Key Iran General Soleimani killed in Iraq: reports - BBC

[OneSheep]

Then, Douma, alll of those places reportedly, gassed.

Victoria, you are saying that your point is proved by something from Twitter or Youtube?

So, it’s fine if Iran finances terrorism and wars and neglects it’s own home population where about 80% I saw live in poverty?

I don’t know what that has to do with my comment, Victoria. The US spends over half the federal budget on military, moneys which could do a lot to address many social ills here. I think our Church spends money in much better ways.

So, I have to consider this somewhat unsubstantiated.

—The $1.8 (actually $1.7 billion) was a debt owed to Iran, which bought military equipment from the U.S. that it never received because relations ruptured when the shah was overthrown in 1979.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump revisits old fictions about Iran money

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is recycling familiar fictions concerning the Iran nuclear deal as he lashes out at a Republican senator who criticized him and a U.S. official who resigned in protest against Trump's plan to pull troops from Syria.

apnews.com

This really is a bit off topic. We invaded Iraq,

According to Bush, it was “preemptive war”, it was war to avoid war. Such an approach is completely illogical and unethcial. It is simply offensive aggression.

Who told them to go there?

Iranian forces effectively helped get rid of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. For these purposes, the Iraqi government welcomed both Iranian and US forces.

Go ahead and think that way, Soleimani is already credited with killing many thousands, not just Americans if you are somehow implying the US had it coming but Syrians, Iraqis, Kurds and so on.

The US is also responsible for the deaths of thousands, especially in the fallout of our attack on Iraq. No one ever deserves assassination, it is against the Gospel, against Catholic teaching. So is preemptive war.

 

[Victoria33]

IOW, less safe.

That’s your opinion.

Missiles were fired at the airport numerous times and we are fortunate nobody was killed in previous attempts and of course, shot down our drone. I’m glad we did not go to war over a downed drone, that would have been silly.

Iran Is Secretly Moving Missiles Into Iraq, U.S. Officials Say (Published 2019)

The buildup of a hidden arsenal of short-range missiles is the latest sign that American efforts to deter Iran have largely failed.

www.nytimes.com

A number of other acts too.

Do we want to see many dead before we defend ourselves? I think not.

 

[dvdjs]

That’s your opinion.

That is the opinion of the US Department of State.

 

[Victoria33]

Victoria, you are saying that your point is proved by something from Twitter or Youtube?

Are you a Syrian? Are you in the Middle East? They certainly report on a lot of things the UPI, AP, CNN don’t tell us because there is not the audience.

OneSheep, You don’t know the half of what goes on in Mexico because our media does not pick it up, there is not an interest in it.

I don’t know what that has to do with my comment, Victoria. The US spends over half the federal budget on military, moneys which could do a lot to address many social ills here. I think our Church spends money in much better ways.

—The $1.8 (actually $1.7 billion) was a debt owed to Iran, which bought military equipment from the U.S. that it never received because relations ruptured when the shah was overthrown in 1979.

Comparing the US to Iran all the time, is what you seem to be doing. We spend money too. Fine if one wants to say that, it doesn’t invalidate what I’ve said.

According to Bush, it was “preemptive war”, it was war to avoid war. Such an approach is completely illogical and unethcial. It is simply offensive aggression.

That doesn’t change my premise, we did not invade Iran.

Iranian forces effectively helped get rid of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. For these purposes, the Iraqi government welcomed both Iranian and US forces.

Some would say Shia militias helped precipitate the coming of ISIS with their brutality. ISIS did not really show up by that name until 2012 or so.

The US is also responsible for the deaths of thousands, especially in the fallout of our attack on Iraq. No one ever deserves assassination, it is against the Gospel, against Catholic teaching. So is preemptive war.

Fine, if all you have is always comparing Iran to the US fine. I don’t think it furthers conversation much or adds to talks of peace. Iraq was largely pacified by 2011. This is just “Tu Quoque” over and over again.

 

[Victoria33]

That is the opinion of the US Department of State.

One could also say they are safety precautions. We don’t know this for a fact. Many of the Iraqi people apparently are glad Soleimani is no longer in power. People blame Iran for the death of many protesters.

---

I’d not forget, per Catholic Doctrine, per Christian teaching, sometimes, leaders have different responsibilities per understanding these matters.

 

[Victoria33]

Soleimani was a leading general of the nation state of Iran.

What your statement doesn’t include is that there is a list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, so that changes the equation some.

For the record, I would acknowledge, the USA is far from perfect but we probably are not like other world powers, China or Russia who, per whatever source one uses, may be very big oppressors of human rights.

Sponsors of terrorism:

North Korea, Iran, Syria. Sudan is trying to get off the list, they have had a change of leadership.

https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/

U.S.: Iran Is Leading State Sponsor of Terror

On September 19, the U.S. State Department reported that “Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2017,” including support for several militant groups across the Middle East. “Iran remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and is responsible for intensifying multiple...

iranprimer.usip.org

Biden Sided With Terror Leader Soleimani in Handing Control of Iraq to Iran

Joe Biden reportedly played a decisive role in enabling recently assassinated Iranian terror leader Qassem Soleimani to push the U.S. out of Iraq.

freebeacon.com

 

[dvdjs]

changes the equation some.

No.
However we might be properly and lawfully go after someone who is part of a stateless, criminal, terrorist organization, the approach to some one who is a ranking official in a legal nation state is different, by treaty, international law, and US law. And for good reason. We may hope to annihilate a terrorist organization. It is, however, rarely if ever our intention to annihilate a nation state. In fact, the idea of nation building through invasion and reconstruction has largely been abandoned by US.

We have taken a major step into a new realm of international relations. iWhat5ever short term advantage this gives the US, and Trump, I suspect that we will be paying a price for it for a long time to come.

 

[BartholomewB]

It is, however, rarely if ever our intention to annihilate a nation state.

It depends what you mean by “annihilate”. Was the USSR “annihilated” in 1991?

 

[Ender]

However we might be properly and lawfully go after someone who is part of a stateless, criminal, terrorist organization, the approach to some one who is a ranking official in a legal nation state is different, by treaty, international law, and US law.

By attacking our embassy Soleimani coordinated an attack on the US as surely as if he had attacked New York City. The fact that he was a ranking member of the Iranian government doesn’t exempt him from the response such an act warrants. That he got away with such an action before (Benghazi) probably suggested to him that he would get away with it again. That was a fatal miscalculation.

 

[dvdjs]

It depends what you mean by “annihiliate”. Was the USSR “annihilated” in 1991?

Not sure what this has to do with the US/Iran situation.
Even if you regard the USSR as annihilated, that did not occur through US assassination of leaders, military strikes, etc.

 

[BartholomewB]

You didn’t answer my question.

 

[dvdjs]

By attacking our embassy Soleimani coordinated an attack on the US as surely as if he had attacked New York City.

If that were the case, a declaration of war, with request for war authozation was the proper course.

 

[dvdjs]

You didn’t answer my question.

You may have preferred a different answer that allowed the deflection, but I answered properly.

 

[Victoria33]

the approach to some one who is a ranking official in a legal nation state is different, by treaty, international law, and US law

Killing an enemy commander, in a war zone, with a military strike conducted under the law of war is not an “assassination.”

https://twitter.com/x/status/1212959530797146118

As said, he was an “enemy commander”, so are you saying you would be content if we did nothing and Soleimani killed a lot of innocents? Even Americans targeted? I disagree.

Targeted killing

Targeted killing is the premeditated killing of an individual by a state organization or institution outside a battlefield. Targeted killings were employed extensively by death squads in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Haiti within the context of civil unrest and war during the 1980s and...

military.wikia.org

By attacking our embassy Soleimani coordinated an attack on the US as surely as if he had attacked New York City. The fact that he was a ranking member of the Iranian government doesn’t exempt him from the response such an act warrants. That he got away with such an action before (Benghazi) probably suggested to him that he would get away with it again. That was a fatal miscalculation.

This goes to the crux of the matter, it’s not as if we were wanting to go after him, kill him for no reason. Here was someone making and apparently, carrying out threats who fell right under our nose there at the Baghdad airport. I wish he hadn’t made himself so available actually. Then, we would not be in this situation.

I don’t have a crystal ball but of course, if Americans and others were killed, I’d think we would need to avoid that occurring.

 

[dvdjs]

Targeted killng

The legality of targeted killing is disputed. Some[2] academics, military personnel and officials describe targeted killing as legitimate within the context of self-defense, when employed against terrorists or combatants engaged in asymmetrical warfare. They argue that drones are more humane and more accurate than manned vehicles.[3][4] Others, including academics such as Gregory Johnsen and Charles Schmitz, twenty-six members of Congress,[5] some media sources (Jeremy Scahill, James Traub), some human rights groups and ex-CIA station chief in Islamabad, Robert Grenier[6] have criticized targeted killings as similar to assassinations or extrajudicial killings, illegal within the United States and under international law.

BTW had we declared war with Iran?

 

[Victoria33]

BTW had we declared war with Iran?

Are you saying we do not attack terrorists?

 

[dvdjs]

Are you saying we do not attack terrorists?

Why would you ask that question? I have been clear about the distinction that I have been making.

 

[BartholomewB]

You may have preferred a different answer that allowed the deflection, but I answered properly.

All right, maybe I was trying to go too fast. Let’s take it step by step. When you used the term “annihilation” in that earlier post, was it your intention to suggest that the United States is now seeking to “annihilate” the Islamic Republic of Iran?

 

[Victoria33]

Why would you ask that question? I have been clear about the distinction that I have been making.

Not if you do not seem to acknowledge that Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism and we are at war with terrorism.

That is said all the time, “Iran is the biggest state-sponsor of terrorism”.

 

[dvdjs]

United States is now seeking to “annihilate” the Islamic Republic of Iran?

No. Nor did I mention the Islamic Republic of Iran at all.