US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

suicide_circus

Going back to the question of American hegemony and which country would you like to see take the reins in terms of global military might - yes, they are the least worst option and as such the world dosnt freak out too much when they flex their muscles.

I'm not in love with the fact that there has to be a state that takes the "world police" role upon itself but we don't live in John Lennon's 'Imagine' - human's are tribal and violent. It's Realpolitik.

cosybeach

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Funerals began in Baghdad and Iranian dead will have funeral in Tehran on Tuesday.

not much left to bury sympathies to his 12 year old wife

Mad_maxx

suicide_circus wrote: »

Going back to the question of American hegemony and which country would you like to see take the reins in terms of global military might - yes, they are the least worst option and as such the world dosnt freak out too much when they flex their muscles.

I'm not in love with the fact that there has to be a state that takes the "world police" role upon itself but we don't live in John Lennon's 'Imagine' - human's are tribal and violent. It's Realpolitik.

The U.S is indeed the least worst option of the global thugs

Cody montana

cosybeach wrote: »

not much left to bury sympathies to his 12 year old wife

What?

stevedublin

Cody montana wrote: »

What?

His corpse is just some bits of burnt flesh and bone.

jackboy

Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »

I don't get how a major general in the armed forces of a recognized state is considered a terrorist.

I don’t think he was in the armed forces. He was leading a militia.

alchemist33

jackboy wrote: »

I don’t think he was in the armed forces. He was leading a militia.

A militia leader was also killed but Solemaini was a Major General in the Iranian army.

He doesnt seem to have a 12 year old wife though

Cody montana

stevedublin wrote: »

His corpse is just some bits of burnt flesh and bone.

I was asking about the 12 year old wife part.

bnt

Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »

I don't get how a major general in the armed forces of a recognized state is considered a terrorist.

Terrorist is not a job title, it's a description. If you use terrorist tactics - tactics intended to terrorise people - then you're a terrorist.

There's an argument to be made that Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris was a terrorist during WW2, since he ordered bombings that served no strategic purpose other then to strike terror in to German civilians. Dresden was probably the most famous example, but another was Hamburg.

tl;dr: terrorist is as terrorist does.

Smiles35

How is an American diplomat supposed to sit down in good conscience with anyone from that region again?

I used to say that as an interlude when conducting 'diplomatic banter' in my own mind.

The Americans just killed a diplomat from a foreign country. And that's what he was as he was there at the request of the Iraqi government.

KWAG2019

alchemist33 wrote: »

A militia leader was also killed but Solemaini was a Major General in the Iranian army.

He doesnt seem to have a 12 year old wife though

The US designated IRGC as a terrorist organization. Warnings delivered last year directly to Iran that military action would follow any attacks on Americans. US specifically said it was denying IRAN the fiction of deniability through proxies. Essentially if the US calls you a terrorist you are a terrorist. They don’t need permission from others to do so. There is a far more aggressive line with state actors now from Trump. It is a development of Israeli methods and Obama’s expanded use of drones laid the foundations for it.

However, Trump has shown no appetite to take on Russia through her proxies or anything else.

cosybeach

Ok the wife is older

He was head of the IRGC quds force as well as having an army this force protects the hard line regime.
It has funded armed militias around the middle east to destabilize the region so it can eventually control the region also his forces put down brutally any domestic protests.

KWAG2019

Smiles35 wrote: »

How is an American diplomat supposed to sit down in good conscience with anyone from that region again?

I used to say that as an interlude when conducting 'diplomatic banter' in my own mind.

The Americans just killed a diplomat from a foreign country. And that's what he was as he was there at the request of the Iraqi government.

A good conscience is not a prerequisite to be an effective diplomat.

s7ryf3925pivug

Wikipedia: In the USA terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents"

So I suppose he was a clandestine agent who caused violence against non-combatants.

Timberrrrrrrr

bnt wrote: »

Terrorist is not a job title, it's a description. If you use terrorist tactics - tactics intended to terrorise people - then you're a terrorist.

There's an argument to be made that Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris was a terrorist during WW2, since he ordered bombings that served no strategic purpose other then to strike terror in to German civilians. Dresden was probably the most famous example, but another was Hamburg.

tl;dr: terrorist is as terrorist does.

Pretty much makes the US the UK and Israel terrorist states so.

Clarence Boddiker

jon1981 wrote: »

This lad was probably a pain in the arse to the current Iranian leader. I reckon a deal was struck between the US and Iran, a deal we'll never know about. Part of the deal was taking this lad out.

Nothing will come of this.

This is not so far fetched as it seems, I'd say its definitely a possibility.

smurgen

Well I think its fair to say and U.S military or government officials are now fair game to the Iranians.the US effectively declared war on Iran with this move.

Voltex

I see in todays Indo that the British had a SAS team deployed to take out Suleimani as far back as 2003, but Milliband bottled it just before the final order was given.

This fella seems to have been on the radar for along time.

ArchXStanton

smurgen wrote: »

Well I think its fair to say and U.S military or government officials are now fair game to the Iranians.the US effectively declared war on Iran with this move.

I can see them doing something like the 1983 Beirut bombings on an American base, but it will be at a time and date of their choosing, the events of the last few months from downing drones, to ceasing tankers have shown that Iran won't sit quietly by, it was a wreckless foolish move by the US and usually always comes back to bite them in the ass further down the road, we can probably expect some other militia or group to pop up in the middle east by this US action

Nickolas Nutty Dunce

Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »

I don't get how a major general in the armed forces of a recognized state is considered a terrorist.

Because the US labelled him as one, and once he gets the label, then he's fair game to be taken out. Just like creating the idea that Iraq had Nuclear weapons, allowed them the excuse to invade. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's just there as a cover story until the operation is carried out, and people forget about it.

And terrorism, in spite of the US political/media efforts to redefine it, is still a military tactic to inspire fear in the population and reduce their desire to fight over the long term. Terrorism has been used in one form or another for centuries. Modern military theory and psy ops tends to over-complicate the definition of terrorism because it gives them license to respond in any way they consider acceptable.

The US will continue to label anyone they wish to target, a terrorist, because it's a handy excuse for their behavior. In the cold war, he would probably have been called a "military adviser" or "military attache" to advise foreign parties on military development and training.

walshb

This one man will be replaced instantly by many more men, many more even more vengeful and hateful and impassioned...

Why can’t the West just leave these countries the fook alone....

Let them do whatever they want in the middle east. This incessant interference and supposedly, trying to “fix” problems in the region is utter horsesh1t.

Ironicname

walshb wrote:

Why can’t the West just leave these countries the fook alone....

Oil

jmreire

walshb wrote: »

This one man will be replaced instantly by many more men, many more even more vengeful and hateful and impassioned...

Why can’t the West just leave these countries the fook alone....

Let them do whatever they want in the middle east. This incessant interference and supposedly, trying to “fix” problems in the region is utter horsesh1t.

Three letter word, beginning with "O" and ending with "L", Who has it and who control's it.

silverharp

smurgen wrote: »

Well I think its fair to say and U.S military or government officials are now fair game to the Iranians.the US effectively declared war on Iran with this move.

in fairness the Iranians with this guy heavily involved have been killing hundreds of US troops in Iraq over the years. the score sheet is still rather one sided

05eaftqbrs9jlh

Like the chicken and egg question; are the West racist against the Middle East because we want their oil or do they have oil because Yaweh and Allah prefer them?

jmreire

jmreire wrote: »

Three letter word, beginning with "O" and ending with "L", Who has it and who control's it.

It's not just that... it's also a training and idea place to test military technologies in the field.

There's also the aspect that the mess has been done already, and there's no realistic way to leave. That mess is not going to settle down by itself now. Left alone the Middle Eastern countries will rebuild, rearm, and continue to be opponents of the "west" in the future. Any suggestion that they wouldn't is naive in the extreme. Honestly, since "total war" is no longer an option, they're essentially stuck there.

nacho libre

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.

The Saudi government admitted to Putin in 2015 they control salfaist terrorists operating abroad.
Also the Saudi Government, along with Qatar, were one of the main financial backers of jihadists operating in Syria.

Nala Thankful Marquee

Nala Thankful Marquee wrote: »

Like the chicken and egg question; are the West racist against the Middle East because we want their oil or do they have oil because Yaweh and Allah prefer them?

I swear people have wood for using racism as a reason for everything.

The Middle East historically has been where Europes' greatest threats (apart from within itself) came from. The West has had an interest in the region for hundreds of years and that's not going to disappear, especially now with the importance of Oil. Nothing to do with racism.

KWAG2019

Ironicname wrote: »

Oil

And Israel. And US elections.

KWAG2019

smurgen wrote: »

Well I think its fair to say and U.S military or government officials are now fair game to the Iranians.the US effectively declared war on Iran with this move.

A definite possibility now. Killing squaddies only gets them the funeral, the online tribute, the YouTube vid of men riding motorbikes etc etc. Targeting High ranking US targets specifically is a different order of response. And would lead to even more ferocious US response.