Merged: Iranian general Qassem Suleimani asassinated in drone strike / WWIII?

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

Brilliant analysis.

Agreed. That works.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

And we'd hate to go down that dark "alley", wouldn't we.

A terrorist was removed, terror=bad. Done. Sorry to the lefties that's it's inconvenient that pesky other side did it. Likely they should have let it be known and maybe it was a distraction maybe not for those who don't give a rats ...... about partisan vitriol. It's done, the terror guy is dead. And yes another will pop up tomorrow.

This 20 year military veteran who's actually been boots on ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Horn of Africa thanks you for the service of your incoherent babbling response that had nothing to do with anything I said.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Local expert on Iran warns the guy was just a public figure, not important in decission making. And that the act will unite Iran, where government actually has pretty low public support at the moment. As weakening Iran, I guess it won't work.
As of a gesture in style 'we will get you' it might work. But as a distraction from local problems, it works the best.

Who's the local expert, and what's his expertise?

I cited General Stanley McChrystal, also an expert in these matters, saying that this guy is a major player in Iran's strategy in the region, and killing him creates a leadership gap that Iran will not easily fill.

[JoeMorgue]

I don't think anyone, outside of our resident "Everything Russia and their allies does is great" apologist, is shedding any tears for General Soleimani. Even liberal wheenie Schumer said as much just now.

That doesn't remove legit questions of the hows and ways of the operation.

"Okay but he's a bad guy and now dead" isn't an retort to everything.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't think anyone, outside of our resident "Everything Russia and their allies does is great" apologist, is shading any tears for General Soleimani. Even liberal wheenie Schumer said as much just now.

That doesn't remove legit questions of the hows and ways of the operation.

"Okay but he's a bad guy and now dead" isn't an retort to everything.

He's a bad guy. Just kill him. Who cares what happens after? Time is a flat circle, it's 2003 again. They will greet us as liberators.

[alfaniner]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

He's a bad guy. Just kill him. Who cares what happens after? Time is a flat circle, it's 2003 again. They will greet us as liberators.

Within two weeks, after a major terrorist event, The PDJT will be saying "We didn't expect there would be such a retaliation. Nobody could have predicted that!"

[JoeMorgue]

That being said I do agree with Suburban Turkey and others that that Democrats being up in arms is rather eyebrow raising.

The "But da President has to ask Congress" ship has sailed, circumvented the glob, and returned laden with fine silk and exotic spices at this point.

[Giordano]

Originally Posted by crescent

We keep talking about how Iran will react to this.

I am thinking the reaction of the Iraqi government might be more critical. They have two sponsors, they allow this guy free movement within Iraq, pro-Iranian politicians have great influence.

Forget what Iran does. We've probably just lost Iraq.

I was thinking this too. This killing is far from the taking out an underground terrorist hiding in some lawless territory. It was an assassination of a high ranking general from one country openly and legally visiting another country to meet with contacts and politicians within that country. Apparently the assassination took place without the knowledge of the host country's (Irag's) government and at a busy civilian airport (many other people were placed at some level of risk by this strike, although I am relieved that most were spared due to the precision of the attack).

This is certain to further alienate Iraq from the USA and to drive them still closer to Iran. Amazing the USA has been so stupid as to allow this to happen given Iran and Iraq had been such bitter enemies for so long.

It is also likely to re-solidify the Iran public's support behind their government (after the recent waves of dissent) and to further strengthen the power of the most militant members of the Iranian government.

Suleimani may have been truly evil (although that characterization typically depends on whose side one is on). Eliminating him may be a significant blow to Iran's plans (although I've heard that said about the killing of almost every terrorist and yet typically other people soon take over). My point here is that it is an enormous escalation that appears to not have considered the political consequences. And terrorism is really about influencing politics and public opinion, not obtaining actual military dominance (which is not what terrorists seek in these asymmetrical warfare situations).

I am now also curious: typically in the past government officials of almost all countries have found the concept of assassinating their enemy counterparts "distasteful" and have avoided it (with only a few exceptions; e.g. the CIA trying to poison Castro). Certainly not openly . I think the self-serving aspects of this are quite clear. But now is it open season? Are we about to see a wave of tit for tat killings of high end military, cabinet members, members of the legislatures, etc? Or will it continue to be just be us common citizens in the crosshairs (the innocents who have long been established targets for terrorists and considered as acceptable collateral damage in more organized military actions)?

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

This 20 year military veteran who's actually been boots on ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Horn of Africa thanks you for the service of your incoherent babbling response that had nothing to do with anything I said.

you mean my sarcasm pointed at you spelling ot "alley" as opposed to Ally. You big silly......

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Who's the local expert, and what's his expertise?

I cited General Stanley McChrystal, also an expert in these matters, saying that this guy is a major player in Iran's strategy in the region, and killing him creates a leadership gap that Iran will not easily fill.

Well, he was presented as 'expert on Iran', nothing more. I wouldn't put much into it.

But then, the general seems to be retired. For 10 years ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I don't think anyone, outside of our resident "Everything Russia and their allies does is great" apologist, is shedding any tears for General Soleimani. Even liberal wheenie Schumer said as much just now.

That doesn't remove legit questions of the hows and ways of the operation.

"Okay but he's a bad guy and now dead" isn't an retort to everything.

neither is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Are we seriously ginning up a war because Iran killed some military contractor? Who gives a **** if he was an American, he was a literal mercenary.

No, we are ginning up a war because Trump needs to get the story about the unredacted emails that prove he personally held Ukraine aid off the media.

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

And we'd hate to go down that dark "alley", wouldn't we.

A terrorist was removed, terror=bad. Done. Sorry to the lefties that's it's inconvenient that pesky other side did it. Likely they should have let it be known and maybe it was a distraction maybe not for those who don't give a rats ...... about partisan vitriol. It's done, the terror guy is dead. And yes another will pop up tomorrow.

The terrorist is still in the White House.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Who's the local expert, and what's his expertise?

I cited General Stanley McChrystal, also an expert in these matters, saying that this guy is a major player in Iran's strategy in the region, and killing him creates a leadership gap that Iran will not easily fill.

To god's ears.

[ChristianProgressive]

Originally Posted by 3point14

Right out of the Maggie playbook.

I'd really like to live in a world where starting a war makes a politician less likely to be re-elected. Ho hum.

I'd like to live in a world where it would get such a politician executed.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Within two weeks, after a major terrorist event, The PDJT will be saying "We didn't expect there would be such a retaliation. Nobody could have predicted that!"

nope.

[DuvalHMFIC]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

This 20 year military veteran who's actually been boots on ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Horn of Africa thanks you for the service of your incoherent babbling response that had nothing to do with anything I said.

Don't feed the troll.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

No, we are ginning up a war because Trump needs to get the story about the unredacted emails that prove he personally held Ukraine aid off the media.

Always cuz TRUMP! Oh Noze! Or we capped a Mercenary Terrorist guy and the world will go on.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

The terrorist is still in the White House.

You seem a wee bit obsessed, the dead terror-merc wasn't a nice guy so... yeah.

[rockysmith76]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

I'd like to live in a world where it would get such a politician executed.

On to hoping for the death of an elected official (Like him or not), whose the wannabe terrorist?

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

There's been a lot of nonsense already in this thread, so let's just get some basic facts out of the way:

Iran is currently funding, arming and coordinating anti-government militias in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Israel. These groups have as their purpose the creation of a Shiite state throughout the Middle East. They have been engaging US forces since at least 2002 to be conservative and really since the before the 1980's.

We already are at war with Iran. We have been for decades. Does this attack bring the Iran/US conflict to the forefront instead of allowing shadow politics and proxy wars? Yes. Does it change much of anything? No. Why was there an Iranian General in Iraq? Why was the US embassy in the green zone in Iraq under siege from Iranian-funded protesters?

I absolutely abhor targeted assassinations. They are never appropriate. And if the US took action without appropriate notice to Democrats cleared for such information, that is an attack by the White House on the institutions of our democracy (it remains unclear to me what the facts are regarding that). However, nothing much has changed. Frankly, I see two positive outcomes:

1. The role of Iran in causing violence across the Middle East will be highlighted in such a way that it cannot be conveniently ignored.

2. A drop in oil production in the ME (if such a thing happens) will help push America towards energy independence.

My major concern is that Iran, which cannot take on the US militarily, will strike civilians in Israel out of sheer impotent rage.

This is no place for sanity.

[Captain_Swoop]

Trump retweeted

Jesse Kelly
@JesseKellyDC
If you’ve been to a VA hospital in recent years and seen a young man missing limbs, there’s a reasonable chance Qasem Soleimani is responsible for it. He’s unquestionably an enemy of America and I’m glad he’s dead and I’m bummed it was a quick death.

Liz Wheeler
@Liz_Wheeler
Soleimani killed 603 American servicemembers.
Soleimani maimed thousands more with IEDs.
Soleimani approved the attack on the U.S. Embassy.
He was plotting to kill more Americans.
Yes he deserves to be dead. If you’re lamenting his death, you hate Trump more than a terrorist.

[Venom]

I'm afraid that we might start seeing a resurgence of the "golden age" terrorist tactics against Americans. But maybe hijackings and hostage takings would be too transparent this day and age.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Who's the local expert, and what's his expertise?



I cited General Stanley McChrystal, also an expert in these matters, saying that this guy is a major player in Iran's strategy in the region, and killing him creates a leadership gap that Iran will not easily fill.

All the reports I've read and listened to have all agreed he was a very important figure, most have described him as the 2nd most powerful man in Iran. He was not just a public face.

[Captain_Swoop]

Pompeo

Quote:

There was dancing in the streets in parts of Iraq...people not only in Iraq but in Iran will view the American action last night as giving them freedom

Awfully like Cheney and his

Quote:

My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators in Iraq

[Captain_Swoop]

Seems we are already back in the Bush era where if you weren’t pro war you were anti America. It was stupid then and it's just as stupid now.

[Captain_Swoop]

Pompeo says the strike disrupted and 'imminent attack'
I wonder if it was going to happen within 45 minutes?

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

....Why was there an Iranian General in Iraq?

He was there legally, coordinating activities with the Iraqi militias - the ones recognized by the Iraqi government. As many as seven of them were killed in the attack. Again, whether we like it or not, these militias are recognized by that government, they operate legally there.

Quote:

Why was the US embassy in the green zone in Iraq under siege from Iranian-funded protesters?

At least partly because the Iraqi government allowed them to. The government allowed the protesters to access the Green Zone, did not interfere in the protests for the first two days.

This suggests that the Iraqi government had no problem with this guy, or with the protests. Our strike puts us in opposition to the government of Iraq.

[BrooklynBaby]

Here's an article from 2015 talking about the 2800 drone strikes authorized by Obama on Iraq and Syria without congressional approval. Hope this helps.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...rizing-islami/

[Captain_Swoop]

U.S. to send 3,000 troops to Middle East after embassy attack, Soleimani killing

Quote:

The soldiers will join roughly 650 others already deployed to the region and stay there for some 60 days, officials said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/militar...ttack-n1110081

I thought Trump was bringing the troops home?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Definitely WW III.
Quickly convert your assets into cash and buy Gold and Coffee from my prepper website.

I prefer Brains Grimlin investment advice:
I am advising my clients to invest in Canned Food and Shot Guns...

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by varwoche

At least we can rest easy that President Trump is telling us the truth about the threat, and that he always puts the interests of the USA above his own political interests, and he knows how to build coalitions, and he would never act rashly because he's a very stable genius who is keenly aware of geopolitical realities, and he knows more than the generals anyway.

If I were still in the US Army, I would be very afraid serving under a COmmander in Chief like that. History shows.that is a recipe for military disaster.

IMHO Qassam will not be missed....I have no sympathy for Iran's ambitions to bring back the Persian empire in the Mideast.....but Trump's action was ill considered, stupid, and served no real purpose.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by ChristianProgressive

I'd like to live in a world where it would get such a politician executed.

Goodbye Mullahs.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

U.S. to send 3,000 troops to Middle East after embassy attack, Soleimani killing


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/militar...ttack-n1110081

I thought Trump was bringing the troops home?

And I heard - from a very reliable source - that the killing wasn't going to make the situation any worse.

[Venom]

I saw news about Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowing revenge but it displayed a picture of Ayatollah Khomeini who died 30 years ago.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by crescent

This suggests that the Iraqi government had no problem with this guy, or with the protests. Our strike puts us in opposition to the government of Iraq.

Looks like it might get ugly. We should invade Iraq and replace their leader with someone more compliant. A "preemptive strike" if you will.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Venom

I'm afraid that we might start seeing a resurgence of the "golden age" terrorist tactics against Americans. But maybe hijackings and hostage takings would be too transparent this day and age.

Problem is the classic methods of terrorism are hard to pull off because we have become better at security.
But Using a hand held Antiaircraft weapon to take out a passenger plane taking off is one of the more likely secnearios.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by rockysmith76

You seem a wee bit obsessed, the dead terror-merc wasn't a nice guy so... yeah.

I shed no tears for Qassam, but taking him out has excalated the situation to the pointe where a strong response from Iran is almost a certainity.
Hope you will be just as gung ho when the body bags start coming home.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

This 20 year military veteran who's actually been boots on ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Horn of Africa thanks you for the service of your incoherent babbling response that had nothing to do with anything I said.

There is that old saying hell hath no fury like a non combatant....

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Venom

I'm afraid that we might start seeing a resurgence of the "golden age" terrorist tactics against Americans. But maybe hijackings and hostage takings would be too transparent this day and age.

They're a waste of resources. The state sponsors of terror are working towards local hegemony. They get a lot more bang for their buck by destabilizing their neighbors than by attacking the US directly.