US drone strike takes out top Iranian general

[Riccarton3]

7 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

So it was a tragic accident afterall.

It gives me no pleasure whatsoever to have been right about this all along, because 176 people died as a result of this tragic mistake.

Perhaps now all these conspiracy theories can be consigned to the rubbish bin where they belong.

 

I'm glad that Iran has taken the opportunity which had been offered to them, and make no mistakes this is a watershed moment in the history of Iran and the wider Middle East, no country likes to admit they made a huge mistake in shooting down a passenger plane so for Iran to come clean and admit their guilt really is a pivotal moment and just shows the huge pressure the Iranian regime was being put under, not least from within, because most of the dead were their own citizens.

 

It is my hope that some good can come from this tragedly and that all sides can get back around the table and serious dialogue can begin to de-escalate the tensions in the ME, not just right now but in the future.

 

At least now the families of the dead can have some form of closure, they now know how & why their loved ones died.

 Trump's actions have resulted in the death of 176 airline passengers, 50 civilians at a funeral and 1 military commander.

 

You have to laugh at the calls for de-escalation. Can you imagine, if a US military commander was assassinated by Iranian forces, calls for de-escalation?  Or would there be talk of revenge and retribution?

 

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. 

Edited January 11, 2020 by Riccarton3

[ri Alban]

4 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Still waiting on your time 😉

Digital! My batteries have ran oot. God, everything keeps running oot.

[The Real Maroonblood]

11 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

 Trump's actions have resulted in the death of 176 airline passengers, 50 civilians at a funeral and 1 military commander.

 

You have to laugh at the calls for de-escalation. Can you imagine, if a US military commander was assassinated by Iranian forces, calls for de-escalation?  Or would there be talk of revenge and retribution?

 

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. 

Spot on.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

17 minutes ago, Riccarton3 said:

 Trump's actions have resulted in the death of 176 airline passengers, 50 civilians at a funeral and 1 military commander.

 

You have to laugh at the calls for de-escalation. Can you imagine, if a US military commander was assassinated by Iranian forces, calls for de-escalation?  Or would there be talk of revenge and retribution?

 

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. 

Military Commander? Surely on the wind up? 

[Riccarton3]

I can't remember what event it was not so long ago. I expect i was watching BBC news where the correspondent said 'we've no reason to doubt the veracity of claims from American Military High Command'. You might as well switch off.

 

Anyway, here's hoping there can be a solution to the ''Iranian Crisis' or 'Trump Crisis'

[ri Alban]

15 minutes ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Military Commander? Surely on the wind up? 

Why? He was a General in the Iranian Military. I'm quite sure the UK/US use evil groups to attack their enemies, it's not just big bad Russia and Iran. Sorry if this news upsets you.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

Why? He was a General in the Iranian Military. I'm quite sure the UK/US use evil groups to attack their enemies, it's not just big bad Russia and Iran. Sorry if this news upsets you.

Nothing you ever post could upset me.

 

[ri Alban]

Just now, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Nothing you ever post could upset me.

 

Good. 

 

What's the the difference between him and our top brass doing the same? 

[Sharpie]

This whole situation is not at rest. Trump last night tweeting his promise that Iran will never be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Trump needs this to get what in his mind would be a victory to sate the appetite of his base, and hopefully remove Impeachment from the headlines  There is some loosening in the Senate of total loyalty among Republicans even they know this has been a mistake, and that the lies and misinformation and lack of information are undermining any positives. His own DOJ, run by his acolyte Bill Barr have concluded an investigation into Hilary Clinton  and established there was no evidence to support the allegations about Benghazi and E mails. I watched Trump on Fox with one of the women reporters Laura Ingraham who is very much for him. He was telling lies about the Iran situation, she saw it and was trying to guide him away from them. At some point for their own protection and reputation even people like this will see the need to abandon him.

[alwaysthereinspirit]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Good. 

 

What's the the difference between him and our top brass doing the same? 

Doing the same as what?

 

[Maple Leaf]

3 hours ago, alwaysthereinspirit said:

Military Commander? Surely on the wind up? 

 

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

To the Iranians, he was a respected military general following orders; to the Americans he was a terrorist who killed innocents; one view is correct the other wrong, depending on who you ask.

 

During WWII, the UK's deeply admired SAS operated behind enemy lines, disrupting supply lines and communications. They did a wonderful job for the Allies. To the Germans, they were terrorists and any SAS man captured was shot. 

[Mac_fae_Gillie]

11 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

To the Iranians, he was a respected military general following orders; to the Americans he was a terrorist who killed innocents; one view is correct the other wrong, depending on who you ask.

 

During WWII, the UK's deeply admired SAS operated behind enemy lines, disrupting supply lines and communications. They did a wonderful job for the Allies. To the Germans, they were terrorists and any SAS man captured was shot. 

Germans had that rule for all Commando style units, in the Napoleon era it was not uncommon for captured riflemen to be executed or have fingers cut off as using a rifle was seen as wrong again WW2 crews on flamethrower units could be executed due to the horror of the weapon.

I agree this General was nothing more than the point man for Iran in raising Militia and aiding some terror groups he will be replaced, his loss may have dented the help for a short while but it has also given more resolve to this people. I wonder if FOXNEWS think Oliver North is a good target for such a murder??

[Sharpie]

31 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

To the Iranians, he was a respected military general following orders; to the Americans he was a terrorist who killed innocents; one view is correct the other wrong, depending on who you ask.

 

During WWII, the UK's deeply admired SAS operated behind enemy lines, disrupting supply lines and communications. They did a wonderful job for the Allies. To the Germans, they were terrorists and any SAS man captured was shot. 

It was the same for the long Range Desert Group, who many think was the Genesis of the SAS but the SAS  were already in the process of being formed.

[Taffin]

4 hours ago, Riccarton3 said:

 Trump's actions have resulted in the death of 176 airline passengers, 50 civilians at a funeral and 1 military commander.

 

You have to laugh at the calls for de-escalation. Can you imagine, if a US military commander was assassinated by Iranian forces, calls for de-escalation?  Or would there be talk of revenge and retribution?

 

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. 

 

Trump's actions resulted in the the death of Soleimani. What others did in response to that is on them.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Taffin

[Maple Leaf]

4 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

It was the same for the long Range Desert Group, who many think was the Genesis of the SAS but the SAS  were already in the process of being formed.

 

That's correct.  The SAS was envisioned, by David Stirling, as a group who would parachute behind enemy lines, but that proved to be enormously difficult with high casualties.  So they got the LRDG to take them in and out instead, until they developed their own capabilities.

[Sharpie]

50 minutes ago, Maple Leaf said:

 

That's correct.  The SAS was envisioned, by David Stirling, as a group who would parachute behind enemy lines, but that proved to be enormously difficult with high casualties.  So they got the LRDG to take them in and out instead, until they developed their own capabilities.

Of course David Stirling was a Scots Guards officer. So he was used as were those who followed him to men of the highest calibre, who were not only highly efficient but also very modest.😎

[Maple Leaf]

7 minutes ago, bobsharp said:

Of course David Stirling was a Scots Guards officer. So he was used as were those who followed him to men of the highest calibre, who were not only highly efficient but also very modest.😎

 

 

He was also a wee bit eccentric ... another characteristic of the Scots Guards. 

[AlphonseCapone]

2 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

Trump's actions resulted in the the death of Soleimani. What others did in response to that is on them.

 

Agree. Otherwise we get a bit reductio ad adsurdum. I mean if Trump's mum never had him it wouldn't have happened.... 

[Taffin]

15 minutes ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Agree. Otherwise we get a bit reductio ad adsurdum. I mean if Trump's mum never had him it wouldn't have happened.... 

 

Adam and Eve have a lot to answer for.

[Zico]

6 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

Trump's actions resulted in the the death of Soleimani. What others did in response to that is on them.

Nah mate. Get the bacofoil helmet on and it’s Trump caused it cos the yanks shot it down or trump caused it cos he assassinated Soleimani therefore FORCING the Iranians to kill 176 civilians. Either way, Trump bad cos binary thinking. 

There’s a million things to criticise trump about - a total lack of foreign policy strategy being the most pertinent - but the tinfoil hat gang have no capacity to go beyond their black and white way of seeing the world. 

[ri Alban]

13 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

Trump's actions resulted in the the death of Soleimani. What others did in response to that is on them.

Yes and No. Chain reaction/Butterfly effect springs to mind. 

A case of the what ifs. What if he didn't assassinate, what if it was a bomber, what if we could all just get along.

 

You can blame me for punching you just because you punched me. I'm sorry I missed you and hit your Brother who then punched my wife, and so on.

 

Keep your hands to yourself.

Edited January 12, 2020 by ri Alban

[OBE]

13 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Agree. Otherwise we get a bit reductio ad adsurdum. I mean if Trump's mum never had him it wouldn't have happened.... 

 

Two sentences, the second explaining the first, nae need! We've all got a firm grasp of Swahili...

 

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Old Blue Eyes

[Taffin]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Yes and No. Chain reaction/Butterfly effect springs to mind. 

A case of the what ifs. What if he didn't assassinate, what if it was a bomber, what if we could all just get along.

 

You can blame me for punching you just because you punched me. I'm sorry I missed you and hit your Brother who then punched my wife, and so on.

 

Keep your hands to yourself.

 

We're all only responsible for our own actions imo.

[ri Alban]

3 hours ago, Taffin said:

 

We're all only responsible for our own actions imo.

If I attack you and you kill me defending yourself. Are you responsible? Considering If i just jumped in the taxi instead of...

[Taffin]

7 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

If I attack you and you kill me defending yourself. Are you responsible? Considering If i just jumped in the taxi instead of...

 

For my actions, yes, though it may well be that the circumstances would give me a defence in the eyes of the law. 

 

It's a poor example though as neither the funeral nor the airline deaths were a result of Iran defending themselves from an attack.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Taffin

[ri Alban]

16 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

For my actions, yes, though it may well be that the circumstances would give me a defence in the eyes of the law. 

 

It's a poor example though as neither the funeral nor the airline deaths were a result of Iran defending themselves from an attack.

Well that's up for debate. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were hardly self defense either.

[Taffin]

Just now, ri Alban said:

Well that's up for debate. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were hardly self defense either.

 

Okay, debate it then. In what way was public disorder and shooting down a Ukrainian passenger aircraft self defence? What threat were those actions mitigating?

 

 

[JackLadd]

Trump was threatening to bomb Iranian culture and heritage last week and now he's at one with the 'great Iranian people'. No contradictions with Trump. 

[Mikey1874]

42 minutes ago, JackLadd said:

Trump was threatening to bomb Iranian culture and heritage last week and now he's at one with the 'great Iranian people'. No contradictions with Trump. 

 

The US sanctions are devastating the economy. 

 

Causing real misery for ordinary people. 

[Sharpie]

1 hour ago, ri Alban said:

Well that's up for debate. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were hardly self defense either.

Perhaps not so in the case of direct contact, but the decision to make atomic war was the fear that the Japanese would never surrender and be a constant threat. This to some extent was proven reasonable when for many years after all hostilities ceased there were still units of the Japanese army on islands unaware the war was over and prepared to fight if they felt challenged. It was also feared that the Japanese would not succumb to invasion of their homeland and again the huge loss of life was inevitable. Little to be honest comparison with the present situation.

[Sharpie]

16 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

The US sanctions are devastating the economy. 

 

Causing real misery for ordinary people. 

 

Mnuchin on TV today conceding that Iran are selling 70% of their unsanctioned oil to China, and it is also suggested that it may be more by bypassing the sanctions.

[Seymour M Hersh]

I say government loyalists have opened fire on anti government protesters in Tehran. Probably Trumps fault though. 

[Sharpie]

5 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

I say government loyalists have opened fire on anti government protesters in Tehran. Probably Trumps fault though. 

 

Not his fault, but he has sent out in Iranian a pro protesters Tweet, admonishing the government and asking them not to kill demonstrators. He hasn't caused the problem but mebbe not the best for he particularly to be commenting. But its a free world, if you live in the right part.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

4 hours ago, bobsharp said:

Perhaps not so in the case of direct contact, but the decision to make atomic war was the fear that the Japanese would never surrender and be a constant threat. This to some extent was proven reasonable when for many years after all hostilities ceased there were still units of the Japanese army on islands unaware the war was over and prepared to fight if they felt challenged. It was also feared that the Japanese would not succumb to invasion of their homeland and again the huge loss of life was inevitable. Little to be honest comparison with the present situation.

 

Hiroo Onoda was the last to surrender in 1974 in the Philippine Jungle, almost 30 years after the end of WWII.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

11 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

I say government loyalists have opened fire on anti government protesters in Tehran. Probably Trumps fault though. 

 

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

[ri Alban]

6 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

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

Aye you're right, it's never our fault. Invading countries, backing rebels, dropping propaganda, no it's never our fault. And how dare these peasants hit back. Don't they know we only want to build them roads and railways, then take all their shit(assets) so it does burden them. Then we'll make some movies about it and fed all our people the news of how these ungrateful Terrorists don't want our help. 👍 

 

Seems it's always Russia's fault, tho???

Maybe it's Putin who wants his hands on that big feck off new oil field under Iran.

[ri Alban]

10 hours ago, bobsharp said:

Perhaps not so in the case of direct contact, but the decision to make atomic war was the fear that the Japanese would never surrender and be a constant threat. This to some extent was proven reasonable when for many years after all hostilities ceased there were still units of the Japanese army on islands unaware the war was over and prepared to fight if they felt challenged. It was also feared that the Japanese would not succumb to invasion of their homeland and again the huge loss of life was inevitable. Little to be honest comparison with the present situation.

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]

31 minutes 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. 

 

You didn't direct this at me, but as I pointed out above, a massive chunk of both tort/delict and criminal law simply wouldn't work if legally, the effects of our actions ended the moment we committed them.

[ri Alban]

4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

You didn't direct this at me, but as I pointed out above, a massive chunk of both tort/delict and criminal law simply wouldn't work if legally, the effects of our actions ended the moment we committed them.

👍 Can you expand on that, please. Based on your knowledge and Bob's, it may give me a different view on everything.

[Justin Z]

Just now, ri Alban said:

👍 Can you expand on that, please. Based on your knowledge and Bob's, it may give me a different view on everything.

 

A legal concept which applies in both tort/delict and many crimes, definitionally, is the idea of "proximate cause". For example--you aren't paying attention travelling north and the signal changes to red and you don't see it until you are too close to the intersection. You brake late, but your nose sticks into the intersection, and a car coming from the east panics a bit and swerves far more than he needed to--he probably didn't need to at all, but he needed to make a quick decision under pressure. This causes the car to lose control, and it spins and hits another car.

 

Would you be found liable in tort/delict for the damage done both to the swerving car, and the car it hit? Yes, absolutely. There would be a decision made on to what percentage of the fault lies with you for braking too late, and what percentage of the fault lies with the other driver for overreacting to you slightly entering the intersection. A common formulation is "but for your carelessly braking hard into the intersection, the other driver would never have hit a stationary auto".

 

Legal debate over when proximate cause becomes too attenuated and distant will continue forever because ultimately, it is a subjective notion. But I have a very hard time taking on any disagreement with the statement that "but for Donald Trump's actions in heightening tensions in Iran, from ordering the killing of one of its military leaders to chest thumping about destroying its cultural sites, a civilian plane would not have been accidentally shot down because of a mistaken decision under pressure almost immediately thereafter".

[ri Alban]

6 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

A legal concept which applies in both tort/delict and many crimes, definitionally, is the idea of "proximate cause". For example--you aren't paying attention travelling north and the signal changes to red and you don't see it until you are too close to the intersection. You brake late, but your nose sticks into the intersection, and a car coming from the east panics a bit and swerves far more than he needed to--he probably didn't need to at all, but he needed to make a quick decision under pressure. This causes the car to lose control, and it spins and hits another car.

 

Would you be found liable in tort/delict for the damage done both to the swerving car, and the car it hit? Yes, absolutely. There would be a decision made on to what percentage of the fault lies with you for braking too late, and what percentage of the fault lies with the other driver for overreacting to you slightly entering the intersection. A common formulation is "but for your carelessly braking hard into the intersection, the other driver would never have hit a stationary auto".

 

Legal debate over when proximate cause becomes too attenuated and distant will continue forever because ultimately, it is a subjective notion. But I have a very hard time taking on any disagreement with the statement that "but for Donald Trump's actions in heightening tensions in Iran, from ordering the killing of one of its military leaders to chest thumping about destroying its cultural sites, a civilian plane would not have been accidentally shot down because of a mistaken decision under pressure almost immediately thereafter".

Thanks JZ. I don't mean to sound like broken record, but I'm a bit sick of this shit happening. I wish they'd all put the same effort into getting along, that they do hating each other. I know it's internal sometimes, but we don't miss a trick when getting out the big spoon to stir the shit.

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, ri Alban said:

Thanks JZ. I don't mean to sound like broken record, but I'm a bit sick of this shit happening. I wish they'd all put the same effort into getting along, that they do hating each other. I know it's internal sometimes, but we don't miss a trick when getting out the big spoon to stir the shit.

 

No, we do not, and the popular notion that the middle east would be war torn anyway with or without "the West's" intervention--a notion that ignores centuries of imperialism and its effects--is just not a realistic one.

[ri Alban]

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

No, we do not, and the popular notion that the middle east would be war torn anyway with or without "the West's" intervention--a notion that ignores centuries of imperialism and its effects--is just not a realistic one.

[Taffin]

I'm probably confusing accountability and responsibility as being honest I don't fully grasp the difference.

 

In regards Justin Zs analogy I'd say both drivers were 100% responsible for their own actions that led to the crash but that the responsibility for the crash itself was shared between them (what share? I don't know).

 

Again though, it's not really applicable in this situation. It would be more in line with Iran shooting the missile aimed at Soleimani out of the sky and the fragmentation injuring some innocent collateral. Their blame is diminished as their actions were mitigating a direct threat but they're still responsible for taking that action.

 

This situation in a car analogy is more like one of your family being killed by a drunk driver then you killing your uncle at the wake as your angry about it despite him having nothing to do with it and then laying stingers across the motorway in fear that the next driver to come along the road is also a drunk driver. None of that would make any sense whatsoever and you'd be solely responsible for that.

 

Again all just in my opinion. Apologies if I'm not articulating it very well either...or equally you just don't agree with is cool 👍👍

Edited January 13, 2020 by Taffin

[Jambo-Jimbo]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Aye you're right, it's never our fault. Invading countries, backing rebels, dropping propaganda, no it's never our fault. And how dare these peasants hit back. Don't they know we only want to build them roads and railways, then take all their shit(assets) so it does burden them. Then we'll make some movies about it and fed all our people the news of how these ungrateful Terrorists don't want our help. 👍 

 

Seems it's always Russia's fault, tho???

Maybe it's Putin who wants his hands on that big feck off new oil field under Iran.

 

I never said it's never 'our fault', the issue in question is the current situation in Iran and the shooting down of the Ukrainian passenger plane.

 

The West is as culpable as anyone else is when it come to all the things you list above, I've never ever disputed that.

[Justin Z]

11 minutes ago, Taffin said:

I'm probably confusing accountability and responsibility as being honest I don't fully grasp the difference.

 

In regards Justin Zs analogy I'd say both drivers were 100% responsible for their own actions that led to the crash but that the responsibility for the crash itself was shared between them (what share? I don't know).

 

Again though, it's not really applicable in this situation. It would be more in line with Iran shooting the missile aimed at Soleimani out of the sky and the fragmentation injuring some innocent collateral. Their blame is diminished as their actions were mitigating a direct threat but they're still responsible for taking that action.

 

This situation in a car analogy is more like one of your family being killed by a drunk driver then you killing your uncle at the wake as your angry about it despite him having nothing to do with it and then laying stingers across the motorway in fear that the next driver to come along the road is also a drunk driver. None of that would make any sense whatsoever and you'd be solely responsible for that.

 

Again all just in my opinion. Apologies if I'm not articulating it very well either...or equally you just don't agree with is cool 👍👍

 

Your analogy is certainly an example of things that are too attenuated to be deemed proximate causes in any legal system I'm aware of, and you'd be fully responsible in the eyes of the law. But the legal veneer doesn't really matter, and I wasn't meaning to turn this into a "would Trump be legally responsible in court" debate. It was just for the sake of illustration. What I've taken issue with is the overarching idea behind these objections to Trump's shared culpability--that actions don't have consequences, often consequences we cannot predict. And that another agent acting in the interstitial period between the initial action and the ultimate consequences cancels, entirely, the culpability of the initial actor.

 

Maybe yeah, if we wanted to get really deep into the subtleties between accountability and responsibility, that might clarify things further, I dunno. But culpability ought to be the focus, which is different still.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Justin Z

[ri Alban]

10 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I never said it's never 'our fault', the issue in question is the current situation in Iran and the shooting down of the Ukrainian passenger plane.

 

The West is as culpable as anyone else is when it come to all the things you list above, I've never ever disputed that.

Sorry was not having a go. Just a we rant. Apologies JJ.

[Taffin]

10 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Your analogy is certainly an example of things that are too attenuated to be deemed proximate causes in any legal system I'm aware of, and you'd be fully responsible in the eyes of the law. But the legal veneer doesn't really matter, and I wasn't meaning to turn this into a "would Trump be legally responsible in court" debate. It was just for the sake of illustration. What I've taken issue with is the overarching idea behind these objections to Trump's shared culpability--that actions don't have consequences, often consequences we cannot predict. And that another agent acting in the interstitial period between the initial action and the ultimate consequences cancels, entirely, the culpability of the initial actor.

 

Maybe yeah, if we wanted to get really deep into the subtleties between accountability and responsibility, that might clarify things further, I dunno. But culpability ought to be the focus, which is different still.

 

 

My statement that we are only responsible for our own actions was simplistic as shown by the examples given since but in this situation 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.

 

What would be your thoughts on this adapted statement you said you had no issue with in the form it was when you wrote it:

 

but for Soleimani's actions causing the US to feel he was posing a risk to their citizens, "Donald Trump's actions in heightening tensions in Iran, from ordering the killing of one of its military leaders to chest thumping about destroying its cultural sites, a civilian plane would not have been accidentally shot down because of a mistaken decision under pressure almost immediately thereafter".

 

For clarity, I think Trump is a fool and I don't agree with his actions in this whole situation; I just don't believe he's responsible for the deaths that followed (culpable is maybe the correct word rather than responsible). Surely the alternative is a 'he said, she said' all the way back to the start of unrest in the middle East of people denying responsibility because some other nasty man did something first.

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Taffin

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

but for Soleimani's actions causing the US to feel he was posing a risk to their citizens, "Donald Trump's actions in heightening tensions in Iran, from ordering the killing of one of its military leaders to chest thumping about destroying its cultural sites, a civilian plane would not have been accidentally shot down because of a mistaken decision under pressure almost immediately thereafter"

 

Right, exactly. We can step it back further, and then further, and then further--like I said earlier, the debate rages on in law as to where the fuzzy line is when we say "alright, that's too far back".

 

11 minutes ago, Taffin said:

What would be your thoughts on this adapted statement

 

I would take issue only with the implicit assumption in your amendment, that Soleimani's actions actually caused the US to feel that he posed a risk to their citizens. That is what the US claims, sure, but can we presume the truth of it? A rhetorical question just for the sake of this, not one that can really be answered completely.

 

Spot on in the idea of your formulation, so now with your addition, we have three discrete steps/sets of actions. How far back can we ultimately go, and what else do we take into account? Trump's reputation for erratic speech and unpredictable behaviour? In a court case you could argue that both ways, my side could say "Yeah, he looks like he's wild eyed and capable of anything to the Iranians with these tweets threatening to violate human rights laws, immediately after the violation of their sovereignty he committed, so of course their guys were edgy and that contributed to the tragedy unfolding." Your counter might be "Trump blusters and bloviates all the time, there's no reason for anyone to take him seriously when he says things like that, it's just what he does". And around and around we'd go until a judge and/or jury told us which one of us was right. Or worse, reached a verdict neither of us was happy with, which would probably mean they'd gotten it right

 

15 minutes ago, Taffin said:

For clarity, I think Trump is a fool and I don't agree with his actions in this whole situation; I just don't believe he's responsible for the deaths that follows (culpable is maybe the correct word). Surely the alternative is a 'he said, she said' all the way back to the start of unrest in the middle East of people denying responsibility because some other nasty man did something first.

 

And here's another key in this morass. You really didn't need to clarify you think Trump's a fool; even if you didn't, in the sense of your argument, it shouldn't matter. Same as I ought not to have to clarify I think Soleimani was a bad guy too. Thankfully, you're the sort to keep to the issues, and I appreciate it.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

18 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Sorry was not having a go. Just a we rant. Apologies JJ.

 

All cool 👍