Page 14 of 18 FirstFirst ... 56789101112131415161718 LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 260

Thread: 2020 US/Iranian Crisis

  1. #196
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,014
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Soleimani was not at the 'Embassy siege' and nobody was killed. If you wish to make the case that his appearance on the scene put the safety of Embassy staff in 'imminent danger' set out the facts - what was he planning on doing? The trouble is they have not made such a case just said he was a "bad guy who done of lots of bad stuff."
    Not just done but about to do. See the bulletin

    General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.

    This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.

    His proximity to the embassy isn't necessary. Why did you mention it.

    Sure he was and nobody is denying that but they have not made a case for why they had to take him right then and there because he posed he serious, credible and imminent threat. They have not even tried to. Why not?
    I only have access to open source information

    I read that the Brits considered killing him years ago for stirring up trouble in Basra when it was occupied by British forces. They declined precisely for this legal reason.
    I doubt that. The Americans could have done so too but declined. Admiral Mullen was asked this question in a PBS interview recently and his piece meal answer was Solemani wasn't on the target list. Didn't say why.

    Provoking Iran would only exacerbate the conflict and often Quds operatives moved around with diplomatic passports.

    An excerpt from the NY article

    In the years after the invasion, General McChrystal concentrated on defeating Sunni insurgents, and, like other American commanders in Iraq, he largely refrained from pursuing Quds Force agents. Provoking Iran would only exacerbate the conflict, and, in any case, many of the agents operated under the protection of diplomatic cover. But, as the war dragged on, the Iranian-backed militias loomed ever larger. In late 2006, McChrystal told me, he formed a task force to kill and capture Iranian-backed insurgents, as well as Quds Force operatives.

    That December, American commandos raided the compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a powerful Shiite politician, and found General Mohsen Chizari, the head of operations for the Quds Force. According to “The Endgame,” by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor, the commandos detained Chizari, sending shock waves through Baghdad. “Everybody was stunned,” a former senior military commander told me. “All the Iranians were stunned. We had broken the unwritten law.” Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi Prime Minister, demanded that the Americans turn over Chizari. When they did—reluctantly—Maliki released him. After the incident, the American Ambassador told Maliki that the next time they caught an Iranian operative they were going to keep him.

    A month later, McChrystal received reports that General Mohammed Ali Jafari, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, might be in a convoy heading toward the Iraqi border. According to other intelligence sources, Suleimani was riding with him. A group of Kurdish fighters were waiting to welcome them when they crossed over. McChrystal decided to allow the Iranians to cross the border. “We didn’t want to get into a gunfight with the Kurds,” he said.

    McChrystal’s men tracked the convoy as it drove a hundred miles into Iraq, to the Kurdish city of Erbil, and stopped at a nondescript building, which had a small sign that read “Consulate.” No one knew that such a consulate existed, but the fact that it did meant that the men inside were operating under diplomatic cover. The Americans moved in anyway, and took five Iranians into custody. All were carrying diplomatic passports, and all, according to McChrystal, were Quds Force members. Neither Suleimani nor Jafari was there; they had evidently broken off from the convoy at the last minute and taken refuge in a safe house controlled by the Kurdish leader Massoud Barzani. “Suleimani was lucky,” Dagan, the former Mossad chief, told me, referring to the raid. “It’s important to be lucky.”
    Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Jan 20, at 22:13.

  2. #197
    Senior Contributor surfgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Nov 09
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    1,937
    Pentagon reports Iran downed the Ukrainian 737.
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukrain...icials-believe

  3. #198
    Regular m a x's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Sep 12
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    The point is that to legally be able to claim you acted in self defence (which would make it legal) there must be "imminent danger" to US personnel or assets and no other way out of averting this attack on you/your people or stuff.

    So far the only 'justification' they have offered is "he was a bad guy" which while it is absolutely true does not make his assassination at this time and place legal. There are millions of "bad guys"; I mean any list would be substantial just in world terms let alone those who people might think are "bad" in their personal lives - that does not mean a private citizen can legally kill anyone anytime who they happen is a "bad person"; the 'bad person' has to immediately endangering you for you claim self defence and the same is true for countries.
    The problem for the World Assassin No1, along Air Force 1, is not new. Reportedly, there is even difference between what the People believe the Law says and how it is actually interpreted in secret -- https://www.vbox7.com/play:48322cbcdb . This is just an excerpt from „Dirty Wars“ 2013, a Jeremy Scahill documentary


    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    What I see from your photos is 4 hits spread over an area out of a 17 rocket strike and no pattern of a concentrated salvo. Try again.

    So you just took athe time to find the photos but didn't actually took the time to read the reports on the attack
    I work on public sources, where constant back-efforts for hiding key information and misleading the public are identified. Constant probability of fake news, especially when it comes from Government agencies. In fact, the most prominent man for his work to reveal the truth of what really happens in War zones, with the involvement of USA forces, is being held in British prison on charges fabricated to eliminate him, exactly for what he has been doing to let the People know

    On missile question, they have published some details of the weapons used -- https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2...ation-missiles

    But because of this crisis I have nearly forgotten to greet You for the start of this New Year folks

    Last edited by m a x; 09 Jan 20, at 21:10.

  4. #199
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    19 Feb 08
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    857
    69 posts since September 2012, and half of them have been the past week.

  5. #200
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    05 Sep 06
    Posts
    4,466
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    What I see from your photos is 4 hits spread over an area out of a 17 rocket strike and no pattern of a concentrated salvo.
    A few notes:
    • the attack was spread out in multiple waves over a space of about 3 hours, not fired in concentration.
    • the number of rockets deployed is a point of debate, with varying numbers having been published (between about 15 and about 22).
    • the overall number splits between two separate target areas. With the minimum number named the waves are supposed to have been split between Erbil and Al-Asad in a 5+10 pattern.
    • There are claims that at Erbil 60% of these were shot down, 20% had navigation issues and 20% struck nearby without damage. At al-Asad the number of "successful" strikes seems to have been considerably more numerous (there are similar claims for six impacts at al-Asad, which corroborates somewhat with the satellite imagery).
    Last edited by kato; 09 Jan 20, at 22:11.

  6. #201
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    17,066
    Trump: Soleimani was ‘looking to blow up our embassy’

    President Trump on Thursday continued to defend his decision to order the drone strike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, claiming that the head of Iran’s Quds Force was planning an attack on the U.S. embassy in Iraq.

    “They were looking to blow up our embassy,” Trump told reporters during a previously scheduled event at the White House. “We caught a total monster.”

    But when pressed, Trump offered no new details, except to compare his decision to strike Soleimani with the deadly 2012 attack against two U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

    “This was the anti-Benghazi,” he said, adding that Soleimani, who commanded Iran’s intelligence and special-operations forces and Iranian-allied militias in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, “had more than that particular embassy in mind.”

    Trump’s comments came a day after administration officials briefed Congress on the intelligence that led him to order the airstrike that killed Soleimani at the airport in Baghdad Friday.

    The White House has said Iran “was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.” But the administration has yet to publicly disclose the intelligence that showed a threat was “imminent.”

    Most Democratic lawmakers and two key Republicans emerged from Wednesday’s briefing unconvinced there was any imminent threat and dissatisfied with the administration’s insistence on its right to initiate future military strikes without congressional authority.

    Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, erupted in anger, telling reporters that Trump officials “were unable or unwilling to identify any point” at which they’d come to Congress for authorization for the use of military force.

    “To come in and tell us that we can’t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran, it’s un-American,” Lee said. “That was insulting.”

    Trump said that other senators told him the Iran briefing was the “greatest presentation they ever had.” The president said that he was surprised by the reaction from Lee, who called it the “the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate.”

    “I get along great with Mike Lee,” Trump said. “I’ve never seen him like that.”

    Lee and Sen. Rand Paul said they support a war powers resolution introduced last week by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine that would put limits on the president’s right to deploy military force unilaterally. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would hold a House vote on its own war powers resolution Thursday.

    Trump said he didn’t want to go to Congress for more authorization because “you have to make split second decisions.” The president also echoed the inflammatory comments from Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Doug Collins, who suggested Pelosi was defending Soleimani and that Democrats who supported the resolution were “in love with terrorists.”

    “When I see Nancy Pelosi trying to defend this monster,” Trump said, “when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to defend him, that’s a bad thing for this country, and a bad thing politically.”
    ____________

    Why should anybody believe a word that this man says?

    As satisfying as it is to see Soleimani depart this world in the manner he did, I'm seriously questioning my initial compliment to Trump.
    “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if the Senate determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role… because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”
    ~ Lindsey Graham

    "The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles."
    ~ Trey Gowdy

  7. #202
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,014
    Quote Originally Posted by TopHatter View Post
    Trump: Soleimani was ‘looking to blow up our embassy’
    Could you include links to your news articles it saves me having to google them

    Trump: Soleimani was ‘looking to blow up our embassy’ | Yahoo News | Jan 09 2020

    There is a video in there where he talks.

    Rule#1 with Trump, always listen to what he says first.

    “They were looking to blow up our embassy,” Trump told reporters during a previously scheduled event at the White House. “We caught a total monster.”

    But when pressed, Trump offered no new details, except to compare his decision to strike Soleimani with the deadly 2012 attack against two U.S. government facilities in Benghazi, Libya.

    “This was the anti-Benghazi,” he said, adding that Soleimani, who commanded Iran’s intelligence and special-operations forces and Iranian-allied militias in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, “had more than that particular embassy in mind.”
    Way i interpret this is he wanted to prevent a Bengahzi like repeat. How do we know that would happen ? who wants to find out

    It did not happen this time. Will there be a next time they get riled up and decide to take it out on your embassy

    They breached the first line of defence maybe they go further the next time.

    I have to study the Benghazi incident some more, its clearly left a scar on Trump. I thought as much.

    Never again.


    The White House has said Iran “was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.” But the administration has yet to publicly disclose the intelligence that showed a threat was “imminent.”
    There's that word


    Most Democratic lawmakers and two key Republicans emerged from Wednesday’s briefing unconvinced there was any imminent threat and dissatisfied with the administration’s insistence on its right to initiate future military strikes without congressional authority.

    Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, erupted in anger, telling reporters that Trump officials “were unable or unwilling to identify any point” at which they’d come to Congress for authorization for the use of military force.

    “To come in and tell us that we can’t debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran, it’s un-American,” Lee said. “That was insulting.”

    Trump said that other senators told him the Iran briefing was the “greatest presentation they ever had.” The president said that he was surprised by the reaction from Lee, who called it the “the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate.”

    “I get along great with Mike Lee,” Trump said. “I’ve never seen him like that.”

    Lee and Sen. Rand Paul said they support a war powers resolution introduced last week by Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine that would put limits on the president’s right to deploy military force unilaterally. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she would hold a House vote on its own war powers resolution Thursday.
    Rand Paul is Ron Paul's son. Ron Paul is libertarian. Libertarans are isolationists. This is not a compatible position with the US as it is today.

    Trump said he didn’t want to go to Congress for more authorization because “you have to make split second decisions.”
    Agree

    The president also echoed the inflammatory comments from Reps. Kevin McCarthy and Doug Collins, who suggested Pelosi was defending Soleimani and that Democrats who supported the resolution were “in love with terrorists.”

    “When I see Nancy Pelosi trying to defend this monster,” Trump said, “when Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats want to defend him, that’s a bad thing for this country, and a bad thing politically.”
    Also agree

    It's amazing i've seen how the opposition did this in my country a year ago too. Then they wanted evidence of the attack here they question the decision to strike.

    Why should anybody believe a word that this man says?

    As satisfying as it is to see Soleimani depart this world in the manner he did, I'm seriously questioning my initial compliment to Trump.
    You're entitled to your opinion : )

    I'm not questioning him on this one.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 09 Jan 20, at 23:00.

  8. #203
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,574
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    A few notes:
    • the attack was spread out in multiple waves over a space of about 3 hours, not fired in concentration.
    • the number of rockets deployed is a point of debate, with varying numbers having been published (between about 15 and about 22).
    • the overall number splits between two separate target areas. With the minimum number named the waves are supposed to have been split between Erbil and Al-Asad in a 5+10 pattern.
    • There are claims that at Erbil 60% of these were shot down, 20% had navigation issues and 20% struck nearby without damage. At al-Asad the number of "successful" strikes seems to have been considerably more numerous (there are similar claims for six impacts at al-Asad, which corroborates somewhat with the satellite imagery).
    Do you have links to the reports? I was watching this realtime and only recall two waves fired almost simultaneously. Over a dozen fired at al-Asad and Erbil.

    Then within the hour, Tehran publically stated that they have proportionately responded and they were not looking to escalate.

    Does not seemed to fit the timeline of 3 hours.
    Last edited by WABs_OOE; 09 Jan 20, at 22:45.

  9. #204
    Regular m a x's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Sep 12
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by rj1 View Post
    69 posts since September 2012, and half of them have been the past week.
    Far from true. Simplest arithmetic. Participants here should be responsible for their words, regardless of anonymity

  10. #205
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,574
    Quote Originally Posted by m a x View Post
    I work on public sources, where constant back-efforts for hiding key information and misleading the public are identified. Constant probability of fake news, especially when it comes from Government agencies. In fact, the most prominent man for his work to reveal the truth of what really happens in War zones, with the involvement of USA forces, is being held in British prison on charges fabricated to eliminate him, exactly for what he has been doing to let the People know
    I have no idea what you're trying to say.

    Quote Originally Posted by m a x View Post
    On missile question, they have published some details of the weapons used -- https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2...ation-missiles
    Yeah fake news. Those ain't frag craters.

  11. #206
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,014


    Benghazi was a planned and organised terrorist attack.

    They held 8 congressional hearings and conducted 7 investigations

    Conclusion for Benghazi is it was a series of unfortunate circumstances with significant but not criminal mistakes.

    Yeah, not happening on Trump's watch

    The Baghdad embassy was attacked by the same militia that had been bombed a few days prior.

    What would they do to the diplomats if they got inside ? settle some scores maybe


    Questions like too optimistic or criminally negligent cannot come up for a President who wants a second term

    Obama got his second term. Benghazi happened only a couple of months before his re-election

  12. #207
    Regular m a x's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Sep 12
    Posts
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by WABs_OOE View Post
    I have no idea what you're trying to say.

    Yeah fake news. Those ain't frag craters.
    Free Julian Assange! Even with some delay, general public should have a chance to know whether really there is no one killed in such attacks

    The news of somebody in the „Pentagon“ believing Iranian missile shot down civilian airplane don't sound convincing either

    There was an earthquake at the same time in Iran
    Last edited by m a x; 10 Jan 20, at 00:50.

  13. #208
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,574
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    A few notes:
    • the attack was spread out in multiple waves over a space of about 3 hours, not fired in concentration.
    • the number of rockets deployed is a point of debate, with varying numbers having been published (between about 15 and about 22).
    • the overall number splits between two separate target areas. With the minimum number named the waves are supposed to have been split between Erbil and Al-Asad in a 5+10 pattern.
    • There are claims that at Erbil 60% of these were shot down, 20% had navigation issues and 20% struck nearby without damage. At al-Asad the number of "successful" strikes seems to have been considerably more numerous (there are similar claims for six impacts at al-Asad, which corroborates somewhat with the satellite imagery).
    From what has been reported. Iran claims 30 missiles were fired. We accounted for 16. 11 impacted at Al-Assad and only 1 at Erbil. The rest did not reach their targets.

    Only two impacts at al-Asad were close together and only five impacts recorded any significant damage. Of the damage sites, we can only assume one was an actual target with 2 impacts close together. Gen Milley believes that the Iranians were intending to target the barracks and missed.

  14. #209
    Regular m a x's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Sep 12
    Posts
    77
    After all, it looks as normal ratio for such offensive campaigns. The last 59 Tomahawks attack in 2017 was no different. If an aircraft carrier, or a submarine are targeted, 2 from 10 would be enough

  15. #210
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    03 Sep 17
    Posts
    1,574
    Quote Originally Posted by m a x View Post
    After all, it looks as normal ratio for such offensive campaigns. The last 59 Tomahawks attack in 2017 was no different. If an aircraft carrier, or a submarine are targeted, 2 from 10 would be enough
    Oh for Pete sakes! Stop pretending you know what you're talking about. MILITARY MEN are talking to each other about SALVO PATTERNS!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Chelsea 2020!
    By troung in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 21 Jan 18,, 05:01
  2. Will India Be Superpower Until 2020?
    By tck in forum International Politics
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06 Apr 08,, 02:24
  3. The Iranian Identity Crisis: Islam v. Iranian Identity
    By joey2 in forum The Middle East and North Africa
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12 Apr 07,, 20:06
  4. By 2020 no clear superpower!!!!
    By Commando in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 01 Mar 05,, 06:37

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

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