Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Sobo, Jan 5, 2020.
Hmm...what conspiracy theory am I promoting?
The war with Iraq ended when Saddam's government fell. At that point it was a rebuilding operation, and that effort was being complicated by the deployment of sophisticated IED's placed by the terrorist group Al Qaeda. Soleimani was specifically aiding and working with Al Qaeda by providing those IED's. The one "side" that he was on was the terrorist side. That does not afford one the same legal protections as does fighting for an actual government in a declared war.
You claimed Soleimani was responsible for the Assassination of the Lebanese President.
THE SHADOW COMMANDER
"...when the United Nations-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon charged four senior members of Hezbollah with assassinating the former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, in 2005. Hariri, a Sunni, had been trying to take Lebanon out of the Iranian-Syrian orbit. On Valentine’s Day, he was killed by a suicide truck bomb whose payload weighed more than five thousand pounds."
Doesn't seem like a conspiracy theory to me. Why do you think it's a conspiracy theory?
The war with Saddam ended - Saddam's Gov't didn't fall - it was replaced by an foreign invader with a puppet regime along religious lines - the Sunni Gov't replaced with a Shia Gov't - an action which was a violation of international law. The civil war/ armed insurgency then began.
There were many different factions fighting in Iran - some of which were Al Qaeda - others which were Shia Militia's- it was a mess - a mess of our creation.
Soleimani spend most of the last decade fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria - fighting a radical Islamist proxy army that was "our side" - a proxy army that our Gov't armed, supplied and supported - an action which led to the death of over 500,000, war crimes, crimes against humanity.
You provided no evidence for your claim that Soleimani was working with Al Qaeda but, it is quite possible keeping in mind that the BS, propaganda, false narratives and lies from the US propaganda machine in relation to Syria/Iraq/Yemen has been both outrageous and egregious.
For arguments sake - let us assume your claim is true. If it is OK for the US to take out the leaders of foreign nations - because that nation aided terrorists which resulted in the deaths of a foreign invader (US Soldiers) - how many US leaders should be killed for aiding terrorists in Syria - which ended up with the deaths of Russian Soldiers (in this case - Russia was not a foreign invader - which makes the US action even worse than what happened in Iraq)
Saddam's Baathist government fell and no longer exists. The fact that Al Qaeda filled that power vacuum does NOT therefore make them a legal war combatant representing an actual nation. It makes them criminals/terrorists, which is precisely why some of those captured combatants are still held to this day in Guantanomo. If they were combatants legally representing a nation state, they would have legally had to have been released when the Saddams Baathist regime fell.
As far as evidence about the notion of Soleimani killing 600 Americans, I can only go by what I have been told by both sides of the aisle and virtually every mainstream media outlet in the United States. If you have some sort of clandestine source outside of that realm, quite frankly, I do not believe them. What are you going to quote Al Jazeera? Baghdad Bob perhaps?
I don't need to quote anything - as I am not the one making the claim that Soleimani provided IED's to Al Qaeda.
Regardless- I accepted your claim - so why have you avoided answering my question in relation to your claim.
If the US is justified in killing the leaders of other nations for aiding terrorist groups in a foreign land - on the basis of US soldiers killed in that foreign land - how many US leaders is Syria/Russsia/Iran justified in killing.
Doesn't say anything about Soleimani - you made that part up.
The second problem is that while Hezbollah was initially accused -and nothing has been proven - recent evidence points towards Assad as the culprit.
Rafiq Hariri tribunal: Was the former Lebanon PM's assassination the work of Syria's President Assad?
1) Claiming that all of Hezbollah's actions are directed by Soliemani is unsubstantiated rubbish
2) It is not been proven that Hezbollah did the assassination - and evidence exists showing that it may well have been someone else - Assad.
You then running around claiming defacto "Soleimani assassinated Rafiq" is the stuff of conspiracy theory - in the context of which you were using the word. A better word would be "False Narrative".
The US is justified in killing a foreign terrorist that has killed hundreds of Americans. Iran conversely would be justified in taking that as an act of war and responding accordingly, although I am not so sure they legitimately have the chops to back that up. Syria/Russia could also take our arming their enemies as an act of war if they so choose. Once again, I am not so sure they have the chops to back it up.
I am surprised that you seemingly are so confused over what is blatantly obvious.
I am not confused over anything - what did you think it was that I was confused about ?
You think that nations violating the millennia old covenant against assassinating each others leaders should be scrapped - and you are welcome to your opinion - although you have not supported this opinion.
You are the one that seems to be confused over what is blatantly obvious - that it is very easy for Nation States to assassinate people.
You are confused by the notion of nations going to war. In truth, to the victor goes the spoils. If Syria wants to go to war because we armed their enemies, that is certainly their right, despite the fact that it would literally be suicide for them. For that matter, they could go to war with us for any reason that they like. Your belief in some form of universally accepted "justification" is naive. Justification is for consumption by the home crowd. Between opposing nations, they can go to war whenever they damned well please. The toughest guy on the block sets the rules. That happens to be us, by a LONG shot.
Killing a general whom has specifically killed 600 of our people while NOT being in an official war with his nation, is perfectly fine. It is not much different than killing Osama Bin Laden. If you kill Americans, you will pay a price. That seems like a more than reasonable precedent to set. If another nation wants to try to kill one of our leaders, we too could ( and undoubtedly would) take that as an act of war. I am not so sure that would be a good idea for them.
I am not sure that there is another legitimately comparable situation over the "millenia" that you reference. Different situations call for different tactics.
Why do you put words in my mouth and then accuse me of being confused ? - This is lame Strawman. Further - you did not address the question - for what - the third time now ?
Then - you engage in rampant Projection - projecting your issues on to others.
What about nations going to war - am I confused about - how is one to respond to such unspecific attack -
Your argument is that "might makes right" - OK - but that is not really the discussion - at best a simplistic response to a complex question - which betrays your own confusion.
The discussion is about justification and again you make an unspecific accusation - Your belief in some form of universally accepted "justification" is naive.
I am the naive one ? There is a body - of which we are part - that does endeavor to serve as justification - not for the universe though - for planet earth.
We are signatories to certain codes of conduct - in particular around war in this case. . justifications given are numerous -
The argument - "might makes right" - is the universally condemned justification... so does not make the list in any but negative context.
Who is friggen naive here ? You tell me ... if you were reading this - and not the subject who is being a DA.
Dude - if you wish to accuse me - have at it - but, at least tell me what I am being accused of in specific terms.
In reality - do we keep our covenants with the world ? Have not being doing a good job if it lately - Russia - China - and many other nations of the world one would think would outrank us - are doing far better - at keeping the code - that we have all agreed to.
Israel being right next to the US - when it comes down to brass taxes ..
The idea that Soleimani - is put on a Bin Laden equivalence - is your most naive comment yet .. despite the bar being set high from your previous comments. Not even sure where your education needs to begin - but way way down on the naive scale
You see - the above is what an accusation is supposed to look like .. i accuse you of something naive - and then I state specifically what this refers to.
Do you not understand the difference between a Nation State - in this case a rather big one (Iran) - and a rogue band of rebels with a cause.
Further - do you not understand that our generals - have done 10x worse - with respect to terrorism - than even the worst critics blame Soleimani for.
So if Soleimani is the on par with Bin Laden - that puts us somewhere in between Bin Laden and Pol Pot - by your measurement stick
Clearly you didn't read the linked article, it was all about Soliemani. You are trying to spin really hard to rehab Soliemani. I mentioned several terrorist acts he was responsible for, so is your argument is that Soliemani wasn't a terrorist, he's been framed, than I feel comfortable in considering your comments as simply conspiracy theory tripe.
See this is what happens when you take a ridiculous position, and have to keep justifying it and justifying it; you find yourself off in conspiracy theory land.
I alleged that you are confused. You asked about what, and I answered that question. That isnt an example of me putting words into your mouth, it is me explaining my allegation that you are confused. Pointing out strawmen arguments is great when your assertion is correct. It is silly and a waste of time when it is not. In this situation, it is CLEARLY the latter.
I will provide you with further clarification...I have already explained it, but you obviously missed it. You are confused into believing that nations going to war require some type of universal "justification". They go to war for any reason that they deem necessary. End of story. Justification is for explaining an action to your own citizens. It is not required to justify an action to your enemy. Therein lies your confusion.
DUDE...I already have. Both in my prior post and above in this very reply. Yes you are naive.
As I said above, justification is for purposes of our own citizens, NOT for purposes of our enemies. I think that it is cute that you mistakenly believe that "universally" means about the universe as opposed to planet earth, but in reality universally means "by everyone". Now that we have that misunderstanding cleared up, lets take another look at my statement. "Your belief in some form of universally accepted justification is naive". Your belief that there is a mutually agreed upon justification for military actions is naive. There is no such universally accepted "reason" for military action. That decision is made by each country for themselves. You can say that we as Americans require a justification, and that is fair game, but with that being the only avenue for the need for a justification, your question where you stated....
"If the US is justified in killing the leaders of other nations for aiding terrorist groups in a foreign land - on the basis of US soldiers killed in that foreign land - how many US leaders is Syria/Russsia/Iran justified in killing."
...all of a sudden doesnt make sense. They have their own separate set of "justifications" and they only need to answer to their people, AND to OUR response. That is essentially the process that EVERY country goes through when deciding whether to proceed with a particular military action. Again, this also speaks to your previously referenced NAIVETE.
Of course I understand the difference between a nation state and a rogue band of rebels. Do you understand the complexity when a prominent general in a nation state ALSO openly aids a "rogue band of rebels"? From a rational perspective, we could legitimately interpret those actions in 2 different ways. We could take Iran aiding the rogue band of rebels as an act of war from Iran, OR as an act of Terrorism. Personally, I would have supported taking it as an act of war, because that is how I personally view it. I can also understand the next best thing would be titling it an act of terrorism because it is less than creating a war with a nation state while also responding to the individual whom is most responsible for their actions.. At any rate, you have to title it something. Only an absolute idiot would take the complexity of a nation state actor aiding terrorists to kill Americans, and then conclude that you cannot label it either because of that complexity.
-The killing of Soleimani was bold. I suspect that the message was received loud and clear. I think that it is actually very similar to Reagan bombing Gaddafi's palace after his terrorist bombing. He was a neutered cat after that action, and never created another problem for us.
-As far as you notion about our generals doing 10x worse...OK....lets stipulate that as being 100% true...Anyone can respond how they see fit, they simply need to deal with the consequences of our response. That is how war between nations work, and the fact that you are confused about this reality once again shows your shocking naievete. They dont need a "justification" They simply need to have the chops to handle the response.
-I must say that I am truly humored at your ill fated attempt to be condescending. You most certainly have not earned that right in this conversation. Condescension not backed up by superiority in a discussion is just silly drivel and a colossal waste of time. You arent fooling anyone, other than perhaps yourself.
I did read the article - and nowhere does it say Soleimani "Defacto did it" as you claimed - on the contrary - it poses an alternative.
but it matters little to the main issue - which you keep trying to deviate from - in a desperate attempt to avoid the fact that we have guys that did worse than what we are accusing this guy of..
Should Russia be doing targeted assassinations on our leaders - or the leaders of other nations - for the deaths of Russian's in Syria ?
You seem to have no conception of how easy it is for a nation state to assassinate people ... no conception of consequences from such random violations of international sovereignty and international law.
Understandable perhaps because we used to be able to get away with this stuff - the world is changing quickly - and the consequences become greater.
You are just focused on some myopic necessary illusions you are either not aware of - or can't shake.
and it turned out you were the one who was confused.
No you didn't you gave a general accusation that could have meat many things... and then turned out to be the naive one - demonstrated with specific examples.
That had nothing to do with what I was talking about .. nor does it even make sense with respect to a conversation about conventions to which we are signatories .. other than your preposterously confused and naive " Might makes right" position.
your belief that these don't exist is a function of your naivety. I did not create those Justifications - nor sign off on them - but the US did in conjunction with others.
Sorry - but you comment is clueless.
I never stated that everyone in the universe agreed - nor that everyone on earth agrees . What I did was specifically out line that there are agreements that we have accepted - as have all other nations in the UN.
You are the one blubbering on about some universal agreement - in some non specific way - because you can not seem to form a coherent argument - or make a coherent accusation for that matter.
The above is rambling gibberish - except for my question to you .. which you did not manage to answer in a coherent way - in context of the international rules of conduct - that we have agreed upon.
You claiming that such agreements do not exist - that all nations - not some "separate set" - have agreed to .. is naivety on steroids.
Do you understand that we do the same -and far worse than anything Soleimani has done ..
It is not a notion .. it is a statement of historical fact - and I am not talking about when we are in war time - WW2 - where we are directly in a war with an enemy nation that has attacked us. We are talking about terrorism/support for terrorism - meddling in the affairs of other nations - with respect to the international agreements we have signed.
You keep trying to move the goal posts into never never land - combined with other fallacious gibberish.
How did the Soleimani drone work out?
Here are 4:
Haska Meyna wedding party airstrike
Wech Baghtu wedding party airstrike
We've slaughtered a LOT of children. And, those living there aren't overreaching in stating that these are mass killings in order to force political change - terrorism.
"Guys that did worse."
That's not even close to the issue. The issue was Soleimani a terrorist? Answer yes. So we took him out. That's pretty much case closed. And if you are so worried about conventions of war, Iran committed an act of war against us in 1979, and that has never been answered for. Do you think we should have declared war in 1979 and invaded Iran? That would follow your idea of normal international conventions and would have been a legal act under international law, correct?
So you think the US deliberately targeted wedding parties?
Nope, not in the slightest. I more than adequately articulated your confusion, and it is ultimately all there in black and white. I invite anyone that is inclined to go back and read our conversation. I am imminently comfortable in the notion that I have more than made my point. Your denial.....is just a denial. It is time to let the reader decide.
You didnt understand what I said until I clarified further. Perhaps that was my fault. Perhaps it was your fault. Perhaps it was a combination of the two. Who cares? My goodness do you just love the act of bickering aimlessly? Sincerely, if this is your thing please move on.
First off....conventions to which we are signatories? This is the first that anything even remotely of that nature has been mentioned. You made some vague reference to "millenia old covenant", but nothing specific, and certainly nothing relating to being a signatory. I am aware of various conventions to which we are signatories. If you have some specific verbiage to a specific convention to which we belong that you feel applies, I MOST CERTAINLY invite you to produce a link and state which parts that you feel apply. I am more than happy to discuss this if that is the tact that you want to take. DO NOT however sit here and pretend like that is what we have been discussing when you have said absolutely NOTHING OF THE SORT. In fact, why dont you cut and paste the part from our conversation where that is what you were discussing us being signatory to a specific covenant? The fact of the matter is that you will not because IT DOES NOT EXIST. Whether intentional or not, you are being dishonest. Pretending like our conversation was about something else isnt typically the tactic of a winning position in a debate is it?
Second...It was what I was talking about in response to your demands for justification. You obviously believe that justification is of utmost importance, and I replied by correctly pointing out that justification is not necessary to the nation with whom you are warring. It is necessary for an explanation to the citizens at home, which is much different. If you feel that there is an international convention that specifically refers to this exact situation, I once again invite you to provide that text and we can discuss it. If you have something convincing, perhaps you could change my mind. Perhaps I point out something that changes yours. That is how a discussion ideally proceeds. If you are sitting on something specific, you are derelict in not providing it. In the absence of that text, please keep your unsubstantiated claims to yourself.
Third...I didnt say "might makes right". YOU DID. Now you are arguing against YOUR words. How delightful. You are a lot of fun.
Once again. Provide a link to this text. Why have you not provided that? Assuming that you have something specific to which you are referring, the fact that you have not yet provided said link is a dereliction of duty. If I were your debate professor, you would receive a failing grade. It is inexcusable. Unless of course you are just here to bicker aimlessly?
Once again, provide the language and we can discuss. My goodness your debate skills leave something to be desired.
So now you are demanding an answer in the context of the "international rules of conduct", when this post of yours is the first time anything that specific has been mentioned. Did you expect me to read your mind and anticipate that upcoming desire of yours? LOL...I AM good......but not THAT good.
You have not managed to answer in a coherent way_in context of the international rules of conduct, how they should respond to our insolence?
I am not moving the goalpost. YOU are throwing in this side discussion when in fact I have zero interest. It really has not one thing to do with the legality and or morality of killing Soleimani. I personally do not care whether you think we are the worlds worst offender against human rights. It really has not one thing to do with our primary conversation about Soleimani. It is a non sequitur, and while throwing out your non sequitur you oddly accuse me of moving the goalpost.
Sincerely, with all due respect, I find you far too petty for my taste. Id be fine if you did not bother responding. Aimlessly bickering is not my thing. If you do respond, just respond with the facts and keep it short.[/QUOTE]
We slaughter civilians in the normal course of business.
There's a wedding party with one possible bad actor in attendance, so we slaughter men, women and children.
Why should they not see that as terrorism?
You're not actually going to dispute the fact that we are a founding nation of NATO, the UN, the Geneva Conventions, etc. Plus, we signed our names to the deal with Iraq - and then reneged!! Just out of curiosity, what does it mean to negotiate with the US if the US won't stand behind its negotiations?
Also, for a very long time we've subscribed to the notion that administration individuals in the act of diplomacy are not to be killed.
We SAY we stand for the rule of law. But, there isn't any law suggesting a right to kill diplomats in the act of diplomacy.
And, we do NOT have a state of war with Iran. So, do you have some other war in mind?
Of course I am not denying our status within NATO, The UN, or the Geneva Conventions. What on gods green earth would make you think that I would dispute that fact? If you have something relative to any of the above that you feel we have violated, I invite you to cut and paste the text to which you feel we have violated. I am more than willing to discuss, and can even be convinced, Until that time however, please make a point. You havent really said anything relative to the above agreements. You have named them and not said anything other than that. I am not sure what you expect me to do with this? It is as if you are conveying an incomplete thought.
Please provide some sort of link that supports this notion about "administration individuals". I can be convinced, but first you have to provide some sort of basis so that it can be explored.
In the act of diplomacy?...LOL...is that what you call it? What was his diplomatic mission? Funny how our embassy in that city had just been over run. What strange timing!
Who said that we "have a state of war with Iran"? What are you even talking about? This doesnt make sense in relation of the text of mine to which you quoted. "Do I have some other war in mind"?....Huh?
??? We assassinated a high government official from a country with which we are not at war and who was on a diplomatic mission to Iraq.
And, you really think I have to search out the various principles and laws that broke? We were defensive about shooting down Yamomoto, and we were at war with Japan at the time. Now, we say OF COURSE we killed this general??
Timing? Are you trying to gin up another excuse? Didn't Trump and his administration already try that?
"Second...It was what I was talking about in response to your demands for justification. You obviously believe that justification is of utmost importance, and I replied by correctly pointing out that justification is not necessary to the nation with whom you are warring."
And, I just want to make it clear that we are not at war with Iran. So, there are some real questions concerning what you meant by that statement.
Separate names with a comma.