Iran Situation

[Dill]

(01-08-2020, 03:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Easy, We are at war with Terrorists, to my knowledge that War has not ended.

We were not at war with Iran per se, but they are supporting and enabling a known Terrorist group the Quds. It doesn't matter that they have a prominent position with in Iran's Government. When the war was declared, we were very clear that anyone country/countries aiding or shielding known terrorists would be putting themselves at risk. Iran has had plenty of time to disassociate themselves from this group. They chose not to. Many are also crying, you assassinated a government official, we did not, we assassinated a known terrorist who just happens to also be government personnel. He was not targeted because of his government position. The biggest double standard I have is that the terrorists don't check in before they act. They act then claim it. Why does Congress and other countries have to have a say before we act? Again, it's not like this guy just popped up on the list overnight and was killed. He's been on it for a while.

Bels clarified the "War on Terror" pretty much, as well as the status of the Quds force as a state actor.

But I want to add a couple of points with how Iran responded to our declaration of war on "terror" in 2001.

1. Iran denounced Al Qaeda and expressed sympathy with the US and condolences for our dead.

2. General Soleimani, already working with the US proxy Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, quickly directed Iran to provide the US with intelligence for and help in coordinating US operations there. The US, in return, gave the Iranians intel on an Al Qaeda operative hiding out in Norther Iran. Soleimani wanted the Iranian leadership to "rethink" its position towards the US, given their common enemies (the Taliban and Al Qaeda), but Bush's "axis of evil" speech in Jan. 2002 angered Soleimani and ended the apparent thaw in relations.

One final point--since the so-called "War on Terror," the term "terrorist," already problematic, has become politicized, by which I means now it has come to serve various policy goals rather than to accurately describe actions which, from some neutral perspective, could be called "terrorist." 

Designating the Al Quds brigade and its leader as "terrorists" in this case was more about increasing the reach of sanctions than identifying an Al Qaeda-like organization out to attack the US. This is especially questionable when it occurs after the US has invaded a country like Iraq on false pretext and then begun killing those who opposed that illegal occupation, designating most all of them as terrorists--but conveniently working with them at later times when it suited US purposes.

Last week on the Ingraham Angle, some Fox "expert" claimed Soleimani was behind the attack on the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983--a time when he was junior officer in the the Tharallah Division fighting in the Iran Iraq war, a thousand miles away. The same guy also claimed Soleimani bore responsibility for the 500,000 deaths in the Syrian war--and all that is why he is a "terrorist.' Now more than ever, we need to vet carefully the claims made about ME actors so that government officials can't lead us in whatever direction they like.