butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Oh flip, it's real.
Iran
- Thread starter J.C.Decaux
- Start date
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
true but a trigger that is not normally pushed on one mans ego trip..
BBC Two - Shadow Commander: Iran’s Military Mastermind
The extraordinary story of General Qassem Suleimani.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
What does that mean? Yousir has just suggested that a long running part of a large part of the US Establishment has had a aim of war with iran (i don't think that's true myself). How can you reply be saying yeah but it's trump.
I think, here, safe-ish, on the left, is the danger of these idiotic narratives once more gaining ground and covering up what's rerally happening - tens of thousands of syrian revolutionaries dying because idiots need to talk about the west, nd being replicated everywhere rebel dares raise their head. Fuck Suleimani. Fuck Assad. Fuck Trump. And fuck anyone who can't or refuses (esp on anti-imperialist grounds) to join the dots.
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
it not trump but he has a say in how the miltary proceed
he is not controlling policy but the machine behind him
which to be fair has been looking for a war with iran since the last proxy goverment was thrown out
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Nah, not wasting my time.
rekil
to menny cranks
He got the mention plenty of times in boring old msm over the years.
Qassem Suleimani: the Iranian general 'secretly running' Iraq
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
tbh I think it's simplistic and wrong to think in terms of 'nasty person, world better place without him'. That's the kind of reasoning labour types used to justify toppling Saddam Hussein. Just cos a person is a nasty person, that doesn't make killing them ok, nor does it necessarily mean the world is a better place without them when getting to that world without them carries with it massive consequences.
On a moral plane, this ticks every box to be defined as 'terrorism' for those who wish to think in those terms. Again, terrorism can be carried out against nasty people, not just nice people. I don't see how this act of terrorism is going to do anything other than strengthen the positions of those who oppose the US and its allies in the region. It has made the world a more dangerous place, and plenty of people are going to die as a result. Of course, plenty of people are dying all the time in the region, but this doesn't help them any either. And I can only presume that the main motivation for this attack was Trump's hold over his own position, hoping it will strengthen his hold on power as much as it strengthens the hold on power of Soleimani's allies. I fear he might be right.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
There is no box on earth in which this is called terrorism ffs. Sloppy use of terms and attempt to reverse them. The closest anything here to terrorism is the planned groznying of Aleppo. The one planned and done by this cunt.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Could the US do to Iran what it did to Iraq?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Not a chance on earth. No one even thinks that's possible. A boots on the ground war of US vs IR is not on the agenda. You're not daft, have a look around why.
imposs1904
Thread Killa'
Kid Rock will be shitting himself tonight.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
Which is why I asked. The US needs bogeymen, Iran is one, snuff it out and they’re fucked, North Korea really don’t do it any more. But am curious as to Iran’s response, Trump has just killed, at his leisure, the top man in Iran’s military, Iran has to make a move, sabotaging oil tankers doesn’t feel like a fitting response. Where do they go and how does the US react to that?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I'm not sure the us does need bogeymen, it just needs a clear publicly articulated interest - it's miles better than old europe - and a path towards it.
Iran's move. whatever it is - (at first pogroms in iraq i think), is going to be a defeat for us. So let's avoid taking sides here. (Not that you have BH. Just rolling with and making the point)
elbows
Well-Known Member
Well if Iran go for a like for like approach then they will try to assassinate someone in the region that is some kind of US partner or important to US strategic interests. Bonus points if its someone they can brand a terrorist after they have killed them, so they can play the mirror game on the rhetorical front too.
I suppose there are many other possibilities too but I expect they will want to do something quite overt and notable at some point that they can wave in front of their population as an act of revolutionary retribution.
he has a home about 15 miles from me
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The at some point is key here. There'll be Bahrain etc ratcheting, turn the heat up stuff, for now. Trump is right though. there are loads of decent Iranians who will be applauding this in private. Unable to do because of this arsheoles thugs.
Last edited:
Proper Tidy
Arsed
I see the anti imperialists (M-L) are in mourning
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The idea of 'the arab world' is also something that needs deconstructing before we go much further. A staple of so much.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
After what Trump done this morning I would be fairly reluctant to stick my head above any parapets...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It'll be fought in Belgian/Iraqi ground anyway.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Yeah, eg Soleimani was one of the signatories of the 1999 letter to Khatami from the IRGC that demanded Khatami crush the protests etc immediately or be overthrown.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's how he changed the game. It's excellent.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
His people running around batoning people to death - esp near the university, Dogs. Then forcing people to lie that they were jew spies on tv.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
That’s the thing that gets me, he must have known that the US knew he was flying into Baghdad, he thought he was untouchable.
petee
no gods, no managers
on a legal plane it doesn't. i have no use for david french's politics but he is a competent lawyer and here is a tidy thread:
this gives background, including links to suleimani's involvement in helping to harass iraqi anti-govt protests, not to mention his activities in syria:
he himself was a terrorist acting in the interests of a state. third-worldists or triangulating anti-americans may not like what happened (such as a Certain poterR who re-appeared on the shelter board) but there's no moral distinction between him and, say, the head of the CIA directorate of operations.
from my second link above it appears that US intelligence had the guy in their sights but trump hesitated until the embassy attack. otoh, there's always a tweet:
and it's been a bad week for trump. lev parnas has been cleared to hand over the contents of his cell phone to the House Intelligence Committee, the democratic field is narrowing and trump is going to have to face one of them and they're all fair matches for his scumbaggery, and i can't overstate, to those who don't live here, the importance of the recent Christianity Today editorial ripping him. i don't know how many evangelicals would defect from trump's camp, but the editorial blew a hole in the narrative of his "solid base". no wonder there was such a furious and immediate response to it.
some are using the phrase "wag the dog". i wouldn't go that far, since again suleiman is a first class cunt and his demise would be welcome at any time, but ...
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
Depends on what you mean...
The specifics are different - there's no stable jumping off point for a land invasion, and Iran's ground forces are on a very different level to Iraq's, but there's also absolutely no US interest in a land invasion either - but in big picture terms, the US has the ability with economics, airpower and cyber, to wreck the shit out of Iran and Iran will be little more than a spectator while they do so.
Iran will certainly enact some form of revenge - not least for domestic and international political consumption - and they may get lucky and top some senior CIA, diplomatic or military officials in the ME, but its going to be the allies/proxies who bear the brunt of it.
The infighting is going to be interesting to watch - matey-cakes was a kind of head of government, foreign secretary, head of SIS and Director Special Forces all rolled into one. The scramble (after an appropriate 3 seconds of mourning) to fill those roles and to assert dominance within the Byzantine Iranian state is not going to be purely bureaucratic - and may well hamper any revenge strategy. The fall out within the Iranian state, as much as the effect on extant Iranian capabilities, may well be one of the reasons the US decided to go for it...
Similar threads
