US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

Gringo180

The vast amount of people on the streets of Iraq mourning the deaths from this American war crime really tells its own story of whos side the Iraqi people are on.

https://twitter.com/CarlosOrtizMoha/status/1213484883798118401?s=19

Discodog

is_that_so wrote: »

Trump was right for Trump. The timing suits him very well going into a re-election.

Iran have been causing chaos for years. The general was responsible for thousands of deaths & was planning many more. The one thing we should of learned by now is appeasement never works.

Gringo180

Discodog wrote: »

Iran have been causing chaos for years. The general was responsible for thousands of deaths & was planning many more. The one thing we should of learned by now is appeasement never works.

You more than likey never even heard of Soleimani before this drone strike judging by calling him "The general". So in the space of a few days youve found evidence he has been responsible for thousands of deaths and planning more? Any chance of a link to this evidence? Or are u just parrotting the media outlets who have constantly lied to its citizens?

brucky

The elimination of Soleimani was very surgical without a greater loss of life. From the funeral clips I don’t see may women mourning his loss, why not?

BluePlanet

Remember when they said Saddam was 45 minutes away from launching a chemical attack?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier

No lessons learned evidently as some people will just swallow up any lie pitched their way.

is_that_so

Discodog wrote: »

Iran have been causing chaos for years. The general was responsible for thousands of deaths & was planning many more. The one thing we should of learned by now is appeasement never works.

Yeah he was but US were happy to deal with him as well down the years. No such thing as a simple answer nor a clear cut decision in the ME. Having seen the absurd machinations required to bring the GFA into being we are better placed than most to understand that.

GooglePlus

handlemaster wrote: »

(CNN)In media appearances prior to the 2012 election, Donald Trump repeatedly predicted that then-President Barack Obama would start a war with Iran in order to win reelection.

Read the tweets on page 1, it's actually comical.

is_that_so

brucky wrote: »

The elimination of Soleimani was very surgical without a greater loss of life. From the funeral clips I don’t see may women mourning his loss, why not?

Location and culture goes a long way towards explaining that.

Guy:Incognito

X111111111111 wrote: »

What are you talkng about? The election isn't until November. Americans don't care about foreign policy btw it's all about the economy. If the economy sinks President Trump is gone, if it stay as is or improves he'll win in a landslide.

So why was trump banging on about Obama doing exactly this in th lead up to his election?
And why would it be bad for Obama to do it be good for trump?

Guy:Incognito

Gringo180 wrote: »

You more than likey never even heard of Soleimani before this drone strike judging by calling him "The general". So in the space of a few days youve found evidence he has been responsible for thousands of deaths and planning more? Any chance of a link to this evidence? Or are u just parrotting the media outlets who have constantly lied to its citizens?

There was a thread on twitter yesterday or the day before of all the high profile folk flag waving and saying how bad Soleimani was and how right the kill was. Funny enough, when their history was searched for any mention of him before the other day, nothing, not a mention.

monty_python

What Twitter accounts do people follow for news on things like this? I just joined Twitter now

dresden8

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes. I think so.

That was the whole point.

It was a single targeted operation, and if Iran isn't scared by that then they should be.

The idea that Iran are in any position to retaliate on some significant scale is simply ridiculous. They don't have the means or the power.

The Iranian gov are only thinking now how to look good to their people, rather than to actually do anything effectively against the US.

The whole point of the strike is to make them consider what they are doing that brought about this situation.

They have 2 choices, they can either change their activities or they can will damage themselves further both economically and further damage themselves in a social world sense.

I do find it odd, that when the Iranian's talk about hitting back at the US, and their citizen's, that noone point's out the belligerent attitude of such statements. As if, it's totally fine for the Iranians, to be so aggressive, but if one is not of of that country, one must conduct themselves to higher standards.

It's completely typical the way the loony media are portraying these turn of events.

Iran has been involved in a war of assassins with Israel for years. The real experts.

The thought that they quake with fear is a ridiculous concept.

Enough dead Americans and it's the Americans who go home and sulk.

is_that_so

monty_python wrote: »

What Twitter accounts do people follow for news on things like this? I just joined Twitter now

Follow some of the most recognised news outlets for now and Twitter will suggest others. I'd go on both sides of the spectrum although Breitbart is really pushing it!

Cody montana

is_that_so wrote: »

Follow some of the most recognised news outlets for now and Twitter will suggest others. I'd go on both sides of the spectrum although Breitbart is really pushing it!

I don’t trust a single thing Breitbart posts.

Montage of Feck

Donald has really gone insane. He's raving like some senile third world dictator who been in power far too long.

is_that_so

Cody montana wrote: »

I don’t trust a single thing Breitbart posts.

Nope not a bit but it does provide occasional amusement in reading their "slant" and you can see how some otherwise alien minds might be working.

Montage of Feck

BluePlanet wrote: »

Remember when they said Saddam was 45 minutes away from launching a chemical attack?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier

No lessons learned evidently as some people will just swallow up any lie pitched their way.

The world was, as bad in all as they were, a better place when Saddam and Gadaffi were in power.

X111111111111

monty_python wrote: »

What Twitter accounts do people follow for news on things like this? I just joined Twitter now

Stay away from MSM news sources like CNN, Sky, RTE etc... They are all signing from the same hymn sheet and push an agenda

X111111111111

Montage of Feck wrote: »

The world was, as bad in all as they where, a better place when Saddam and Gadaffi were in power.

Hltler also :rolleyes:

Montage of Feck

X111111111111 wrote: »

Hltler also :rolleyes:

Mussolini, maybe.

wildeside

monty_python wrote: »

What Twitter accounts do people follow for news on things like this? I just joined Twitter now

The best analysis I see bar none in terms of what is really going on with American meddling in foreign countries is on this guy's YouTube channel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWllto0Xzg

You just can't stitch so many pieces together in a coherent, easily digestible form on Twitter.

If I were to pick someone on Twitter it would be award winning journalists Glen Greenwald or Aaron Mate.

Mad_maxx

trump was going to win in novemember anyway , i dont buy the idea that this was about rallying his base or diverting attention from the impeachment process

most likely the neo conservatives got to him eventually

monty_python

Thanks for the suggestions lads

X111111111111

Mad_maxx wrote: »

trump was going to win in novemember anyway , i dont buy the idea that this was about rallying his base or diverting attention from the impeachment process

most likely the neo conservatives got to him eventually

Or maybe just maybe he's done the right thing and taken out a mass mudering terrorist.

wildeside

Discodog wrote: »

Iran have been causing chaos for years. The general was responsible for thousands of deaths & was planning many more. The one thing we should of learned by now is appeasement never works.

In fairness the one thing we should have learned by now is that intervention in the middle east never, ever, ever works ... as in it makes things a thousand times worse.

Cordell

wildeside wrote: »

In fairness the one thing we should have learned by now is that intervention in the middle east never, ever, ever works ... as in it makes things a thousand times worse.

Or maybe leaving things well alone makes them ten thousand times worse.

nullzero

Should have bought some shares in Raytheon last week, dammit.

wildeside

X111111111111 wrote: »

Or maybe just maybe he's done the right thing and taken out a mass mudering terrorist.

You know the US worked with him to fight ISIS, right? So he was a good guy then and a bad guy now? And just because he's a bad guy doesn't mean taking him out is a good strategic move. In fact it could be a very dumb move where the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Also, who's giving Trump (or any president) the information he's using to make a decision? Is Trump really pulling the strings?

Look, it's not as black and white as you suggest. And relying on the mainstream media for information isn't going to help. Maybe this will ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWllto0Xzg

I realised a long time ago (since Iraq and WMD) that the MSM always fall in line when war is on the cards. I stopped listening to them and it's really opened my eyes.

Our political and media institutions are constantly lying to us, that is the default position I take and it is not a bad starting point for thinking these things through.

War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing .... except huge profits for very powerful arms manufacturers in the US and their psychopath lobbyists/hawks.

Alpha_zero

wildeside wrote: »

In fairness the one thing we should have learned by now is that intervention in the middle east never, ever, ever works ... as in it makes things a thousand times worse.

Intervention in the Middle East has never been about making things better, its about control of resources, geo political reasons.

nullzero

wildeside wrote: »

You know the US worked with him to fight ISIS, right? So he was a good guy then and a bad guy now? And just because he's a bad guy doesn't mean taking him out is a good strategic move. In fact it could be a very dumb move where the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Also, who's giving Trump (or any president) the information he's using to make a decision? Is Trump really pulling the strings?

Look, it's not as black and white as you suggest. And relying on the mainstream media for information isn't going to help. Maybe this will ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWllto0Xzg

I realised a long time ago (since Iraq and WMD) that the MSM always fall in line when war is on the cards. I stopped listening to them and it's really opened my eyes.

Our political and media institutions are constantly lying to us, that is the default position I take and it is not a bad starting point for thinking these things through.

War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing .... except huge profits for very powerful arms manufacturers in the US and their psychopath lobbyists/hawks.

Iran was the jewel in the regime change crown for decades. I think a resolution in Syria would have obviously been preferable before starting to actively target Iran but whatcha gonna do?

I imagine John Bolton has been furiously masturbating over this over the last few days, this is the big one folks, just think of the profits.

This isn't the start of world war 3,its just the next phase of it, the perpetual war or "terror", you know against terrorist organisations and radical states you set up and then declare war on one after the other. Not to worry, mostly brown people will die so who gives a fvck?