Key Iran General Soleimani killed in Iraq: reports - BBC

[Victoria33]

It is the story of how Iran was destabilized in the first place and why Iran is where it is today.

I think a lot of Iranians would argue it was stable under the Shah.

These are just historical debates too and even those events you cite for 1953 are up to debate actually.

Iranians must take responsibility for their role in the 1953 coup

The CIA-backed overthrow of Iran’s popular prime minister only succeeded because it supported by thousands of ordinary citizens, argues Shervin Malekzadeh

www.theguardian.com

I can’t find it readily but I even read some article in National Review where the author said the US/Brit coup fell but another one is what succeeded.

This is 64 years ago, if the Mullahs think the USA hurt their freely elected leader, they could hold truly free elections, they don’t and they’ve been in power for 40 years.

 

[EndTimes]

I think it’s clear who the bad actors are and have been.

Clear?

There’s 2 SIDES … .and it appears that WWIII is - barring a miracle - on its way

 

[EndTimes]

I think a lot of Iranians would argue it was stable under the Shah.

Some wouldn’t … Shah was given mucho moolah…

 

[OneSheep]

Indeed, all of this is unsettling, it may be an overall positive but obviously, we can expect a danger of retaliation. Unsettling very much for me.

In my opinion, it is time for the Church to show its relevancy in the world by condemning this murder by our government. This action violates Just War theory and every applicable precept of Christian morality.

If it does, this is a big problem…Iran has a formidable military and nationalistic resolve.

Not only that, starting a war is simply WRONG! Say nothing of the fact that we have no beef with Iran. This is not even our war.

so the US president is doomed to be a war monger.

As long as Israel keeps provoking their enemies, and the US continues to endorse the land confiscations and giving them 4B in aid every year, and AIPAC controls our foreign policy, yes, the US president, whoever it is, will continue to use our soldiers to protect Israel.

the attack on our embassy was seen as a bridge too far and a decisive response was called for.

It was not an attack. It was a demonstration by some Iranians that got out of hand when they burned a guard tower. The demonstration does not justify murder.

there’s little point to crushing ISIS only to have Iran step into the breach

There is an enormous difference between ISIS and Iran.

Why was Soleimani in Iraq? The reports coming out is that intelligence shows he was planning deadly attacks on Americans in Iraq.

Planning an attack is not doing an attack. Preemptive war is against Catholic teaching. The Trump administration could have made moves to diplomatically resolve this.

I am hopeful about such reports. it would mean that Trump has radically changed his posture towards US Intelligence, and that the strike may have been properly proportionate.

You’re hopeful? What about diplomacy?

Any action or inaction may turn out badly.

Diplomacy does not kill people.

Are US military leadership planning unprovoked terrorist attacks against Iranian diplomats or embassies or citizens of other nations?

We can be sure that the US and Israel have all kinds of attacks planned against Iran. There is a difference between planning and carrying out.

 

[tomarin]

Sorry I’m not sure what you’re hinting at here.

 

[AlNg]

I can’t find it readily but I even read some article

Yes, you are going to find all kinds of articles supporting American interventionism for regime change in the Middle East. However, there are people, such as Tulsi, who oppose this policy.

 

[Victoria33]

Yes, you are going to find all kinds of articles supporting American interventionism for regime change in the Middle East. However, there are people, such as Tulsi, who oppose this policy.

Tulsi’s an American, Heshmat Alavi is an Iranian.

https://twitter.com/HeshmatAlavi

He’s pretty spot on in analysis. There seems to be a ton of Middle Easterners who see this as good, that Soleimani reaped a lot of destruction.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213141511044501506

 

[Ender]

He was a national leader in Iran. His assassination is akin to an adversary targeting US milirtray leadership.

Does it make any difference here that Soleimani, whatever position he held, was an international terrorist? Is that point irrelevant? Does it not matter that he was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans? Sanitizing him by referring to him as a “national leader” evades the reason for the action.

 

[dvdjs]

Are US military leadership planning unprovoked terrorist attacks against Iranian diplomats or embassies or citizens of other nations?

I don’t know. Why do you ask?
And if you do ask, will you provide a clear description of provocation, proportionality, and terrorism, so that we can answer the questions in an informed way.

 

[niceatheist]

He was the leader of Quds Force, a unit of the Revolutionary Guard. While I have no doubt he’s involved in terrorist activities, he is actually a military officer, so this isn’t the equivalent of taking out some shady builder of suicide bombs.

 

[dvdjs]

You’re hopeful? What about diplomacy?

My hope for their accuracy is that it provides some sense that this was a thoughtful and properly justified action. Absent that, there is no such sense.

 

[niceatheist]

niceatheist:

there’s little point to crushing ISIS only to have Iran step into the breach

There is an enormous difference between ISIS and Iran.

I’m not comparing Iran to ISIS, I’m saying that a lot of blood and coin has been spent to stop the dismemberment and overthrow of the Iraqi regime. To stomp on ISIS only to have Iraq either outright topple the Iraqi government or separate the Shi’ite south as some sort of Iranian proxy state is to win a battle and lose the war.

 

[dvdjs]

Does it make any difference here that Soleimani, whatever position he held, was an international terrorist?

i suspect that ISIS, whom he and his forces fought in Syria may have thought so, I suspect allies in that fight like Assad, and Russia didn’t. Hwe was assassinated in Iraq; had that nation identified him as a terrorist? Had the UN?

 

[Ender]

i suspect that ISIS, whom he and his forces fought in Syria may have thought so, I suspect allies in that fight like Assad, and Russia didn’t. Hwe was assassinated in Iraq; had that nation identified him as a terrorist? Had the UN?

What the UN thought of him is irrelevant. By our standards he was a terrorist. That Russia and the Washington Post might of thought of him as “Iran’s most revered military leader” doesn’t change that. I mean, if even Joe Biden could recognize that “He supported terror and sowed chaos”, surely there can be little doubt that Soleimani got what he deserved.

 

[dvdjs]

By our standards he was a terrorist … there can be little doubt that Soleimani got what he deserved.

Sorry. Unilaterally designating leadership within nation states as terrorist is insufficient to justify their assassination. As I said before, I am hoping that there is more to the story. But what you are talking about may be a crime.

 

[AlNg]

He’s pretty spot on in analysis.

IMHO, it is not spot on to support more American intervention, more bombs, more killing and more American wars in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and anywhere else. IMHO, it is spot on to support peace and peaceful, nonviolent resolution of political problems.

 

[niceatheist]

dvdjs:

i suspect that ISIS, whom he and his forces fought in Syria may have thought so, I suspect allies in that fight like Assad, and Russia didn’t. Hwe was assassinated in Iraq; had that nation identified him as a terrorist? Had the UN?

What the UN thought of him is irrelevant. By our standards he was a terrorist. That Russia and the Washington Post might of thought of him as “Iran’s most revered military leader” doesn’t change that. I mean, if even Joe Biden could recognize that “He supported terror and sowed chaos”, surely there can be little doubt that Soleimani got what he deserved.

He got what he deserved, but there are ramifications to this action. How the Iraqi government may feel about a pretty blatant assassination right at the heart of the country is one factor, how Iran and its allies may retaliate is another. How Moscow might view it is even another.

I’m not arguing for or against the act, I think time will be the only indicator, but if the US starts down the road of assassinating military officers of foreign regimes, it is indeed an escalation.

 

[OneSheep]

My hope for their accuracy is that it provides some sense that this was a thoughtful and properly justified action. Absent that, there is no such sense.

It was definitely not the last option, as described by Just war theory. Sanders, Warren, and Biden all spoke out against the attack. Obama and George W Bush also considered this action, but saw it as an act of war.

To stomp on ISIS only to have Iraq either outright topple the Iraqi government or separate the Shi’ite south as some sort of Iranian proxy state is to win a battle and lose the war.

I think you meant Iran. What “war” are WE losing even if Iran were in control there, a nation with a Shia majority? I’m not advocating for Iranian control, but I don’t see how this is our war to lose.

By our standards he was a terrorist.

By our own standards we are terrorists, and what we just did was a terrorist act. All terrorism has a retributive element.

He got what he deserved

To an atheist, maybe. But the Catholic Church is against the death penalty.

but if the US starts down the road of assassinating military officers of foreign regimes, it is indeed an escalation.

There is no “if” here. This is an escalation, and in the coming months it will serve to distract from impeachment hearings.

It is time for people of moral fiber to rise up and protest. This is not our war, and even if it were, diplomacy is the ethical route.

 

[Victoria33]

more American intervention, more bombs, more killing and more American wars in the Middle East, in Afghanistan and anywhere else. IMHO, it is spot on to support peace and peaceful, nonviolent resolution of political problems.

And after all, we know the Russians, Syrians and Iranians whom some people seem to have defended never do those things.

In fact Russia and Syria are presently accused of horrific war crimes, these days, 2019,and I will not support them, I will criticize them.

They say under the Clinton administration, we probably could have gotten Bin Laden, we did not and over 3,000 died.

 

[mrad25]

There’s 2 SIDES … .and it appears that WWIII is - barring a miracle - on its way

A right and wrong side, but hey if Americans want to take the side of those that want to kill us and many others maybe they can move to Iran and fight for the Ayatollah. WWIII will always be on it’s way when you have NUTS in power.