[News] Top Iranian military commander killed by air strikes

[cheshunt seagull]

Mike Pence is trying to justify it by linking Suleimani to 9.11, which doesn't make any sense at all. Since when did Sunni and Shi'ites work together?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/us/politics/pence-iran-factcheck.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

It will strike the right emotional note and keeps the story simple which is all that is needed these days. The distinction between the 2 will be lost on most Americans as it would be lost on the majority of people in the UK.

 

[vegster]

need to point out this is a military leader, not goverment, that is held responsbile for directing actions against US and others. some context, this is one of a series of incidents, there was a US fatality last week, attack on the US embassy. US had already sent in 750-3000 new troops depending on sources. the situation in Iraq is not stable, with a weak government propped up by US army and Iranian backed militias, with the inference that Iran was/is preparing a coup.

Effectively he was the second most important man in Iran and Soleimani could only have been in post/allowed/put in place by the Iranian leader, much as Pompeo was put in place by Trump. The US has a long history of extra judicial killings, and killing huge numbers of civilians by " collateral damage" and meddling in foreign governments and regimes and supporting some rather nasty individuals with US forces.

As for Iraq, did it not used to have quite a strong government ? oh yes, I forgot ! Bush/Blair targeted that regime as one of the Axis of Evil candidates for a duffing up and look where that has led us. Would a coup in Iraq really have been bad for US interests ? They have no real policy in/for Iraq other than to try to draw down their own troop levels.

The trouble is, no one can stand up to the US, no one, not even the UN.

 

[beorhthelm]

... Would a coup in Iraq really have been bad for US interests ? They have no real policy in/for Iraq other than to try to draw down their own troop levels.

a coup leading to a pro-Iran government would be disaster for the US and their regional sponsor Saudi's. thats what this is really about, the power play between Saudi and Iran.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Here we go. Britain sympathetic to the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...thetic-to-us-over-killing-of-qassem-suleimani

 

[Live by the sea]

Raab playing with a very straight bat on Marr this morning, refused to condem the extra-judicial killing of a senior figure of a foreign government in a third country. Aren't we supposed to be better than this as a free western democracy ?

Trying to think what the US response would be if Mike Pompeo was blown up by an admitted Iranian bomb in Paris. As Mrs V just said to me " are we seriously allowed to just blow up government leaders we don't like? "

Two crucial points you seem to have forgotten. The general was indisputably directly linked operationally with the deaths of several American & British forces in Iraq over the last few years. Possibly as many as 100 . So he’s not just a normal member of a govt we don’t like. It’s entirely different. . secondly regardless of whose President of the United States , the US is our ally & generally a ally to Europe so of course it’s very difficult to criticise this assassination even if the UK govt wanted to because the bigger picture and by far the most important fact is maintaining the good relationship with have with the most powerful democracy in the worlld. End of.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

End of.

Grow up. If you cannot debate without saying End of (argument), like a child, then it isn't worth reading.

 

[Live by the sea]

Sorry maybe that was a bit curt to say end of. It just irritates me when people look at events in isolation and don’t look at the bigger picture.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Sorry maybe that was a bit curt to say end of. It just irritates me when people look at events in isolation and don’t look at the bigger picture.

Fair comment.

 

[spence]

Fair comment.

End of

 

[vegster]

Two crucial points you seem to have forgotten. The general was indisputably directly linked operationally with the deaths of several American & British forces in Iraq over the last few years. Possibly as many as 100 . So he’s not just a normal member of a govt we don’t like. It’s entirely different. . secondly regardless of whose President of the United States , the US is our ally & generally a ally to Europe so of course it’s very difficult to criticise this assassination even if the UK govt wanted to because the bigger picture and by far the most important fact is maintaining the good relationship with have with the most powerful democracy in the worlld. End of.

There you go ! assassination is fine then just so long as it's done by our ally, what a moral code we now have. Plenty of American defence secretary's have sanctioned operations that have led to the killings of hundreds of innocent Arab and Iranian civilians over the years across the whole Middle East, are they fair game for assassination too ? We should aspire to be better than keeping quiet in case we upset Mr Trump, so, no longer can we speak " Truth to power " we just have to accept whatever illegalities or conventions he breaks in order to stay right up Trumps arse.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Two crucial points you seem to have forgotten. The general was indisputably directly linked operationally with the deaths of several American & British forces in Iraq over the last few years. Possibly as many as 100 . So he’s not just a normal member of a govt we don’t like. It’s entirely different. . secondly regardless of whose President of the United States , the US is our ally & generally a ally to Europe so of course it’s very difficult to criticise this assassination even if the UK govt wanted to because the bigger picture and by far the most important fact is maintaining the good relationship with have with the most powerful democracy in the worlld. End of.

Great post, that is the truth.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

There you go ! assassination is fine then just so long as it's done by our ally, what a moral code we now have. Plenty of American defence secretary's have sanctioned operations that have led to the killings of hundreds of innocent Arab and Iranian civilians over the years across the whole Middle East, are they fair game for assassination too ? We should aspire to be better than keeping quiet in case we upset Mr Trump, so, no longer can we speak " Truth to power " we just have to accept whatever illegalities or conventions he breaks in order to stay right up Trumps arse.

It would have been the same whoever was in charge.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

It would have been the same whoever was in charge.

You can't know that. The impeachment process is all about Trump pursuing his own interests ahead of his country.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

It would have been the same whoever was in charge.

You can't know that. The impeachment process is all about Trump pursuing his own interests ahead of his country.

Bush and Blair

 

[Live by the sea]

There you go ! assassination is fine then just so long as it's done by our ally, what a moral code we now have. Plenty of American defence secretary's have sanctioned operations that have led to the killings of hundreds of innocent Arab and Iranian civilians over the years across the whole Middle East, are they fair game for assassination too ? We should aspire to be better than keeping quiet in case we upset Mr Trump, so, no longer can we speak " Truth to power " we just have to accept whatever illegalities or conventions he breaks in order to stay right up Trumps arse.

Within reason yes.

It might have been illegal to neutralise the general but morally I don’t think many people are shedding any tears for him outside of the hardline Iranians. He was directly involved in orchestrating numerous murders himself.

Obviously if America decided to bomb someone else that was not directly involved in killing its soldiers and our soldiers or involved directly in other terrorist activities then that would be grossly over stepping the mark but I don’t see any evidence that is very likely.

Like it or not but our relationship with America is very important. We can’t trust Russia or China so yes America will always be the best option for the Uk.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Bush and Blair

Not sure what that is supposed to prove. Ah well.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Two crucial points you seem to have forgotten. The general was indisputably directly linked operationally with the deaths of several American & British forces in Iraq over the last few years. Possibly as many as 100 . So he’s not just a normal member of a govt we don’t like. It’s entirely different. . secondly regardless of whose President of the United States , the US is our ally & generally a ally to Europe so of course it’s very difficult to criticise this assassination even if the UK govt wanted to because the bigger picture and by far the most important fact is maintaining the good relationship with have with the most powerful democracy in the worlld. End of.

Indeed, see realpolitik. I'm pretty sure most/all western governments would have strongly advised against doing this and have made their views known through private channels (after the event) but publicly condemning the US is unwise, even more so considering the numerous character flaws of the current incumbent of the White House.

 

[beorhthelm]

You can't know that. The impeachment process is all about Trump pursuing his own interests ahead of his country.

i think we probably could expect the same under any President. for 30 years the US have protected Saudi with direct military interventions. its not in Trump's personal interests, its not even directly US interests since they no long import much oil. there are commercial and geopolitical interests, and for reasons they back the Saudi against the Iranians. another President would have had the same interests to protect, the same actions from the other actors, the same intelligence. Clinton was seen as more interventionist than Trump, so would have actted the same.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

On 19 November 2019 widespread anti-government protests began in Iran in several cities, initially involving thousands of people. When security police shot a protester dead in Sirjan, it sparked a major escalation in the protests. By the following day millions were taking to the streets and the country was in near shut-down with anti-government protests taking place in over 100 cities. The government shut down the internet to prevent social media being used to organise the protest. By 19 November the protests intensified - the government attempted to use repression to smash the movement - killing dozens and arresting more than 1,000. The crowds chanted 'Down with the Dictator', 'Death to the Islamic Republic', 'Our military brothers, why do you kill your brother?', 'They have brought up Islam, but trampled the people', 'The supreme leader lives like a God. We, the people live like beggars.' - and began burning down Islamic seminaries and prayer offices. The protests dissipated as a result of the repression but flared up again on 7 December - Student Day in Iran. Thousands took to the streets - and the issue of the killing of protesters now became the dominant issue - security forces were stealing the bodies from hospitals and morgues to prevent the funerals becoming a focal point for protests. By 26 December thousands were turning up to the estimated 1,500 funerals that were taking place across the country and the government was teetering on collapse. The fuel prices rises that sparked the protests were abandoned - splits occurred at the tops of the government - the intelligence services and the security forces were also at loggerheads over how to handle the protests.

At the same time huge anti-government protests have been taking place in Iraq - in part because of the way both the USA and Iran are using Iraq as a kind of proxy war. Very quickly the protesters focus on poverty, poor services and corruption, despite the country having one of the world's largest outputs of oil. Protesters demand the resignation of the pro-US government and an end to Iranian interference in the country - chanting 'We want a home land' - reflecting a desire to live in the country with dignity and without outside interference. Like in Iran, the Iraqi state shut down access to the internet. At the end of October the guy the Americans assassinated, Qasem Soleimani, met with the head of the military wing of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, urging him to support the pro-US government. The intervention had the opposite effect - provoking even larger protests. By mid-November over 300 were killed and over 15,000 injured. The protests now became better organised - shutting down Khor al-Zubair port and Umm Qasr Port, dramatically reducing the amount of oil that could be exported from the country. By the end of November the government is on the verge of collapse - the prime minister resigns in order to stave off the collapse. The Iraqi government now changes strategy for dealing with the protests - using paramilitary groups to carry out indiscriminate shootings in an effort to force people off the streets. On 24 December the Iraqi government attempts to appease the protesters by passing a series of electoral reforms - it only emboldens the protests - and the government faces a major crisis when the president refuses to appoint a new prime minister and submits his own resignation.

One crucial development occurs on 26 December in both countries - the trade unions (what little exist) announce that they will begin a campaign of strike action. In Iraq the trade unions had participated, but largely in the background. A similar situation existed in Iran. However, particularly the intervention of the transport workers in Iran threatening to strike and bringing the countries to a standstill, ramped up the pressure on both governments.

On 29 December the USA launches a major military strike on the headquarters of the pro-Iranian Kata'ib Hezbollah in Al-Qa'im, north-west of Bagdad. Two days later, several hundred protesters attack the US Embassy in Bagdad, many of them members of Kata'ib Hezbollah. At just after midnight on 3 January the USA launches a drone strike near Bagdad Airport - killing Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis (commander of Kata'ib Hezbollah), among others.

Now - what is the fallout of these two military strikes by the USA over the past few days - well - hundreds of thousands took to the streets of Teheran in anti-American protests during Soleimani's funeral. Many attempted to chant anti-government slogans but were quickly arrested or attacked by pro-government demonstrators. Similarly in Bagdad, the funeral was marked by over 100,000 on the streets in anti-American protests. What is the best way of undermining anti-government protests - give people something else to protest about by doing something 'in your face' that they fell compelled to respond to. The actions of the USA has done nothing other than re-enforce the shaky Iranian regime and divided the anti-government movement in Iraq along sectarian lines - and maybe that was one of the purposes behind it.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

https://twitter.com/PresVillain/status/1213806772806393857?s=19