DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus President orders attack that kills Iranian leader

He wasn't an Iranian general, he was a scumbag terrorist. At least try to get it right come on now.

Facts matter. He acted like a terrorist and he has lots of blood on his hands. No one, anywhere is denying he didn't "deserved" to die ... But he WAS the TOP Iranian General - period. And what Trump did might well have deep repercussions. The world is waiting to see.

I would definitely not classify him as a terrorist. He was the head of Iran's Quds forces. They are largely military intelligence and special forces in their missions. So sort of like combining part of the CIA and part Green Berets.

Depending on what you believe in the news. They were financing/arming forces in Iraq to conduct strikes against the U.S. "embassy".

Lets not pretend that our guys don't do same things, when we were just backing groups like Al-Nusra in Syria.

WW 3? Scare tactics much? If O had ordered this, you and the rest would be agog with what a great move it was.

I remember back in the day when Obama assassinated Benny in a foreign country without permission.

I didn't like Obama but as an American I cheered and supported his move like most Americans because we are in this together.

Today I see a bunch of people calling themselves Americans but supporting our enemies and terrorists, making excuses for them while cursing our own leader.

Shame!

The first American soldier to die in Trumps War...

link

Spc. Henry J. Mayfield Jr., 23, of Evergreen Park, Ill., was killed during the attack in Manda Bay on Sunday, the Pentagon said. He was in Kenya supporting Operation Octave shield as a member of the 1st Battalion, 58th Aviation Regiment, 164th Theater Airfield Operations Group from Fort Rucker, Ala.

Arch, what is Iran going to possibly try
Well, it has been reported on their list are Our Serviceman in the Middle East, Trump holdings, Arlington National -I am sure we would strike back and then they would, etc.

Also on their list Hezbollah striking Tel Aviv- definitely would get a quick response.
Blocking the straight of Hormuz- will get a response

All bringing severe turmoil to the Middle East.
Iran recently had naval drills with Russia and China.
One of the first to talk to Iran after the killing was Sergei Lavrov of Russia.

Guess who put out a statement today. Somebody who has spent over 100 billion in the Middle East in the last 5 to 10 years. China

Here is part of the article

REUTERS
The US assassination of Qasem Soleimani, leader of the Quds force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, is going to have ongoing consequences throughout the Middle East and beyond. Given China’s increasingly deep footprint in the Gulf, Beijing’s response is an important consideration.
The China-Iran relationship has drawn a lot of attention recently. Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif visited Beijing four times in 2019 and was in town again on December 31 following a short trip to Moscow. Both meetings took place in the wake of a trilateral China-Russia-Iran naval drill featuring exercises in the Gulf of Oman and the northern Indian Ocean. Zarif’s meeting with China’s Foreign Minister [censored] Yi focused on the war games and provided an opportunity to brief him on the Iranian nuclear issue. Perhaps as a reflection of the poor state of China-US relations, [censored] was uncharacteristically blunt, saying China will stand with Iran “against unilateralism and bullying,” and claiming, “the unilateral withdrawal by the US from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, giving up on its international commitments and [attempts] to exert maximum pressure on Iran are the sources of the current tension arising over the Iranian nuclear issue.”
That Soleimani was killed three days later only reinforces Chinese concerns of US policy in the Middle East. The Foreign Ministry spokesperson initially offered the normal calls for restraint, but with an edge, singling out the United States, and expressing hope that all parties follow the “basic norms of international relations.” In case that wasn’t clear, [censored] made it more explicit in a call to Zarif, complaining that the “dangerous US military operation violates the basic norms of international relations and will aggravate regional tensions and turbulence.”

Link below
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/chinas-response-to-the-soleimani-killing/

The censored part in the article is the guy from China’s name-first name Yang but starting with a W last name Yi

If someone attacks the US embassy, coordinates it, has a hand it in it, and conspires against the United States in a potentially harmful way then they have it coming to them. I would have pushed the button to kill him myself.

That whole region is untrustworthy and seeks to do us harm. If I was alive in the 70's I would have advocated the US bombing the hell out of Iran. I also wouldn't mind if someone wiped out the supreme leader sometime soon. You can't bargain with these types of people, they can't be trusted, ever.

911 murders yep....He Ordered Bin Laden killed and we the people....we all cheered. Show us why this Iran General was killed. We’ll all be waiting for this proof while we hunker down for war. Pffft the trump era. War mongers!

Rand Paul: Trump 'got bad advice' on killing of Soleimani

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Monday that President Trump “got bad advice” on his decision to kill top Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani in a strike last week.

Paul said on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer” that “it’s now a certainty” there will be more attacks on Americans in revenge for Soleimani's killing, as the general’s replacement is a “hard-liner.” The Kentucky senator also mourned the loss of a chance for diplomacy with Iran.

“This is sad,” he said. “I mean, the death of Soleimani, I think, is the death of diplomacy with Iran. I don't see an off-ramp. I don't see a way out of this.”

The Kentucky senator suggested former national security adviser John Bolton was behind the efforts to kill Soleimani and said Trump received “bad advice.”

He also said he considers killing the general an act of war that requires permission of Congress.

Paul responded to a Washington Post report that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came up with the idea to kill Soleimani, saying he didn’t want to question his intentions but wished the administration had considered the consequences.

"You would have to be brain dead to believe that we tear up the agreement, we put an embargo on you and we kill your major general, and they're just going to crawl back to the table and say, 'What do you want, America?'" he said.

He added that even though “nothing justifies their military action,” it would be “predictable.”



Iran has responded to the killing by saying it will enact revenge against the U.S. Trump has said he has chosen 52 Iranian sites to strike should Iran retaliate, with the number chosen to represent the 52 hostages in the country in 1979.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) proposed a war powers resolution mandating Trump remove troops from Iran if he does not obtain approval from Congress. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the House would vote on a similar resolution.

https://thehill.com/policy/international...e-on-killing-of

Blame Bolton after he is gone... smh

Yep. I saw that a leader in Iran tweeted a list of Trump's properties. At a minimum that will impact his bottom line. And he may or may not be a legit billionaire, but his head is now worth 80 million via Iranian bounty.

j/c -

"You would have to be brain dead to believe that we tear up the agreement, we put an embargo on you and we kill your major general, and they're just going to crawl back to the table and say, 'What do you want, America?'" he said.

This really says what most have been thinking in a nut shell regarding one side of it... The other side of it is the destabilization of the region, escalating tensions and adding to an already emotionally charged and explosive environment... Then there is the fact that - as many point out - many/most of the actual terrorists we fight (and perpetrated 9/11) are Saudi and we do nothing to address that ...

AND - I was thinking about Kashoggi the other day when people justified this attack on Solimani based on the death of a US Citizen ... yet when Koshoggi was murdered (and it was proven by the worlds intel agencies) that the crown prince had orchestrated/ordered this assasination - Trump shrugged his shoulders and lied. . . Kashoggi and his wife had two sons, Salah and Abdullah Khashoggi and two daughters, Noha and Razan Jamal Khashoggi. Khashoggi's four children were all educated in the U.S. and two of them are U.S. citizens. After his assassination, all four were banned from leaving Saudi Arabia. Such selective outrage and justification - but that's the Trump faithful. Sheeple to the last.

Where do you lefties find the courage to leave the house in the morning.

I just read where this dirt bag killed 600 Americans and you guys are worried about making Iran angry.

Who is the source for the 600 hundred Americans killed?

Intelligence community?

If it was one American he still needed to get wacked.

Well who died in the embassy attack?

I agree. We should kill everyone who takes American lives... let's start with tobacco execs and work through big pharma and weapons manufacturers. Unless we are talking only foreigners, then we could start with China and their shoddy products.

Maybe the world should start killing all of our generals? I mean they caused many deaths in both the Afghan and Iraq wars.

I mean after all, that's what the Trumpians are saying. EVERY military leader is responsible for deaths during war time. But they can't seem to see past that in their Trumpian fog.

SEN RAND PAUL R-KY

This pretty much sums it up for me and he is a republican. Did he just call the trump brain dead?

Then there is this

Troubles me that it's being reported that he was presented with options after the embassy assault and chose the most extreme/hostile option they gave him, catching even the leaders at the pentagon off guard. I guess they throw in extreme options expecting the POTUS to be measured in their response.

This puts his 'why do we have nukes if we never use them' statement in a new light. Hopefully that will never be presented as an option.

I see your confused between asking questions, analyzing and looking at the big picture .... and being scared. I know for a sheep - asking questions might seem dangerous to you. But, really it's not that bad. Try it sometime. Or just parrot whatever BS you hear - your call.

Oh and that quote ... was Rand Paul.

Actually Rand Paul is a Libertarian. When it comes to foreign policy he has a cool head. But then you're talking about a man who thinks and makes reasonable deductions. Who considers logistics and ramifications.

We aren't hearing any of that from Republicans right now and haven't for the past three years.

Oh how far the mighty have fallen. Between W and Trump it seems they aren't big on electing thinkers anymore.

I too find his ‘liberals are scared’ nonsense hilarious in that he comes from the side that feels the need to open carry at the local Walmart. The side that’s too afraid of the world to not be packing. Wetting your pants if you have to leave the house without a sidearm sounds pretty ‘scared’ to me.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-...t-idUSKBN1Z616W

YAY !! Murica !!

From experience it seems all liberals know how to do is appease and bargain not go on the offensive. Whatever the reason, that's why people call them scared. They don't have the spine to do what's needed in the heat of the moment.

That being said, flatten them, make them glass.

I most certainly do not agree with "flatten them, make them glass."


Here's the deal though: That general is responsible for how many american troops deaths? He was a terrorist, and even the dem's admit as much. The biggest problem the dems in congress have is "He was a bad guy, but TRump should have brought this to congress first." Totally ignoring all the things in the past that.............


A decision was made, and innocent people were spared. Yet, congress (dem's that is) aren't upset about the guys death, they're upset they weren't informed.

Appeasment may work at times. But dropping the hammer, as per the military leaders, works better.

People say "Oh, what about the military personnel that might die because of this?" Good question. What about the military personnel that died due to this guy?

Iran: Since somewhere around 1978: DEath to America.

The middle east since basically forever: War.

Killing a dude that planned attacks, with proxie military, is now a bad thing? Oh, world war 3.

Scare tactics. I guess it would be better to appease?

Iran, and Iraquis, attacked our embassy. THAT, folks, is an act of war. Pretty plain and simple.

I don't see china getting involved as they can't feed their populace. And russia getting involved? I thought putin, according to some on here. was trumps best friend.


Iran attacked the u.s. Period. Instead of sending money, we eliminated a top general.

They started it. The u.s. reciprocated. If they want to escalate?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: If this had happened under Obama, it would be fine, and celebrated.

Iran just fired about a dozen ballistic missiles against 2 US bases in Iraq

We'll see about that I guess. I hope you are right.

What did they hit? Anything?

https://twitter.com/aliarouzi/status/1214706507016790017

A dozen missiles isn't really a lot and air force bases are huge.... Also has been a slow buildup in missile pointing over the last few days (which we couldn't have missed).

This is a warning shot -- and a simple way out for both sides. If we are smart enough to not retaliate, then Iran can claim "revenge" and we can claim that we got the guy we wanted.

Let's just hope that nobody got killed in the attacks --- I think that is what both sides are hoping.