2020 US/Iranian Crisis

[m a x]

So, they haven't killed Soleimani with the shot. As willbeeings, apparently, are not killed just with physical elimination. Does really Mr. Trump not know this? While it is now for Iran to push ahead, bearing and paying for the life of Soleimani's dark side, responsibility for the loss of civilian passengers, who had otherwise to be amongst us, reaches out to those who've triggered sequence. Again, reportedly, for the sake of avoiding presupposed military staff casualties

[Double Edge]

Bold section is nothing but bullshit. Plane takes off from Tehran for Europe along a set flight path that many planes to Europe no doubt follow. Plane is heading away and increasing in altitude. Made a turn during ascent my ass.

This was plain Iranian stupidity. Maybe the Revolutionary Guard was itching to do something. Who knows but stupidity fits. What also fits is that if the Iranians can't be trusted with a basic military weapon such as a surface to air missile then how could they possibly be trusted with anything more powerful.

I believe it, India took out its own heli with AF personnel last year during a moment of heightened sensitivity. They mistook an incoming helo for an incoming missile (!)

I would not call it stupidity but human error and poor equipment.

Have you never heard of friendly fire

“In such a condition, because of human error and in a unintentional way, the flight was hit,” the statement said. It apologized for the disaster and said it would upgrade its systems to prevent such “mistakes” in the future.

It also said those responsible for the strike on the plane would be prosecuted.

That's the reason

[Double Edge]

I've read it somewhere first. Where? I don't remember.

Never heard of it until AIM mentioned it in a chat with Sham

This chat took place before the missile attack

He talks about the difference between prevention & pre-emption at 17:00

Prevention is illegal. Pre-emption is not.

Pre-emption means immediacy so that's why USG said there was a plot to kill the diplomats.

Democrats could not get the people who did Benghazi but here Trump dealt with it in a day and went straight to the source of the problem.

Just see how the opposition rips into him here. Granted its satire but its still quite misleading. This 'Closer look' program is 100% opposition TV

Imagine arguing with an American who takes what Seth Myers said there as fact. It would go like this.

Spoiler!

1:40 lied about the intelligence that lead to the assasination of Solemaini

eh, where/when did he do that.


4:11 Trump provoked the conflict

And all the Iranian actions for the last 8 months prior had nothing to do with it ?

6:15 he wants a deal despite ripping up the previous one

He does want to re-negotiate that deal and if you pay attention Trump explains why that was such a bad deal

8:15 this act of war was an attempt to de-escalate and stop a war

It is exactly that if you are aware of previous actions against US interests in Iraq

8:27 this entirely unecessary crisis is Trump's doing so Congress should stop this from happening again

err..what ?? So President should not have any say in defending US interests then because he's crazy.

Amazing how Iran gets off entirely scot free here. Did the Iranian govt give this Seth person his lines ?

8:45 does he have an exit strategy if war breaks out with Iran

No govts discusses strategy in public

9:42 Bush orchestrate an illegal invasion of Iraq

hehe, no it was not illegal

11:45 Trump's strategy towards Iran is incoherent and dangerous

Is it.Do you even know what his strategy is ?

AIM has never been too enamoured with Iran. Thing he said that stuck was Iran is holding Chabahar hostage.

Hostage to what ? India can develop Chabahar so long as India helps Iran bust sanctions.

The revelation here is it isn't the American sanctions preventing India developing Chabahar further but Iran !!

India is only of use to Iran when Iran is under sanctions. I think this is a bit harsh. We buy lots of oil from them when we can.

Given we don't hear too much about Chabahr these days means its stalled and that means India can't help much with busting sanctions. Who can ? not the euros either.

[tbm3fan]

I believe it, India took out its own heli with AF personnel last year during a moment of heightened sensitivity. They mistook an incoming helo for an incoming missile (!)

I would not call it stupidity but human error and poor equipment.

Have you never heard of friendly fire

Well you have always been easily swayed. As far as I am concerned it can't be dismissed as a mistake and certainly not friendly fire. Given all those people killed then you have a much higher standard of proving to me it was. I'm not expecting the whole truth from the Iranians in charge.

[Double Edge]

Well you have always been easily swayed. As far as I am concerned it can't be dismissed as a mistake and certainly not friendly fire. Given all those people killed then you have a much higher standard of proving to me it was. I'm not expecting the whole truth from the Iranians in charge.

Vincennes mistook an A300 for an F14

Shit happens. These people are not stupid.

Unless their equipment says otherwise they hit the fire button.

I'm now beginning to think the same thing happened with that Malaysian flight over Ukraine as well

You have a better explanation other than an outright rejection then let's hear it.

It's funny just a week ago from some friends i got this same rejection about your DoD's bulletin for going after Solemaini.

They could not explain why it was untrue as well.

The Iranians have scrubbed the cash site.
https://www.breitbart.com/national-s...ators-arrived/

“Generally speaking, Iran has the potential and know-how to decode the black box. Everybody knows that,” Iranian Civil Aviation Authority chief Ali Abedzadeh boasted to CNN on Thursday, perhaps sensitive to how Iran’s intransigence might give the contrary impression.

That's why Iran came clean ; )

[Oracle]

Never heard of it until AIM mentioned it in a chat with Sham

This chat took place before the missile attack

He talks about the difference between prevention & pre-emption at 17:00

Prevention is illegal. Pre-emption is not.

Pre-emption means immediacy so that's why USG said there was a plot to kill the diplomats.

Democrats could not get the people who did Benghazi but here Trump dealt with it in a day and went straight to the source of the problem.

Just see how the opposition rips into him here. Granted its satire but its still quite misleading. This 'Closer look' program is 100% opposition TV

Imagine arguing with an American who takes what Seth Myers said there as fact. It would go like this.

Spoiler!

1:40 lied about the intelligence that lead to the assasination of Solemaini

eh, where/when did he do that.


4:11 Trump provoked the conflict

And all the Iranian actions for the last 8 months prior had nothing to do with it ?

6:15 he wants a deal despite ripping up the previous one

He does want to re-negotiate that deal and if you pay attention Trump explains why that was such a bad deal

8:15 this act of war was an attempt to de-escalate and stop a war

It is exactly that if you are aware of previous actions against US interests in Iraq

8:27 this entirely unecessary crisis is Trump's doing so Congress should stop this from happening again

err..what ?? So President should not have any say in defending US interests then because he's crazy.

Amazing how Iran gets off entirely scot free here. Did the Iranian govt give this Seth person his lines ?

8:45 does he have an exit strategy if war breaks out with Iran

No govts discusses strategy in public

9:42 Bush orchestrate an illegal invasion of Iraq

hehe, no it was not illegal

11:45 Trump's strategy towards Iran is incoherent and dangerous

Is it.Do you even know what his strategy is ?

AIM has never been too enamoured with Iran. Thing he said that stuck was Iran is holding Chabahar hostage.

Hostage to what ? India can develop Chabahar so long as India helps Iran bust sanctions.

The revelation here is it isn't the American sanctions preventing India developing Chabahar further but Iran !!

India is only of use to Iran when Iran is under sanctions. I think this is a bit harsh. We buy lots of oil from them when we can.

Given we don't hear too much about Chabahr these days means its stalled and that means India can't help much with busting sanctions. Who can ? not the euros either.

No. Not AIM. I read it in some western news outlet, CNN perhaps, I am not sure.

As about the Chabahar port, I too think the way AIM does. Iran needs India when they are stuck. When not, they vote against us, even give out statements against us.

Our relations with Oman are very good. We can use their port. We should let go of our obsession with Chabahar. It's in limbo and is going nowhere in the next 10 years. We also should help Afghan as much as possible, but we should not be stuck with the Afghans. It's their fight, not ours.

Well you have always been easily swayed. As far as I am concerned it can't be dismissed as a mistake and certainly not friendly fire. Given all those people killed then you have a much higher standard of proving to me it was. I'm not expecting the whole truth from the Iranians in charge.

Under the current circumstances, yes. I don't think there is any conspiracy theory involved. It was an Ukrainian plane. But what DE has said about an IAF heli getting shot down by the ground personnel of the IAF is true. IAF hadn't switched on their friend-from-foe identification system that morning.

[TopHatter]

Pentagon chief says no specific evidence Iran was plotting to attack four U.S. embassies

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper on Sunday said he did not see specific evidence from intelligence officials that Iran was planning to attack four U.S. embassies, an assertion made by President Donald Trump in justifying the killing of Iran's top general.

While Esper said he agreed with Trump that additional attacks against U.S. embassies were likely, he said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that Trump's remarks to Fox News were not based on specific evidence on an attack on four embassies.

"What the president said was that there probably could be additional attacks against embassies. I shared that view," Esper said. "The president didn't cite a specific piece of evidence."

When pressed on whether intelligence officers offered concrete evidence on that point he said: "I didn't see one with regards to four embassies."

Since confirming that Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani had been killed by a U.S. airstrike in Baghdad, administration officials have claimed they acted because of an imminent risk of attacks on American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.

Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress have questioned the justification of the attacks and said they have not been given adequate, detailed briefings.

Trump said on Friday Iran probably had targeted the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and was aiming to attack four U.S. embassies before Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike on Jan. 3.

“We will tell you probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad,” Trump said in a clip of an interview on Fox News. “I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies.”

Esper said in a separate interview on CNN's "State of the Union" that the administration had "exquisite intelligence" that a broader attack against multiple embassies was likely but that could only be shared with the "Gang of Eight," a group of top congressional leaders who get briefed on sensitive information that the rest of Congress does not have access to.

National Security Adviser Mike O'Brien echoed Esper's comment that the administration had "exquisite intelligence" on NBC's "Meet the Press" that a threat was imminent but did not comment on evidence saying four embassies were targeted.

Republican Senator Mike Lee on Sunday said he was worried about the integrity of information the president and security briefers have provided Congress about Iran.

"We were given somewhat general statements, and I believe that the briefers and the president believe they had a basis for concluding there was an imminent attack. I don't doubt that. It is just frustrating to be told that and to not get the details behind it," he said on CNN.

Michigan Congressman Justin Amash, a critic of Trump who left the Republican Party, responded to Esper's comments on Twitter on Sunday.

"The administration didn’t present evidence to Congress regarding even one embassy. The four embassies claim seems to be totally made up. And they have never presented evidence of imminence—a necessary condition to act without congressional approval—with respect to any of this," he wrote. Link
___________

So, just the usual Trump bullshit. Shocking.

[TopHatter]

Under the current circumstances, yes. I don't think there is any conspiracy theory involved. It was an Ukrainian plane. But what DE has said about an IAF heli getting shot down by the ground personnel of the IAF is true. IAF hadn't switched on their friend-from-foe identification system that morning.

I agree, I think that Hanlon's Razor applies here. It's remarkable how quickly a fucked up situation, combined with jumpy nerves, under-trained personnel (or even just a single idiot) and catastrophe results, not out of malice but out of sheer blundering.

The reverse can also happen...a potential catastrophe is averted because one person stops and thinks for a minute, drawing on experience and a smidgen of common sense.

[Officer of Engineers]

I've just been hit twice. Intel tells me an enemy GO of worth is in my AO talking to his front line Cmdrs and he's not seeing a dog and pony show. Do I wait for a 3rd hit?

Best decision possible based on best intel possible. Even if this was Trump and his delusions. I have all the intel I need to make the call.

[TopHatter]

I've just been hit twice. Intel tells me an enemy GO of worth is in my AO talking to his front line Cmdrs and he's not seeing a dog and pony show. Do I wait for a 3rd hit?

Best decision possible based on best intel possible. Even if this was Trump and his delusions. I have all the intel I need to make the call.

And that's all that factored into it?

[m a x]

Deeper into the motives for shooting up Soleimani, Federico Piareccini has reported a few days ago: https://www.strategic-culture.org/ne...n-of-soleimani

[Officer of Engineers]

And that's all that factored into it?

That's not the question. The question is does the US do nothing but accept a 3rd hit. Soleimani meeting with al-Muhandis right after the embassy hit is all the intel justification needed. The intel is sitting right in front of everyone's faces and because it is Trump, no one is willing to accept the intel at face value.

Trump, as was Obama, is in a no-win situation. If Trump had allowed a 3rd hit, the Democrats would be screaming why did he ignore the intel that Soleimani was meeting with al-Muhandis right in Baghdad. Just as the GOP was screaming at Obama letting Iran getting away with murder.

[Double Edge]

That's not the question.

Only question that matters is whether Iran is once again scared of the US



The Case for Killing Qassim Suleimani | NYT (op-ed) | Jan 10 2020

[Officer of Engineers]

Only question that matters is whether Iran is once again scared of the US

Above my pay-grade. I was only answering if the intel was valid.

Political opposition is never happy unless Soleimani testifies in front of a Committee about what he was planning to do ... and even then, the opposition would accuse him of lying.

[Double Edge]

^hehe