing weapons and carrying out actions there is no or not to my view any real consideration of civilian damage, and with terrorists for example innocents are seen as ideal target e.g Twin Towers.

I do sometimes when I am really into a subject do not translate  my thoughts into words, and this is probably a good example.

[Taffin]

25 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

No apology required, I am not suggesting civilians are legitimate targets, I just thought using one city as an example was an incomplete suggestion and that other cities on both sides suffered as much devastation and civilian death.The greatest tragedy is that civilian casualties have just become a consequence of war, in manufacturing weapons and carrying out actions there is no or not to my view any real consideration of civilian damage, and with terrorists for example innocents are seen as ideal target e.g Twin Towers.

I do sometimes when I am really into a subject do not translate  my thoughts into words, and this is probably a good example.

 

Thanks for clarifying, it just threw me a bit as it seemed slightly at odds with the rest of your post (a good one as per 👍). You've probably articulated it just fine and I just picked it up that way I did as it was a topic we covered at university about whether targeting Dresden was a terrorist act and could it be justified under international law today (2010 at the time) so I've read it in that way.

[coconut doug]

17 hours ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

I didn't say he was like McGuinness. I said some civilians looked at them both with the same awe. When in fact they were both low life scum bag cowards who fed on peoples fears. His fighting of ISIS was for his own self preservation. Not to save the world.

Mandela and Gandhi were probably two of the most quintessential examples of a freedom fighter you could ever see. Not to mentioned in the same breath as any one of the two murdering terrorists. JMO.  

 

 

No! This is what you said "Martin McGuinness had some type of military title too I believe. Lots of civilians of a certain ilk thought he was something special." The use of the word too reveals that you are saying that in one respect at least they are alike. You are trying to say that because some people regard Mcguiness as having a military title that he actually has one. As far as i can se he does not and never has. Suleimani on the other hand was a military man engaged in the service of his country for most of his adult life. 

 

You also say that Suleimani was fighting for his own self preservation as if there was something wrong with that and castigate him for not fighting to save the world. He was though involved in fighting terrorism in at least three other countries (Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria) so maybe he could claim some service to the wider world. Mandela and Ghandi were primarily if not exclusively involved in struggles within their own countries. Genuine freedom fighters without a doubt but that didn't stop both of them being regarded as terrorists in the UK.

 

If i am to believe that Suleimani is a "low life scumbag coward" i would  like to see some evidence of it. As can be seen from the examples of Ghandi and Mandela the mere designation of terrorist is not enough.

 

 

 

 

[coconut doug]

17 hours ago, bobsharp said:

 

In an unusual situation in todays world Republicans and Democrats in the USA for a start.

You actually in my opinion ruin your whole point by stating you do not care that he is a bad person, that is difficult to understand.

Aiding and abetting certainly a phrase used in Scotland, in my police experience also used in Canada and in training at one of the USA's premiere law enforcement Academy's heard it used there also. Not sure what it would be in other langauges but am pretty sure it will be thus.

There is as you say a feeling particularly that the man needed killing, but so far other than avid Trump supporters no one or very few feel that it was the right thing to do under the reasons Trump and his acolytes have given.

We may have different access to news items, I am retired not particularly ac tive and can spend lots of time listening to news broadcasts and reading reports form entities with normally diverse opinions. I am quite satisfied with what I have been told that this man was although a general in the Iranian army, and high in the political agenda, he did comingle with the less than legal and humane groups. Terrorists etc.

I am not sure the description shafted by North Korea is the best, he has been outmanouvered and strategised by a crafty, cruel, and self  indulgent dictator. He has also been used endlessly by Putin who either has something on him, or he is so witless he cannot see he is being used ruthlessly.

Using the SS as any example of propriety is to be polite absolutely inane. They murdered millions of defenceless people, they carried out the orders but in again I use the term many cases did so for their own profit and personal wealth.

With regards to bombing Dresden, Berlin, Essen the Ruhr were also targets, are were London, Birmingham and Liverpool. Devastating terrible but parts of a war declared, when man gets in to such a conflict they slip into old animal instincts sad but true.

 

The statement i made about my not caring whether Suleimani was a bad person or not, was made because the fundamental point i was making was that he was carrying out orders from his government. I am not aware of any personal adventures he might have had that revealed any sadistic or evil personality traits. If it wasn't Suleimani it would have been somebody else carrying out the orders. That's why i used the comparison of Dresden. Bomber Harris' character is not really the issue.

 

I don't actually agree that the "man needed killing" for one thing i am not sure what he has done to warrant summary jurisdiction of this nature. What has he been accused of and which court found him guilty?

 

I totally understand that finding truth is almost impossible nowadays especially in areas like this but without specifics it seems barbaric and terrorist like to kill somebody in this way especially in the circumstances which led to Suleimani being in Iraq in the first place. Nobody seems to want to pick up on this point so i consider that many see nothing wrong in luring Suleimani to Iraq on false pretences and then killing him with a bomb. Until i see some evidence against Suleimani himself i would regard the actions of the USA as terrorism and an act of war. You shouldn't be allowed to kill people just because you are the USA and that seems to me to be what is happening.

 

You say that you have seen evidence about Suleimani's actions that justify his killing. I wonder what these are. Mingling with less than legal and humane groups including terrorists doesn't cut it for me. Policemen, politicians and the military do that sort of thing all the time. We've just finished an election where the Labour leader has frequently been called a terrorist sympathiser and anti-semite on the back of a few fleeting moments spent in the company of people who may well be anti-semitic or even terrorist smypathisers but it doesn't make Corbyn one of them however much the media might want to spin it that way.

 

I think the NK situation is as you describe. i thought using the word shafted encapsulated it well. I am interested to know why you think Trump's actions reveal that Putin has something on him. Is this not just an extension of the Russiagate nonsense? I personally think Trump is stupid enough and bigoted enough to ruin the positive aspects of US foreign policy all on his own.

 

I'm not using the SS as an example of propriety, merely pointing out that many were only following orders and for some this was enough to excuse them in the trials, for others it was not. I'm certain many were pressurised to behave in ways that were alien to them. Being in the military during a war they would have no opportunity to challenge their orders in any way. Others i'm sure would have relished the power and reveled in their depravity  way beyond the most basal of nearly all animal instincts.

[Sharpie]

You put your case very well, I really only would like to clarify one point. You state I say I have seen evidence of Suleimanis actions. I have read and reread my post and cannot see the words evidence and seen. I did refer to his alleged connections with groups suspected as such and did comment that I believed what was being said about him, but I am pretty sure I did not say I had seen evidence. A minor point, but a point.

[coconut doug]

16 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

You put your case very well, I really only would like to clarify one point. You state I say I have seen evidence of Suleimanis actions. I have read and reread my post and cannot see the words evidence and seen. I did refer to his alleged connections with groups suspected as such and did comment that I believed what was being said about him, but I am pretty sure I did not say I had seen evidence. A minor point, but a point.

 

I have inferred (wrongly) that you had seen or heard some specifics with regard to Suleimani being a terrorist. I apologise for that and as with the other issues raised we seem to have near agreement or at least a sound understanding of each other's views. What do we argue about now?

[Sharpie]

5 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

I have inferred (wrongly) that you had seen or heard some specifics with regard to Suleimani being a terrorist. I apologise for that and as with the other issues raised we seem to have near agreement or at least a sound understanding of each other's views. What do we argue about now?

 

A fairly common expression, "we'll just have to see". Mebbe we will instead be co critics.

[coconut doug]

1 minute ago, bobsharp said:

 

A fairly common expression, "we'll just have to see". Mebbe we will instead be co critics.

 

Criticism and skepticism is healthy, i hope. 

[alwaysthereinspirit]

2 hours ago, coconut doug said:

 

 

No! This is what you said "Martin McGuinness had some type of military title too I believe. Lots of civilians of a certain ilk thought he was something special." The use of the word too reveals that you are saying that in one respect at least they are alike. You are trying to say that because some people regard Mcguiness as having a military title that he actually has one. As far as i can se he does not and never has. Suleimani on the other hand was a military man engaged in the service of his country for most of his adult life. 

 

You also say that Suleimani was fighting for his own self preservation as if there was something wrong with that and castigate him for not fighting to save the world. He was though involved in fighting terrorism in at least three other countries (Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria) so maybe he could claim some service to the wider world. Mandela and Ghandi were primarily if not exclusively involved in struggles within their own countries. Genuine freedom fighters without a doubt but that didn't stop both of them being regarded as terrorists in the UK.

 

If i am to believe that Suleimani is a "low life scumbag coward" i would  like to see some evidence of it. As can be seen from the examples of Ghandi and Mandela the mere designation of terrorist is not enough.

 

 

 

 

That's not fair. You never highlighted the sentence prior. I was trying to point out that wearing a military uniform or having a military type title does not denote trustworthiness or them having morals.

The list is endless of uniform wearing scum. I believe him to be a murderous, cowardly terrorist. You want evidence. I have none for you that'll change your mind. The UN, European Union and Swiss government appeared to though. 

We'll have to beg to differ on this one.

[redjambo]

51 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

Criticism and skepticism is healthy, i hope. 

 

I'm not so sure about that.

[coconut doug]

15 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I'm not so sure about that.

 

I bet you are feeling better already.

[ri Alban]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

I'm not so sure about that.

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, coconut doug said:

 

I bet you are feeling better already.

 

Much better thanks, Doug.

Edited January 14, 2020 by redjambo

[Mikey1874]

 

Edited January 29, 2020 by Mikey1874

[Justin Z]

Just headaches though. Nothing nearly so serious as bone spurs.