US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

ArchXStanton

johnmcdnl wrote: »

So it appears the US are denying issuing the Iranian foreign minister a visa, preventing him from speaking to the UN.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/un-treaties/477009-trump-administration-denies-irans-top-diplomat-visa-to

The US... Breaking all kinds of rules..

"The visa denial was in violation of the 1947 headquarters agreement mandating the U.S. allow foreign officials into the country to conduct U.N. business,"

Zarif is an excellent speaker, they were probably afraid of what he's going to say

theguzman

johnmcdnl wrote: »

So it appears the US are denying issuing the Iranian foreign minister a visa, preventing him from speaking to the UN.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/un-treaties/477009-trump-administration-denies-irans-top-diplomat-visa-to

The UN should be moved to Geneva after that disgraceful stroke of skullduggery.

alastair

johnmcdnl wrote: »

So it appears the US are denying issuing the Iranian foreign minister a visa, preventing him from speaking to the UN.

https://thehill.com/policy/international/un-treaties/477009-trump-administration-denies-irans-top-diplomat-visa-to

Well, there’s some extra special confidence in their spin vs whatever the Iranians would have had to say. 😂😂

Curious_Case

theguzman wrote: »

The UN should be moved to Geneva after that disgraceful stroke of skullduggery.

Video link? that could give him an even higher profile than appearing in person.

J Mysterio

KWAG2019 wrote: »

Lettergate gets worse. It WAS received by the Iraqi govt. Laughable, farcical, tragic, Trumptypical.

We respect your sovereign government's position.

Wait... No, actually that was an error. We don't.

BorneTobyWilde

I guess Doonbeg is closest target for Iran now if they are threatening his assets

X111111111111

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I guess Doonbeg is closest target for Iran now if they are threatening his assets

We have posters on this very site calling for it to be bombed. This is the extent of the Trump derangment syndrome

GooglePlus

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I guess Doonbeg is closest target for Iran now if they are threatening his assets

Dubai, Turkey, India, Indonesia and UK are all closer.

pablo128

X111111111111 wrote: »

We have posters on this very site calling for it to be bombed. This is the extent of the Trump derangment syndrome

And we have other posters calling for funerals to be bombed, and whole countries to be carpet bombed into oblivion. I think that balances things out.

s7ryf3925pivug

Iran said that civilians are not to be touched. Their diplomat made a complaint against The Times for reporting that UK soldiers were at risk. They say they are only going to strike US military targets.

circadian

X111111111111 wrote: »

We have posters on this very site calling for it to be bombed. This is the extent of the Trump derangment syndrome

Ah give over would ye? They're just as bad as the eejits saying Iran should be getting nuked into oblivion.

Trump derangement syndrome? How about hyperbolic sh1tspitting syndrome?

X111111111111

pablo128 wrote: »

And we have other posters calling for funerals to be bombed, and whole countries to be carpet bombed into oblivion. I think that balances things out.

Another one.

pablo128

X111111111111 wrote: »

Another one.

Another what. You're the one calling for funerals to be bombed. Do you think Iranian people are worth less than Irish people?

threeball

Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »

Iran said that civilians are not to be touched. Their diplomat made a complaint against The Times for reporting that UK soldiers were at risk. They say they are only going to strike US military targets.

That's the way the Iranians should play this. Make plenty of statements about how they are not targeting US civilians or anyone from other countries, their sole focus is the US war machine. Should change their call to arms as death to the American government.

They need to get a message out there thats no so easy for the yanks to spin.

Padraig Mor

Great article by former British diplomat Craig Murray tearing the US justification for the murder apart piece by piece on a legal basis:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/lies-the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-the-illegal-murder-of-soleimani/

Opening section (there's much more):

"In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.

Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.

What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.

I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information).

So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something."

The supporters here of the US' blatantly illegal act should have a good read of this. Sadly, I imagine they won't.

cosybeach

Murray has an anti American agenda food for the lefties posting here no sympathies for this terrorist from western democracies

youngrun

cosybeach wrote: »

Murray has an anti American agenda food for the lefties posting here no sympathies for this terrorist from western democracies

Which terrorist - Trump? USA?
Bringing democracy to the world for the last 70 years indeed.
And more
https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-people-in-37-victim-nations-since-world-war-ii/5492051?print=1

At least we have plenty of oil thanks to their good work

alastair

cosybeach wrote: »

Murray has an anti American agenda food for the lefties posting here no sympathies for this terrorist from western democracies

Death to punctuation!

archer22

cosybeach wrote: »

Murray has an anti American agenda food for the lefties posting here no sympathies for this terrorist from western democracies

What the fcuk does "lefties" mean?...you need to explain these kind of words as many of us are not familiar with American trailer trash terminology.

Auguste Comte

archer22 wrote: »

What the fcuk does "lefties" mean?...you need to explain these kind of words as many of us are not familiar with American trailer trash terminology.

Anyone who believes in human rights for all people not just white Americans.

MonkeyTennis

This is precisely the problem with Trump constantly lying. When it comes to important stuff you just cant believe a word he says.

pearcider

archer22 wrote: »

What the fcuk does "lefties" mean?...you need to explain these kind of words as many of us are not familiar with American trailer trash terminology.

Lefties are people who think that Iran and other Islamic states are even close to the West in terms of moral standing or human development. They are literally deranged in their anti Americanism but still enjoy all the myriad benefits of living in the progressive and secular West including free speech. Personally, think they should leave and go live with their precious mullahs? To me they’re an insidious fifth column in our civilization.

car_radio19834

suicide_circus wrote: »

the people of the middle east need to be left to suffer at the mercy of totalitarian dictators. democracy needs to come from within, it cannot be helped or imposed.

The people of the middle east should stop planning to kill americans then.

What's next? People telling me Iran are the good guys?

car_radio19834

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Anyone who believes in human rights for all people not just white Americans.

Is an Islamic state one that promotes human rights?

pearcider

What’s ironic is that where we to live in an Islamic state like Iran all the benefits that’s these progressives take for granted such as women’s rights, gay marriage and abortion would disappear.

These lefties are that incoherent. It’s like do they not realize under an Islamic state their so called friends in the lgbt community would literally be stoned to death.

But logic doesn’t matter when orange man bad.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

"Any aid to these forces, including military, intelligence, financial, technical, service or logistical, will be considered as cooperation in a terrorist act,"

Ireland now is a legitimate Target for Iran

alastair

car_radio19834 wrote: »

Is an Islamic state one that promotes human rights?

The Saudis, supported by the US, have a far worse record in that regard. This is nothing to do with human rights.

car_radio19834

Deleted User wrote: »

[Citation Needed]

What is Trump saying that is untrue?

car_radio19834

alastair wrote: »

The Saudis, supported by the US, have a far worse record in that regard. This is nothing to do with human rights.

What has the US policy got to do with lefties being people who support human rights for all?

Outlaw Pete

Auguste Comte wrote: »

Anyone who believes in human rights for all people not just white Americans.

Oh please. Lefties do not believe in human rights for all. In fact it's one of their hallmarks to selectively choose who it is that they feel warrant having rights, especially rights like due process. Hypocrisy runs through lefties like a stick of rock.

Just look at how the left are coming to defence of Iran right now. A country were human rights of women and homosexuals are very thin on the ground:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/427247-iran-publicly-hangs-man-found-guilty-of-homosexuality-charges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eItop-BV0c

Soleimani should have been taken out years ago.