US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

threeball

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Iran is a much more fundamentalist country than Saudi at least in terms of it’s leadership.

This is the reason they’re dangerous. Because if they get nuclear weapons they might actually use them.

It might be better to back Saudi, as morally problematic as that is, than face a North Korea type situation in the Middle East.

What has Israel colonised exactly? Over 90% of Palestinians live under the control of the Palestinian authority. Israel just maintains control of the security situation to stop the place flooding with terrorists. 1 million Arabs live in Israel. Not a single Jew lives in Gaza.

Really, maybe you'll tell us how many 9/11 bombers were Iranian and how many were Saudi. Maybe you can also tell us the last time Iran attacked any western country bar American governmental/military interests?

greenpilot

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Uh-huh...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/24/us-military-syria-tanks-oil-fields

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/us-troops-guarding-oil-fields-syria-rules-of-engagement-2019-11

"Some military commanders deployed to Eastern Syria were reportedly still waiting to receive their directives to guard oil fields in the region. For some of these troops, it was unclear where their destinations would be and how long they were expected to stay there, according to CNN."

They haven't been deployed to any oilfields yet, as mentioned in your link. Reason? They dont want to be caught up in anything with Russian troops who are already in the area along the Euphrates. Quite close to Iraq.

pablo128

Gatling wrote: »

Very loosely guarded considering ,

I'm sure plenty of the newly arrived could walk into any city ,town and unleash havok for a few virgins and blaming America for their lifes woes

True but I'm talking about stopping thousands of soldiers from going to war. I think Shannon would be a big target considering the implications.

I'd be happier if our airports weren't used as a transit point. Why don't they use UK airports?

Sean.3516

jon1981 wrote: »

Are you saying an agreement between these nations of this nature is not a probable scenario?

I tell you what, I'll pay you 1 shiny euro coin if a military response comes.

I’m saying there’s no evidence for it.

By the way Soleimini was widely considered the ayatollah’s no. 2 guy and a possible successor to him if he died. The idea that Iran contracted the Trump Administration to kill him is absolutely ludicrous. If you know anything about Iran you should know they have no problem executing people. Considering the current unrest and dissatisfaction with the govt in Iran right now the people might even have welcomed it.

There’s also the logistical implications. The Iranian hierarchy is extremely top heavy meaning this guy had a wide portfolio essentially running all of Iran’s terror network. Not easily replaceable. That’s what makes this such a major blow.

Odhinn

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Iran is a much more fundamentalist country than Saudi at least in terms of it’s leadership.

No, it's not. Every head chopping lunatic in the Arab/Muislim world can be traced back to the Saudi wahabbi cult.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It might be better to back Saudi, as morally problematic as that is, than face a North Korea type situation in the Middle East.

Again, a false equivolence. Saudi is the birth place of Sunni wahabbi extremism, from India to the streets of Paris.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What has Israel colonised exactly? Over 90% of Palestinians live under the control of the Palestinian authority. Israel just maintains control of the security situation to stop the place flooding with terrorists. 1 million Arabs live in Israel. Not a single Jew lives in Gaza.

The west bank, arab east jerusalem and the Golan.


Is resisting colonialism "terrorist"?

Fonny122

Gatling wrote: »

Very loosely guarded considering ,

I'm sure plenty of the newly arrived could walk into any city ,town and unleash havok for a few virgins and blaming America for their lifes woes

you're really trying hard to play dumb about the implications of children growing up in war zones and being more easily radicalised against those who made them war zones, aren't you?

So the real question is, why? Is there something you are trying to prove here beyond a thin veneer of incredible ignorance? Or is it just that you're more the pro Eddie Gallagher type?

ArchXStanton

greenpilot wrote: »

"Some military commanders deployed to Eastern Syria were reportedly still waiting to receive their directives to guard oil fields in the region. For some of these troops, it was unclear where their destinations would be and how long they were expected to stay there, according to CNN."

They haven't been deployed to any oilfields yet, as mentioned in your link. Reason? They dont want to be caught up in anything with Russian troops who are already in the area along the Euphrates. Quite close to Iraq.

Oh they were there alright... Maybe you just weren't as "woke" when all this was going on, maybe it was a bad month for ya or sumfin, or maybe you're not such a clued in guy after all..

Sean.3516

Limpy wrote: »

Makes no sense. Where's this peace you refer to.

A better question. Where’s the World War 3 everyone says is around the corner?

Sean.3516

threeball wrote: »

Prevents Uncessary suffering? Tell that the the kids of Syria, Iraq, afghanistan, Yemen, Venezuela. But they make good movies and burgers so it's all good.

And if the US wasn’t as active in these places as it is, everything would be hunky dory I suppose. Russia and Iran’s ambitions would just cease to exist and they would stay within their own borders.

Sean.3516

threeball wrote: »

Really, maybe you'll tell us how many 9/11 bombers were Iranian and how many were Saudi. Maybe you can also tell us the last time Iran attacked any western country bar American governmental/military interests?

Al Qaeda was a large international terror group. The nationalities of the perpetrators of one specific attack are relatively inconsequential. Hell, the Saudi’s stripped Bin Laden of his Saudi citizenship in 1994 and did the same to his son last year.

Maybe you can tell me the nations of origin of the ships attacked by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz?

threeball

Sean.3516 wrote: »

And if the US wasn’t as active in these places as it is, everything would be hunky dory I suppose. Russia and Iran’s ambitions would just cease to exist and they would stay within their own borders.

Ah the old if I didn't do it someone else would excuse. Would that be accepted down the four courts when drug dealers give their defence.

If us Americans didn't supply all these weapons and cause all this havoc resulting in the death of millions then someone else would. Maybe they should have rolled that one out at the Nuremberg trials. Sorry lads but if we didn't kill all them Jews someone else was going to.

greenpilot

ArchXStanton wrote: »

Oh they were there alright... Maybe you just weren't as "woke" when all this was going on, maybe it was a bad month for ya or sumfin, or maybe you're not such a clued in guy after all..

Lol. I'm too old to understand "woke". Anyway, I speak from my experiences in Syria over the years, from a military perspective.

threeball

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Al Qaeda was a large international terror group. The nationalities of the perpetrators of one specific attack are relatively inconsequential. Hell, the Saudi’s stripped Bin Laden of his Saudi citizenship in 1994 and did the same to his son last year.

Maybe you can tell me the nations of origin of the ships attacked by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz?

11 is the answer. 11 were Saudi. The Saudis flew the bin Laden's out of America the day after 9/11 as well as numerous high level officials who were of interest to the FBI. I think that's pretty consequential.

The fact that the money funding Isis was Saudi money is probably inconsequential too I suppose. Seriously, you need to start reading a book that isn't approved by the US propaganda machine.

ArchXStanton

greenpilot wrote: »

Lol. I'm too old to understand "woke". Anyway, I speak from my experiences in Syria over the years, from a military perspective.

Yeah and you didn't even know they had oilfields in Syria...

ArchXStanton

greenpilot wrote: »

Oilfields in Syria? Ever been to Syria?

I'll just move this up to go with my last post...

Gatling

Fonny122 wrote: »

you're really trying hard

Run along there ted

Sean.3516

Odhinn wrote: »

No, it's not. Every head chopping lunatic in the Arab/Muislim world can be traced back to the Saudi wahabbi cult.

I really wish the situation was as simple as you guys seem to think it is. Sunni terrorism tends to originate in Saudi, yes. But the extent to which the government of the country overtly supports and finances it is nowhere near on the scale of Iran which is the primary sponsor of Shia terrorism.

And no, not every head chopping lunatic is traced back to Saudi. The ones from Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine and parts of Iraq and Syria are funded by Iran.

Odhinn wrote: »

Again, a false equivolence. Saudi is the birth place of Sunni wahabbi extremism, from India to the streets of Paris.

Not really a false equivalence. North Korea and Iran are both backward hellholes run by crazy people. Iran doesn’t have nukes yet but they want them and are actively developing them. As soon as they get them all this becomes way harder to contain.

Not all Islamic extremism is Sunni by the way.

Odhinn wrote: »

The west bank, arab east jerusalem and the Golan.


Is resisting colonialism "terrorist"?

If it means firing rockets into civilian population centers then yes.

The regions you’ve listed are autonomously governed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel maintains military control to stop terrorism from spilling into their borders. That’s not a colonial arrangement. They’ve been offered land for peace five times in the last hundred years and refused as they can’t tolerate a Jewish State beside them.

greenpilot

ArchXStanton wrote: »

I'll just move this up to go with my last post...

Ok, let me explain this in another way for you, Syria's " oilfields" are negligible, which was my point. I know this as I spent six months working in the Eastern part of the country next to them. My point is, they are not worth guarding. Like some of the posters here, I have lived in the ME, have knowledge of the countries, their people and the Geo-political situations. This is not a competition. Maybe you've been to the ME, I dont know, but what a person Googles and what a person experiences at first hand are two very different things....ah. why bother.

Sean.3516

threeball wrote: »

11 is the answer. 11 were Saudi. The Saudis flew the bin Laden's out of America the day after 9/11 as well as numerous high level officials who were of interest to the FBI. I think that's pretty consequential.

The fact that the money funding Isis was Saudi money is probably inconsequential too I suppose. Seriously, you need to start reading a book that isn't approved by the US propaganda machine.

Again, “Saudi” is being used as a blanket term here. There are elements in Saudi Arabia who support terror and there is the Saudi govt itself.

There is some overlap between the two.

In Iran, the Venn diagram is just two circles on top of each other.

threeball

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I really wish the situation was as simple as you guys seem to think it is. Sunni terrorism tends to originate in Saudi, yes. But the extent to which the government of the country overtly supports and finances it is nowhere near on the scale of Iran which is the primary sponsor of Shia terrorism.

And no, not every head chopping lunatic is traced back to Saudi. The ones from Lebanon, Yemen, Palestine and parts of Iraq and Syria are funded by Iran.





Not really a false equivalence. North Korea and Iran are both backward hellholes run by crazy people. Iran doesn’t have nukes yet but they want them and are actively developing them. As soon as they get them all this becomes way harder to contain.

Not all Islamic extremism is Sunni by the way.





If it means firing rockets into civilian population centers then yes.

The regions you’ve listed are autonomously governed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel maintains military control to stop terrorism from spilling into their borders. That’s not a colonial arrangement. They’ve been offered land for peace five times in the last hundred years and refused as they can’t tolerate a Jewish State beside them.

You really haven't a Scooby.

You claim the Saudis don't sponsor terrorism on the same level as Iran, yet they were the main benefactors of Isis.

Iran is a hellhole? In comparison to most of the middle East it's absolute paradise. Very high levels of education and healthcare not helped by crippling American sanctions.

So the Palestinians should just give a tyrannical Israeli regime free reign to encroach on their already overpopulated territory, suck up all the sanctions and atrocities committed on them and just shrug it offer. All made possible by American weapons and finance.

threeball

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Again, “Saudi” is being used as a blanket term here. There are elements in Saudi Arabia who support terror and there is the Saudi govt itself.

There is some overlap between the two.

In Iran, the Venn diagram is just two circles on top of each other.

Ah yes the innocent Saudi government who only get involved in dismembering journalists and then set up show trials which orders the execution of the people they ordered to carry out the killings. I completely believe they have no involvement in terrorism.

Cheerful Spring2

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Again, “Saudi” is being used as a blanket term here. There are elements in Saudi Arabia who support terror and there is the Saudi govt itself.

There is some overlap between the two.

In Iran, the Venn diagram is just two circles on top of each other.

It well known Saudi diplomatic representatives and Saudi ministry defence spies were the first characters to met the 9/11 hijackers when they arrived in the year 2000. FBI agents who examined the evidence have publically spoken about this to newspapers, journals and with concerned people who want to know the truth. The order to suspend the FBI investigation into Saudi Arabia role in 9/11 came from the top, probably directed by officials in the White House or State department administration. The rank-and-file FBI requested to continue investigation, but they were told to stop.  It's a scandal that media never touched during the Bush war on terror period. 

Beasty

Gatling wrote: »

After Iranian militias attacked the US embassy a few days ago do keep up ,

We all know your new here (not really)

Gatling wrote: »

Run along there ted

If you have a problem with a post or poster report it and leave the modding to the mods

Spanish Eyes

So is this drone attack on Sulamenlie or whatever he's called dangerous for us?

Just wondered would the repercussions affect Brexit lol. You know, collateral damage.

Sean.3516

threeball wrote: »

Ah the old if I didn't do it someone else would excuse. Would that be accepted down the four courts when drug dealers give their defence.

If us Americans didn't supply all these weapons and cause all this havoc resulting in the death of millions then someone else would. Maybe they should have rolled that one out at the Nuremberg trials. Sorry lads but if we didn't kill all them Jews someone else was going to.

Russia and Iran and China have actual imperial ambitions and WILL interfere no matter what.

The US has never had imperial or expansionist ambitions beyond the continent of North America, with the single exception of the Spanish American War of 1898.

When you emerge as the most powerful country in the world and are faced with other powerful countries that don’t share your values of self-determinism and have malevolent intentions, do you have some responsibility to help? This the question.

At the very least you have a responsibility to ensure your own security which becomes harder as you become a bigger target and will necessitate being involved in places you haven’t been involved in before.

The second paragraph of your post is silly hyperbolic reductio ad ridiculum and not worth responding to.

Fr_Dougal

Can’t see Iran following the legal route as sole retaliation.

Spanish Eyes

Taking the heat off the Impeachment number one.

Not consulting allies number two. Johnson was told I am sure, but it was not broadcast. Although much may be made of that.

Be interesting to see what will happen. I reckon nothing.

threeball

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Russia and Iran and China have actual imperial ambitions and WILL interfere no matter what.

The US has never had imperial or expansionist ambitions beyond the continent of North America, with the single exception of the Spanish American War of 1898.

When you emerge as the most powerful country in the world and are faced with other powerful countries that don’t share your values of self-determinism and have malevolent intentions, do you have some responsibility to help? This the question.

At the very least you have a responsibility to ensure your own security which becomes harder as you become a bigger target and will necessitate being involved in places you haven’t been involved in before.

The second paragraph of your post is silly hyperbolic reductio ad ridiculum and not worth responding to.

Not worth responding to because you can't argue the point.

And to say the Americans don't have imperialist ambitions is absolute b.s. of the highest order. They invade where ever they feel like, take control of the country, plunder their resources (mainly oil) and even retain control of these resources after they leave. Nothing like an imperialist country at all.

Sean.3516

threeball wrote: »

Ah yes the innocent Saudi government who only get involved in dismembering journalists and then set up show trials which orders the execution of the people they ordered to carry out the killings. I completely believe they have no involvement in terrorism.

As I’ve said, the Saudi’s are a-holes in a region filled with a-holes and the US is making a moral compromise by forming a coalition with them in order to stop Iran from getting a nuke they might actually use.

It’s a calculation you or I will never have to make from our keyboards.

As for the killing of Jamal Kashoggi, it was unconnected to terror. He was an outspoken critic of the Saudi govt and they had him killed.

If you were to draw any terror related narrative from this (which I don’t) it would be that Saudi govt was anti-terror considering the fact that Kashoggi was a radical with ties to the Islamic Brotherhood and the Bin Ladens.

AllForIt

suicide_circus wrote: »

nothing like an airstirke when they're trying to impeach you

I don't really see how this airstrike will affect his impeachment - which isn't going to happen anyway.

You can't really follow politics and not be cynical but what I see as a possibility here is something big was always going to happen re Iran regardless, and Trump decided to go with it in a 'timely' fashion.

But I don't think that's what your suggesting, I think your suggesting he carried out an airstrike because of the impeachment proceedings where he never would have otherwise. I don't believe that, and I desperately hope I'm right about this, not for the sake of being right but because if I'm wrong the world is truly screwed.