Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Elegiac]

If Trump is going to address this in any way, it's going to be him throwing someone under the bus. Fat chance he will admit any kind of fault.

I'm sure he'll apologise right after Chicago and San Antonio get paid for his rally security fees.

[PACOX]

If Trump is going to address this in any way, it's going to be him throwing someone under the bus. Fat chance he will admit any kind of fault.

"I wanted to hit them back but they would let me. Boy, I would have hit them hard. You know it *point out into the crowd, leans back and sniffs the air*. BUT THEY WOULDN'T LET ME- they wouldn't let me folks. I would have hit Iran so hard, and we were ready to go, I didn't want to disappoint Nancy though. Should I have done it? Yeah I should have done *throws hands up* but they wouldn't let me do it. "

Crowd goes wild. Trump smirks and holds his hands out like this \-_-/

[Mormolyce]

Let's be honest here. Even if Trump acknowledged that the injuries were more severe than originally thought, I'm quite sure that you would find something about it that would displease you.

So now you're whining about a hypothetical future comment Edge "might" make?

Jesus, that's pathetic. Well I guess you guys really just have nothing at this point.

[draynay]

So now you're whining about a hypothetical future comment Edge "might" make?

Jesus, that's pathetic. Well I guess you guys really just have nothing at this point.

Wow you sure would look silly if instead the roles were reversed and you were the one saying dumb things, imagine that, smart guy!

[ohtlmtlm]

Hey guys remember how couple of weeks ago we all shat out pants when WW3 started? Fun times.

I remember The Trump administration claiming no US casualties....
(it's now up to 34) luckily 14 of which are back on duty from mild concussion
https://www.vox.com/world/2020/1/24/...entagon-strike

Oh, also Trump is mocking TBI sufferers as not a real combat injury in a further effort to minimize the incident.

[ringpriest]

This is a very short term view on Sulemani, and I really don't understand this line of logic. If a member of another government straight up murders a US citizen, you don't reflect on the relative value of human life. You either tolerate a member of the Iranian government deliberately launching lethal attacks on US personnel or you don't.

This is a personal story of how I feel on this. When I was a young 2LT in 2009, I walked in the door of my first active Army unit. One of the first things you see in the company HQ of any unit is usually a wall on which pictures of that units KIAs are hung. It is a memorial wall to the Soldiers that unit has lost. One thing immediately jumped out, the names and pictures were all in groups of 4. Four killed on this date, four killed on some other date a month later, and so forth.

There were only 60 soldiers assigned to this unit (It was a Tank Company), and there were 16 names from a single deployment, all in clusters of 4. As a new LT, I was quite surprised by this, and I asked why we were losing 4 at a time. This is why. Sulemani killed those Soldiers, as clear as if he had shot them himself. Quds Force was saturating Iraq with EFPs, a type of ground implanted explosive that could cut straight through the armor of US vehicles and kill the entire crew. These were not crudely implemented explosives built by farmers, these are designed by engineers and built in factories, Iranian Factories. EFPs require a lot of precision to be effective, the explosion has to be uniform enough to compress, elongate, and propel the metal slug that does the killing.

This bastard killed hundreds of Americans. I don't actually fault him in a moral sense, it was his job, he was a Soldier doing his duty, but that duty was killing Americans. From what I have seen of this strike, we killed the right guy for the wrong reasons. I think Trump lost his temper and killed Sulemani because he was frustrated, rather then any sort of coherent policy. But we should have killed Sulemani in 2007.

I personally have little doubt the Iranians (or elements of the Iranian governing structures) were arming those attacking US forces in Iraq - but if you can prove your assertions above you're probably on the trail of a Pulitzer; the US has grumbled, loud and long, about Iranian interference (via IEDs and other materiel) with its forces in Iraq for well over a decade, and definitive proof has, to the best of my knowledge, always been lacking, to the point where the US government eventually just came up with a number of casualties and started blaming the Iranians for it, backed by a lot of repetition and official statements, but a near-complete absence of hard evidence.

And one very important point to keep in mind when you say things like killing Sulemain and others is acceptable, is that regardless of its de facto position as an aging 800# gorilla, the United States de jure is no different from any other recognized state - if killing Sulemain for the deaths of American soldiers (allegedly) at the hands of people supplied by the organization in which he occupied a ranking position is accepted international practice, then it is also acceptable, as an example, for the recognized government of Syria to assassinate Barack Obama and Donald Trump in response to the US arming of opponents of the Syrian regime; and I, for one, don't think that's a good direction for the world to move in (and "we have nukes and a big army so they wouldn't" is not an improvement).

[Mormolyce]

Wow you sure would look silly if instead the roles were reversed and you were the one saying dumb things, imagine that, smart guy!

Ah shit, you've got me.

Unless you don't!

[ati87]

I personally have little doubt the Iranians (or elements of the Iranian governing structures) were arming those attacking US forces in Iraq - but if you can prove your assertions above you're probably on the trail of a Pulitzer; the US has grumbled, loud and long, about Iranian interference (via IEDs and other materiel) with its forces in Iraq for well over a decade, and definitive proof has, to the best of my knowledge, always been lacking, to the point where the US government eventually just came up with a number of casualties and started blaming the Iranians for it, backed by a lot of repetition and official statements, but a near-complete absence of hard evidence.

And one very important point to keep in mind when you say things like killing Sulemain and others is acceptable, is that regardless of its de facto position as an aging 800# gorilla, the United States de jure is no different from any other recognized state - if killing Sulemain for the deaths of American soldiers (allegedly) at the hands of people supplied by the organization in which he occupied a ranking position is accepted international practice, then it is also acceptable, as an example, for the recognized government of Syria to assassinate Barack Obama and Donald Trump in response to the US arming of opponents of the Syrian regime; and I, for one, don't think that's a good direction for the world to move in (and "we have nukes and a big army so they wouldn't" is not an improvement).

Honestly I think the whole argument of ''if Iran did it'' is a bit pointless since frankly they either can't do it or won't do it.
Frankly the killing of any citizen is/should be unacceptable during times when you are not engaged in a formal war. So killing of Sulemain could be legitimate if the US or Iran formally formally declared a war and at that point if would be far to target everybody that was part of the military chain of command.

As it is now, the US just made itself the aggressor and gave Iran the moral high-ground without any real good reason. There is no real proof that Iran ever attempted to build nuclear weapons but if you ever wanted an excuse Trump just gave them a good one.

[DocSavageFan]

...meanwhile, a Iran-backed military faction recently fired 3 rockets into our embassy in Baghdad with at least one person wounded (apparently a "minor" injury).

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/26/polit...dad/index.html

[Edge-]

...meanwhile, a Iran-backed military faction recently fired 3 rockets into our embassy in Baghdad with at least one person wounded (apparently a "minor" injury).

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/26/polit...dad/index.html

So, are we still worried that acknowledging the severity of the soldiers brain injuries will lead to escalation?

[Orange Joe]

...meanwhile, a Iran-backed military faction recently fired 3 rockets into our embassy in Baghdad with at least one person wounded (apparently a "minor" injury).

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/26/polit...dad/index.html

Can you quote where it stated

" Iran-backed military faction recently fired 3 rockets into our embassy"


I read the whole thing and don't seem to see that mentioned.

[Orbitus]

Can you quote where it stated

" Iran-backed military faction recently fired 3 rockets into our embassy"


I read the whole thing and don't seem to see that mentioned.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[Kellhound]

I personally have little doubt the Iranians (or elements of the Iranian governing structures) were arming those attacking US forces in Iraq - but if you can prove your assertions above you're probably on the trail of a Pulitzer; the US has grumbled, loud and long, about Iranian interference (via IEDs and other materiel) with its forces in Iraq for well over a decade, and definitive proof has, to the best of my knowledge, always been lacking, to the point where the US government eventually just came up with a number of casualties and started blaming the Iranians for it, backed by a lot of repetition and official statements, but a near-complete absence of hard evidence.

And one very important point to keep in mind when you say things like killing Sulemain and others is acceptable, is that regardless of its de facto position as an aging 800# gorilla, the United States de jure is no different from any other recognized state - if killing Sulemain for the deaths of American soldiers (allegedly) at the hands of people supplied by the organization in which he occupied a ranking position is accepted international practice, then it is also acceptable, as an example, for the recognized government of Syria to assassinate Barack Obama and Donald Trump in response to the US arming of opponents of the Syrian regime; and I, for one, don't think that's a good direction for the world to move in (and "we have nukes and a big army so they wouldn't" is not an improvement).

What the US knows about Iran's involvement and what information they are willing to release to prove it are not one and the same. What you know often leads to an understanding of how you know, and what you know is often less important than how you know it....

[ohtlmtlm]

What the US knows about Iran's involvement and what information they are willing to release to prove it are not one and the same. What you know often leads to an understanding of how you know, and what you know is often less important than how you know it....

are you auditioning for the Joker?

[Kellhound]

are you auditioning for the Joker?

Hardly, I just someone who knows the value of military intelligence. The fact Country A knows that Captain Z of Country B flirts with Captain X over their interior office phone may seem harmless to let slip, until you realize it is information classified as Top Secret because Country B does not know their phones have been compromised.

[Shalcker]

Some rumours going around that Michael D'Andrea (nicknamed "Ayatollah Mike"), head of US intelligence operations against Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan (as well as one most likely directly involved in Sulemain airstrike) has died in a plane that crashed (or possibly was shot down) in Afghanistan.

So far it haven't been neither confirmed nor denied by US.

Even if not true, this kind of retaliation is likely to happen eventually.

[Kellhound]

Some rumours going around that Michael D'Andrea (nicknamed "Ayatollah Mike"), head of US intelligence operations against Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan (as well as one most likely directly involved in Sulemain airstrike) has died in a plane that crashed (or possibly was shot down) in Afghanistan.

So far it haven't been neither confirmed nor denied by US.

Even if not true, this kind of retaliation is likely to happen eventually.

The aircraft lost was an E-11A (confirmed by its tail number), basically an airborne radio relay used to maintain comms in the mountainous terrain. Only 2 people were on the plane. It is unlikely D'Andrea was on it. Also, given the distance from its base, and thus its altitude, it would have been out of range of a MANPAD. Also, the tail section shows no signs of blast damage.

That is also the kind of retaliation that would ensure a US response.

[Breccia]

So, are we still worried that acknowledging the severity of the soldiers brain injuries will lead to escalation?

Number of soldiers with "headaches" increased to 50.

"Headaches" being Trump terminology for "traumatic brain injury requiring a visit to a doctor or surgeon". If you think that's insulting, you're not alone.

In light of today's announcement from the Defense Department that 34 U.S. service members suffered traumatic brain injuries [TBI] as a result of Iran's retaliatory strike and President Trump's remarks which minimized these troops’ injuries, the Veterans of Foreign Wars cannot stand idle on this matter.

TBI is a serious injury and one that cannot be taken lightly. TBI is known to cause depression, memory loss, severe headaches, dizziness and fatigue — all injuries that come with both short- and long-term effects."

The VFW expects an apology from the president to our service men and women for his misguided remarks. And, we ask that he and the White House join with us in our efforts to educate Americans of the dangers TBI has on these heroes as they protect our great nation in these trying times. Our warriors require our full support more than ever in this challenging environment.

We've been saying for years now Trump hates the troops. It looks like the feeling's becoming mutual.

- - - Updated - - -

On Thursday, the House is scheduled to vote to remove the 2002 AUMF.

"Okay, but why are you posting it here?"

Because that is how Trump had authority to do the drone strike in the first place.

"Is this related to Iran?"

Not directly, not yet. Certainly if the AUMF is removed, Trump will have a much harder time attacking Iran, Syria, Palestine, or any other actual government for that matter. Team Trump has stood by it for years, saying that it's okay to use the same air/drone strikes that they decried Obama for using (yes, Obama used the AUMF too), and Trump has already threatened to veto its possible overturning. But the 2002 AUMF was never intended for this, and Trump tweeted "please don't remove it, I already removed soldiers!" (which is a stupid thing for him to say, Iraq is trying to kick us out entirely because of these drone strikes because of the 2002 AUMF) as if "I don't want to use this" was somehow a reason to keep it around.

I could continue with a fistful of screenshots of Trump tweeting about Obama's air strikes, but at this point, everyone here already knows about that.

Apparently, the House (and possibly Senate) are still worried that Trump might try to start World War III by tweet, and are saying to themselves "Gosh, kind of a lot's changed in eighteen years. Maybe giving any President, even one with the attention span of a ferret with a double espresso, unlimited power to attack foreign governments on whim isn't called for anymore".

[Edge-]

On Thursday, the House is scheduled to vote to remove the 2002 AUMF.

Fucking great.

Now lets see how the House votes, and if McConnell will leave it in the legislative graveyard like he has the majority of the legislation passed by the House.

I legit wasn't expecting this, and while I know it likely won't succeed I hope it does.

[Breccia]

I know it likely won't succeed I hope it does.

Whether it succeeds or not, I want to see everyone sign their name to their vote.

So that if, for example, Trump starts war with Iran, we know exactly who allowed him to do so.