Iran Situation

[GMDino]

(01-06-2020, 10:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Dude’s an embarrassment.  I get if you are concerned that this could turn into something bad, but to think killing this POS is picking on brown people is ridiculous.

Don't know why he went there.  I do know now that he did Trump supporters like Lindsey Graham are trying to use him as a distracting from the war crimes that Trump tweeted he will do.

Maybe we can ignore the fringe people when it comes to stuff like that and actually focus on the POTUS claiming his tweets are policy and legally binding?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I see a news headline: Bombers sent near Iran

So I check out an article and read that the bombers were sent to Diego Garcia. So then I wonder how close Diego Garcia is to say... Tehran. Look it up and it's over 3,250 miles away. 3,250+ miles away is "near Iran?" Keep in mind that New York City is 2,450 miles away from Los Angeles, and this is 800 miles FURTHER away than that. Diego Garcia is roughly as far away from Tehran as New York City is to London. Nobody would say "bombers sent near London" if they were stationed in New York City.

Goddamn could the news be fear mongering any harder right now? I have seen a couple articles talking about the draft (lol) and another with "watch TERRIFYING moment as flag is raised" about that red flag over the mosque. Over a flag being raised.

The fear mongering is in full force by the media.

[Belsnickel]

(01-07-2020, 02:24 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Trump Tweets "We're gonna bomb Iran's Cultural sites"

Pompeo "Trump didn't say we're gonna bomb cultural sites"

Esper "We will not bomb cultural sites"

Trump "Yes we are gonna bomb cultural sites"

One day folks...all in one day pic.twitter.com/TsCDbgUtNd

— ?Liberal Puppy? (@liberalpuppy) January 7, 2020

 

It should be noted that targeting cultural sites is a war crime. Trump has stated to the international community that he is willing to commit war crimes.

[CJD]

(01-06-2020, 10:06 PM)Dill Wrote: I would urge my liberal friends, especially those inclined to observe and analyze before judging, to think more critically about claims that Soleimani was "responsible for/planning American deaths" in any sense other than military leaders generally are/do.  I'll add that the designation "terrorist" was already problematic before 9/11 (i.e., operated via double standards).  By 2007 it was politicized to the point of uselessness as descriptive term.  But the assassination of the general of a sovereign nation's military, with whom we were not at war, would even by 2007 standards be an act of terrorism.

I hope you are right, but I'm not certain the WW III odds are that low.  Countries would not necessarily have to be "allies" of Iran to take its side in the conflict currently shaping; the prime motivation could be to check US recklessness. China and Russia both would have an interest in doing that.  (By taking sides I mean drawing red lines, especially nuclear.) Also, Europe and Japan need Gulf oil, which a war would block.

Your second point also speaks more to the difficulty of containing conflict. Iran may proceed carefully (more carefully than Trump), possibly targeting a US official planning the deaths of Iranians, a mirror-image attack which will be "terrorism" if they are successful.  I would not rule out attempted attacks on US soil, now that we are "safer," but I think they are certainly coming in other countries. Another possibility is ramped up proxy attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia, including oil facilities. Not to mention attacks or other threatening behavior toward Gulf shipping. And of course Trump will have to respond. Given the nature of the leaders of each belligerent, I don't see an off ramp here.

One last point, as escalation continues, should Trump decide to hit Iran's oil fields to put them out of condition, it would be very likely that Iran would put Saudi Arabia's out of commission. That would paralyze economies of many countries. The price of oil would go through the roof, affecting every consumer good in every country in the world.  Some countries may blame Iran for the fallout, but likely they will also blame the US.  Outside of the Fox audience, it is clear to the world that ditching the Iran Deal and ramping up sanctions and tensions in the Gulf has pushed us to the brink.

Totally agree with you here. It looks like Trump was upset by Iranian tweets and, when presented with a range of options, picked the most extreme.

Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi were charismatic leaders, whose organizations were built around personal authority. Solemeini, however, gifted, was still part of a military machine, a long-standing institution with replaceable parts. Killing him would not have stopped any "planned attacks" or whatever any more than killing General Schwarzkopf would have impeded the clearance of Kuwait in 1991. Most can see that killing QS increased the likelihood of retaliation, now elevated to a matching level of damage.

I am fairly certain that advisors with command and intel experience did conclude the assassination was a bad move. Trump does not follow professional advice--that is why Mattis, Bolton, and Kelly left.  If the US leaves Iraq, or reduces its footprint to a few hundred advisors, the Iranians have won an important victory. If the US does not leave, then we are likely in for another insurgency, more loss of blood and treasure. Still an Iranian victory. Trump is more dangerous now than in the first two years of his term. His advisors know that people who don't support his impulsive decisions don't last long, and he has motivation to drive impeachment from the news for cycles to come.

I think Americans are, by nature, desensitized to the imperialist actions of our government. Murdering members of another nation's military is just the next step up from being World Police.

The question I always had was how do you differentiate the Soleimanis from the Kims? Or the Putins? Or the Xis? Or, as Donald Trump famously said, even Americans? 
"There are a lot of killers," Trump responded. "Got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country's so innocent?"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/02/04/trump-fox-interview/97508274/

Americans aren't really fans of being compared to Putin (as Trump did in this particular quote). It's just another one of those quotes that you see and think "wait, and people still vote for this guy?"

But I digress. You're right that classifying a leader of a nation a terrorist is a risky business. But you also have to remember that we basically already did that in Iraq anyway. We decided that Hussein deserved to be killed/dethroned/removed because he was killing his own people (and because he tried to kill W's daddy). Which, to be clear, he was (a special note regarding the Kurds who, at least at the time, American leadership was sympathetic to. Oh, how the times have changed). I'm not denying that (nor am I denying Soleimani's actions). But that time, at least our government had the common decency to pretend that we did that to protect ourselves. Sure, it ended up being completely false that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they at least took the time to launch an investigation and everything. This time, the Trump administration didn't even put any effort into their reason for the attack.

White House: "He was planning an attack on Americans."
Media: "Oh seriously? Where? When? How many Americans?"
WH: "Don't worry about it."
M: "No, we're worried about it. You killed the planner maybe, but the plan wouldn't just evaporate because of that. Can you please give us more details?"
WH: "Nah. It's fine. You are better off not knowing."
M: "They just vowed vengeance on us. Can you PLEASE tell us who may be in danger?"
WH: "We. said. don't. worry. about. it."

All this based on alleged reports from the intelligence network that Trump has, repeatedly, claimed were biased and generating fake news (such as the Russian interference in our election).

I genuinely think that 2011 video of Trump saying Obama will start a war in Iran in order to get re-elected...is what's going on right here.
He saw it work for Bush in 2004, he was convinced Obama was going to do it in 2011. I don't think it's a coincidence that it is occurring right now. That may make me a cynic or a biased lib, but the pieces are all there and are so easy to put together. It's like a 4 piece puzzle.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-07-2020, 02:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: Don't know why he went there.  I do know now that he did Trump supporters like Lindsey Graham are trying to use him as a distracting from the war crimes that Trump tweeted he will do.

Maybe we can ignore the fringe people when it comes to stuff like that and actually focus on the POTUS claiming his tweets are policy and legally binding?

Yeah I don't think his thinking is typical, and no his name shouldn't be mentioned in the Senate.

[GMDino]

(01-07-2020, 07:33 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I see a news headline: Bombers sent near Iran

So I check out an article and read that the bombers were sent to Diego Garcia. So then I wonder how close Diego Garcia is to say... Tehran. Look it up and it's over 3,250 miles away. 3,250+ miles away is "near Iran?" Keep in mind that New York City is 2,450 miles away from Los Angeles, and this is 800 miles FURTHER away than that. Diego Garcia is roughly as far away from Tehran as New York City is to London. Nobody would say "bombers sent near London" if they were stationed in New York City.

Goddamn could the news be fear mongering any harder right now? I have seen a couple articles talking about the draft (lol) and another with "watch TERRIFYING moment as flag is raised" about that red flag over the mosque. Over a flag being raised.

The fear mongering is in full force by the media.

Damn them for reporting what is happening!

Only news we should believe is from Dear Leader.

[GMDino]

(01-07-2020, 08:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It should be noted that targeting cultural sites is a war crime. Trump has stated to the international community that he is willing to commit war crimes.

But he DIDN'T DO IT YET...so why would anyone care?

Signed,

~ Deplorables tired of the witch hunt.   

[GMDino]

(01-07-2020, 09:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Yeah I don't think his thinking is typical, and no his name shouldn't be mentioned in the Senate.

When people like Graham cannot come up with positive reasons to defend Trump they will use attacks on others.  SOP.

DJT retweeted 5 or 6 Graham tweets in support of himself this morning.  Lindsey got some Daddy love for what he did so he'll do it again.

[GMDino]

Fox host defends America committing war crimes: "I don't care about Iranian cultural sites and I'll tell you why. If they could ... they would destroy every single one of our cultural sites and build a mosque on top of it" pic.twitter.com/AJolDVtzJR

— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) January 6, 2020

[GMDino]

(01-07-2020, 10:39 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Is saying 3,250 miles away is "near" Iran reporting what is happening? That is roughly 1/10th of the Earth's circumference away. Or are you going to tell me they meant "near" in astrological terms? 


If you want to actually discuss things, like why you felt that it wasn't fear mongering to call a distance of 3,250 miles away "near" I am more than happy to do so with you. If you want to be a smug PoS and insult me, then you can take that "Dear Leader" and your "I don't have an actual point, but I want to be a dick, so here's an emoji" nonsense and kindly go **** yourself.

See you all in a few days, probably.

There was no link to where you "read" about the bombers so I can't say what they met by "near".

If people would provide sources rather than make random "points" then I could read, research and comment more clearly.

the red flag was a big deal from the articles I read over the weekend:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/as-red-flags-unfurl-will-iran-respond-badly-after-soleimani-killing
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-iran-unveils-red-flag-of-revenge-against-america-at-mosque


https://www.news18.com/news/world/fact-check-no-red-flag-of-revenge-was-not-raised-for-the-first-time-on-an-iran-mosque-2448277.html

Quote:What Can Be Concluded?

This red flag is frequently used in Iran during the month of Muharram, or month of mourning, whether flown above mosques or brandished at religious processions. Although it was used on an unusual occasion at the Jamkaran mosque, this was not the first time that this flag was unfurled in Iran.

Again, sources are useful when discussing opinions.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(01-07-2020, 10:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: There was no link to where you "read" about the bombers so I can't say what they met by "near".

If people would provide sources rather than make random "points" then I could read, research and comment more clearly.

the red flag was a big deal from the articles I read over the weekend:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/as-red-flags-unfurl-will-iran-respond-badly-after-soleimani-killing
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-iran-unveils-red-flag-of-revenge-against-america-at-mosque


https://www.news18.com/news/world/fact-check-no-red-flag-of-revenge-was-not-raised-for-the-first-time-on-an-iran-mosque-2448277.html


Again, sources are useful when discussing opinions.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1223958/Iran-US-red-flag-Qassem-Soleimani-world-war-3-ww3-Donald-Trump-Jamkaran-Mosque
"Terrifying moment".

I mean shit, in the link itself, I just noticed there's a "WW3" and "World War 3" that I just noticed.

It doesn't matter if the red flag is a big deal, in the end it's just a red flag, and it's not a "terrifying moment".

- - - - - - 

If you go to the Bing news feed, the caption was "Bombers sent near Iran" and now it's been changed to "US deploys bombers" since I last saw it.


As in, even they realized it was a stupid caption and they changed it. Possibly because they realized it's inaccuracy.

- - - - - -

Lets be honest though, GMD. Even if I had posted that link, and told you the other bit was seen on Bing's news feed, you would have still responded with a smug emoji. It's what you do. I can live with you being a bit of a DB that way... what I think is messed up is you saying "Dear Leader" as if I am some kind of North Korean stooge. I didn't vote for the guy, I will continue not voting for him, and anyone who says I treat him with reverence absolutely deserves to be told to go F themselves. You need to knock that shit off because there's no civil way of responding to you when you pull that.

[GMDino]

(01-07-2020, 11:10 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1223958/Iran-US-red-flag-Qassem-Soleimani-world-war-3-ww3-Donald-Trump-Jamkaran-Mosque
"Terrifying moment".

I mean shit, in the link itself, I just noticed there's a "WW3" and "World War 3" that I just noticed.

It doesn't matter if the red flag is a big deal, in the end it's just a red flag, and it's not a "terrifying moment".

- - - - - - 

If you go to the Bing news feed, the caption was "Bombers sent near Iran" and now it's been changed to "US deploys bombers" since I last saw it.


As in, even they realized it was a stupid caption and they changed it. Possibly because they realized it's inaccuracy.

- - - - - -

Lets be honest though, GMD. Even if I had posted that link, and told you the other bit was seen on Bing's news feed, you would have still responded with a smug emoji. It's what you do. I can live with you being a bit of a DB that way... what I think is messed up is you saying "Dear Leader" as if I am some kind of North Korean stooge. I didn't vote for the guy, I will continue not voting for him, and anyone who says I treat him with reverence absolutely deserves to be told to go F themselves. You need to knock that shit off because there's no civil way of responding to you when you pull that.

I don't work in media anymore but the changing of headline on line isn't new.  Sometimes it reflects better editing and sometimes it reflects new info.

You don't have to care about the red flag.  You are dismissive of it.  Great.  But I'm a dbag for suggesting it may have been a bigger deal than you want to think?  'K.

Opinions without sources sometimes get sarcastic responses because there are no facts to discuss. 

My apologies of sarcasm ("dear leader") is too much this early in the morning. 

[masonbengals fan]

(01-07-2020, 10:34 AM)GMDino Wrote:

Fox host defends America committing war crimes: "I don't care about Iranian cultural sites and I'll tell you why. If they could ... they would destroy every single one of our cultural sites and build a mosque on top of it" pic.twitter.com/AJolDVtzJR

— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) January 6, 2020

So is what Pete said true or not. Would they blow up our cultural sites if possible? I'm not advocating for doing the same at this point, but what he said is true. IMHO

[GMDino]

(01-07-2020, 11:31 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: So is what Pete said true or not. Would they blow up our cultural sites if possible? I'm not advocating for doing the same at this point, but what he said is true. IMHO

See that falls into the "Liberals are defending the terrorist Trump killed" narrative.  No one said he wasn't a bad/evil person, most people who aren't in the Cult of Trump said that this particular move was wrong on different levels and doesn't seem to have been well thought out by DJT (Shocker.)

Yes what he said is literally true...however he IS advocating for the US doing it.  And if the narrative is the terrorists are doing it so we should do it that makes us terrorists.  At least in the world's eyes.

[Matt_Crimson]

(01-07-2020, 11:15 AM)GMDino Wrote: I don't work in media anymore but the changing of headline on line isn't new.  Sometimes it reflects better editing and sometimes it reflects new info.

"Sometimes it reflects better editing"

Yeah, as in editing out the fear mongering crap.

[Belsnickel]

(01-07-2020, 11:31 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: So is what Pete said true or not. Would they blow up our cultural sites if possible? I'm not advocating for doing the same at this point, but what he said is true. IMHO

I think it's true, as well. However, that doesn't matter. It's still a war crime to target cultural sites. Using the idea that they would target cultural sites if they could to justify targeting theirs is defending committing war crimes.

[GMDino]

(01-07-2020, 11:37 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: "Sometimes it reflects better editing"

Yeah, as in editing out the fear mongering crap.

That's a wonderful opinion you have there.

Thanks for sharing. 

[GMDino]

(01-07-2020, 11:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think it's true, as well. However, that doesn't matter. It's still a war crime to target cultural sites. Using the idea that they would target cultural sites if they could to justify targeting theirs is defending committing war crimes.

And it becomes part of a larger problem of people not only not having a problem with it but openly defending it.

Then getting defensive when challenged on it.

[GMDino]

Pompeo STILL saying Trump is "consistent" in saying we will not commit war crimes...and then saying only terrorists do that.

Then he runs away from the questions.

[GMDino]

The Administration appears to be completely abandoning their previous claim that the killing was ordered to prevent specific attacks about which they had intelligence. https://t.co/cMBfhxy86y

— Rep. Don Beyer (@RepDonBeyer) January 7, 2020