Iraqi PM: Soleimani was in Iraq to discuss Iran-Saudi de-escalation when he was killed

[revgen]

This smells like BS. He was a general. Not a diplomat.

 

[Swordsmyth]

This smells like BS. He was a general. Not a diplomat.

 

[osan]

Who stands to lose most if Iran-Saudi tensions got de-escalated?
If this is confirmed to be part of some conspiracy to stop de-escalation between Iran and Saudi and keep wars temperature high, Deep Neocons could be in big trouble in 2020 elections.

A couple of things.

Firstly, it is not established that he was "assassinated". To assume this is to assume that killing him was unjust. The evidence seems to suggest that he was a very bad actor, an enemy combatant whose deliberate actions validly placed him in the crosshairs.

Secondly, it makes no sense that anyone would have him killed with the objective in mind of maintaining tensions between the parties in question. Unless the false case can be convincingly made that the Saudis had Soleimani offed or that Iran did so to make it look as if Saudis did it, I see no reason that either party would be stupid enough to allow this event to derail deescalation.

Thirdly, the United States has claimed Soleimani's head, which in itself demolishes the notion that the act was carried forth for the stated purposes. If anything, the act would stand to better solidify relations between the pair, assuming that the efforts are sincere on both sides.

At this time, I am inclined to believe that that boy placed himself in danger by poking at the sleeping tiger, which them awakened, took exception, and resolved the issue without equivocation.

 

[donnay]

This is an interesting twist.

 

[Influenza]

A couple of things.

Firstly, it is not established that he was "assassinated". To assume this is to assume that killing him was unjust. The evidence seems to suggest that he was a very bad actor, an enemy combatant whose deliberate actions validly placed him in the crosshairs.

Secondly, it makes no sense that anyone would have him killed with the objective in mind of maintaining tensions between the parties in question. Unless the false case can be convincingly made that the Saudis had Soleimani offed or that Iran did so to make it look as if Saudis did it, I see no reason that either party would be stupid enough to allow this event to derail deescalation.

Thirdly, the United States has claimed Soleimani's head, which in itself demolishes the notion that the act was carried forth for the stated purposes. If anything, the act would stand to better solidify relations between the pair, assuming that the efforts are sincere on both sides.

At this time, I am inclined to believe that that boy placed himself in danger by poking at the sleeping tiger, which them awakened, took exception, and resolved the issue without equivocation.

1. That's not what assassination means... lol.

2. So assassinating (yes, assassinating) a top official of a foreign country that has already been subjected with sanctions for decades, which are an act of war, should... not deter deescalation? How does that make any sense? Saudi Arabia and the US are allies, you know.

3. I don't think Trump had Soleimani killed to prevent peace between Saudi and Iran, he just did it to get more votes from the Oorah retard wing of the Republican party

 

[osan]

Maybe. Or Trump’s neoconservative advisors (Kushner, Pence, Pompeo, Graham, Rubio) took advantage of knowing about it...

Meh... possible, but this paints Trump as a feckless victim, which I am hard pressed to buy. Possibly, Trump is one of Themme and everything we see is pure theatre. The Donald is treading a remarkably fine line such that I STILL do not know whether he is to be trusted. If he's a bad guy, I have to hand it to him for his virtuoso performance in this regard. Most have neither the brains to sort the role to this level of detail, or the patience to see it through. If he is a bad guy, he represents dedication to an objective that the number of others of equal commitment since the days of Sumer cn probably be counted on one hand, possibly with fingers left over. With that said, I will still not commit my trust to him. This has been quite the wild ride.

 

[osan]

1. That's not what assassination means... lol.

From the Oxford etymological dictionary:

assassinate (v.)

1610s, from past participle stem of Medieval Latin assassinare (see assassin). "Assassinate means to kill wrongfully by surprise, suddenly, or by secret assault" [Century Dictionary]. Of reputations, characters, etc., from 1620s. Related: Assassinated; assassinating.
​

Please address your attention to the bold, italicized, underlined term. Now go back to what I wrote. The assumption has been by some that he was wrongfully killed. That assumption is eminently questionable and has in no way been established as being truth, at least no to my eyes.

2.

So assassinating (yes, assassinating) a top official of a foreign country that has already been subjected with sanctions for decades, which are an act of war, should... not deter deescalation? How does that make any sense? Saudi Arabia and the US are allies, you know.

Let us examine this. If we assume, per your implications of tone and word, that both the Saudis and Iranians are in fact and indeed sincere about not standing at one another's throats and the USA who is a foe of one and an uneasy ally of the other (again assuming those nations are what they appear and all the Wahhabist bullshit is not just more political theater), then what I have written makes strong, if not conclusively convincing, sense. Brothers in Islam attempt to mend fences and America steps in and murders one of the envoys of peace. What YOU need to explain is how that is likely to turn those brothers at each other's throats and not leave them eyeballing the captain who has proudly proclaimed the head in question.

Good luck with that, but my mind is open to persuasion.

3. I don't think Trump had Soleimani killed to prevent peace between Saudi and Iran, he just did it to get more votes from the Oorah retard wing of the Republican party

To all appearances, and I have yet to see anything convincing that contradicts, he was a very bad actor. We are living in a world of utter shit, courtesy of the nearly universal corruption that is humanity. It is SO bad, that ever since about 1900, the technological levers given men in their various forms have lead not to ever greater peace, but increased barbarity and efficiency in the commission of the worst crimes imaginable.

 

[Slave Mentality]

That's a lot of fancy words to say that we should have never been in the Middle East to start with.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

A couple of things.

Firstly, it is not established that he was "assassinated". To assume this is to assume that killing him was unjust. The evidence seems to suggest that he was a very bad actor, an enemy combatant whose deliberate actions validly placed him in the crosshairs.

Nomenclature is not an issue here, it can by called anything and that won't change ground realities about this incidence and risk of escalation on wars path.

Just to understand your premise and views about 'bad actors' and 'justice', if in coming years GOP wars neocons party received another blowback from voters and a POTUS named Al Assad Hussein Omani got elected (repeating Barack Hussein Obama election blowback) with mideast donors money and decided to drone Israeli PM Netanyahu declaring him a 'bad actor' who had killed many civilians of other races, would you see that as 'just' action?

What is not disputed in reporting about him so far is that he :

- helped US overthrwow Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11

- helped US form Iraqi government after Saddam overthrow

- helped defeat ISIS in Syria, Iraq

- helped Lebanon defeat Israel in 2006 war that killed over 100 Israeli soldiers

What is disputed about his role:
- he was working for CIA and killed 600 troops in Iraq

Secondly, it makes no sense that anyone would have him killed with the objective in mind of maintaining tensions between the parties in question. Unless the false case can be convincingly made that the Saudis had Soleimani offed or that Iran did so to make it look as if Saudis did it, I see no reason that either party would be stupid enough to allow this event to derail deescalation.

Not a strong argument imo, it also assumes everyone acts/reacts in bloody wars in a perfectly rational and sane manner. But it is very plausible that an entity that gains from Iran-Saudi tensions could try to stop any development that could reduce wars tensions and lead to exit of foreign troops from mideast (possibly even in a failing manner that would expose them, as happened in case of Israeli Operation Sussanah terror attacks against US/UK targets in Egypt few decades ago). If OP news is based on facts, it could escalate/descalate situation or laws of unintended consequences could take things in any of the many possible directions.

At this time, I am inclined to believe that that boy placed himself in danger by poking at the sleeping tiger, which them awakened, took exception, and resolved the issue without equivocation.

There are plenty idicators that this act was reckless step and carries risk of further escalation with very zealous actors involved who don't always act rationally.
Highlited is feel good rhetoric , reminded of similar rhetoric when Bush-Cheney aided by then neocon hawks invaded Iraq to remove 'bad actor' Saddam. History has showed how that talk was followed by Barack Hussein Obama revolution and caused rethinking.


Best way to end costly deadly forever wars is to bring troops home , let our closest allies defend themselves and convert some of weapons industries to other peaceful channels. If too much money is needed to win elections and big money donors cannot be ignored, better solution is to reform political system.

 

[Influenza]

From the Oxford etymological dictionary:

assassinate (v.)

1610s, from past participle stem of Medieval Latin assassinare (see assassin). "Assassinate means to kill wrongfully by surprise, suddenly, or by secret assault" [Century Dictionary]. Of reputations, characters, etc., from 1620s. Related: Assassinated; assassinating.
​

Please address your attention to the bold, italicized, underlined term. Now go back to what I wrote. The assumption has been by some that he was wrongfully killed. That assumption is eminently questionable and has in no way been established as being truth, at least no to my eyes.

2.


Let us examine this. If we assume, per your implications of tone and word, that both the Saudis and Iranians are in fact and indeed sincere about not standing at one another's throats and the USA who is a foe of one and an uneasy ally of the other (again assuming those nations are what they appear and all the Wahhabist bull$#@! is not just more political theater), then what I have written makes strong, if not conclusively convincing, sense. Brothers in Islam attempt to mend fences and America steps in and murders one of the envoys of peace. What YOU need to explain is how that is likely to turn those brothers at each other's throats and not leave them eyeballing the captain who has proudly proclaimed the head in question.

Good luck with that, but my mind is open to persuasion.

3. I don't think Trump had Soleimani killed to prevent peace between Saudi and Iran, he just did it to get more votes from the Oorah retard wing of the Republican party[/QUOTE]

To all appearances, and I have yet to see anything convincing that contradicts, was a very bad actor. We are living in a world of utter $#@!, courtesy of the nearly universal corruption that is humanity. It is SO bad, that ever since about 1900, the technological levers given men in their various forms have lead not to ever greater peace, but increased barbarity and efficiency in the commission of the worst crimes imaginable.[/QUOTE]

Nice, you found a suitable definition, written in a dictionary from the 1800's. Literally every other modern dictionary mentions nothing of the justifiability of the killing when defining "assassinate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler

I guess they must call it "assassination attempts" because they consider assassinating hitler wrongful.

Assassination refers to the the sudden, unexpected killing of someone, typically of prominence, regardless of whether or not it's justifiable.

Why we can say Soleimani was assassinated and someone else, say Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi was not assassinated, has nothing to do with the justifiability. It's because there was nothing sudden or unexpected about the killing of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi. He was on the run from thousands of people trying to kill him for years. The same can't be said about Soleimani. Now just stop, I'm right, you're wrong.

2. The salafis who run Saudi do not consider Iranians "brothers in Islam." They call them Majusi i.e. Zoroastrians. I do not necessarily buy into the claim that Soleimani "was on a peace mission." But regardless of whether he was or not, his assassination deters deescalation because Iran and its subsidiaries are not thinking about peace right now, they are thinking about how to go about reprisal attacks, of which Saudi is certainly a possible target

 

[Brian4Liberty]

The Saudi's set him up...

wouldn’t surprise me.

That's how I would do it , only I would expect the prey too smart to take the bait .

That would explain quite a bit.

Who remembers Jamal Khashoggi? He took the Saudi bait.

Supposedly ordered by Jared Kushner's good buddy, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS).

 

[Warlord]

Who remembers Jamal Khashoggi? He took the Saudi bait.

Supposedly ordered by Jared Kushner's good buddy, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS).

There's a lot of speculation Brian. No one knows for sure. We don't have the full story yet we're supposed to believe that liar Pompeo. Many Republicans have swallowed his story hook line and sinker. It's 2003 all over again, WMDs and Bush. War is popular especially in the GOP.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Meh... possible, but this paints Trump as a feckless victim, which I am hard pressed to buy. Possibly, Trump is one of Themme and everything we see is pure theatre. The Donald is treading a remarkably fine line such that I STILL do not know whether he is to be trusted. If he's a bad guy, I have to hand it to him for his virtuoso performance in this regard. Most have neither the brains to sort the role to this level of detail, or the patience to see it through. If he is a bad guy, he represents dedication to an objective that the number of others of equal commitment since the days of Sumer cn probably be counted on one hand, possibly with fingers left over. With that said, I will still not commit my trust to him. This has been quite the wild ride.

Yes, the drunken monkey is hard to read at times. But the bottom line is usually himself, that much seems consistent.

Why make the decision to kill Soleimani? Put it in personal terms. Emotion and motivations. He wants to look tough. There is a huge voter base for that. Hannity and the neoconservatives have been ecstatic. It’s his wet dream. People were always talking about taking Soleimani out, and Trump likes to do things that other politicians were “afraid” to do.

Emotionally, there was the back and forth of militia base attacks, but then it was escalated with the mob attacks on the US Embassy. Probably angered Trump.

Now, many media pundits are bringing up the pending impeachment. Right wingers are saying “there can’t be an impeachment while this warm war is going on with Iran! Anyone who does is an anti-American traitor!” The Democrats are saying he did it to distract from and avoid the impeachment. But most personally relevant? Bolton had starting making derogatory remarks about Trump, hinting he would give negative testimony in an impeachment trial. Killing Soleimani is also a dream of Bolton. Would it bring Bolton back over to Trump’s side? Would that be a consideration?

 

[navy-vet]

This smells like BS. He was a general. Not a diplomat.

Exactly!

 

[Swordsmyth]

Who remembers Jamal Khashoggi? He took the Saudi bait.

Supposedly ordered by Jared Kushner's good buddy, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS).

The only evidence we were given of that was the assertions of the Turks.

 

[osan]

Nomenclature is not an issue here, it can by called anything and that won't change ground realities about this incidence and risk of escalation on wars path.

What do you mean "nomenclature is not an issue here"? Which nomenclature and how is it not at issue? Semantics is the essence of communication. Word choice dictates semantics. I'm thinking nomenclature is central to any discourse, including the ordering of pizza.

Just to understand your premise and views about 'bad actors' and 'justice', if in coming years GOP wars neocons party received another blowback from voters and a POTUS named Al Assad Hussein Omani got elected (repeating Barack Hussein Obama election blowback) with mideast donors money and decided to drone Israeli PM Netanyahu declaring him a 'bad actor' who had killed many civilians of other races, would you see that as 'just' action?

I might.

What is not disputed in reporting about him so far is that he :

- helped US overthrwow Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11

- helped US form Iraqi government after Saddam overthrow

- helped defeat ISIS in Syria, Iraq

- helped Lebanon defeat Israel in 2006 war that killed over 100 Israeli soldiers

What is disputed about his role:
- he was working for CIA and killed 600 troops in Iraq

Is/isn't disputed... according to whom? My only point is that Soleimani put himself into that game and if he guilty as charged, killing him could be strongly argued as valid. I don't trust much that is presented to us, so I reserve all judgments on such matters.

All this aside, I firmly agree with bringing the troops home. I would further close most foreign bases, reducing them to dust so nobody else can make use of the infrastructure. As a practical measure, I might maintain a handful of such bases in the most strategically important locations as a purely practical measure. While that latter bit may grate against one's ideals, the real world remains as it is and regressing completely in accord with those ideals might not work out too well when, in the wake of the sucking noise made by the power vacuum precipitated by our withdrawal, the likes of China and Russia take up residence in places that would prove potentially very threatening from any of several standpoints.

There is a certain low denominator that is dictated by those willing to plumb the depths. Fail to follow suit at your peril because those who do will hold some essential advantage of power that you may not be able to afford to forgo.

Human beings are shitty, nasty creatures, speaking on the mean. The current, deplorable state of human political affairs proves this beyond any credible argumentation.

For me, the question is not how we can bring to the fore our ideals, but how to make the current reality less horrible. The percentage of humanity that understands freedom and actually wants it is likely well under one percent of one percent. Those numbersdon't speak well of the odds for the future, all else equal. So at this point, dealing with the shit that is seems to make the most sense.

 

[Influenza]

This smells like BS. He was a general. Not a diplomat.

He was actually both. He helped convince Putin to enter the Syrian war on the side of Assad.

 

[osan]

Yes, the drunken monkey is hard to read at times. But the bottom line is usually himself, that much seems consistent.

Why make the decision to kill Soleimani? Put it in personal terms. Emotion and motivations. He wants to look tough.

Whoa thar, cowboy. Not so fast. I would almost bet money I do not have that you are not in possession of sufficient good information to make such as assertion, but if I am mistaken please do correct me.

I don't trust Trump, yet I have not the information to condemn him, either. As I wrote in another post, he is walking a very tight line that bespeaks a skill and discipline few in the entire history of humanity have ever demonstrated.

There is a huge voter base for that.

Cannot disagree with that.

...Trump likes to do things that other politicians were “afraid” to do.

For one thing, your attribution of motive seems questionable at best, but even if true, that is not necessarily a bad thing as your tone seems to imply.

Emotionally, there was the back and forth of militia base attacks, but then it was escalated with the mob attacks on the US Embassy. Probably angered Trump.

What leads you to conclude that Trump was angry? I can as easily see his actions as being pragmatically chosen for effect.

Now, many media pundits are bringing up the pending impeachment.

Pending? I thought he's been impeached already. Are you referring to the senate trial?

Right wingers are saying “there can’t be an impeachment while this warm war is going on with Iran! Anyone who does is an anti-American traitor!”

This is the first I've ever heard of this.

The Democrats are saying he did it to distract from and avoid the impeachment. But most personally relevant? Bolton had starting making derogatory remarks about Trump, hinting he would give negative testimony in an impeachment trial. Killing Soleimani is also a dream of Bolton. Would it bring Bolton back over to Trump’s side? Would that be a consideration?

Trump does not strike me as one to suck the enemy's dick just for a get-out-of-jail-free card. Trump has his problems, to be certain, but I do not as yet see any clear evidence of his being the sort of lowlife that, say, Obama is.

One of the big problems I see in people is an inability or unwillingness to regard Trump without emotion. I seem to be one of the rare few. For whatever reason, media spin being a real likely candidate for root cause, the vast plurality of people seem to be driven by emotion, rather than logic. This is bad juju; poison that cannot lead anywhere good, save by some monumentally freakish coincidence. And that is one strong reason why humanity is likely doomed - we are our own worst enemies.

 

[osan]

Nice, you found a suitable definition, written in a dictionary from the 1800's. Literally every other modern dictionary mentions nothing of the justifiability of the killing when defining "assassinate."

Your words imply that you are of the school of thought that believes in a "living" language... which is precisely the same mindset of those who view the Constitution as a "living document". The juju there is, ironically, bad almost beyond words.

Altering the semantics of words is perhaps the single greatest error that human beings make, and that is really saying a lot.

Imagine inverting the definitions of "right" and "left" in your thoughts. Now imagine following the directions you get from, say, Google Maps. This is perhaps the most trivial example I can disgorge. Things would get a whole world worse in other cases, and in fact have become so. Consider how incapable Johnny Q has become in terms of parsing the semantics of the Constitution. Why is that? Because his understanding of words is screwed to depths sufficient to render him a functional imbecile. Forget putting the works of Shakespeare before his mug... and that's just Middle English. Pass into old English and basically nobody is able to discern what in hell is going on.

Assassination refers to the the sudden, unexpected killing of someone, typically of prominence, regardless of whether or not it's justifiable.

I demonstrated that this is, in fact, incorrect. You are attempting to claim that the bastardized definitions available in modern, and dare I say SHITTY, dictionaries are correct, whereas those found in the more authoritative sources are mistaken by some unstated and presumably arbitrary magic. I do trust you see the deep problem with this, or at least I hope you do.

We humans live by the most tenuous of threads. Language is the single most important skill we gain in life, yet we treat it as if it were of no consequence. Your apparent position on the issue at hand is right along that very line and I don't understand how you could adopt so dismissive a posture with respect to this question.

Anyhow, the horse is dead and no point in beating it any further. We can agree to disagree on the matter.

 

[Influenza]

Your words imply that you are of the school of thought that believes in a "living" language... which is precisely the same mindset of those who view the Constitution as a "living document". The juju there is, ironically, bad almost beyond words.

Altering the semantics of words is perhaps the single greatest error that human beings make, and that is really saying a lot.

Imagine inverting the definitions of "right" and "left" in your thoughts. Now imagine following the directions you get from, say, Google Maps. This is perhaps the most trivial example I can disgorge. Things would get a whole world worse in other cases, and in fact have become so. Consider how incapable Johnny Q has become in terms of parsing the semantics of the Constitution. Why is that? Because his understanding of words is screwed to depths sufficient to render him a functional imbecile. Forget putting the works of Shakespeare before his mug... and that's just Middle English. Pass into old English and basically nobody is able to discern what in hell is going on.


I demonstrated that this is, in fact, incorrect. You are attempting to claim that the bastardized definitions available in modern, and dare I say $#@!TY, dictionaries are correct, whereas those found in the more authoritative sources are mistaken by some unstated and presumably arbitrary magic. I do trust you see the deep problem with this, or at least I hope you do.

We humans live by the most tenuous of threads. Language is the single most important skill we gain in life, yet we treat it as if it were of no consequence. Your apparent position on the issue at hand is right along that very line and I don't understand how you could adopt so dismissive a posture with respect to this question.

Anyhow, the horse is dead and no point in beating it any further. We can agree to disagree on the matter.

You don't believe in living languages? That's rather strange. We should all be communicating in a series of grunts then. Languages are changing... all the time.