Iran Situation

[*bfine32*]

(01-16-2020, 11:01 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: This is from the United States Code . . .

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title18/part1/chapter113B&edition=prelim

4) the term "act of war" means any act occurring in the course of—
(A) declared war;
(B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or
© armed conflict between military forces of any origin;

You don’t need to intend to start a war with armed conflict for it to meet the US government’s definition of act of war.

If a government uses a military drone to kill a general in another country’s military that meets the definition of act of war. At least according to our government.

But, that won’t stop some folks from only focusing one aspect of the definition while completely ignoring the rest of the definition.

We got that definition way back in post 382 and it was addressed, , but thanks for suggesting some folks will ignore it. 

None of that describes an elimination of a leader of a terrorist organization. In a third country. 

But that wont stop folks from talking out of their 4th point of contact. 

But as you're the expert of what constitutes an Acts of War (other than Dill and Fred). Was the "Act of War" against Iran or Iraq? 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-16-2020, 11:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We got that definition way back in post 382 and it was addressed, , but thanks for suggesting some folks will ignore it. 

Oh, so you've already been enlightened thus proving you are ignoring the definition while insinuating your aren't ignoring the information.  Classic bfine.

Quote:None of that describes an elimination of a leader of a terrorist organization. In a third country. 

McChrystal described the Quds as a cross between the CIA and JSOC.  Patraeus described Soleimani as " the equivalent in U.S. terms of the CIA director, CENTCOM commander, JSOC commander, and presidential envoy for the region for Iran."  Soleimani was a member of Iran's military no matter how much you want to throw around terms like "terrorist organization."  So Soleimani occupied the same position as McChrystal as JSOC commander and Patraeus as CIA director combined.  The US killing Soleimani is like Iran killing both McChrystal and Patraeus.  And the same people claiming this wasn't an act of war would be the same ones claiming it is an act of war if Iran had assassinated McChrystal and Patraeus while they were still in those positions.

Our nation's government directed our nation's military to use a military weapons system to kill a general from another country's military.  The second nation's government directed their military to shoot missiles at out military in retaliation for our military strike.  That's armed conflict between two militaries of two nations which is our government's definition of act of war.

The US doesn't have the legal right to conduct military strikes within the borders of a third party sovereign nation without that country's consent unless there is evidence of an imminent attack (clear and present danger).  Which these bumbling fools have made clearly evident they had neither.

Quote:But that wont stop folks from talking out of their 4th point of contact. 

No shit since you've been doing it since at least "post 382."

Quote:But as you're the expert of what constitutes an Acts of War (other than Dill and Fred). Was the "Act of War" against Iran or Iraq? 

Not an expert.  Just an ordinary guy who can read and understand four lines of English from the United States Code.

I believe Iran considers the assassination of one of their military leaders as an act of war since they are the ones that fired missiles at our military in retaliation for our military strike on their military.  Some folks might confuse that with an "expert" opinion, but really it's just common sense.

[*bfine32*]

(01-17-2020, 12:42 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Oh, so you've already been enlightened thus proving you are ignoring the definition while insinuating your aren't ignoring the information.  Classic bfine.


McChrystal described the Quds as a cross between the CIA and JSOC.  Patraeus described Soleimani as " the equivalent in U.S. terms of the CIA director, CENTCOM commander, JSOC commander, and presidential envoy for the region for Iran."  Soleimani was a member of Iran's military no matter how much you want to throw around terms like "terrorist organization."  So Soleimani occupied the same position as McChrystal as JSOC commander and Patraeus as CIA director combined.  The US killing Soleimani is like Iran killing both McChrystal and Patraeus.  And the same people claiming this wasn't an act of war would be the same ones claiming it is an act of war if Iran had assassinated McChrystal and Patraeus while they were still in those positions.

Our nation's government directed our nation's military to use a military weapons system to kill a general from another country's military.  The second nation's government directed their military to shoot missiles at out military in retaliation for our military strike.  That's armed conflict between two militaries of two nations which is our government's definition of act of war.

The US doesn't have the legal right to conduct military strikes within the borders of a third party sovereign nation without that country's consent unless there is evidence of an imminent attack (clear and present danger).  Which these bumbling fools have made clearly evident they had neither.


No shit since you've been doing it since at least "post 382."


Not an expert.  Just an ordinary guy who can read and understand four lines of English from the United States Code.

I believe Iran considers the assassination of one of their military leaders as an act of war since they are the ones that fired missiles at our military in retaliation for our military strike on their military.  Some folks might confuse that with an "expert" opinion, but really it's just common sense.

The United States has classified the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
https://www.state.gov/designation-of-the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps/

• On April 15, the IRGC will be added to the State Department’s FTO list, which includes 67 other terrorist organizations including Hizballah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Kata’ib Hizballah, and al-Ashtar Brigades.
• The IRGC FTO designation highlights that Iran is an outlaw regime that uses terrorism as a key tool of statecraft and that the IRGC, part of Iran’s official military, has engaged in terrorist activity or terrorism since its inception 40 years ago.
• The IRGC has been directly involved in terrorist plotting; its support for terrorism is foundational and institutional, and it has killed U.S. citizens. It is also responsible for taking hostages and wrongfully detaining numerous U.S. persons, several of whom remain in captivity in Iran today.
• The Iranian regime has made a clear choice not only to fund and equip, but also to fuel terrorism, violence, and unrest across the Middle East and around the world at the expense of its own people.
• The Iranian regime is responsible for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq since 2003. This accounts for 17% of all deaths of U.S. personnel in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, and is in addition to the many thousands of Iraqis killed by the IRGC’s proxies.
• This action is a significant step forward in our maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian regime. We will continue to increase financial pressure and raise the costs on the Iranian regime for its support of terrorist activities until Tehran abandons this unacceptable behavior.
  

What an individual here or there considers them does not change that simple fact. And I've mentioned numerous times: It does matter have Iran thinks. They have attacked innocent Americans for a number of reason in the past. Should we consider those reasons Acts of War?

But just like Fred and let you and your common sense keep thinking this was an Act of War.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-17-2020, 12:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The United States has classified the IRGC as a terrorist organization.
https://www.state.gov/designation-of-the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps/

• On April 15, the IRGC will be added to the State Department’s FTO list, which includes 67 other terrorist organizations including Hizballah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Kata’ib Hizballah, and al-Ashtar Brigades.
• The IRGC FTO designation highlights that Iran is an outlaw regime that uses terrorism as a key tool of statecraft and that the IRGC, part of Iran’s official military, has engaged in terrorist activity or terrorism since its inception 40 years ago.
• The IRGC has been directly involved in terrorist plotting; its support for terrorism is foundational and institutional, and it has killed U.S. citizens. It is also responsible for taking hostages and wrongfully detaining numerous U.S. persons, several of whom remain in captivity in Iran today.
• The Iranian regime has made a clear choice not only to fund and equip, but also to fuel terrorism, violence, and unrest across the Middle East and around the world at the expense of its own people.
• The Iranian regime is responsible for the deaths of at least 603 American service members in Iraq since 2003. This accounts for 17% of all deaths of U.S. personnel in Iraq from 2003 to 2011, and is in addition to the many thousands of Iraqis killed by the IRGC’s proxies.
• This action is a significant step forward in our maximum pressure campaign against the Iranian regime. We will continue to increase financial pressure and raise the costs on the Iranian regime for its support of terrorist activities until Tehran abandons this unacceptable behavior.
  

What an individual here or there considers them does not change that simple fact. And I've mentioned numerous times: It does matter have Iran thinks. They have attacked innocent Americans for a number of reason in the past. Should we consider those reasons Acts of War?

But just like Fred and let you and your common sense keep thinking this was an Act of War.

And the Iranian government has classified CENTCOM as a terrorist organization and the killing of Soleimani an act of terror.

So what’s this mean? The Trump administration is just as bat shit crazy as the Iranian leadership. Interestingly, the United Nations hasn’t designated either organization a terrorist group. Why? Because they’re military organizations.

Enough with the bullshit already.

[*bfine32*]

(01-18-2020, 12:36 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And the Iranian government has classified CENTCOM as a terrorist organization and the killing of Soleimani an act of terror.

So what’s this mean? The Trump administration is just as bat shit crazy as the Iranian leadership. Interestingly, the United Nations hasn’t designated either organization a terrorist group. Why? Because they’re military organizations.

Enough with the bullshit already.

I have no doubt that you, Fred, and many Iranians consider it an Act of War. 

[Benton]

(01-18-2020, 01:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no doubt that you, Fred, and many Iranians consider it an Act of War. 

Is that even debatable?

Soleimani was assassinated. He wasn't killed in battle, he wasn't killed resisting detainment. From the sound of things, he wasn't even killed to prevent a known attack against the US. There's a handful of questions on legality there, but I don't see how there's any question that it was an act of war. 

I think it falls under the same kind of logic as getting punched in the nose. The one getting punched can call it assault or chose not to; the one punching can't say it was just involuntary nasal reconstruction.

And, to most people, it doesn't matter. I think most people realize Solemaini was a killer and the Iranians don't seem to have any issue killing Americans. But it does matter to our allies. If we allow the POTUS to go around randomly assassinating people, then we potentially bring those allies into conflict, too. Which makes it harder to maintain those relationships. And those ties should be what we're working toward, not severing. Our national debt is approaching levels they don't have names for, largely because we're cutting taxes and engaging in more fighting; having allies working to deal with problems like Soleimani is more effective than hoping Joe the Plumber can work the next 50+ years to afford the bombs we used.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(01-18-2020, 01:19 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no doubt that you, Fred, and many Iranians consider it an Act of War. 

And I have no doubt you have nothing better to occupy your time than invent delusional definitions like a military strike that killed a general in a foreign military isn’t an act of war because they didn’t mean to start a war. Hell, by that definition they entire invasion and occupation of Iraq wasn’t an act of war because we didn’t mean to start a war. I’ve read some silly arguments around here, but Jesus . . .

If Iran launched missiles at our bases in Iraq I guarantee you a Trump boot licker would call that an act of war.

[GMDino]

Narrator:  All was not well.

REPORTER: Initially you said Iran's relation for Soleimani didn't injure anyone. We now know 11 service members were airlifted. Can you explain?

TRUMP: I can report it's not very serious

R: You don't consider a potential brain injury serious?

TRUMP: Ah, you'd have to ask DoD pic.twitter.com/jtHTx87fyb

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 22, 2020

[GMDino]

Nobody cares more about the troops than Trump! 

Trump said he was told troops "had headaches" from the Iranian attack - not "serious." Asked if he doesn't consider potential brain injuries serious: "No, I don't consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I've seen," as with people without limbs.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 22, 2020

 

[GMDino]

(01-22-2020, 11:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: Nobody cares more about the troops than Trump! 

Trump said he was told troops "had headaches" from the Iranian attack - not "serious." Asked if he doesn't consider potential brain injuries serious: "No, I don't consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I've seen," as with people without limbs.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) January 22, 2020

 

Trump on January 8: “We suffered no casualties, all of our soldiers are safe.”

Pentagon today: Actually 34 troops suffered brain injuries https://t.co/lPZYqPofUj

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 24, 2020

[GMDino]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/06/world/middleeast/iraq-iran-hezbollah-evidence.html?auth=login-google

Quote:The white Kia pickup turned off the desert road and rumbled onto a dirt track, stopping near a marsh. Soon there was a flash and a ripping sound as the first of the rockets fired from the truck soared toward Iraq’s K-1 military base.


The rockets wounded six people and killed an American contractor, setting off a chain of events that brought the United States and Iran to the brink of war.

The United States blamed an Iraqi militia with close ties to Iran and bombed five of the group’s bases. Angry Iraqis then stormed the American Embassy. The United States then killed Iran’s top general. Iran then fired missiles at American forces and mistakenly shot down a passenger jet, killing 176 people.

But Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised doubts about who fired the rockets that started the spiral of events, saying they believe it is unlikely that the militia the United States blamed for the attack, Khataib Hezbollah, carried it out.

Iraqi officials acknowledge that they have no direct evidence tying the Dec. 27 rocket attack to one group or another. And elements of Iraq’s security forces have close ties to Iran, which might make them reluctant to blame an Iranian-linked force.

American officials insist that they have solid evidence that Khataib Hezbollah carried out the attack, though they have not made it public.

Iraqi officials say their doubts are based on circumstantial evidence and long experience in the area where the attack took place.

The rockets were launched from a Sunni Muslim part of Kirkuk Province notorious for attacks by the Islamic State, a Sunni terrorist group, which would have made the area hostile territory for a Shiite militia like Khataib Hezbollah.

Khataib Hezbollah has not had a presence in Kirkuk Province since 2014.

The Islamic State, however, had carried out three attacks relatively close to the base in the 10 days before the attack on K-1. Iraqi intelligence officials sent reports to the Americans in November and December warning that ISIS intended to target K-1, an Iraqi air base in Kirkuk Province that is also used by American forces.

And the abandoned Kia pickup was found was less than 1,000 feet from the site of an ISIS execution in September of five Shiite buffalo herders.

These facts all point to the Islamic State, Iraqi officials say.

“All the indications are that it was Daesh,” said Brig. General Ahmed Adnan, the Iraqi chief of intelligence for the federal police at K-1, using the Arabic acronym for the Islamic State. “I told you about the three incidents in the days just before in the area — we know Daesh’s movements.

“We as Iraqi forces cannot even come to this area unless we have a large force because it is not secure. How could it be that someone who doesn’t know the area could come here and find that firing position and launch an attack?”

Khataib Hezbollah has denied responsibility for the attack, and no group has claimed it.

American officials, however, said they had multiple strands of intelligence indicating that Khataib Hezbollah carried it out.

American investigators examined the Kia pickup, which yielded evidence that helped attribute the attack to Khataib Hezbollah, two American officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters. They did not say what about the truck connected it to the group.

One American official said they also had intercepted communications showing the group’s involvement.


The American officials said that there had been 11 rocket attacks in November and December against Iraqi bases used by American or coalition forces. One official said that for more than half of those attacks, including the Dec. 27 attack, the United States had high confidence that Khataib Hezbollah was responsible.

The United States has not presented any of its intelligence publicly. Nor has it shared the intelligence with Iraq.

“We have requested the American side to share with us any information, any evidence, but they have not sent us any information,” Lt. Gen. Muhammad al-Bayati, the chief of staff for former Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi, said in an interview.

The director general of Iraqi Intelligence and Counterterrorism, Abu Ali al-Basri, said the United States did not consult Iraq before carrying out the Dec. 29 counterattacks on Khataib Hezbollah.

“They did not ask for my analysis of what happened in Kirkuk and neither did they share any of their information,” he said. “Usually, they would do both.”

Despite the fact that American and Iraqi forces work side by side on counterterrorism, American intelligence and defense officials said that the United States does not always share sensitive intelligence with Iraq because Iranian operatives have penetrated the Baghdad government and will feed intelligence to Tehran.

Iraqi intelligence officials said it was difficult to assess the American assertions without seeing the American intelligence.

They said they saw nothing unusual about the truck or the rockets used in the Dec. 27 attack that would have connected them to Khataib Hezbollah. The truck was a standard Kia pickup, except that its bed had been fitted with rocket launchers, they said. The rockets — 107 mm katyushas — are used by all sides in Iraq.

General Adnan said he delivered the truck to the Americans, and that American investigators removed any rocket fragments and one unexploded rocket from the Iraqi side of the base, so it would be difficult for the Iraqis to conduct a deeper forensic investigation of their own.

One discrepancy in the intelligence concerns the number of rockets fired. The Americans said that 31 rockets were fired.

Iraqi witnesses, including General Adnan, who was the first to reach the truck, counted 11.

Several Iraqi officers on the K-1 base thought there might have been as many as 16 but definitely not 31.

[GMDino]

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-says-wont-change-his-mind-on-troop-brain-injuries-2020-2?fbclid=IwAR368x3hSUY_zOC2zSm4ywK6BXKDhAzYZZ7OV7lCB4X0LAhFAVtYyrlIK7I

Quote:President Donald Trump on Monday doubled down on his assertion that the injuries suffered by US troops during an Iranian missile attack on US forces are "not very serious."


Retaliating for the death of Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani at the hands of the US military, Iran fired over a dozen ballistic missiles at US and coalition forces in Iraq in early January. In the immediate aftermath, the president announced that "no Americans were harmed" and moved to de-escalate tensions.


Since then, the number of US troops diagnosed with mild traumatic brain injuries has steadily risen to 109, the Pentagon said on Monday.


Symptoms of a TBI can be slow to manifest and sometimes harder to detect than other injuries. The Department of Defense has offered this as an explanation for initial misreporting on injuries.


While roughly 70% of the injured troops, many of which were taken out of Iraq for care, have already returned to duty, 21 have been transported to the US for additional treatment, suggesting their injuries may be more severe.

In an interview with Fox Business on Monday, the president said he didn't think the Iranians "were looking to do too much damage, because they knew what the consequences were going to be."


"I saw the missiles. We saw them going ... They landed in a way that they didn't hit anybody," Trump told Fox Business' Trish Regan.


The president said that he "stopped something that would have been very devastating for" the Iranians, an apparent reference to US de-escalation in the aftermath of the attack.


"And then a couple of weeks later I started hearing about people having to do with trauma, head trauma," he said. 
"That exists. But it's, you know, I viewed it a little bit differently than most, and I won't be changing my mind on that."

Toward the end of January, when the number of troops who had been diagnosed with mild TBIs had increased, Trump told reporters that the injuries were "not very serious."


"I heard that they had headaches and a couple of other things, but I would say and I can report that it's not very serious," he told reporters in Davos, Switzerland. "I don't consider them very serious injuries relative to other injuries that I've seen."


While it remains unclear exactly how severe the injuries are, veterans groups and TBI-awareness advocates have sharply criticized the president's comments.


The Veterans of Foreign Wars said in a statement in January that it "expects an apology from the president to our service men and women for his misguided remarks."



"We ask that he and the White House join with us in our efforts to educate Americans of the dangers TBI has on these heroes as they protect our great nation in these trying times. Our warriors require our full support more than ever in this challenging environment."

He's an idiot.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

Yeah, all these services members MEDEVACed back to the states with “minor” head injuries trying to make Trump look like a liar are very insubordinate. Probably should be demoted to parking lot attendants.

[jj22]

When you bluff and get your bluff called ending up losing a mini war you started, you get what we are seeing today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/world/middleeast/us-troops-killed-iraq-rocket-attack.html

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/487246-pentagon-all-options-are-on-the-table-after-iran-backed-rocket-attack-kills