Israel: US Asks Iran to Not Sink an American Carrier, “Just Kill Some Troops Instead”

I'll admit, your, "15 Bipartisan in Congress - The Defense Intelligence agency - numerous news organization both domestic and abroad - even VP Biden " comment doesn't make clear to me what you're talking about. Maybe if you capitalized it and added a lot of explanation points.

But your other comment, that we did try to finance anti-Saddam groups that wound up in the hands of terrorists is legitimate. So who are you wanting to assassinate?

 

Why did you switch pages and start talking about Saddam - more thought avoidance. We are talking Syria - you have been crying and wailing .. "Prove that the US Armed the bad guys in Syria" - despite having this proven to you numerous times.

Just read what congress has to say - and it is proven - are you blind ? reading comprehension impaired ?

What part of " The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda " was unclear to you ?

 

Talking about Saddam? What? And you've been the only one talking about Syria.

 

Now you are spewing falsehoods yet again... for numerous posts you have been wailing and crying "Conspiracy .. Conspiracy" - with respect to arming terrorist groups in Syria -- You were the one that asked for proof that some of our guys were worse supporters of terrorism than Soleimani.

In the face of proof - you pretend like the conversation never happened.

Sorry Pal - The US led a global effort to arm a terrorist proxy army in Syria - which is far worse than anything Soleimani has ever done.

 

I haven't read all the recent debates on this thread, but this statement jumped at me! We don't know what would happen if the US had not tried to undermine Assad's regime and, if, in concert with others, had not plunged Syria into civil war, but we do know what actually happened. The truth, not the propaganda, is there for you to piece together from those who know, from what was said publicly and officially, and what was done to implement all of it.

The effort to de-stabalize the Assad regime, either to force him to cry uncle and submit to US/Israeli (and company) demands to cut links with Hezbollah and Iran, or alternatively, to see his country plunged into turmoil, predated what was done by the Obama administration in following that script by several years. The policy was first started under Bush:

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1571751,00.html
Syria in Bush's Cross Hairs
By Adam Zagorin/Washington Tuesday, Dec. 19, 2006

It was part of the US policy dubbed the "Redirection", which was sold as the "surge" to the American public.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection
THE REDIRECTION
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?

By Seymour M. Hersh
February 26, 2007

A STRATEGIC SHIFT

These policies continued under the Obama administration, with equal or even greater vigor. The "Arab Spring" initially had become a net gain for Iran, toppling pro US regimes in places like Egypt, where the regimes now in power were more independent even if not truly allied to Iran either. The pro Israel lobby and its allies in the Democratic party, spearheaded by Hillary Clinton, were already working feverishly to change that net gain, to something else, both by working to undermine the new regimes in Egypt and elsewhere using their connections to the Egyptian military, while at the same time, using the same elements that had led to regime change in Egypt (namely the Muslim brotherhood) to work with the Wahhabis and other jihadist crazies to undermine the Assad regime in Syria. If it seems contradictory, it was: the US often works, using different approaches, and different figures, to use one group against another here or there. Divide and conquer is America's best strategy and tactic.

I won't try to reconstruct all the facts here, including America's indirect role (including its role in creating the Sons of Iraq, a sunni army of 100,000 composed of ex Ba'athist officers and AQ inspired foot soldiers) and some of its more direct efforts in sowing the seeds for ISIS here. As it relates to Syria specifically, Jeffrey Sachs has summarized the whole thing best. And Jeffrey Sachs is no "loony tune"; he has a reputation and credibility that matters to him greatly. Often picked as one of the greatest thinkers of this century, and one of the foremost economists of the past few decades, with an international set of connections and positions which has brought face-to-face with all sorts of figures from all sorts of backgrounds, you can assume that he wouldn't say anything totally "outlandish". So, when he talks about "every knowledgeable observer", he isn't talking about just those who agree with him or his politics. He is talking everyone who is anyone and who knows anything about the subject and who isn't trying to just peddle propaganda.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190

 

Well I don't recall what context I was talking about Saddam, if I was. He doesn't seem to have anything to do with this topic, so why don't you refresh my memory?

 

If I understand your point, George Bush instigated the Arab Spring, and without US support, there would never have been an Arab Spring. That sounds far fetched to me, although if true the Arabs have far less ability to do anything for themselves than I suspected?

 

You are the only one talking about Saddam. The conversation was about the US arming Al Qaeda in Syria - and you got your backside handed to you - and now you are in denial .. only able to repeat "Saddam .. Saddam" over and over

 

It's the darnest thing. You claim I'm repeating "Saddam .. Saddam" over and over as some kind of...what? What am I rebutting with the Saddam chant? I'm curious.

 

You use the word three times in this post .. The conversation is about the US arming Al Qaeda in Syria.. why you keep trying to turn the topic to Saddam .. is likely some thought avoidance response due to having trouble dealing with the above reality.

Poor fellow .

 

So you claim I keep bringing up Saddam, I quote you posting "Saddam," and your response is aha, you're posting about Saddam!

Weird.

 

While I am not sure the problem is with lack of understanding of my 'point', let me make it easy for you: the Syrian civil war was unleashed on that country as a proxy war against Iran. Everything else told about it is either in the nature of 'details' or lies. You can stop here for the simple story. But since you mentioned other things as well, like the Arab spring, here is where the story can get complicated.

In Syria, specifically, the US (along with Israel and the Wahhabis) worked with the Muslim Brotherhood forces (homegrown forces, with their outside patron Turkey and Qatar), even if the Muslim Brotherhood was also the main force behind the "Arab Spring" which the US/Israel and Wahhabis were fighting against elsewhere across the Middle East.

The so-called "Arab Spring" represented, especially in Egypt, mostly the victory of these homegrown democratic forces (allied regionally to Turkey and Qatar) against a US backed regime. The US quickly pulling the rug from under Mubarak to make sure they keep the "Egyptian military" (the main base of influence of the Americans) intact and capable of acting as a lever, without becoming a casualty of the Egyptian uprising. Outside of the areas where the "axis of resistance' (led by Iran) is a key player (namely Iraq, Lebanon, Syria as well as Yemen), everywhere else the US/Israel basically work against their "NATO allies", Turkey, in the region. In Syria, however, to oust Iran, the US/Israel have worked with not just Turkey, but today even the Russians too!

 

Well, when you say, "the Syrian civil war was unleashed on that country as a proxy war against Iran..." OK in that case, who "unleashed" it? You seem to be arguing that the Arab Spring, at least in Syria, wasn't a home grown movement; that someone "unleashed" it into that country. Well who? Did the US rig up the Arab Spring in Syria and instigate that country's civil war, or did it come along later after the civil war was ongoing?

 

The Syrian civil war was neither unconnected to the larger, so-called "Arab Spring", not was it entirely a part of the same dynamic and came slightly later in time. It involved some of the same common denominators (e.g., the role of the Muslim Brotherhood and support from Turkey) and some other things that were different, including the fact that there were many 'opposition' elements being sponsored and reared to oust Assad by many other foreign powers. And each of these powers in some ways worked with their own 'proxy group' of sorts. Without that foreign involvement and support, the Syrian civil war would not have occurred. Assad would have been able to take care of the challenges he faced rather easily. Sure, there would have been some bloodshed and some repression involved, but nothing like the civil war that engulfed that country.

 

I don't find that at all credible, however I'm not surprised that you do.

 

The topic is the US arming Al Qaeda in Syria. Either address the topic or move on.

 

I'm trying to get to the bottom of this comment:

 

We had been discussing Soliemani - the claim on the table is that the US has many who are his equivalent or worse - with respect to supporting terrorism - by any objective measure.

I gave numerous examples - the main one being the wars in Syria and Yemen .. in both cases we fight on the same side as Al Qaeda .. and the cradle of that ideology El Saud.

You claimed Soliemani did some bad deeds .. I gave examples of similar on our side. Such as leading a global effort to arm a terrorist proxy army in Syria - led by Al Qaeda - ISIS (Al Qaeda in Iraq) and other Jihadist groups of the same Saud inspired extremist Salafi Islamist ideology.

You are still in deep denial of this reality - and so you started blubbering on about Saddam.

Thought Avoidance ?

 

I've been trying to find out for two days what you think I said about Saddam, and why you think I tried to change the subject to Saddam.

 

You go back and look .. was many posts back .. it was you that deviated from the conversation to Saddam. My only response was to ask why you were diverting from the topic .. which is the US arming Al Qaeda in Syria.

Since then you have never returned to the topic .. and just keep mumbling about Saddam .. in some kind of delusional state. I did not claim that you thought anything about Saddam.. and he is not the topic.

 

Hmm...

So you made the odd claim that I started talking about Saddam for some reason, and when I ask what you're talking about, you complain that I won't shut up about Saddam, so each time I ask what in the world you mean, you take that as me yapping about Saddam....it's all a very weird turn...

But yes, back to the "topic." To you, Soleimani is a national Iranian hero and patriot, not a terrorist, and the only real terrorists are American who wear the red white and blue. So given all that, in following your Soleimani argument, which American do you think the Iranians are justified in assassinating? Which American, or Americans, are the real terrorists?

 

General Soleimani is a national hero in Iran, a patriot, not a terrorist but someone who fought terrorists. That is all true, for the vast majority of the people in Iran. And beyond Iran, in a lot of places across the region and even beyond that, where you had people mourn his death.

In any case, the question for Iran won't be one of "justification". Rather, the more complicated question of how to reach the proper balance between "right" and "might"? In this instance, recognizing that the terrorists are ultimately also the leaders of the world's top superpower, you can't just act as though the crime was done by your average criminal.

In trying to find the right balance, within this equation, you had Iran's open retaliation against US bases in Iraq, an act likened to a "slap" across America's face by Iran's Supreme Leader. But the wheels of justice don't necessarily move quickly and the 'eye-for-an-eye' retaliation (which won't be about taking out POTUS but, more likely, some other US officials involved in the decision) will take longer. Not as long as it took the US to supposedly "avenge" the death of its mercenary soldiers occupying Iraq attributed to assistance provided by Iran to the Iraqi militia fighting those US forces more than a decade ago. But maybe, in a couple of years or sooner, the answer to the question you have posed will be given. The actual operation might even clone the one that took out General Soleimani: drones firing missiles at a car driving a comparable US official to a meeting somewhere in the region When that happens, the issue won't be about whether Iran was "justified" in doing what it did, but whether the US would be "justified' to start a war with Iran. And whether it will decide to do so given the costs and casualties such a war would entail?

 

Not sure why you were blubbering about Saddam - The topic is the US arming Al Qaeda in Syria

Soleimani was likely a hero to many Iranians - I didn't say he was not a terrorist.

I don't believe in these targeted assassinations of leaders of other nations - it is you that thinks this should be done. You were the one that said the bad deeds of this guy justified the assassination. I merely pointed out that we have many that have done worse - going by your standard.

So the question is to you - how many US leaders are the Iranians justified in assassinating - going by your metric.

 

My question wasn't directed as an inquiry as to what Iran should really do, but as an inquiry to an anti-American American who wants Iran to take revenge for Soleimani's killing.

 

I've never said that I support the assassination of leaders of other nations; that's your claim. I do support killing terrorists and terrorist leaders. Quds Force is, among many other things, a terrorist group, and it's leader was a terrorist. So you are the only one arguing to assassinate leaders, so the question, "how many US leaders are the Iranians justified in assassinating?" really belongs to you. How many? I've already asked which US leaders do you think Iran is justified in assassinating? I'm still asking? Who do you think should be a target?