Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Draco-Onis]

Iran does not want war. The US does not want war. That is why Trump did not make fun of the "retaliation". Look how batshit Trump gets and he was semi respectful. There will be no war..... With the caveat that the US may help if these demonstrations/protests turn in to full scale revolution. Then there may be a war of some sort.

Trump may not want war but everyone around him does take Mike Pompeo for example he has been calling for a full scale war and regime change for years even more for Bolton's crew left in the white house. Trump may not want war but he keep surrounding himself with neo con war hawks, the same can be said for Iran. When the US walked away from the nuclear deal all the moderates got pie on their face because the extremists told them that the US could not be trusted.

So we are in a situation that while there are leading people not wanting war they are outnumbered by extremists salivating at the prospect. As for the demonstration the US didn't do anything at the peak of demonstrations under Trump where the Iranian government killed hundreds of people doubt he will step in now. Also while those protestors maybe against the government they have no love for Donald (I love committing war crimes) Trump either.

- - - Updated - - -

The current administration has a GIGANTIC hard on for war with Iran.

The secretary of defense owns stock in defense contractors he will make millions off a war with Iran.

[JohnBrown1917]

Trump may not want war but everyone around him does take Mike Pompeo for example he has been calling for a full scale war and regime change for years even more for Bolton's crew left in the white house. Trump may not want war but he keep surrounding himself with neo con war hawks, the same can be said for Iran. When the US walked away from the nuclear deal all the moderates got pie on their face because the extremists told them that the US could not be trusted.

So we are in a situation that while there are leading people not wanting war they are outnumbered by extremists salivating at the prospect. As for the demonstration the US didn't do anything at the peak of demonstrations under Trump where the Iranian government killed hundreds of people doubt he will step in now. Also while those protestors maybe against the government they have no love for Donald (I love committing war crimes) Trump either.

- - - Updated - - -



The secretary of defense owns stock in defense contractors he will make millions off a war with Iran.

Don't forget the evangelic christians in the Cabinet(Pompeo, Pence and Barr). Something about war with Iran being part of leading to the end of the world or some other weird cult shit.

[Skroe]

Why do I need to provide a critical argument, lol? There's no facts present in your post to discuss.

It's a stretch to say a 2001 AUMF that targets Al Qaeda applies equally to Sulemain as it did to Bin Laden.

Pst: Why didn't he get a specific AUMF when he had a House majority?

The fact is the 2001 AUMF is so overly broad, it can be used to justify almost any type of military endevour, anywhere, so long as it is in the name of fighting terrorism. That is why legally speaking, Suleimani's killing was likely perfectly legal - because the designation of Quuds Force as a terrorist group last year, and he as their leader, made him a legitimate target.

This isn't even close to the worst abuse. That would be the War on ISIS. A war originally launched under the War Powers act, that never saw an AUMF. Congress didn't want to take a vote on it and the Obama Administration wasn't in a rush to get one. I called the ISIS War deeply illegal. Well intentioned sure, but fantastically illegal. It breached the limits of the War Powers Act. Congress allocated funds for it. But they never voted on an authorization bill which is required. Eventually after something like 18 months of in action on a new AUMF, Obama White House lawyers decided the 2001 AUMF was good enough. And strictly speaking it was. But in terms of intent, it was way way off.

This is the lasting legal legacy of the Iraq War (and to degree, the Libyan conflict as well). The Iraq War got an AUMF, and has been a millstone around the neck of every politician who are therefore responsible for its legacy 17 years later. Joe Biden is STILL explaining it away.

In a rational world and a rational country, the case is pretty simple: it's the jobs of leaders to lead and make the best decision they can at the time, and sometimes that doesn't work out. What the legacy of the Iraq War has been instead is to make politicians skittish about AUMFs in general, and three successive White Houses not interested in spending political capital seeking one, especially since the public at large basically does not care. I mean that's the Obama political argument for the War on ISIS. Sure, from a political philosophy standpoint an AUMF was required... but did the public care? Would the public turn against the Obama for not seeking a AUMF to kill some terrorists? Of course not. Certainly says the American public is unworthy of their system and poor custodians of it.


The 2001 AUMF needs to be repealed. It's one of the worst pieces of legislation written in the past half century. It's kind of ironic that people spent years shitting the bed over the overblown USA PATRIOT Act that was 95% pretty boring bureaucratic reform and 5% questionable stuff, when the 2001 AUMF, which received little scruitny, is now in it's 19th year and still justifying pretty much anything.

To me, this is one of the great ironies of our time. In Obama we had a fairly strong executive. Bush too was a fairly strong executive. Trump is the weakest President in 100 years, but still even his skeleton crew White House is able to blockade the White House because the executive is still strong. And here we are in 2020, trying to pick which among 12 Democrats will be our next great leader.

We need a Democrat in the White House who will sabotage the power of the executive branch from within. One who will sign a repeal of the 2001 AUMF, one who will sign a bill that makes the President subject to prosecution. One that restores the Special Prosecutor's office. One that ends this insane "executive privlege" nonsense that has dogged our government for decades (branches should argue about interpretation of facts, not conceal the existence of facts). One that will sign bills that prevents a repeat of Trump's corruption and handcuff the next ten Presidents to being more at the mercy of Congress.

It is the most important thing the next President can do - to break the back of the Imperial Presidency and restore the power of the legislature. It's more important than healthcare or jobs. Retirements or education. Infrastructure or defense spending. Our Democracy is at stake because the strong executive has become a shortcut due to the lost art of compromise. It's a short cut that needs to be burned to the ground.

The legality or illegality of Sulimani's killing is kind of besides the point. That's like arguing about the pocketing of a Snickers after an armed robber just gunned down 12 people at a Gas Station.

[Sorshen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...mminent-threat

As evidenced by Esper, it was all about his 'gut feeling', not evidence.

[JohnBrown1917]

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...mminent-threat

As evidenced by Esper, it was all about his 'gut feeling', not evidence.

"gut feeling" = Pompeo told Trump to do it because the nice bearded man in his head told him it was a good idea.

[Thekri]

"gut feeling" = Pompeo told Trump to do it because the nice bearded man in his head told him it was a good idea.

Fake news. Putin doesn't have a beard.

[TexasRules]

The current administration has a GIGANTIC hard on for war with Iran.

You got a citation for that? Please show me where it has been reported that they want to go to war? Nobody wants to go to war.

- - - Updated - - -

Trump may not want war but everyone around him does take Mike Pompeo for example he has been calling for a full scale war and regime change for years even more for Bolton's crew left in the white house. Trump may not want war but he keep surrounding himself with neo con war hawks, the same can be said for Iran. When the US walked away from the nuclear deal all the moderates got pie on their face because the extremists told them that the US could not be trusted.

So we are in a situation that while there are leading people not wanting war they are outnumbered by extremists salivating at the prospect. As for the demonstration the US didn't do anything at the peak of demonstrations under Trump where the Iranian government killed hundreds of people doubt he will step in now. Also while those protestors maybe against the government they have no love for Donald (I love committing war crimes) Trump either.

- - - Updated - - -



The secretary of defense owns stock in defense contractors he will make millions off a war with Iran.

So please link some sort of source showing Trump's people want to go to war. I will link several sources that will show it means jack shit because Trump can not, even if he wanted to, start a war. Feel free to throw up those links of his people saying they want to go to war.

- - - Updated - - -

Citation needed*

Mike Pence doesn't count, he lied - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/u...factcheck.html

Just being designated a terrorist isn't enough, as the AUMF isn't that broad. Again, read the AUMF. It's broad, but not a blank check.



Again, citation needed*

If you're thinking of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, that's a different Solemani - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulaiman_Abu_Ghaith

I gave you a citation, where is your response? Or did you give up like usual and just back away.

[Edge-]

I gave you a citation, where is your response? Or did you give up like usual and just back away.

I've been trying to find a non-paywalled version of the article so I can read it in-full before responding. Haven't had any luck so far, but if you've found anything I'd be very interested to read.

[TexasRules]

I've been trying to find a non-paywalled version of the article so I can read it in-full before responding. Haven't had any luck so far, but if you've found anything I'd be very interested to read.

The wall street journal was not paywalled for me the first time , but was the second time. It's okay, I know you don't believe the quote I provided anyways. No one on here believes people even when linked.

[cubby]

The wall street journal was not paywalled for me the first time , but was the second time. It's okay, I know you don't believe the quote I provided anyways. No one on here believes people even when linked.

God that's adorable. You don't even read things when people are trying to be helpful - where is your evidence of people not believing the links you provide again? We don't believe you because you never read the things you link. You say something, then link something else, which typically doesn't prove (or even relate) what you said.

The irony is that I think you and I are on the same page with the assassination.

[Crispin]

Since he is designated as a terrorist by the US government and had ties to alqaeda, doesn't that mean we can kill him according to the AUMF?

- - - Updated - - -



Well he had ties to alqaeda which means you can kill him according to the aumf, right? Because I obviously do not know what it covers, according to you.

The irony of course is how the US assisted Osama Bin Laden in his terrorist activities against the USSR.

And no point in linking an article behind a paywall, you might aswell link nothing whatsoever then.

[Pannonian]

Well, in Iran people get arrested for shooting down a plane full of civilians IN ERROR.

In America, people assassinating civilians at an airport are heros.


And people are surprised why we don't hail this assassination as a step to world peace...

[kentaro]

Well, in Iran people get arrested for shooting down a plane full of civilians IN ERROR.

In America, people assassinating civilians at an airport are heros.


And people are surprised why we don't hail this assassination as a step to world peace...

We can do whatever we want. We have bases near Russia and China and both are shitless to do anything.

Enjoy reading this: globalresearch.ca/america-war-global-domination/5699466

[Draco-Onis]

So please link some sort of source showing Trump's people want to go to war. I will link several sources that will show it means jack shit because Trump can not, even if he wanted to, start a war. Feel free to throw up those links of his people saying they want to go to war.

John Bolton asking for regime change this month

Mike Pompeo “Congress must act to change Iranian behavior, and, ultimately, the Iranian regime"

Bolton july 2017

“There is a viable opposition to the rule of the ayatollahs, and that opposition is centered in this room today. I had said for over 10 years since coming to these events, that the declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change, and therefore the only solution is to change the regime itself. And that’s why, before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran!”

His people are still working in the administration.

White House reviews plan to deploy 120,000 troops to Middle East: NYT 5/14/19

Then there's Mike Pence who is a Christian zionist and pushes Trump along with Pompeo

Then you have Mike Esper a Raytheon lobbyist who has interest in the company still he stands to make millions during a war.


Many members of his cabinet are also strong supporters and members of CUFI I will let you go down that rabbit hole yourself. Again I never said Trump wants to go to war I said he is surrounded by people who do.

[Orange Joe]

cat_saying_Do_you_think_this_is_a_motherfucking_game.jpg

Next time when Russia or China messes with US elections and someone worse than Trump is elected, it will be 100% on people who didn't take it seriously enough the last time.

Oh. I'm all for stopping it. I just don't think murder is the right answer......

[Freighter]

I've been trying to find a non-paywalled version of the article so I can read it in-full before responding. Haven't had any luck so far, but if you've found anything I'd be very interested to read.

In 2003, in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Iranian regime was ridden with anxiety. President George W. Bush had included Iran in his post-9/11 “axis of evil” in a famous 2002 speech. I interviewed many Iranian officials at the time as a Tehran-based analyst with the International Crisis Group, and I vividly remember their fear that the U.S. might turn next to Tehran.

In those anxious days, Gen. Qassem Soleimani —the powerful commander of Iran’s Quds Force, who was killed this week by a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad—performed an act of unsettling geopolitical genius that still echoes today.

After the U.S. military campaign to topple the Taliban began, Iran detained hundreds of al Qaeda fighters fleeing Afghanistan, including some members of Osama bin Laden’s family and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the future leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. Many Iranians saw these jihadists as a threat—Sunni zealots who hated overwhelmingly Shiite Iran. Yet Soleimani, the architect of the Islamic Republic’s plans for regional dominance, realized that they could also be an asset.

In their book “The Exile,” investigative journalists Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy describe the journey of many al Qaeda members who spent months and even years as “guests” of Iran. Soleimani broke bread with bin Laden’s sons, who affectionately called him Hajji Qassem, Ms. Scott-Clark and Mr. Levy write. He appointed two senior Quds Force officers to “provide the guests with whatever they needed,” including refrigerators, widescreen TVs and an “unlimited budget” to furnish a religious library. Saif al-Adel, a notorious al Qaeda explosives expert, had access to a sports complex in a posh Tehran neighborhood, where he swam laps alongside Western diplomats.

If the U.S.-led Iraq war was intended, in part, to cow Iran by establishing a strong U.S. military presence in Iraq and to create a flourishing Shiite democracy to undermine the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic next door, Iran would do everything it could to ensure that America’s experiment turned into a smoldering failure. Before the war began in March 2003, Soleimani’s Quds Force freed many of the Sunni jihadists that Iran had been holding captive, unleashing them against the U.S.

That August, Zarqawi and his forces conducted three deadly bombings in Iraq—against U.N. headquarters and the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad and a major Shiite shrine in Najaf, a southern Iraqi city holy to Shiites. These blows devastated the U.S.-led war from the beginning. By targeting Shiite shrines and civilians, killing thousands of Iran’s fellow Shiites, Zarqawi helped to radicalize Iraq’s Shiite majority and pushed them closer to Iran—and to Soleimani, who could offer them protection. Just months after the U.S. invasion, the debate in Washington had shifted sharply: Instead of asking how a triumphant U.S. could help Iraq to shape Iran, the question became how an embattled U.S. could stop Iran from shaping Iraq.

Under Soleimani’s command, Iran became the only country in the region capable of harnessing both Shiite extremism and, at times, Sunni radicalism too. His sinister genius in bridging sectarian divides has given Iran an enormous asymmetric advantage over its great Sunni Arab rival in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia. All Shiite extremists are willing to fight for Iran, while most Sunni extremists—including al Qaeda and Islamic State—want to overthrow Saudi Arabia, which they see as a corrupt, impious agent of the West.

Soleimani conceived of using Sunni jihadists to fight the U.S. in much the same way that the U.S. used Sunni jihadists to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Iran’s Shiite theocracy has managed, at times, to cooperate tactically with deadly Sunni extremist groups—including the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Palestinian groups Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad—against their common foes, the U.S. and Israel, even as Iran has been fighting on the front lines against the Sunni fanatics of Islamic State.

During the Obama administration, Gen. Stanley McChrystal criticized Tehran for providing weapons and training inside Iran to Taliban insurgents targeting U.S. troops. In 2018, Israel’s top general, Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot, said that Iran had increased its funding in the Gaza Strip for Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to $100 million a year.

Perhaps no American military commander knew Soleimani better than former Gen. David Petraeus, who commanded U.S. troops in Iraq at the height of the war’s fury, much of which was inflicted by Soleimani. Gen. Petraeus considered Soleimani “a combination of CIA director, JSOC [Joint Special Operations Command] commander and regional envoy.” Soleimani “has the blood of well over 600 U.S. and coalition soldiers on his hands, and the blood of countless others as well, in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Afghanistan—in each of which he supported, funded, trained, equipped and often directed powerful Shiite militias,” Gen. Petraeus told me this week.

This highlights another of Soleimani’s hugely important legacies. He also cultivated a 50,000-strong Shiite foreign legion—based on the model of Hezbollah, the powerful Shiite militia that is Iran’s proxy and cat’s-paw in Lebanon—to fill power vacuums in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen and to threaten the ruling establishments in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other Gulf countries.

With Soleimani leading the charge, these Shiite militias helped to preserve the rule of Syria’s brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad, who remains Iran’s key Arab ally. At a time of great economic hardship in Iran, Tehran provided billions of dollars to arm, train and pay tens of thousands of Arab, Afghan and Pakistani Shiite militants—a force that helped Mr. Assad to crush the Syrian opposition and the Sunni Islamist rebels who rose up to defy his rule.

These achievements made the soft-spoken, diminutive Soleimani a commanding figure in Tehran. An Iranian adage holds that if you look closely at the manicured hands of the country’s ruling clerics—especially the hard-liners romanticizing martyrdom and calling for the destruction of Israel and the West—you will see that most of them have never known manual labor, let alone war. Not Soleimani. He didn’t need to breathe rhetorical fire; his entire career had been drenched in blood, and everyone knew it.

Ali Alfoneh, a Danish-Iranian scholar who is an expert on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and a critic of the Islamic Republic, studied Soleimani for more than a decade and developed a grudging admiration for his personal bravery. During the vicious 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, Mr. Alfoneh told me, “Soleimani was a commander who personally went on reconnaissance missions behind enemy lines prior to each attack, kissed each man under his command before the attack and prayed to be martyred.”

One senior Iraqi official who used to meet frequently with Soleimani had a less flattering view, likening the general to a mob boss whose conspicuous civility was punctuated with subtle yet clear demands and threats. “Remember that radical group who we helped you eradicate?” the Iraqi official said with a smile, mimicking Soleimani. “It would be a real shame if they came back.”

ranian officials now say that their revenge for Soleimani’s killing will be to drive the U.S. from Iraq. But Iraqi leaders may not prove to be grateful. A former U.S. military intelligence officer who served in Iraq told me, “No one in Iraq will say it publicly, at least not yet, but most Iraqi politicians hated Soleimani. They resented his heavy-handedness, his instructions of what to do and what not to do. They feared his constantly implied threat that he’d have them fired or even assassinated if they didn’t toe the line.”

The U.S. officer added, “How many times did he fly into Baghdad or Najaf or Sulaymaniyah to tell Iraqis they weren’t allowed to do what’s in their national interest, or weren’t allowed to be prime minister or interior minister, or arm one faction of Iraqis against another faction of Iraqis? They’re all saying privately: good riddance.”

—Mr. Sadjadpour is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C.

[Pannonian]

We can do whatever we want. We have bases near Russia and China and both are shitless to do anything.

Enjoy reading this: globalresearch.ca/america-war-global-domination/5699466

You somehow... make my point?

Well, call your mom and ask her why it isn't a good idea to do everything you're capable of. Seems that little fact was overlooked in your education.

[JohnBrown1917]

How do you plan on dealing with opponents who only understand violence without resorting to murder?

Not inviting foreign generals for peace talks only to then backstab them and murder them is a good start.

[Pannonian]

Sorry, wrong context.

[Orange Joe]

How do you plan on dealing with opponents who only understand violence without resorting to murder?

By not dealing with them and dealing with educating your populace.

Which acts of violence were necessary to get them to the table to hammer out the Iran deal?

Just because YOU think they'd only understand violence, doesn't make it true.

.... He is talking about killing people for spreading misinformation. He isn't even talking about Iran.