Key Iran General Soleimani killed in Iraq: reports - BBC

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OneSheep said:
It has been proven that the way that the US and others have conducted the war, terrorism has increased.
Click to expand...
Yes, cause does not equal affect at that.

But I do go along with the saying “if you kill one Saddam Hussein, a hundred Bin Ladens will rise up”. The world is a big place, the former USSR, Africa and so on. Terrorism can hardly be policed everywhere.

But I go along with some conventional thought that the more you fight terror, the more it grows. That is so to an extent. It still doesn’t mean, it should be ignored and nothing should be done about it.

It is a complex issue.
 
OneSheep said:
We could have contacted them and met with the Iraqi leadership to negotiate a way of existing there together, some boundaries of action.
Click to expand...
Ender said:
Believing in this is akin to believing in unicorns. Negotiation is not always possible. Do you not believe Iran meant it when she called us the Great Satan and preached Death to America?
Click to expand...
In fact, according to the Iraqi PM, Soleimani was in Iraq toto deliver to the POM Iraq response to a de-escalation plan form Saudi Arabia. THe US had asked Iraq to work as an intermediary in these negotiations.
 
Victoria33 said:
But I go along with some conventional thought that the more you fight terror, the more it grows. That is so to an extent. It still doesn’t mean, it should be ignored and nothing should be done about it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree that it should not be ignored. The fact remains that terror begins with unmet grievances, and the US and Israel, in this case, have ignored the legitimate grievances and have resorted to killing and war instead.

What we can do, instead, is begin with the Gospel. We are to forgive those who trespass against us, and then do unto them as we would have them do unto us. We could address their grievances, see what we can do to rectify those problems.
BartholomewB said:
You’re joking, aren’t you?
Click to expand...
Of course not. Negotiation is a valid means of averting war.
dvdjs said:
In fact, according to the Iraqi PM, Soleimani was in Iraq toto deliver to the POM Iraq response to a de-escalation plan form Saudi Arabia. THe US had asked Iraq to work as an intermediary in these negotiations.
Click to expand...
Do you have a reference?
 
Last edited:
ISIS has definitely been rolled back in influence.

But take Africa, we lost Americans in Africa this past weekend, the French lost soldiers from a helicopter crash in about the last 3 weeks. A dozen or so killed.

It’s hardly like we have had any kind of influence or presence to see terrorism grow, even thrive in Subsaharan Africa. in my opinion.

It seems to me, right now, Africa, parts are very vulnerable.

I don’t know the real situation in Libya, some say the fighting presently going on there, is to keep terror out.

It’s a country of 10 million, so is it really that important in the larger view? Well, Egypt certainly seems to be supporting forces there and Egypt is a large country that doesn’t want those things on its border. I have no idea what is at the heart of the fighting there though, per the news, I can say events that have transpired definitely, that’s another topic. Turkey has now sent troops to Libya.
.

www.bbc.com

Libya conflict: Turkey sends troops to shore up UN-backed government

Turkish forces will support the UN-backed government in Libya as it battles an insurgency.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

In fact, both sides accuse the other of terrorism. Sorry, this is a sidetrack but it is related to “terrorism”.

Assad’s regime, the Syrian regime, actually designated as a state-sponsor of terrorism since 1979 although, they did aid in the first Gulf War, 1992-93, around then against Iraq invading Kuwait. It’s all complex.
 
dvdjs said:
If you are suggesting that I said that, you are completely mistaken.
But what I did say on the subject is an objective, verifiable fact; the supporting evidence behind has been produced in a number of threads.
Click to expand...
What you said "The problem here is that Trump has gone on and on about the use of force against **Iran to bolster re-election".

It not an objective verifiable fact. It’s a opinion and talking point to use against him.
 
mrad25 said:
What you said "The problem here is that Trump has gone on and on about the use of force against **Iran to bolster re-election".
Click to expand...
That is an objective verifiable fact.
His has made numerous tweets on the subject, and they have been posted here.
 
Theo520 said:
you seemed to imply it, without explicitly stating it, you are skilled at that.
It leaves you an exit hole
Click to expand...
You know, if I were going with “conspiracy theory” type ideas and that is all these are or at least, theories, the one I would go with is that this Soleimani character hurt so many US servicemen and is said to have killed so many, over 600 with these IED bombs, the military goaded Trump into making the call to kill him, Soleimani.

It looks more like that to me (and I’m not claiming that theory is true, it’s just that I think it actually would have more merit). There was merely a 2 minute window of opportunity to nail Soleimani after he left his plane and got into the car last Thursday/Early Friday morning last week. This was obviously, a somewhat meticulously planned attack.

And Trump is known to love the military. I can see some reasoning that he would allow the military to get this character. I’m not saying this happened, Again, I find it more plausible than “wag the dog” scenarios.

My view, is that US forces and interests were being attacked in Iraq periodically, those “Katyusha” missiles (Russian I assume) were being periodically fired at where US forces were staying on bases and why not? Sanctions apparently, have been very severe on Iran.

30 minutes after the hit on Soleimani, the Baghdad airport closed and coalition planes over the sky over the airport. That’s all in the press.
 
dvdjs said:
That is an objective verifiable fact.
His has made numerous tweets on the subject, and they have been posted here.
Click to expand...
That is absolutely false and laughable. He has never said anything to suggest that attacking Iran is to bolster his re-election. Democrats have said it.
 
Yes, I think the Military felt the recent Embassy attack tipped the scales towards the strike.
 
Trump now has an open invitation from the Iraqi government to exit the country. Something I and many others have wanted all along.

That we appear to be staying there without the host’s permission as is happening in Syria tells me that Trump has essentially fallen under the sway of the MIC as Obama, Bush 2 and Clinton did before him. Moar “forever war”.

Speaking of hypocrites, it’s been interesting that anti-war sentiments are suddenly allowed to be reported without excoriation. Remember Gabbard was the only anti-war candidate willing to stand up for being anti-war all along and look how she was raked over the coals for it. I have felt like the lone nutter in the wilderness for being anti-war and bringing Gabbard up over and over again. Suddenly it’s fashionable because anti-Trump. Mark my words, we the people who want out of the ME will NOT have a choice this November. No Democrat candidate will be selected who will get us out no matter what any of them say on the surface. If someone here wants to protest that, I give you Obama and Hillary. Hillary’s husband too while we’re at it. This is why Bernie was sandbagged in 2016 and he’s not going to get a fair shot this time either. We’re in until somebody or something forces us out.
 
US withdrawal could hurt Christians as well, as reported in the Catholic News section:
40.png
Danger for our Christians in Iraqi Catholic News
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ld-mean-new-danger-for-iraqi-christians-48819
Click to expand...
We should never abandon allies, Kurds, Christians, do the job right, if you go in the first place.

We should never abandon Christians who have lived there for nearly 2,000 years, one of the faiths most closely connected to Jesus Christ himself.

Besides, that vote in Iraq may have been meaningless without a quorum.

For me, Gabbard should not be listened to, thanks for her service in the National Guard as a Medic I believe and some time over there.
 
Last edited:
mrad25 said:
That is absolutely false and laughable. He has never said anything to suggest that attacking Iran is to bolster his re-election.
Click to expand...
I never said that he did.
What I did say, however, is factual. And the supporting facts have been posted.
 
dvdjs said:
I never said that he did.
What I did say, however, is factual. And the supporting facts have been posted.
Click to expand...
You are good DVDJS, Trump trying to start a war for his reelection. Very clever analysis.
 
dvdjs said:
I never said that he did.
What I did say, however, is factual. And the supporting facts have been posted.
Click to expand...
AGAIN YOUR POST: "The problem here is that Trump has gone on and on about the use of force against Iran to bolster re-election."

No facts support your claim.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top