independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Attack in Baghdad kills revered military figure Qasem Soleimani
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 8 of 8 <12345678
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #210 posted 01/12/20 2:43pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

IanRG said:

This is the mentality of all rogue nations. Who attacked whom first? And before you get into the semantics of this:

.

1 You have avoided answering my question to you by definition creep: "If the Iranian Miliitary attacked and killed a significant person within, say the US Army with a history of being involved in the planning and execution of various special forces attacks on other countries, would you consider this an act of war?" You avoided this by bringing up a lone rogue Afghan solidier and a distraction to one of the people killed in 9/11 as if this is the same as a president killing a serving military officer of a country the US is not (yet) at war with.

.

2 Everyone is allowed to respond - it is how you respond that can make it wrong. If you act outside of declared wars to target specific serving military officers for acts your own serving military officers have conducted many times against many nations, then your response exposes your nation to increasing threats. It is wrong because it does nothing to reduce the threat and reduce extra-military attacks outside of declared wars by the USA or Iran. Would Iran be in the wrong for attacking the US in response to this?

.

On Iraq: That is correct and in full agreement with what I said - the reason was nothing to do with WMD threats against the US (there was no such threat) and nothing to do with the war on terror responce to 9/11 (Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11) and nothing to do with responding to an attack on the US (there were none): It was just the son finishing off what the father did not.

[Edited 1/12/20 11:48am]



My answer is simple. If everything was reversed, and a US general had been behind unprovoked attacks against Iran the same way Soleimani was against the US, no I wouldn't declare it an act of war. We are not talking Pearl Harbor here.

Give me examples of "my own military officers committing acts" similar to what Soleimani did.

Again it's useless to debate whether the WMD threat was a true mistake or an intentional lie, neither one of us has access to the truth.

"Never let nasty stalkers disrespect you. They start shit, you finish it. Go down to their level, that's the only way they'll understand. You have to handle things yourself."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #211 posted 01/12/20 11:18pm

IanRG

Pokeno4Money said:

IanRG said:

This is the mentality of all rogue nations. Who attacked whom first? And before you get into the semantics of this:

.

1 You have avoided answering my question to you by definition creep: "If the Iranian Miliitary attacked and killed a significant person within, say the US Army with a history of being involved in the planning and execution of various special forces attacks on other countries, would you consider this an act of war?" You avoided this by bringing up a lone rogue Afghan solidier and a distraction to one of the people killed in 9/11 as if this is the same as a president killing a serving military officer of a country the US is not (yet) at war with.

.

2 Everyone is allowed to respond - it is how you respond that can make it wrong. If you act outside of declared wars to target specific serving military officers for acts your own serving military officers have conducted many times against many nations, then your response exposes your nation to increasing threats. It is wrong because it does nothing to reduce the threat and reduce extra-military attacks outside of declared wars by the USA or Iran. Would Iran be in the wrong for attacking the US in response to this?

.

On Iraq: That is correct and in full agreement with what I said - the reason was nothing to do with WMD threats against the US (there was no such threat) and nothing to do with the war on terror responce to 9/11 (Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11) and nothing to do with responding to an attack on the US (there were none): It was just the son finishing off what the father did not.

[Edited 1/12/20 11:48am]



My answer is simple. If everything was reversed, and a US general had been behind unprovoked attacks against Iran the same way Soleimani was against the US, no I wouldn't declare it an act of war. We are not talking Pearl Harbor here.

Give me examples of "my own military officers committing acts" similar to what Soleimani did.

Again it's useless to debate whether the WMD threat was a true mistake or an intentional lie, neither one of us has access to the truth.

.

Unless you are saying it was an “act of aggression” but not a “war of aggression” then your definition does not meet the definitions applied internationally.

.

An act of war need not be on the scale of Pearl Harbor (i.e. a “war of aggression”). An act of war can be a mere military “act of aggression”.

.

Article 8 bis

2) For the purpose of paragraph 1, “act of aggression” means the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations. Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974, qualify as an act of aggression:

a) …;

b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;

.

The modern definition of “bombardment by the armed forces of a State” (e.g. the USA) against the territory of another State (e.g. Iraq) includes the use of drones, missiles and airstrikes against buildings, fortifications and combatants in that other State at levels way below that experienced at Pearl Harbor in 1941. Combatants are members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict, regardless of whether the other party accepts this. The airstrike against the Baghdad Airport and the combatants exiting the plane is such a bombardment and so it is an “act of aggression”.

.

I suspect that you are trying to downplay the US act of aggression and that if this was, instead, an act of aggression by a non-republican president, you would feel no compunction to do this.

.

As to examples of US military support for non-formal State military-style forces and their acts (be they variously tagged as insurgents, counter-insurgents, rebels, revolutionaries, terrorists, freedom fighters, warlords etc, etc): This has been done time and time and time again over US history and especially under the excuse of the Cold war, the war on drugs and to protect access, ownership or control of strategic economic assets by US corporations. Ironically, the US’s first covert regime change was to reinstate the powers of the Shah of Iran against those of the democratically elected Iranian government. Outside of non-uniformed CIA people, Major General Norman Schwartzkopf Snr was directly involved with this especially in the setup and training of the Shah’s SAVAK secret police.

.

As to Iraq: Make up your mind. Was it just a convenient war so the son could finish what the father started or were there WMDs that were an imminent threat to the US? You have now said and backed off both.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #212 posted 01/13/20 11:09am

JoeTyler

TRUMP: "The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “imminent” or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!"

This clown won't shut up. Amazing. Worst president of all time.

tinkerbell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #213 posted 01/13/20 3:14pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

IanRG said:

I suspect that you are trying to downplay the US act of aggression and that if this was, instead, an act of aggression by a non-republican president, you would feel no compunction to do this.

.

As to examples of US military support for non-formal State military-style forces and their acts (be they variously tagged as insurgents, counter-insurgents, rebels, revolutionaries, terrorists, freedom fighters, warlords etc, etc): This has been done time and time and time again over US history and especially under the excuse of the Cold war, the war on drugs and to protect access, ownership or control of strategic economic assets by US corporations. Ironically, the US’s first covert regime change was to reinstate the powers of the Shah of Iran against those of the democratically elected Iranian government. Outside of non-uniformed CIA people, Major General Norman Schwartzkopf Snr was directly involved with this especially in the setup and training of the Shah’s SAVAK secret police.

.

As to Iraq: Make up your mind. Was it just a convenient war so the son could finish what the father started or were there WMDs that were an imminent threat to the US? You have now said and backed off both.


Honestly I'm not one to be hung up on terminology. Different countries could view the exact same actions completely differently, some countries will call it an act of war and some not. Does it really matter what it's called? We are not talking about a board game here with a global moderator. No country will risk losing a battle or a war just to "stay within the rules", whatever the "rules" might be and whomever might have drawn them up.

Clearly you have a different definition of "agression" than I. However I'll say this, I have ALWAYS supported the military actions initiated by whomever is president at the time. They may not always be the right decision, but I have to believe they always have good intentions and they CERTAINLY know a helluva lot more about the situation than you or I do. Please don't try to somehow make me out to be biased, because that would be an exercise in futlity for you. I have gone on record in the past as both supporting and criticizing Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. And I typically stay away from political threads, as I'm sure you've realized.

As for Iraq, my stance has never changed. How many times do I have to say this: Maybe Bush lied about believing there were WMD's, or maybe he really did get bad intel. Don't forget Saddam himself was constantly saying he had WMD's. Either way, you and I will never know the truth therefore it's pointless to take sides on the subject.

And to clarify when I mentioned finishing what George Sr started, I meant in tandem with the threat of WMD's. Without that threat, the invasion wouldn't have happened. I think even you realize that.

"Never let nasty stalkers disrespect you. They start shit, you finish it. Go down to their level, that's the only way they'll understand. You have to handle things yourself."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #214 posted 01/13/20 3:52pm

PennyPurple

avatar

JoeTyler said:

TRUMP: "The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “imminent” or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!"

This clown won't shut up. Amazing. Worst president of all time.

They are saying he ordered the killing 7 months ago.... eek So how 'imminent' was it really?

Free Poppy's, Bombsquad, 13, Nero, Mdiver, shanti0608, RDhull. If Glamslam can get a 2nd chance, they should be able to also. 2020=CHANGE
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #215 posted 01/13/20 4:39pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

PennyPurple said:

JoeTyler said:

TRUMP: "The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “imminent” or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!"

This clown won't shut up. Amazing. Worst president of all time.

They are saying he ordered the killing 7 months ago.... eek So how 'imminent' was it really?

who said? or did they say if we have a shot lets see if we can take it--kind of thing?

I stand with Ben and the Moderators!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #216 posted 01/13/20 6:39pm

IanRG

Pokeno4Money said:

IanRG said:

I suspect that you are trying to downplay the US act of aggression and that if this was, instead, an act of aggression by a non-republican president, you would feel no compunction to do this.

.

As to examples of US military support for non-formal State military-style forces and their acts (be they variously tagged as insurgents, counter-insurgents, rebels, revolutionaries, terrorists, freedom fighters, warlords etc, etc): This has been done time and time and time again over US history and especially under the excuse of the Cold war, the war on drugs and to protect access, ownership or control of strategic economic assets by US corporations. Ironically, the US’s first covert regime change was to reinstate the powers of the Shah of Iran against those of the democratically elected Iranian government. Outside of non-uniformed CIA people, Major General Norman Schwartzkopf Snr was directly involved with this especially in the setup and training of the Shah’s SAVAK secret police.

.

As to Iraq: Make up your mind. Was it just a convenient war so the son could finish what the father started or were there WMDs that were an imminent threat to the US? You have now said and backed off both.


Honestly I'm not one to be hung up on terminology. Different countries could view the exact same actions completely differently, some countries will call it an act of war and some not. Does it really matter what it's called? We are not talking about a board game here with a global moderator. No country will risk losing a battle or a war just to "stay within the rules", whatever the "rules" might be and whomever might have drawn them up.

Clearly you have a different definition of "agression" than I. However I'll say this, I have ALWAYS supported the military actions initiated by whomever is president at the time. They may not always be the right decision, but I have to believe they always have good intentions and they CERTAINLY know a helluva lot more about the situation than you or I do. Please don't try to somehow make me out to be biased, because that would be an exercise in futlity for you. I have gone on record in the past as both supporting and criticizing Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. And I typically stay away from political threads, as I'm sure you've realized.

As for Iraq, my stance has never changed. How many times do I have to say this: Maybe Bush lied about believing there were WMD's, or maybe he really did get bad intel. Don't forget Saddam himself was constantly saying he had WMD's. Either way, you and I will never know the truth therefore it's pointless to take sides on the subject.

And to clarify when I mentioned finishing what George Sr started, I meant in tandem with the threat of WMD's. Without that threat, the invasion wouldn't have happened. I think even you realize that.

.

You seem to be working under the misunderstanding that there is a different definition in the US compared to Australia or that I have my own definition.

.

This is wrong: the definition I quoted is the one used by the US and Australia and every other country that is a signatory to the applicable UN conventions and treaties to limit military aggression and miss treatment of people by the military. I am not playing semantics with personally made up definitions to change perceptions of the US violence.

.

The highlighted comment by you is the very reason I say you are biased: To allow for the decision to execute military aggression by the US to may have been the wrong decision but you support this violence anyway because you believe the person ordering it always had good intentions is biased. You have shifted my opinion that you are just biased towards one party to being jingoistic in support of any violence any president ever commits the US to. To bring this back to Soleimani: As I said, the actions of equivalent military and political people in the US have been as reprehensible as that by the Iranian leadership and military.

.

On Iraq: I agree that Bush used the illusory threat of WMDs to push for completing what his father started. There was evidence at the time, and certainly afterward, that Bush knew Iraq was extremely unlikely to have any WMDs capable of striking anyone let alone the USA before he committed forces to a war of aggression.

[Edited 1/14/20 1:17am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #217 posted 01/14/20 9:29pm

Pokeno4Money

avatar

IanRG said:

Pokeno4Money said:


Honestly I'm not one to be hung up on terminology. Different countries could view the exact same actions completely differently, some countries will call it an act of war and some not. Does it really matter what it's called? We are not talking about a board game here with a global moderator. No country will risk losing a battle or a war just to "stay within the rules", whatever the "rules" might be and whomever might have drawn them up.

Clearly you have a different definition of "agression" than I. However I'll say this, I have ALWAYS supported the military actions initiated by whomever is president at the time. They may not always be the right decision, but I have to believe they always have good intentions and they CERTAINLY know a helluva lot more about the situation than you or I do. Please don't try to somehow make me out to be biased, because that would be an exercise in futlity for you. I have gone on record in the past as both supporting and criticizing Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. And I typically stay away from political threads, as I'm sure you've realized.

As for Iraq, my stance has never changed. How many times do I have to say this: Maybe Bush lied about believing there were WMD's, or maybe he really did get bad intel. Don't forget Saddam himself was constantly saying he had WMD's. Either way, you and I will never know the truth therefore it's pointless to take sides on the subject.

And to clarify when I mentioned finishing what George Sr started, I meant in tandem with the threat of WMD's. Without that threat, the invasion wouldn't have happened. I think even you realize that.

.

You seem to be working under the misunderstanding that there is a different definition in the US compared to Australia or that I have my own definition.

.

This is wrong: the definition I quoted is the one used by the US and Australia and every other country that is a signatory to the applicable UN conventions and treaties to limit military aggression and miss treatment of people by the military. I am not playing semantics with personally made up definitions to change perceptions of the US violence.

.

The highlighted comment by you is the very reason I say you are biased: To allow for the decision to execute military aggression by the US to may have been the wrong decision but you support this violence anyway because you believe the person ordering it always had good intentions is biased. You have shifted my opinion that you are just biased towards one party to being jingoistic in support of any violence any president ever commits the US to. To bring this back to Soleimani: As I said, the actions of equivalent military and political people in the US have been as reprehensible as that by the Iranian leadership and military.

.

On Iraq: I agree that Bush used the illusory threat of WMDs to push for completing what his father started. There was evidence at the time, and certainly afterward, that Bush knew Iraq was extremely unlikely to have any WMDs capable of striking anyone let alone the USA before he committed forces to a war of aggression.

[Edited 1/14/20 1:17am]


I think the conversation has evolved to that of personal opinion, and I respect yours.

Good discussion.

"Never let nasty stalkers disrespect you. They start shit, you finish it. Go down to their level, that's the only way they'll understand. You have to handle things yourself."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #218 posted 01/16/20 3:12am

benni

avatar

Iran plans to file war crime charges against Trump with the International Criminal Court at the Hague.


Iran will pursue war-crimes charges against President Donald Trump at the International Criminal Court in the Hague over the January 3 assassination of its top commander, Gen. Qassem Soleimani, outside Baghdad's international airport, according to Gholam Hossein Esmaeili, the spokesman for Iran's top judicial authorities.

"We intend to file lawsuits in the Islamic Republic, Iraq and The Hague Court [International Court of Justice] against the military and government of America and against Trump," Esmaeili said at a Tuesday press conference.

"There is no doubt that the US military has done a terrorist act assassinating Guards Commander Lt. Gen. Soleimani and Second-in-Command of Iraq Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis ... and Trump has confessed doing the crime."


https://amp.businessinsid...win-2020-1


Wow. This would make the world see our president as a war criminal. Though I imagine the world already views him that way.


@GeorgeTrue1 -- Alex's Jones's Razor - it's not that sharp
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 8 of 8 <12345678
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Attack in Baghdad kills revered military figure Qasem Soleimani