Israel intelligence helped US kill Soleimani

I meant you know Solimani commanded Qudes brigades, you know Qudes stands for fight Israel and so you should know that's why we see him an enemy. but I could be wrong and you possibly not been aware of all that.

 

Basically the issue is that you do not believe in International Law. You do not care about keeping in place the agreed formalities which keep countries from being at war. You support illegal actions including the most serious, the murder of a member of another State's Government which was an act of war and by your own words admit that to you acting in an illegal way including such a murder is 'just natural'. I see no point in wasting my time further with this discussion. Your viewpoint is a red line for anyone who wants to be part of any world community.

 

You are taking it too far....
The difference between the origin of our points of view is Solimani wouldn't harm you but would have held me hostage as an Israeli.
My "natural" reply that you keep popping was reply to your team mate that said fighting Israel was natural - I'm sure you agree with him on that, and so....if fighting Israel is natural so is Israel fighting back, ok ?

 

What a great operation. Israel is a great partner. How wise to pull of this strike without telling the world. Keep 'em guessing! The left never got WWIII they so desperately wanted. Our economy is humming along. No stock market crash or recession the left so desperately wants. Pretty gloomy from their perspective.

 

I believe in partnerships between countries just as I believe in family. However, when you have a brother or sister that undermines you....you become cautious as to how much you share. That's what is going on here. We don't share your idea of "globalism" for the sake of "one world government". We are and will remain a sovereign nation. America First!

 

No. This action could have and still might cause WW3. It was an act of war. It was an Illegal killing. The only country which applauds this was Israel which was the only country which was told about it before it happened/possibly was involved in intelligence. I would suggest you are so used to your country ignoring International Law that you perceive it as 'natural'. It has nothing to do with whether anyone liked or did not like this man. The US is giving up International Law. It is giving up on the UN which it was largely responsible for setting up. The US no doubt due to Christian Zionists and the neo cons working with Israel for war on Iran are themselves descending into Anarchy.

Iranian Monitor has described what you and the Christian Zionists and Neo Cons are up to here

Iranian Monitor

post 203

Added to that you have been abusive to me in this thread. Talking about me saying I am being dishonest, saying the reason is something else which I know about and am pretending is something else for an agenda and then when it comes out admitting you yourself do not even believe that. In other words you have been wasting my time playing games with me while delighting in the breaking of International law and bringing the world to the edge of WW3.

 

I'm pretty sure the US was bombing Syria during the Obama administration. He did "bomb the crap out of Assad", he did assist ISIS to ravage the place.

The borders of Greater Israel are yet to be determined. At least a gentile like myself would not know those borders.

We are not supposed to occupy other countries, none. There is no constitutional requirement that the US occupy other countries.

 

Yes.

Hmmmmmm ......

You might be right, but I am not completely certain that it isn't the other way round. Then again there is some evidence to support the idea that both are ruled by the same people

 

Her claim that you defend extrajudicial assassination seems quite accurate from what I've read here.

 

No I believe you are. Obviously in the area it is more often Israel we hear of doing it though they unlike Trump never admit to it. As I have heard more than one person say if it had been the Israelis they would never have admitted it and even sent flowers to his funeral.

could be.

I don't agree on that. In this the US neo Cons and Christian Zionists have been working with Netanyhu since the 90's and the intent on the two state solution. They have massive voting power. The really got going after Carter, himself a Christian started talking about getting some rights for the Palestinians!!! and they seem to have had a big sway on the American Electorate since then getting Bush as their first President actually working for them and of course that is when Clean Break began. ( very roughly! Clean Break was a strategy developed for Netanyhu to change the way Israel acted. She would no longer try to build relations with people in the ME but rather the intent would be to divide and destroy the countries of the ME making them incapable of being any threat to Israel so that she could do what she liked by being obviously so much more powerful. Iran still has to be destroyed.)

 

Who's fighting who (and why) is the unstated main topic. Your mistake is in dismissing the issue of Israeli-American support of ISIS and your refusal to address supportive motivation of it based upon your anti-Semitic bias.

 

There again it is difficult to say. I think it is just a mutual interest here. The prize for the CZ's includes the death of most Jews.

 

I'm not trying to end the world Alexa, all I said was Israel supports Solimani's death due to the threat he poses on us, not because of ISIS and that was our argument, the rest are things you add for drama...

 

Max Blumenthal visiting Christians United for Israel

 

When did Obama bomb Assad forces ? you suggesting that US did try to take him out but failed ?
I'm Israeli not American, I asked according to your believes and theory what does greater Israel looks like, as an Israeli born and raised here I never been in a conversation about how our lives will be once we take Beirut or Baghdad so this greater Israel thing is just nonsense to me, something Arabs tell each other around bonfires...

 

Does this mean you rationalize your approval of extrajudicial assassination?

 

I don't understand what you mean.

I believe that.

You are assuming that American presidents actually run their country. I don't believe that. I do believe that Putin runs his country but I do not believe the U.S. is run by their president.

There are two possibilities:
1. Putin leads Russia but American presidents do not lead the U.S.
2. Neither Putin nor American presidents lead their respective nations but Putin learns all there is to know about the motivation of those who actually do govern Russian and passes those decisions off as his own while American presidents merely read from a script what the actual decission-makers have said ... but doesn't understand a damn thing about it. Putin backs up what he says with logical and sensible clarification. American presidents support what they say with cliches and illogical double-talk.

So, what I mean by both the U.S. and Israel being run by the same people is that those who ACTUALLY make decisions for those two nations might be the same people.

 

I do support America killing of that man and I dont think it was any more illegal than what Iran does....or what that man did.

 

The US began destroying Syria with military aggression during the Obama administration. Are you saying that is not true?

Consider this, regarding Greater Israel: https://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

 

Thank you very much for an honest admission. That makes you uncommon in this cyber world.

I think you and Trump are wrong, but I admire your honesty.

 

mmmm....you need to prove something you claim exists, I cannot prove something that doesnt, like this claim we support ISIS.
What does that got to do with antisemitism ?

 

This is a straw man, as I never argued the above to begin with.

Huh? The Ottomans at the time were considered the Caliphate of the Muslim world, as the Arabians had lost that title a while ago. The problem here is that you- for obvious reasons- want to equate the indigenous people of Palestine with “Arabs.”

Let’s see some proof for this statement.

Once again, you refer to the indigenous peoples of Palestine as “Arabs” for the obvious reasons. The Allied powers were given a mandate to administer the region and assist the peoples of the former areas of the Ottoman Empire “until such time as they are able to stand alone.” (Palestinian Mandate; article 22)

It says nothing about forming a modern Jewish ethno-state through means of mass immigration. This is why the Brits had to ban illegal Jewish immigration from Europe, as it was upsetting the present dynamics. Of course, this resulted in Jewish terrorist attacks against British forces, but I’m sure you know all about that.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/leagcov.asp

Let’s see the proof.

Negative, as their style of governance has resulted in the uprooting and attempted annihilation of an indigenous peoples.

Straw-man, as I never argued it had to be.

 

I'm saying you need to be more specific because by the time America did anything Syria was already divided by the civil war

I know this joke, it's a mix of 1967 and Arab fears, annexing the WB is the worst it can get, reasonable ppl should know there is no way Israel can control all these countries nor does it want to, we had Sinai but gave it up for peace with Egypt - how does that meet the plan ?

 

You were suggesting that the US had broken more international laws than Israel. Like with the first question. I think Israel is the country which has ignored the UN and International Laws the most. However you suggesting it might be the US had to make me think it very likely might be. However the difference has been that until very recently the IUN appears to have not wanted to pick up the US or any other countries of the West. In that way Israel may be right about being the one which is always picked on. I don't know. Israel has the reputation for it but the more I learn about what the US has been up to for instance in Latin America, not so sure.

As far as I am aware US presidents get to set the course of their country to a large extent. They obviously have limitations both with those they bring into their team and with the advice they are given and whether Congress/Senate agree or what not. I do not have an in depth knowledge of how it works. You are speaking about me saying that Bush was the first President working for the Christian Zionists. I said that because I had read that. By that time the Christian Zionists had already got themselves firmly into Government. Bush could do this by the people he employed to work on issues.As I said it was in this Presidency that we appear to have seen Clean Break beginning to be acted out. Some of the neo cons who advised Bush on what to do with Iraq had created the Clean Break concept and in that you are correct that those making the decisions certainly included the same.

I suspect you are arguing something from a different thread theard. Yes I think Putin is authoritarian, As much as possible I think that he gets exactly what he wants. However for a democracy, the structure of the US system seems more appororiate even if it is possible for a President just to put in lots of like minds.

Trump does seem to be being pushed around somewhat by those close to him but that seems to be due to his vulnerability - I have read he could be headed for prison when he stopds being President and he needs support to stay President - particularly now Bolton is going after them. Of course a big problem with the US system is that the Person who is elected President is the one who has had the most money put into him and then they have to do what those people ask.

I have to leave now anyway as grandchildren will be arriving from school soon.

(note to myself. Always read the whole post before replying!)

 

You are making things up that do not exist.

Once again it states no such thing - you are on a bit of a roll with respect to building strawmen arguments.

You have no clue what you are talking about with respect to Syria - relying only on the Establishment propaganda narrative - as if this narrative has some basis in fact.

If it wasn't for arming and supplying a radical Islamist proxy army the 500,000 dead would not have happened.