1. #2401
    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    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
    Last edited by kentaro; 2020-01-14 at 10:38 AM.

  2. #2402
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    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.

  3. #2403
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    18,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    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......
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  4. #2404
    Over 9000! Jinro's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Daegu, South Korea
    Posts
    9,623
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    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.

  5. #2405
    Herald of the Titans Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by kentaro View Post
    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.

  6. #2406
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    Oh. I'm all for stopping it. I just don't think murder is the right answer......
    How do you plan on dealing with opponents who only understand violence without resorting to murder?

  7. #2407
    The Unstoppable Force CommunismWillWin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Russia that is very communist, da.
    Posts
    24,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    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.
    Conservatism and its off-shoots are the most rotten idealogies to ever exist in human history.
    Anarcho-communism =/ Stalinism.
    FULLY AUTOMATED GAY LUXURY SPACE COMMUNISM

  8. #2408
    Herald of the Titans Pannonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vienna
    Posts
    2,640
    Sorry, wrong context.
    Last edited by Pannonian; 2020-01-14 at 04:56 PM.

  9. #2409
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    18,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian View Post
    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.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  10. #2410
    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    By not dealing with them and dealing with educating your populace.
    So letting your enemies attack you and not retaliate. Got it.

  11. #2411
    The Unstoppable Force CommunismWillWin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The Russia that is very communist, da.
    Posts
    24,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    So letting your enemies attack you and not retaliate. Got it.
    Maybe dont attack them in the first place.
    Conservatism and its off-shoots are the most rotten idealogies to ever exist in human history.
    Anarcho-communism =/ Stalinism.
    FULLY AUTOMATED GAY LUXURY SPACE COMMUNISM

  12. #2412
    Third GOP senator says he'll support Iran war powers resolution

    Young is the third Republican senator to say he will support the revised resolution. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) have both said they will support it.

    Democrats need four Republican senators to break with them to pass the resolution, which would require Trump to end hostilities against Iran within 30 days unless he gets Congress to sign off on them.

    Several GOP senators, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), have not said how they would vote on the resolution.


    ------------------

    So..I guess we'll have boots on the ground in a few days...for the next phase of "Wag the Dog."

    - - - Updated - - -

    And the list is getting longer; Up to 10 GOP senators consider bucking Trump on war powers

    Not just pissed at Trump. Moscow Mitch is feeling the heat too...
    Acquittal doesn't mean exoneration


  13. #2413
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    18,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    So letting your enemies attack you and not retaliate. Got it.
    We apparently have different definitions for "attack"
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.

  14. #2414
    Retired Marine General Jim Jones, former President Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser, praised President Donald Trump in an interview this week for killing Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani

    “I think what the administration did in the Soleimani case is absolutely correct,” Jones said on Sunday at an Atlantic Council event. “I think it’s the right thing to do.”

    A reporter asked Jones, “Do you wish that you had done it in your time in government?”

    “Well, I think we were doing it in the sense that we were really looking hard for Osama bin Laden,” Jones responded. “While I was in the White House, we found the house that he was and took another year to be pretty sure that he was there. So, I think the Obama administration tried to find the terrorist that was the most wanted guy in the world.”

    “Soleimani is now the next guy, so I give [Trump] credit for doing that and I think it was the right thing to do and I think it’s, as articulated by the president, it’s a potential game changer,” Jones continued. “I would not let up. I would not let up.”

    “And I would not listen to the appeasers of the world who kind of want to calm the waves and [who say] let’s get back to normal business and then you have Iran using its proxies to spread terror around the world, interdict shipping, shoot down drones, and things like that,” Jones said. “Those days I think are over and I hope Iran understands that.”

  15. #2415
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    26,079
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    Retired Marine General Jim Jones, former President Barack Obama’s National Security Adviser, praised President Donald Trump in an interview this week for killing Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani
    Why do you never link the cite from you quotes? I'm just curious - I believe this one only because it's so easily verified.

    This whole subject is fascinating. We're seeing people taking different positions with different people than usual in the politics forum. For instance, I agree with TexasLies here that the assassination was a good thing - a good policy that is. Poorly done, of course, because what else can Cheeto-in-Chief do than fuck up anything he tries out (the man bankrupted a casino, and the Trumpkins call him a business magnet - rofl).

    But this issue has made for some interesting bedfellows.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Orange Joe View Post
    We apparently have different definitions for "attack"
    Still an attack - you can't deny it happened.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    Third GOP senator says he'll support Iran war powers resolution

    Young is the third Republican senator to say he will support the revised resolution. Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) have both said they will support it.

    Democrats need four Republican senators to break with them to pass the resolution, which would require Trump to end hostilities against Iran within 30 days unless he gets Congress to sign off on them.

    Several GOP senators, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), have not said how they would vote on the resolution.


    ------------------

    So..I guess we'll have boots on the ground in a few days...for the next phase of "Wag the Dog."

    - - - Updated - - -

    And the list is getting longer; Up to 10 GOP senators consider bucking Trump on war powers

    Not just pissed at Trump. Moscow Mitch is feeling the heat too...
    Irrelevant of course unless Moscow Mitch brings it for a vote. It's interesting that more GOP Senators are going against the Trump grain. Almost as if they see the tide turning.
    No one is above the law!

  16. #2416
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Why do you never link the cite from you quotes? I'm just curious - I believe this one only because it's so easily verified.

    This whole subject is fascinating. We're seeing people taking different positions with different people than usual in the politics forum. For instance, I agree with TexasLies here that the assassination was a good thing - a good policy that is. Poorly done, of course, because what else can Cheeto-in-Chief do than fuck up anything he tries out (the man bankrupted a casino, and the Trumpkins call him a business magnet - rofl).

    But this issue has made for some interesting bedfellows.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Still an attack - you can't deny it happened.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Irrelevant of course unless Moscow Mitch brings it for a vote. It's interesting that more GOP Senators are going against the Trump grain. Almost as if they see the tide turning.
    Because apparently he likes using the Daily Wire, which explains a fucking lot.

    You copy everything, and click paste and search in a new tab, and the ONLY article that comes up is Daily Wire. https://www.dailywire.com/news/absol...ling-soleimani

    Ben Shapiro and his Daily Wire idiots like Michael Knowles aren't known for truth.

  17. #2417
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    Why do you never link the cite from you quotes? I'm just curious - I believe this one only because it's so easily verified.

    This whole subject is fascinating. We're seeing people taking different positions with different people than usual in the politics forum. For instance, I agree with TexasLies here that the assassination was a good thing - a good policy that is. Poorly done, of course, because what else can Cheeto-in-Chief do than fuck up anything he tries out (the man bankrupted a casino, and the Trumpkins call him a business magnet - rofl).

    But this issue has made for some interesting bedfellows.
    People confuse my name all the time, they think I mean that Texas rules!!!!! Which it does. But my first few posts on this board were about how things were done in Texas. I digress....

    I do not include links because I do not feel the need to do work for others. Most things I post are easily available by searching the exact phrase in a quote or the exact title. It's just spoonfed millennials want everything handed to them. And half the time I link stuff people ignore it anyways, so I just stopped. By the way, the quote above mentions the Atlantic council event. But for you, I will make an exception:
    https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/01/1...mes-jones.html

  18. #2418
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    26,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    Because apparently he likes using the Daily Wire, which explains a fucking lot.

    You copy everything, and click paste and search in a new tab, and the ONLY article that comes up is Daily Wire. https://www.dailywire.com/news/absol...ling-soleimani

    Ben Shapiro and his Daily Wire idiots like Michael Knowles aren't known for truth.
    I was wondering where that Washington Times article came from - basically just quoting the Daily Wire, then? The whole GOP media lie machine is becoming insidious.
    No one is above the law!

  19. #2419
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    People confuse my name all the time, they think I mean that Texas rules!!!!! Which it does. But my first few posts on this board were about how things were done in Texas. I digress....

    I do not include links because I do not feel the need to do work for others. Most things I post are easily available by searching the exact phrase in a quote or the exact title. It's just spoonfed millennials want everything handed to them. And half the time I link stuff people ignore it anyways, so I just stopped. By the way, the quote above mentions the Atlantic council event. But for you, I will make an exception:
    https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/01/1...mes-jones.html
    Except this isn't where you got the quote. You got the quote directly from Daily Wire, I linked the link for you.

  20. #2420
    Merely a Setback cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    26,079
    Quote Originally Posted by TexasRules View Post
    People confuse my name all the time, they think I mean that Texas rules!!!!! Which it does. But my first few posts on this board were about how things were done in Texas. I digress....

    I do not include links because I do not feel the need to do work for others. Most things I post are easily available by searching the exact phrase in a quote or the exact title. It's just spoonfed millennials want everything handed to them. And half the time I link stuff people ignore it anyways, so I just stopped. By the way, the quote above mentions the Atlantic council event. But for you, I will make an exception:
    https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/01/1...mes-jones.html
    Well I have a few monikers for you based on your posting history, but since we're keeping it civil tonight, I'll pass on them now.

    I'm not sure you're going to answer this, but why is it you feel others have to prove your point for you? By not linking a cite to your statement/claim (and thank you btw for doing so in the above) you make it tough to believe you. And your defense above, that you don't feel the need to do the work for others, just sounds hollow...it's your point, you should back it with cites. Especially when in posts even tonight you ask for cites from others.

    Just curious....
    No one is above the law!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •