Iraqi protesters storm U.S. embassy in Baghdad

[Coughdrop addict]

Anyhow, while five new pages of discussion seem to have flown by since I posted here last night, can we take a moment to appreciate just how hilariously tits-up this affair has gone relative to the expectations of the OP? It's actually remarkable how badly off-the-mark his delusional anti-American fantasy has turned out to be.

You'll have to forgive Exarch. He has this oddly specific racial hatred of Americans of anglo descent that causes him to post threads about our imminent doom at the hands of China or whoever is mad at us this week.

Trump hasn't bombed any American citizens. What Obama did was illegal. Obama should have gotten legal approval. He didn't. What Trump did was entirely legal. The man that was killed should have been killed when he tried to have a DC restaurant bombed to kill a Saudi diplomat.

So like I guessed, legal/illegal and right/wrong are completely based on who is doing it instead of what was being done.

[dogukan]

Iran's actions are justified because of American illegal occupation of Iraq.
How would you like if Iran occupied Mexico or Canada and bombed pro-American groups there?
US should just leave Iran's sphere of influence and focus on its own territory instead.

Iran's sphere of influence?
So you are against American-imperialism but promote Iranian imperialism?

[Coughdrop addict]

Iran's sphere of influence?
So you are against American-imperialism but promote Iranian imperialism?

It's like I've been saying, modern day conservatism sees actions as neutral and judges them good or bad based on who is doing it instead of what is being done. So to some of them yes, America's "imperialism" is bad but Iran or another nation's is fine, based solely on their feelings towards the nations in question. Or they might say killing terrorists is illegal and wrong when done by Obama, but legal and right when done by Trump.

[Infidel144]

Or they might say killing terrorists is illegal and wrong when done by Obama, but legal and right when done by Trump.

Was the killing of Soleimani "legal and right"?

[dogukan]

Was the killing of Soleimani "legal and right"?

Soleimani is a leader of a proxy war. He is the commander-in-chief of Iran's proxy warfare operations. From Iraq to Yemen to Lebanon to Syria he is involved in wars, making military connections and lead militia forces.
He might not have been a commander in an official war, but I do not think he was outside the "combat" in the context of middle east.
His decisions as a man in uniform was directly leading outcome that involved combat and death.

In his last days, he has been the leader of the groups that have been killing hundreds of Iraqi protestors in the past months and finally he has also been the leader of the mobs that were assaulting the American embassy.

Iran had been "increasing" the heat slowly until USA left but in their last acts, they went a bit too fast. If Iran did not do anything, Americans would probably been out and losing influence far faster.

[Infidel144]

Soleimani is a leader of a proxy war...

I am not unaware. I want to know what Coughdrop addict's
answer is.

[conon394]

Was the killing of Soleimani "legal and right"?

Legal probably no.

Right for the US probably yes. No I'm sure it did in of and of itself not stop and Iranian plans but it did present a gauntlet and it backtracked on Trump's whiff over threats earlier and in a fairly precise way (and his selling out of the Kurds in Syria). I doubt Iran's leaders have a taste for a real war so they are in a bind how to respond without bringing down more retribution than can afford. Theoretically Iraq might expel the US but I doubt it since the protests show a fair amount of people don't want to be Iranian puppets (or American ones). The orange fool might just get lucky on this one.

[Knight of Heaven]

United states foreign politics have been the same for decades. This didn't changed with Trump.

But of course any time Trump sneezes everyone in the media is ready to jump on him. CNN even mention the scandalous meat loaf and ice scream Trump was having when this attack was carried out.

Cheap sensationalism trying to convey outrage to their audience, in that CNN article.

[Vanoi]

Mmm even if al-Zenki did commit a terror attack it wouldn't support the conclusion that U.S. is directly involved in terrorism. Regime change is the purpose of supporting such groups, not terrorism. In my opinion though, seeking regime change in the Middle East is an even graver offense than terrorism. Not morally of course, but in terms of how offensive it is to said regimes. Can't exactly offend Iran through terrorism when their top priority is regime survival, not protection of their people. Well I don't mean "can't offend" but my point is that trying to get rid of Assad is far more disturbing to Iran than a terrorist attack on Assad by US proxies.

Don't tell cookie that. And i agree with you.

So two main points you keep pushing is that 1) al-Zenki in your opinion is not a terrorist movement AND 2) none of the groups armed by the US in e.g. Libya and Syria are terrorist organisations. On both of those points: Wow. Just wow.

Feel free to name the countries that have Al-Zenki listed as a terror group and the Libyan groups the US supported. Still haven't told me of the terror attacks Al-Zenki is involved in.

Furthermore it's funny to see you constantly shift the frame of reference in the hopes of excluding anything that doesn't support your claim, then changing it again once the sophistry didn't work.

Whats funny is that you haven't provided one answer to me yet on any of ny questions.

On the last point, as to when the MEK last committed a terror attack, there are conflicting statements depending on who you ask. If you ask the US, then they've become a group of angels since the 80s and 90s when they were at their zenith and declared a terrorist organisation by the US respectively.

I have the answer. Over a decade. MEK has been disarmed for a while now living in Albania. By the time the US took them off the terror list the MEK had not committed any attacks for a while.

If you ask the Iranians, they're still doing it.

if you ask Iranians they also say that the US and Zionist Israel are the devil.

Unlike you I do not blindly believe in unsupported claims made by a warrying party with an agency, so I'll have to give a pass on that question. The fact is, when we ignore your silly timeframe-sophistry (which is the actual thing without relevance), the MEK were declared a terrorist organisation by the US, which then nevertheless proceeded to ally with them. Even if we decide to be so naive that they *poof* just magically stopped doing what they did, the string of assassinations et al evidently have not.

---

---

You should read this : https://www.amnesty.at/media/4621/am...ember-2018.pdf

Great article about Iran and how they themselves created the war with the MEK. Iran's oppressive regime creates its own problems.

[Heathen Hammer]

Iran's sphere of influence?
So you are against American-imperialism but promote Iranian imperialism?

Oh no, Iran is trying to calm things down near its borders, how imperialist!

Meanwhile in reality, Iraqis are literally celebrating in the streets at the news of Soleimani's death.

Sounds like the usual American propaganda, but ok. Ironically, if Iranians killed Bush W or main CIA leader, people would actually dance in the streets and celebrate.
Meanwhile in actual reality, the guy that Americans murdered was one of the key commanders who was instrumental in defeating ISIS in Iraq and even helped Americans in Afghanistan against Taliban.
Hopefully, Iranians will successfully manage to kill an American military commander of the same weight, since now they are perfectly legitimate targets for attacks.

[Papay]

America is losing the game so they try to create chaos. They know that the two bigger Iraqi parties have decided to nominate the governor of Basra as future PM. He is pro-Iranian and he will try to throw US forces out of his country. These airstrikes are a warning but they might backfire

[Vanoi]

America is losing the game so they try to create chaos. They know that the two bigger Iraqi parties have decided to nominate the governor of Basra as future PM. He is pro-Iranian and he will try to throw US forces out of his country. These airstrikes are a warning but they might backfire

Thats the problem here. The protesters made it real clear they don't want Iranian or American influence in their government. They will oppose this new PM just like the last one who leaned toward Iran.

[Yayattasa]

Thats the problem here. The protesters made it real clear they don't want Iranian or American influence in their government. They will oppose this new PM just like the last one who leaned toward Iran.

That's the thing with protests. They are loud, but not necessarily present the idea of the majority.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands attend to Soleimani funeral in Baghdad.

Tuesday his body will be flown to Iran where he will be buried.

Khamenei promoted him posthumously to liutenant general and declared three days of mourning.

[Vanoi]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/09/middl...ntl/index.html

The protests in Iraq are the biggest protests they have ever had since Saddam. Over 300 killed and 15,000 injured. These are popular protests. So popular they have caused the resignation of the current Iraqi PM.

Meanwhile the current President of Iraq threatened to quit than nominate the PM from the Iranian bloc of parties.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/...132315483.html

The President refuses to nominate the PM because the protesters will reject him.

[irontaino]

And now arms companies get to sit back and watch the cash roll in.

[Lord Thesaurian]

There is a distinction between being a terrorist organization and sponsoring terrorism. Tehran is not a terrorist organization for the same reason United States wasn't a terrorist organization when they gave direct support to Contras during the Cold War.

The difference between MEK and the Ayatollah is that one is a legitimate government defending its interests while the other is not. That's a very large difference. Not to mention that supporting terrorism and committing terrorism are different things. Iran pursues such tactics because it does not possess alternative tools.

I'm not sure why you classify this as apologism and I don't agree with this kind of absolutism.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. What exactly has Iran pioneered that other countries, haven't done in the last century? Secondly, I really don't think anybody here thinks that Iran is an innocent bystander, that's not really the point. The protest here is that Iran is being singled out when Iran is not the only country that sponsors terrorism, they're not the only country with strong anti-American sentiments, and they're definitely not the only country with human rights abuses. So I don't see what the utility of bringing up Iran's terrible record is. I doubt anybody on this board is actually going to miss Soleimani, some of us, like myself, have never even heard of him until the last few days. The issue isn't whether he was a good or bad man. The issue is that this escalation is terrible news for the region.

Iran's hostility is not without merit. I think it's incredibly hypocritical to bring up the last 40 years of Iran's misdeeds when one of the main reasons behind the existence of the current regime in Iran is American foreign policy. Quite frankly, one of the biggest obstacles to peace in the middle east is United States itself. If your main argument is humanitarian and moral, if you're concerned with reducing terrorism, then assassinating Soleimani is counter-productive. As is attempting to to drive Iran into a corner because you want it to change its behavior.

It’s odd that you would acknowledge the Iranian regime as “toxic” whilst also attempting to morally equivocate away her record. Such tactics inevitably lead one to engage in rhetorical obfuscations and whataboutist deflections - like stressing a distinction between financing and training terrorists with the explicit goal of spreading terrorism, versus directly engaging in terrorism, or comparing the Iran-Contra scandal to Tehran’s 40 year record of terrorism and attacks against the US and her allies, or asserting that the Ayatollah’s radical Islamist faction is “legitimate” because they won, whereas MEK’s radical Islamist faction is illegitimate because they lost, or dismissing Tehran’s record on the basis that she didn’t “pioneer” new concepts of war or terrorism.

Tehran, as a theocratic Islamist regime, has engaged in terrorism and attacks against the US and her allies as part of her 40 year ongoing quest to export “global Islamic Revolution.” This includes terrorism and attacks launched indirectly through terrorist proxies like Hezbollah, as well as directly through Tehran’s diplomatic, military and intelligence services. Had MEK won out over Khomeini’s faction in the wake of the Revolution, the narrative you are pushing could be used to excuse anything that regime would have done as well.

I am not making a moral or humanitarian argument. I am not claiming Tehran must be punished for her sins. I am not claiming the regime is legitimate or illegitimate. The “utility” of bringing up Tehran’s record is a) her actions are the topic of the thread, and b) it is relevant in the context of a discussion wherein people are discussing “escalation” of conflict and attempting to paint Tehran as a victim by engaging in whataboutism and apologism.

Tehran has been escalating her “irregular warfare” against the US and her allies for 40 years, be it when she attacked our embassy in 1979, or when her proxies attacked another in 2019. Taking out the military commander who led the forces responsible for this latest and any number of other attacks is a response to the latter; the politics of appeasement notwithstanding. Tehran has escalated the conflict to such an extent, she has relatively few options left for further escalation. If your argument is that the US is ultimately responsible for the situation because she helped Khomeini, then you might as well take such consequentialist logic back to when a certain desert bandit decided to start a new religion.

Iran's hostility is not without merit.

If you can find “merit” in Tehran’s record or actions, I’m not sure why you bothered with any of the rest. If the US shouldn’t respond in kind when attacked for the umpteenth time because of allegations of moral hypocrisy, there’s no point in discussing details. I’m well aware the timing of the strike on Soleimani probably had more to do with this than a coherent long term strategy, but characterizing it as a wild and unprovoked escalation of the US-Iran staring contest deliberately negates the facts and history of the situation. It was not a humanitarian strike. It was not an attempt to reduce terrorism in the region or to convince Tehran to back off. It was a response to attacks by Tehran and her proxies, designed to knock out a key asset in Iran’s “irregular warfare” toolkit. If the Ayatollah wants to kill Americans and attack our embassy in his bid to make Iraq an Iranian satellite, he will have to fight for it.

[B. W.]

That's the thing with protests. They are loud, but not necessarily present the idea of the majority.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands attend to Soleimani funeral in Baghdad.

Tuesday his body will be flown to Iran where he will be buried.

Khamenei promoted him posthumously to liutenant general and declared three days of mourning.

From what I've been able to glean the only thing left of the body was one hand with a ring on it. That's how they identified him. It was his ring. So I guess they'll be burying a hand with a ring on it.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The congress and european ambassadors should move to Mar-A-Lago...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A kill without a plan - why Trump ordered the attack on Soleimani

by Elmar Theveßen

Date:
01/04/2020 06:29 PM

The plan to kill Iranian General Soleimani was probably a spontaneous decision by the US president to act as a deterrent. Not all episodes were considered.

Donald Trump just couldn't keep it to himself. In the days before the targeted killing of the Iranian general Soleimani, he whispered to guests in his golf club Mar-a-Lago that he was working on a "big" response to the Iranian provocations. "Soon" she will come, "you will see." According to the news site "Daily Beast", citing several sources that witnessed the small indiscretions of the American president. Club guests were thus better informed than leading congressmen, who are usually involved shortly before US military action.

Bush and Obama consciously decided against attack

It is one of countless indications that this president simply ticks differently than his predecessors. George W. Bush and Barack Obama would also have had the chance to kill the most dangerous terrorist puller in the Middle East and second most powerful man in Iran. They decided against it.

Elissa Slotkin, Democratic Congresswoman, formerly with the CIA and the National Security Council responsible for Iraq, describes in a few tweets the considerations of Donald Trump's predecessors: "What prevented both Presidents, Democrat and Republican from targeting Soleimani himself, was a simple question: 'Is this blow worth the possible retaliation and the risk of getting us into a lengthy conflict?' "

Obama and Bush answered the question with a resounding no. Also because there has been a presidential directive in the United States since the 1970s, according to which the targeted killing of an opposing leader - a political murder to a certain extent - is prohibited as a means of foreign policy.

Trump creates fire precedent

Donald Trump has now broken this rule and thereby also created a new precedent that is extremely dangerous for numerous political leaders, even for American politicians - including himself. Could the United States kill the North Korean President Kim or the Syrian President Assad with the same justification?

Couldn't they try the same thing with the American Secretary of State or even the US President? The Iranian regime has had no qualms about this in the past. The terrorist general Soleimani was responsible for the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri by a car bomb in 2005.

Revolutionary Guards classified as a terrorist organization

Actually, the world shouldn't be really surprised by the drone attack at Baghdad Airport. The Trump administration had already formally declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization last April. An unusual step, which was specifically explained in the White House's announcement at the time: "It is the first time that the United States, with such a classification, has declared part of another government to be a foreign terrorist organization. It underscores the fact that the deeds are taking place of Iran fundamentally different from those of other governments. "

Since then, Soleimani, the leader of the elite Kuds unit within the Revolutionary Guard, has been assimilated to top terrorists such as Al-Qaidas Osama bin Laden and IS chief Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi. Nevertheless, the Trump administration also hesitated long before the Iranian was killed.

Trump is caught up in his own weakness

The change of heart now has to do mainly with Trump's own weakness. In the summer of last year, he canceled a planned military strike against the regime in Tehran shortly before it was carried out, thereby signaling that the limit of American patience had not yet been reached, despite numerous violent provocations by Iran. The principle of deterrence was overridden. An attack with more than 30 rockets on American targets in Iraq in late 2019, in which a US citizen was killed, and above all the storming of the American embassy in Baghdad by Shiite militia officers were obviously the drops that trumped the barrel for Trump. If he put up with all of this, America's power in the region would be broken and, more importantly for Trump, he would be a weakling in the US election campaign with every new Iranian provocation.

The principle of deterrence should be reinstated

Trump announced on Twitter last week that Iran would pay "a high price". As a result, Iran's spiritual leader Ayatollah Khameinei ridiculed that America couldn't do anything about it anyway. Apparently, a rather spontaneous decision followed to take the most drastic option that the US Department of Defense had actually put on the list of possible targets as an extreme variant.

Soleimani was not difficult to find either because he rarely kept his travel plans secret. Trump was apparently so inspired by the idea because only such a daring move offered the chance to reinstate the principle of deterrence that he himself had destroyed.

Not prepared for departure for US citizens in advance

But if you want to play chess with such a high risk, you should always think a few moves ahead, says Elissa Slotkin. The Bush and Obama administrations had considered the possible consequences of the killing of Soleimani and therefore decided not to do so. "It is critical," Slotkin said in a tweet, "that the government has thought through the moves and countermeasures triggered by this attack, and is ready to protect our diplomats, soldiers, and citizens overseas . "

But that, according to several sources from the environment of the US President, apparently did not happen in the spontaneous enthusiasm for the killing plan. Instead, Trump preferred to run through his golf club to give mysterious hints to some guests. Since then, US ministries and security agencies have been working flat out to protect high-ranking military, political, government and US citizens from possible revenge from Tehran. And the Pentagon is designing scenarios for an impending war with Iran.

https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute...imani-100.html

[dogukan]

Oh no, Iran is trying to calm things down near its borders, how imperialist!

Iran is calming things?

It is an expansionist secterian anti-democratic theocracy that;
1. represses its own people, killing hundreds in protests
2. jails thousands of people
3. executes activists by hanging as capital punishment, especially Kurds
4. Executes women that are raped
5. Gives all sorts of support to various militias and uses its weight as a state to prevent Kurds in other areas from gaining any recognition
6. represses Kurdish and Baloch ethnic rights violent which has led to armed conflicts
7. Aims for a Shia-led secterian corridor throughout the Levant, and does not refrain from ethnically cleansing Sunni Arabs and Kurds if needs be
8. Is in active geopolitical conflict with Israel, Turkey and KSA - Announces desire to erase Israel from the map while actively supporting Hamas
9. Is a poor country that is wasting its potential thanks to its EXTREMELY corrupt economy being dominated by IRGC&Militia warlords/elites that suck the blood of all the country, leading tens of millions of well educated Iranians to an extremely depressive/unhappy life which pushes them to drug addiction

Iran is hurting SOOO many people in the whole region just to cling to its dying Shia-revolution ideology...
So spare me your black and white world.

[Barry Goldwater]

Sounds like the usual American propaganda, but ok. Ironically, if Iranians killed Bush W or main CIA leader, people would actually dance in the streets and celebrate.
Meanwhile in actual reality, the guy that Americans murdered was one of the key commanders who was instrumental in defeating ISIS in Iraq and even helped Americans in Afghanistan against Taliban.
Hopefully, Iranians will successfully manage to kill an American military commander of the same weight, since now they are perfectly legitimate targets for attacks.

Man, are you trying to give Exarch a run for his money in the realm of inane fantasies that reality's set to spoil? The Iranians are lucky you don't have the Ayatollah's ear BTW, since the course of action you're proposing is suicidal for them and such arrogant delusions of grandeur have literally just gotten their #3 after Khamenei & Rouhani killed. Fact is, between their inherent lack of raw strength compared to us, the loss of the main brain trust behind their regional strategy, their crumbling economy, roiling internal turmoil and exploding dissent against them & their proxies in Iraq and Lebanon, they're the in this situation with limited means to respond and I think they know it, despite all their face-saving tough talk and threats.