The murder (?) of a Iranian terrorist

[Harry_BKK]

It seems like this assassinated General did actually help the US combat the taliban in afghanistan:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

He was also co-ordinating militias successfully fighting isis in syria and iraq.

Basically the shia govt of Iran are always going to defend the shia areas in the middle east, they are the minority of that religion and region and some sunni extremists like isis will specifically target and attack them.

Boris johnson was saying a while back that the iranians are a malign influence in the region and yet the saudis, with our technical help, are bombing the yemen and starving the place, plus also indirectly funding terrorism and trying to brainwash muslims across the globe into following their extreme version of islam. So there is a lot of hypocrisy going around.

Trump's problem is he tore up the nuclear deal which was better than nothing, so he has had to create a pretext to strike sites in Iran connected to nuclear technology research etc.. [he can't say 'sorry folks because I tore up that deal, which every signee was happy with, we've now got to attack Iran'] and he's nearly there, the rhetoric and positive media coverage has pretty much all lined up to support this assassination.

The msm narrative is, if such a high up general and national hero to the iranians is a terrorist, the logic follows Iran must be a terror state - this is the argument that will be put forward for war/air strikes, " we can't let a terror state develop nuclear warheads/technology."
Propaganda when you boil it down is very simple, it has to be, to get the underlying message across to the public. [The fact who tore up the nuclear agreement will be overlooked.]

And you won't find any press coverage [or republican senators] pressing the US govt and Trump to sign up back to the original deal.

Maybe the iranians to save a war/attack should make all the concessions the US/allies in the region want, but there is a trust factor here though, as I don't think the hawks in the US want Iran to have any nuclear technology for peaceful uses like energy, they just don't trust it isn't somehow going to lead to a nuclear weapon. That Iran won't have hidden facilities not inspected etc..so the only solution in the hawk's eyes is forced regime change/occupation or a successful bombing campaign aimed at destroying all the nuclear research and development.

You bet your bottom dollar the Pentagon and CIA are looking all and every day now for evidence of any Iranian/shia acts of revenge, and yet it would be so easy for 'somebody' to fire a mortar onto a us/uk/allies building in Iraq and the iranians get blamed, so it could be a good and necessary idea that the western forces and contractors etc.. do leave Iraq asap and then there can be no more 'incidents' in Iraq that would spark the big conflict where thousands of innocent people will likely die.

Here something to confirm your thoughts how deeply interwoven the "military complex" is in the US. And this is just a few of the people currently in charge and pushing to strike against Iran.

Just as another caveat: Lockheed Martin trading stock volume was 3x the usual volume and increased by 3 points in the last hours of the day before they assassinated Soleimani!!! What a coincidence.... NOT!

 

[Harry_BKK]

The US forums are a treasure trove on a day like this.

Interesting statistics.

 

[mack341]

I didn't think Iran would retaliate like this, it sounds to me they felt they had to save face with their public given the iranian people's sadness and anger at having their national hero assassinated, as John snow said above there was a bigger US base closer to iran they could've targeted but that restraint will be lost on Trump I fear, he's very allergic to loss of face and to not go through with his threat will mean just that.

I'm still wondering whether Trump fully understood the consequences of killing soleimani or he just had a impulsive rush of blood with people like pompeo whispering in his ear all the time. Then again he has been rebuilding the military with trillions spent, [not sure what on, new jets, missiles?] so maybe he had an idea all along he wanted/needed to start this off...

 

[shadow123]

Hope I am wrong but this may turn very nasty.Trump said before this attack that the US response
would be disproportional which will lead to a rapid escalation, with that nutter in power anything
could happen.
No way is Trump going to back down,he made the very childish threat that they would attack 52
targets, one for each hostage taken a while back,sensible reasoning,not
Unfortunatly he has the power and seemingly the backing of a lot of americans giving him free reign
to do wharever he wants.

 

[EbertScore]

Well I think the thread title is the key here. Murder.

What limits should be set for targeted killings by governments (in foreign countries)? Should these be scrutinised at all? Or should we just blindly accept what a US goverment (in this case) tells us?

In general, the legal principle is that assassinations are prohibited. The US government have argued many times in the past that their targeted killing policy is lawful and they are not assassinations (if we define assassinations as "the killing of an individual or group of individuals for purely political or ideological reasons").

The usual justifications for this policy are either a non international armed conflict (NIAC) (no jus ad bellum analysis needed since it is automatically satisfied), self defence, the law enforcement paradigm or any combination of them.

Targeted killings are a form of preemption. And the US goverment is using mostly self defence argument in a time of war to justify them. But it's rather disturbing that this policy seems to be a preferred one these days instead of it being the last option.

Rather than focusing on who was killed, I'd rather focus on the legality of the action. And in this respect, a number of these so called targeted killings lack the needed threshold that should be achieved when killing people.

Are you kidding? Playing semantics with eliminating an evil terrorist. What was the guy doing in Baghdad? Does he always take his winter vacation there? Gimme a break... he was obviously there to commit/plan a savage terrorist attack for which he has notoriety in doing consistently. He was a General in the revolutionary guard. Just by the fawn over him in Iran after his death by all the high ups and his “martyrdom” status just demonstrates what a monster he was. This guy has been on everyone’s radar. I suggest you do your research on that scum they eliminated You don’t think the US couldn’t “assassinate” (as you put it) everyone one of these dirt bags. Of course! They chose him because he has tons of American blood on his hands (among others).

Your post can be summed up as “Was the US legally allowed and justified in killing a prolific terrorist whose notoriety dates back decades and has American blood on his hands?” Yes, yes they were.

 

[EbertScore]

Hope I am wrong but this may turn very nasty.Trump said before this attack that the US response
would be disproportional which will lead to a rapid escalation, with that nutter in power anything
could happen.
No way is Trump going to back down,he made the very childish threat that they would attack 52
targets, one for each hostage taken a while back,sensible reasoning,not
Unfortunatly he has the power and seemingly the backing of a lot of americans giving him free reign
to do wharever he wants.

Go look at Trumps tweet. Nothing happened. Their response was juvenile at best. I think it was to save face. This will die down and nothing will happen.

Peace through strength is not a dangerous foreign policy, and doesn’t make someone a nutter. Achieving “peace for our time” on a piece of paper (like Obama did that emboldened Iran that has lead us here) with an evil regime, and bringing it back to show the UN is stupid as history has shown us.

You need to stand up to evil and ensure it is not allowed to spread like a cancer. The buck has been passed for too long on Iran and they’ve become more and more brazen.

 

[mack341]

Interesting from the independent on the background to events of the assassination:

As part of the incendiary and escalating crisis surrounding the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, there has come an explanation of why the Iranian commander was actually in Baghdad when he was targeted by a US missile strike.

Iraq’s prime minister revealed that he was due to be meeting the Iranian commander to discuss moves being made to ease the confrontation between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia – the crux of so much of strife in the Middle East and beyond.

Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: “I was supposed to meet him in the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the Saudis to Iran.”

The prime minister also disclosed that Donald Trump had called him to ask him to mediate following the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad. According to Iraqi officials contact was made with a number of militias as well as figures in Tehran. The siege of the embassy was lifted and the US president personally thanked Abdul-Mahdi for his help.

There was nothing to suggest to the Iraqis that it was unsafe for Soleimani to travel to Baghdad – quite the contrary. This suggests that Trump helped lure the Iranian commander to a place where he could be killed. It is possible that the president was unaware of the crucial role that Soleimani was playing in the attempted rapprochement with the Saudis. Or that he knew but did not care.

One may even say that it is not in the interest of a president who puts so much emphasis on American arms exports, and whose first official trip after coming to office was a weapons-selling trip to Saudi Arabia – during which he railed against Iran – to have peace break out between the Iranians and the kingdom. But that would be far too cynical a thought.

Abdul-Mahdi spoke of his disappointment that while Trump was expressing his gratitude over the mediation, he was also simultaneously planning an attack on Soleimani. That attack took place not long after the telephone call from the president.

...The Trump administration continues to insist that Soleimani was killed because he was about to launch an imminent terror campaign, without providing any evidence for the assertion. There is increasing scepticism about the claim and the questions are not going to go away. There are too many memories of Saddam Hussein and his non-existent WMD arsenal. The repercussions from the assassination in Baghdad will continue for a very long time. "

 

[shadow123]

Sorry Ebertscore i disagree,Trumps actions are not those of a true leader trying to solve a problem.
The whole thing is personal and being acted out in public.
If he wanted to take this so called monster out there were many covert ways of doing it,not
the blatent way he did showing the world how powerful and clever the americans are.

 

[mack341]

Your post can be summed up as “Was the US legally allowed and justified in killing a prolific terrorist whose notoriety dates back decades and has American blood on his hands?” Yes, yes they were.

Even if you except that argument fully, specifically that he masterminded the shia militia in Iraq to fight an invading US army, what about all the innocent blood on american hands? Or is that less important to you/the world?

 

[ternur]

Are you kidding? Playing semantics with eliminating an evil terrorist. What was the guy doing in Baghdad? Does he always take his winter vacation there? Gimme a break... he was obviously there to commit/plan a savage terrorist attack for which he has notoriety in doing consistently. He was a General in the revolutionary guard. Just by the fawn over him in Iran after his death by all the high ups and his “martyrdom” status just demonstrates what a monster he was. This guy has been on everyone’s radar. I suggest you do your research on that scum they eliminated You don’t think the US couldn’t “assassinate” (as you put it) everyone one of these dirt bags. Of course! They chose him because he has tons of American blood on his hands (among others).

Your post can be summed up as “Was the US legally allowed and justified in killing a prolific terrorist whose notoriety dates back decades and has American blood on his hands?” Yes, yes they were.

No, I was not kidding at all.

Maybe go read my post again and try to understand what my point was?

Since you seem to have a deeper knowledge of the law than me, maybe you could post something to back up your claims that this was a legal act in light of international law?

 

[shadow123]

Any views on the plane crash, way too much of a coincidence I think.
Dont know why anyone would want to shoot it down though.
Hope Ukraine get the black box and wreckage back,Iran seems to want to keep them which
puts them well in the frame.If it was shot down by either side, the loss of life is down to Trump
who started all this stupidity.

 

[Steviedoo]

I don’t think we will see any all out war so soon.
Iran does not have the might to get into a war with the USA. Those strikes were symbolic. They will now do what they ve always done. Work within the region and side with third parties and wage a war against the USA. What experts are calling working against the USA asymmetrically.

 

[mack341]

Very sad.. putting on my analysis hat I would find it difficult to understand the iranians blowing up an airliner flying out of their own capital, with probably mostly iranian related passengers etc... I don't think keeping the black box atm is suspicious, at least to get a copy of the data until passed onto the bodies who normally investigate flight crashes?

If there were people on board the Iranian govt didn't like (to use a euphemism), they could have just as easily arrested them on, excuse the pun, trumped up charges and held them indefinitely, interrogated them etc..

The timing though does feel too much of a coincidence for something fishy not to be involved, it may have collided with a drone or something that's one possibility I've read.

 

[mack341]

I don’t think we will see any all out war so soon.
Iran does not have the might to get into a war with the USA. Those strikes were symbolic. They will now do what they ve always done. Work within the region and side with third parties and wage a war against the USA. What experts are calling working against the USA asymmetrically.

But what happens regarding the iranians developing more nuclear technology, enriching uranium, more advanced missiles, which they believe is in their interests for defence and economic reasons? How does Trump stop it if he's determined to?

We can't really go back to a period of detente now I don't think, if trump decides to hit mainland iran, I can see more than an asymmetric response or previous tactics, obviously Iran doesn't have huge military capability, maybe it'll be missiles fired at their gulf neighbours perhaps?

 

[irish-ranger]

Any views on the plane crash, way too much of a coincidence I think.
Dont know why anyone would want to shoot it down though.
Hope Ukraine get the black box and wreckage back,Iran seems to want to keep them which
puts them well in the frame.If it was shot down by either side, the loss of life is down to Trump
who started all this stupidity.

The loss of life on the downed plane is down to trump? how did u come to that conclusion?This is what the Iranians have been doing for years (state sponsored) knowing this is the sort of response people would come out with.

 

[irish-ranger]

But what happens regarding the iranians developing more nuclear technology, enriching uranium, more advanced missiles, which they believe is in their interests for defence and economic reasons? How does Trump stop it if he's determined to?

We can't really go back to a period of detente now I don't think, if trump decides to hit mainland iran, I can see more than an asymmetric response or previous tactics, obviously Iran doesn't have huge military capability, maybe it'll be missiles fired at their gulf neighbours perhaps?

Let’s be realistic here 15 ballistic missiles hit an American base last night with a grand total of zero casualties (did they remove the war heads and replace them with balloons)
As for them firing missiles at their gulf neighbours they have countermeasures to stop these attack’s like the patriots deployed in Israel dying GW 1.

 

[mack341]

Let’s be realistic here 15 ballistic missiles hit an American base last night with a grand total of zero casualties (did they remove the war heads and replace them with balloons)
As for them firing missiles at their gulf neighbours they have countermeasures to stop these attack’s like the patriots deployed in Israel dying GW 1.

I think they probably did reduce the payloads, the pictures I saw looked like a muddy field had been hit, whereas I was expecting to see a runway and buildings destroyed.

It was a symbolic attack for iranian tv and public consumption imo. Still feel Trump may respond disproportionately in the coming days, and then all bets are off.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Any views on the plane crash, way too much of a coincidence I think.
Dont know why anyone would want to shoot it down though.
Hope Ukraine get the black box and wreckage back,Iran seems to want to keep them which
puts them well in the frame.If it was shot down by either side, the loss of life is down to Trump
who started all this stupidity.

Tehran airport is at appr. 1,000m elevation and is known to be a tricky airport. I flew into Tehran a few times with Lufthansa and Austrian. They had only senior captains in the left seat.

Ukraine Int. is using the least powerful engine on its 737-800s, was the same with the -500 they used in the past or are still using. The plane was full to the last seat.

Here is a video which shows the plane was coming down in one piece, so no rocket. Shortly before impact an engine is misfiring, possibly a failed restart of the engine. Seconds later it hits the ground.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Let’s be realistic here 15 ballistic missiles hit an American base last night with a grand total of zero casualties (did they remove the war heads and replace them with balloons)
As for them firing missiles at their gulf neighbours they have countermeasures to stop these attack’s like the patriots deployed in Israel dying GW 1.

The rockets were purposely fired to avoid casualties. They even informed the US before they launched them.

IMO, it was to show a reaction without throwing gasoline on the fire. A few more dead US soldiers and Mr. T wouldn't hesitate to type his codes into the nuke board.

 

[Harry_BKK]

Very sad.. putting on my analysis hat I would find it difficult to understand the iranians blowing up an airliner flying out of their own capital, with probably mostly iranian related passengers etc... I don't think keeping the black box atm is suspicious, at least to get a copy of the data until passed onto the bodies who normally investigate flight crashes?

If there were people on board the Iranian govt didn't like (to use a euphemism), they could have just as easily arrested them on, excuse the pun, trumped up charges and held them indefinitely, interrogated them etc..

The timing though does feel too much of a coincidence for something fishy not to be involved, it may have collided with a drone or something that's one possibility I've read.

The majority on the plane were Iranian people and friendly Canadians. No way whatsoever was this one shot down by a rocket/missile.

 

[shadow123]

The loss of life on the downed plane is down to trump? how did u come to that conclusion?This is what the Iranians have been doing for years (state sponsored) knowing this is the sort of response people would come out with.

Simple fact is that Trump decieded to go down this route and if the plane was destroyed as a consequence
the blood is on his hands, fact.
You could dismiss it as casualty of war but we are not quite there yet , give it a day

 

[Harry_BKK]

Interesting from the independent on the background to events of the assassination:

As part of the incendiary and escalating crisis surrounding the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, there has come an explanation of why the Iranian commander was actually in Baghdad when he was targeted by a US missile strike.

Iraq’s prime minister revealed that he was due to be meeting the Iranian commander to discuss moves being made to ease the confrontation between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia – the crux of so much of strife in the Middle East and beyond.

Adil Abdul-Mahdi was quite clear: “I was supposed to meet him in the morning the day he was killed, he came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered from the Saudis to Iran.”

The prime minister also disclosed that Donald Trump had called him to ask him to mediate following the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad. According to Iraqi officials contact was made with a number of militias as well as figures in Tehran. The siege of the embassy was lifted and the US president personally thanked Abdul-Mahdi for his help.

There was nothing to suggest to the Iraqis that it was unsafe for Soleimani to travel to Baghdad – quite the contrary. This suggests that Trump helped lure the Iranian commander to a place where he could be killed. It is possible that the president was unaware of the crucial role that Soleimani was playing in the attempted rapprochement with the Saudis. Or that he knew but did not care.

One may even say that it is not in the interest of a president who puts so much emphasis on American arms exports, and whose first official trip after coming to office was a weapons-selling trip to Saudi Arabia – during which he railed against Iran – to have peace break out between the Iranians and the kingdom. But that would be far too cynical a thought.

Abdul-Mahdi spoke of his disappointment that while Trump was expressing his gratitude over the mediation, he was also simultaneously planning an attack on Soleimani. That attack took place not long after the telephone call from the president.

...The Trump administration continues to insist that Soleimani was killed because he was about to launch an imminent terror campaign, without providing any evidence for the assertion. There is increasing scepticism about the claim and the questions are not going to go away. There are too many memories of Saddam Hussein and his non-existent WMD arsenal. The repercussions from the assassination in Baghdad will continue for a very long time. "

Mr T betrayed people all his adult life and probably as a youngster too. So no surprise to read what you posted.

 

[goatwack]

As a challenge Harry, please write down 5 things you love about Trump

- and no you can't write "Hopefully he'll croak soon"

 

[Harry_BKK]

As a challenge Harry, please write down 5 things you love about Trump

- and no you can't write "Hopefully he'll croak soon"

Will need some brainstorming to come up with such a list.

 

[Harry_BKK]

As a challenge Harry, please write down 5 things you love about Trump

- and no you can't write "Hopefully he'll croak soon"

Brainstorming over.

Errm, can't name a single thing.