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

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by theprestige

An agreement to tolerate a certain amount of proxy warfare and terrorist insurgency from Iran, without retaliating or escalating.

It's a dubious policy, and one I'm not particularly committed to.

To which I am not particularly committed.

Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, USA are all engaged in that,

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia, USA are all engaged in that,

To varying degrees, for various reasons. Yes.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Vice president Mike Pence tweeted:


Is even a tiny part of this true? I know the actual quantity of 9/11 hijackers was 19 (not 12). Did any of them even get smuggled into Afghanistan?

Yes, some of them went to Afghanistan - the so-called Hamburg cell apparently went there according to the 9/11 Commission Report. I don’t find any reference to Iran’s involvement there. On the surface it seems very unlikely, although I haven’t checked thoroughly.

[Axxman300]

The bigger problem with this hit is that we(Trump) have tipped our hand and revealed just how well our intelligence has penetrated Iran. The guy had to be travelling under strict rules of OPSEC and we were able to nail him right at the airport. Then came the follow-on missions to arrest militia leaders later that night, and then the airstrikes today taking out HVT's.

Part of comes from Iraqi Sunis who have been staging protests in Baghdad over the past months over Iranian influence in their country but the fact that we have their leadership dialed in is impressive. But now the Iranians will figure they've been compromised and we'll have to start all over.

Don't get me wrong, this guy needed killing, but the timing and execution could have been better. Until I see more details I can't suggest how far on the stupid meter this one gets pegged.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by theprestige

To varying degrees, for various reasons. Yes.

The US No longer even has a pretence of principled motives in any such foreign interference. It is all just naked economic interest for the benefit of billionaires. The poor become cannon fodder for oil money.

[I Am The Scum]

Just found this footage of some treasonous neverTrumper filming an ad for Democrats.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Just found this footage of some treasonous neverTrumper filming an ad for Democrats.

Live ..

[JoeMorgue]

Taking a step back I do wonder how much of an escalation this would be.

I mean since formal diplomatic relations ended in 1980 Iran-American relations have survived the Iraq-Iran War, the 1983 Hezbollah bombings, the Iran-Contra Affair, the attack on the USS Samuel B. Roberts, Operation Praying Mantis, Operation Nimble Archer, the shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655, the Gulf War, the "Axis of Evil Speech," multiple rounds of sanctions, near endless diplomatic bickering, and endless skirmishes, saber rattling, and other assorted dick waving.

Speaking neutrally, regardless of how anyone feels about either participant, any of the specific incidents historically or the current one, it seems like if either America or Iran needed an excuse to throw down the gloves it would have happened by now.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

The US No longer even has a pretence of principled motives in any such foreign interference. It is all just naked economic interest for the benefit of billionaires. The poor become cannon fodder for oil money.

You know I don't see it that way. Is there anything that we have left to discuss, that isn't personal, hate-filled, or both?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Taking a step back I do wonder how much of an escalation this would be.

I mean since formal diplomatic relations ended in 1980 Iran-American relations have survived the Iraq-Iran War, the 1983 Hezbollah bombings, the Iran-Contra Affair, the attack on the USS Samuel B. Roberts, Operation Praying Mantis, Operation Nimble Archer, the shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655, the Gulf War, the "Axis of Evil Speech," multiple rounds of sanctions, near endless diplomatic bickering, and endless skirmishes, saber rattling, and other assorted dick waving.

Speaking neutrally, regardless of how anyone feels about either participant, any of the specific incidents historically or the current one, it seems like if either America or Iran needed an excuse to throw down the gloves it would have happened by now.

I agree with this.

That said, it could still escalate, and probably will, sooner or later. When it does, I hope it is the US, and not Iran, that prevails.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Taking a step back I do wonder how much of an escalation this would be.

I mean since formal diplomatic relations ended in 1980 Iran-American relations have survived the Iraq-Iran War, the 1983 Hezbollah bombings, the Iran-Contra Affair, the attack on the USS Samuel B. Roberts, Operation Praying Mantis, Operation Nimble Archer, the shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655, the Gulf War, the "Axis of Evil Speech," multiple rounds of sanctions, near endless diplomatic bickering, and endless skirmishes, saber rattling, and other assorted dick waving.

Speaking neutrally, regardless of how anyone feels about either participant, any of the specific incidents historically or the current one, it seems like if either America or Iran needed an excuse to throw down the gloves it would have happened by now.

I see a difference here Joe.

At those other times, you had Presidents who were surrounded with staff and foreign service officials with years of experience, who knew their field and how to do their jobs, and knew (for the most part at least) to give POTUS good advice on Iran. You had heads of departments who had received near unanimous, or at least large majority, confirmation by the Senate.

But now, you have an unqualified President who has fired anyone and everyone who tells him things he doesn't want to hear; who has surrounded himself with unqualified, incompetent "yes-men", with unconsented, acting heads of important departments. The only thing these idiots are capable of advising their President on is now to publicly spin it in the media when he *****-up again.

[JoeMorgue]

*Shrugs* "But Trump is different" is valid.

The problem is it's so universal it's meaningless. Yes the situation might spiral out of control more/bad/worst/quicker because Trump is... let me be diplomatic here and call him a "Hard to predict variable."

But by the same token he loses interest in things fast and his standard tactic of "Never do one evil thing for long" has worked so far.

Trumps smar... errr at least wily enough to know that war is a long term thing he can't Gish Gallop his way through.

Again I don't know, throwing dice in the dark as it where.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Iran is at war already. Stop pretending they're not. ....

If you follow that logic just about every country in the Middle East is at war with just about every other country, and all of them are at war with the US. We better add in which countries in the EU are involved in this conflagration while we are at it.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Vice president Mike Pence tweeted:

Is even a tiny part of this true? I know the actual quantity of 9/11 hijackers was 19 (not 12). Did any of them even get smuggled into Afghanistan?

The question that comes to my mind: is Pence listening the the same whack-jobs Trump listens to?


The other question is how, is it remotely possible we didn't know this yet?

[Venom]

Originally Posted by tanabear

The war in Iraq was completely based on lies. I think this is one of the few times in history when a war was a complete fabrication. There is always a certain amount of chicanery going on in any war, but usually there is an element of truth. But not with the Iraq Attaq of 2003. It was entirely a fake war. Even though the war was a complete fraud we have been there for the better part of two decades now. In fact, we have been bombing Iraq on and off for the past 30 years!

Wrong.

There was chicanery involved in order to boost the war effort and support though.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The question that comes to my mind: is Pence listening the the same whack-jobs Trump listens to?


The other question is how, is it remotely possible we didn't know this yet?

How is it remotely possible that you didn't know about this guy until yesterday, even though General McChrystal called him out in the Atlantic more than ten years ago?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Just found this footage of some treasonous neverTrumper filming an ad for Democrats.

I saw Trump's Tweets saying the same, but oh Lordy, those tapes are so much better.

[Venom]

I believe it's easy for people to change Trump's mind. His flip-flopping and playing both sides is legendary.

It's important that it's the right people around him though.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

How is it remotely possible that you didn't know about this guy until yesterday, even though General McChrystal called him out in the Atlantic more than ten years ago?

Which guy?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Which guy?

Bummer. Better luck next time.

[I Am The Scum]

General McChrystal called out Mike Pence a decade ago?

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You know I don't see it that way. Is there anything that we have left to discuss, that isn't personal, hate-filled, or both?

Personal? That’s just weird.
Hate? I hate the abandonment of the Enlightenment ideals and optimism America was founded upon and the cesspool of greed and cultism it is now.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Personal? That’s just weird.
Hate? I hate the abandonment of the enlightenment ideals and optimism America was founded upon and the cesspool of greed and cultism it is now.

It was a yes or no question.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It was a yes or no question.

That you framed ludicrously.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

That you framed ludicrously.

My bad.

We know your position on US policy in the middle east. We know I don't see it that way. Do you think there's anything left for us to discuss?

[Venom]

Until we know the reasons it was carried out, probably not.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Not true. We haven't always been at war with Iran, either. But we have definitely been at war with Iran since long before yesterday.


That seems like a dishonest presumption on your part. Is that really your theory of warfare?

My position is that military action should adhere to the principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality. My understanding is that this action was consistent with those principles. As far as I know, there's nothing currently going on in Tehran that would justify a nuclear bomb, according to those principles.

In terms of adherence to international law, then I think you have a high bar to demonstrate the necessity of this action.

[alfaniner]

Iran vows "Harsh Revenge". The Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. said that. Not even using diplomatic words. This is so much more insane than promising a "harsh response." Once you get fanatic religion behind it it's going to be impossible to put down.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Given the current administration's record with facts and truth, I would say that about 0% of it is true. FFS, Pence can't even get the number of terrorists right!

That number may refer to how many went to Afghanistan, not to how many total there were.

[Ziggurat]

So apparently Soleimani is now tweeting from Hell:

https://twitter.com/Qasam_Soleimani

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Vice president Mike Pence tweeted:


Is even a tiny part of this true? I know the actual quantity of 9/11 hijackers was 19 (not 12). Did any of them even get smuggled into Afghanistan?

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yes, some of them went to Afghanistan - the so-called Hamburg cell apparently went there according to the 9/11 Commission Report. I don’t find any reference to Iran’s involvement there. On the surface it seems very unlikely, although I haven’t checked thoroughly.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That number may refer to how many went to Afghanistan, not to how many total there were.

There may be grains of truth that are misleading. The tweet seems to imply that Iran, and specifically Soleimani, was part of the 9/11 plot, whereas this is the Wikipedia summary of what the Commission Report found:

Quote:

The 9/11 Commission Report stated that 8 to 10 of the hijackers on 9/11 previously passed through Iran and their travel was facilitated by Iranian border guards.[57][62] The report also found "circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000."[62] After the commission called for "further investigation" into a possible Iranian role in the attacks, President George W. Bush demanded that Iran sever its ties with al-Qaeda, while saying that in his view, "There was no direct connection between Iran and the attacks of September 11."[63]

Two defectors from Iran's intelligence service testified that Iranian officials had "foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks."[64] By contrast, the 9/11 Commission "found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation." In addition, both bin al-Shibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed denied "any relationship between the hijackers and Hezbollah" and "any other reason for the hijackers' travel to Iran" besides "taking advantage of the Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports."[62]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_a...ored_terrorism

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by trustbutverify

He wasn't killed at the first possible chance. Not even close, actually.

That seems to be what the administration wants to imply by using the phrase "target of opportunity".

It rather strains credibility to assume that they'd had other prior opportunities but decided that a rocket strike at an operating civilian airport with guaranteed civilian collateral casualties was the best one of them.

[alfaniner]

I wonder if it will come out eventually that Trump said at the meeting "We gotta do something to distract from the unredacted emails that are dominating the news cycle right now. Generals, whaddya got???"

That would be one reason why no Democrats were invited to the meeting and it wasn't passed through Congress.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Iran vows "Harsh Revenge". The Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. said that. Not even using diplomatic words. This is so much more insane than promising a "harsh response." Once you get fanatic religion behind it it's going to be impossible to put down.

I have no idea the Mullahs have planned. But this type of rhetoric isn't rare for them.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by alfaniner

Iran vows "Harsh Revenge". The Iranian Ambassador to the U.N. said that. Not even using diplomatic words. This is so much more insane than promising a "harsh response." Once you get fanatic religion behind it it's going to be impossible to put down.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

That seems to be what the administration wants to imply by using the phrase "target of opportunity".

It rather strains credibility to assume that they'd had other prior opportunities but decided that a rocket strike at an operating civilian airport with guaranteed civilian collateral casualties was the best one of them.

The US has been tracking Suleimani's position for years, through multiple administrations. I'm not aware of any civilian causalities involved in the convoy strike, and it's difficult to imagine civilians would have been permitted anywhere near these top commanders. The reason for the attack's timing was not the result of a lack of opportunity, but rather several recent Iranian coordinated attacks on US personnel and other assets.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

There may be grains of truth that are misleading. The tweet seems to imply that Iran, and specifically Soleimani, was part of the 9/11 plot, whereas this is the Wikipedia summary of what the Commission Report found:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_a...ored_terrorism

I’ve seen elsewhere that Iran would allow transit through Iran to and from Afghanistan without marking passports. This would facilitate terrorist activity without Iran having to know any of the details, and Soleimani may have played a role in such a policy.

[MattNelson]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Vice president Mike Pence tweeted:

Quote:

[Suleimani] Assisted in the clandestine travel to Afghanistan of 10 of the 12 terrorists who carried out the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States.

Is even a tiny part of this true? I know the actual quantity of 9/11 hijackers was 19 (not 12). Did any of them even get smuggled into Afghanistan?

The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 240, bears the closest thing I can find:

Quote:

Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin’s return to Afghanistan. [...] Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan. For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda.120

Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle” operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.121

In October 2000, a senior operative of Hezbollah visited Saudi Arabia to coordinate activities there. He also planned to assist individuals in Saudi Ara-bia in traveling to Iran during November. A top Hezbollah commander and Saudi Hezbollah contacts were involved.122

Also in October 2000, two future muscle hijackers, Mohand al Shehri and Hamza al Ghamdi, flew from Iran to Kuwait. In November, Ahmed al Ghamdi apparently flew to Beirut, traveling—perhaps by coincidence—on the same flight as a senior Hezbollah operative. Also in November, Salem al Hazmi apparently flew from Saudi Arabia to Beirut.123

In mid-November, we believe, three of the future muscle hijackers,Wail alShehri, Waleed al Shehri, and Ahmed al Nami, all of whom had obtained their U.S. visas in late October, traveled in a group from Saudi Arabia to Beirut and then onward to Iran. An associate of a senior Hezbollah operative was on the same flight that took the future hijackers to Iran. Hezbollah officials in Beirut and Iran were expecting the arrival of a group during the same time period. The travel of this group was important enough to merit the attention of senior figures in Hezbollah.124

Later in November, two future muscle hijackers, Satam al Suqami and Majed
Moqed, flew into Iran from Bahrain. In February 2001, Khalid al Mihdhar may have taken a flight from Syria to Iran, and then traveled further within Iran to a point near the Afghan border.125

KSM and Binalshibh have confirmed that several of the 9/11 hijackers (at least eight, according to Binalshibh) transited Iran on their way to or from Afghanistan, taking advantage of the Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports. They deny any other reason for the hijackers’ travel to Iran. They also deny any relationship between the hijackers and Hezbollah.126

In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. There also is circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of a remarkable coincidence—that is, that Hezbollah was actually focusing on some other group of individuals traveling from Saudi Arabia during this same time frame, rather than the future hijackers.127

We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the spe-cific details of their future operation. After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda. A senior Hezbollah official disclaimed any Hezbollah involvement in 9/11.128

We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I’ve seen elsewhere that Iran would allow transit through Iran to and from Afghanistan without marking passports. This would facilitate terrorist activity without Iran having to know any of the details, and Soleimani may have played a role in such a policy.

Funny though, how Saudi Arabia was also involved with the terrorists before 9/11, but somehow, that just gets waved away and doesn't matter.

[MattNelson]

This attack was not in the interest of the U.S. Signs say it was at the behest of Israel.

"FYI on the coming Iran War (25 Mar. 2019, The White House)"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yyANWty4NA