RugbyRebels

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

morepork wrote:He just oversaw the assassination of a foreign national of a country not at war with the USA that was in a country that the USA invaded and destroyed for no apparent reason.

Hmmm. Loathe the big aul orange hoore as I do, I have no qualms about the killing of Suleimani by the US. He was an active and extremely influential lynch-pin in numerous state-sanctioned operations that led to or were leading to attacks on American citizens and was, consequently, a perfectly legitimate target. His killing was no more nor less an act of war than any one of the many Iranian state-sanctioned attacks on Americans and the only uncertainty that it has raised is whether Iran will retaliate and then get hit even harder.

That Suleimani was a top-ranking Iranian military official visiting Iraq, where Iranian influence is both illegitimate and destabilising (As, I agree, were the consequences of the US-led coalition invasion and occupation of that country in 2003), does not add or detract one iota from the justification or legitimacy of killing the turd. Good riddance.

There are no doubt many people the world would be better off without (I know very little about Suleimani, so don't know if he falls into this category), but can you not see the manner of his removal is the problem here? That his removal by assassination is likely to escalate the situation and cause further violence, possibly on a very large scale? And has legitimised* the assassination of any US military personnel abroad? And what, anyway, is the likelihood that he'll be replaced by someone "better"?

* Not in a legal sense, but in that it would be no worse than what the USA has done.

Far too many commentators seem to be worried shitless that the killing of Suleimani might trigger a war, which seems to me to be missing the simple fact that Iran has been waging war against the US by act and by proxy for several years. Iran and it’s agents have never sought the cover of ‘legitimacy’ for their actions and no amount of targeted killing by the US will provide ‘legitimacy.’ Frankly I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Far better, in my view, that strikes are targeted at shits like Suleimani than that the use of sanctions is extended.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Far too many commentators seem to be worried shitless that the killing of Suleimani might trigger a war, which seems to me to be missing the simple fact that Iran has been waging war against the US by act and by proxy for several years. Iran and it’s agents have never sought the cover of ‘legitimacy’ for their actions and no amount of targeted killing by the US will provide ‘legitimacy.’ Frankly I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Far better, in my view, that strikes are targeted at shits like Suleimani than that the use of sanctions is extended.

And how comforting it is to have the nuanced presence of Donald J Trump to negotiate the situation. Nothing like broadcasting a casual threat of disproportionate response via twitter. I can appreciate the act is not without precedent, but the utter incompetence of the current act is indisputably unprecedented.

Tarzan was nuanced, christ Murray Mexted is more nuanced

Digby wrote:Tarzan was nuanced, christ Murray Mexted is more nuanced

Mexted has a far greater grasp of metaphor , albeit in a “Carry on Coming inside the first five” sort of a way.

The thing is...has Iran got anything to back their rhetoric up?

If they have, why haven't they done it?

If they haven't, it kinda plays into Trump's hands, as they can't do anything so Trump claims the win, and the patriots are happy.

If Iran do anything local, it's gonna be limited and unlikely to have any real effect, but still being open to retaliation from the US.

There's only one winner here.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

One winner?

Iran could spend the next few months shutting down air travel, then the banks, then emergency services, then...

We could lose whilst winning, worse we could lose whilst a fat orange man is claiming a win

morepork wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Far too many commentators seem to be worried shitless that the killing of Suleimani might trigger a war, which seems to me to be missing the simple fact that Iran has been waging war against the US by act and by proxy for several years. Iran and it’s agents have never sought the cover of ‘legitimacy’ for their actions and no amount of targeted killing by the US will provide ‘legitimacy.’ Frankly I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Far better, in my view, that strikes are targeted at shits like Suleimani than that the use of sanctions is extended.

And how comforting it is to have the nuanced presence of Donald J Trump to negotiate the situation. Nothing like broadcasting a casual threat of disproportionate response via twitter. I can appreciate the act is not without precedent, but the utter incompetence of the current act is indisputably unprecedented.

Nice to see that Trump is threatening to breach the Geneva Convention, International Humanitarian Law and even the US Department of Defence's own Law of War manual.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

morepork wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:Far too many commentators seem to be worried shitless that the killing of Suleimani might trigger a war, which seems to me to be missing the simple fact that Iran has been waging war against the US by act and by proxy for several years. Iran and it’s agents have never sought the cover of ‘legitimacy’ for their actions and no amount of targeted killing by the US will provide ‘legitimacy.’ Frankly I don’t see what all the fuss is about. Far better, in my view, that strikes are targeted at shits like Suleimani than that the use of sanctions is extended.

And how comforting it is to have the nuanced presence of Donald J Trump to negotiate the situation. Nothing like broadcasting a casual threat of disproportionate response via twitter. I can appreciate the act is not without precedent, but the utter incompetence of the current act is indisputably unprecedented.

Nice to see that Trump is threatening to breach the Geneva Convention, International Humanitarian Law and even the US Department of Defence's own Law of War manual.

Word.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

morepork wrote:He just oversaw the assassination of a foreign national of a country not at war with the USA that was in a country that the USA invaded and destroyed for no apparent reason.

Hmmm. Loathe the big aul orange hoore as I do, I have no qualms about the killing of Suleimani by the US. He was an active and extremely influential lynch-pin in numerous state-sanctioned operations that led to or were leading to attacks on American citizens and was, consequently, a perfectly legitimate target. His killing was no more nor less an act of war than any one of the many Iranian state-sanctioned attacks on Americans and the only uncertainty that it has raised is whether Iran will retaliate and then get hit even harder.

That Suleimani was a top-ranking Iranian military official visiting Iraq, where Iranian influence is both illegitimate and destabilising (As, I agree, were the consequences of the US-led coalition invasion and occupation of that country in 2003), does not add or detract one iota from the justification or legitimacy of killing the turd. Good riddance.

I've got issues with countries deciding to assassinate people as of a general principle - we're supposed to be the good guys, the ones who abide by the rules of law and international diplomacy and don't just off people we don't like - but that's almost by-the-by here. To misquote Macbeth, if it were to be done, then twere well it were done *quietly*. Who in their right mind murders a national hero and then sends out a press release crowing about it?! If he absolutely must die for the safety of the US, then send out their equivalent of the SAS and have it done without attention.

All the Donster has done here is prop up the Iranian government and promote a fervid spirit of anti-Americanism that'll last way beyond any influence Suleimani would have had on the region.

Puja

Who actually were the people killed, I've heard 7 people dead, is that accurate and who beyond the obvious were they?

Puja wrote:I've got issues with countries deciding to assassinate people as of a general principle - we're supposed to be the good guys, the ones who abide by the rules of law and international diplomacy and don't just off people we don't like - but that's almost by-the-by here. To misquote Macbeth, if it were to be done, then twere well it were done *quietly*. Who in their right mind murders a national hero and then sends out a press release crowing about it?! If he absolutely must die for the safety of the US, then send out their equivalent of the SAS and have it done without attention.

All the Donster has done here is prop up the Iranian government and promote a fervid spirit of anti-Americanism that'll last way beyond any influence Suleimani would have had on the region.

Puja

I absolutely agree that this should have been done without the crowing, indeed I would argue that to have achieved such a clinical strike, it would have had a far greater deterrent impact to have said nothing and merely left every bad bloke on the planet wondering when and from where their own RV with a reaper might arise. Trump is a twat, but by the same measure so too were most of his predecessors. Obama wasted little time going public on the killing of Bin Laden and while he was a little more reserved than the current eejit, the announcement generated similar levels of national gloat in the US and gave rise to a short-term threat that was considerably broader than that posed by a living Bin Laden. (It made for a good film, though)

I do not agree that there was any doubt as to the legitimacy of striking against an individual who was engaged in planning and conducting attacks against American citizens.

Digby wrote:Who actually were the people killed, I've heard 7 people dead, is that accurate and who beyond the obvious were they?

Two of those killed along with Suleimani were senior commanders of the al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbī, an umbrella group for several Iraqi state-sponsored and Iranian-backed militias. This highlights just how completely fecked-up the situation is in Iraq. On the one hand you have the legitimately constituted armed forces which continue to be trained by America (Training that is supported by around 400 UK troops), on the other you have an Iraqi government pouring funding into a group of Iranian-backed militias while, as yet, failing to take any effective steps to integrate them into the constituted armed forces. They remain an Iranian puppet army in Iraq and have been accused of a catalogue of sectarian war crimes against Sunnis.

One of those killed, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was the deputy commander of al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbī and was serving under a death sentence handed down by a Kuwaiti court for his involvement in a bombing campaign in the 1980s. He was elected to the interim government in Baghdad after Saddam was booted out, but legged it to Iran when the Americans found out who he was. He was one of the principal organisers of the attack on the US embassy on New Years Eve following the funerals of some of his Hez militiamen (Killed by American airstrikes in response to an attack in Kirkuk which killed one and wounded four Americans). It is interesting that during the disturbances, a graffiti was sprayed on the Embassy wall stating, "Suleimani is our leader."

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Digby wrote:Who actually were the people killed, I've heard 7 people dead, is that accurate and who beyond the obvious were they?

Two of those killed along with Suleimani were senior commanders of the al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbī, an umbrella group for several Iraqi state-sponsored and Iranian-backed militias. This highlights just how completely fecked-up the situation is in Iraq. On the one hand you have the legitimately constituted armed forces which continue to be trained by America (Training that is supported by around 400 UK troops), on the other you have an Iraqi government pouring funding into a group of Iranian-backed militias while, as yet, failing to take any effective steps to integrate them into the constituted armed forces. They remain an Iranian puppet army in Iraq and have been accused of a catalogue of sectarian war crimes against Sunnis.

One of those killed, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was the deputy commander of al-Ḥashd ash-Shaʿbī and was serving under a death sentence handed down by a Kuwaiti court for his involvement in a bombing campaign in the 1980s. He was elected to the interim government in Baghdad after Saddam was booted out, but legged it to Iran when the Americans found out who he was. He was one of the principal organisers of the attack on the US embassy on New Years Eve following the funerals of some of his Hez militiamen (Killed by American airstrikes in response to an attack in Kirkuk which killed one and wounded four Americans). It is interesting that during the disturbances, a graffiti was sprayed on the Embassy wall stating, "Suleimani is our leader."

Just the three to go then.

I'm broadly on the fence, though It would have been better for mine if they hadn't made the strike whilst Suleimanei was visiting a foreign sovereign nation and one that's some sort of ally. And I really think they should be talking to countries like the UK in advance, we could well be in the process of sending in extra ships/troops or moving assets to/around the ME and suddenly we're presented with a very different security outlook

Did Uncle Sam notify anyone prior to offing Bin Laden in Pakistan?

.

Mellsblue wrote:.

I love it...

Alexa, how many bottles of red did Mellsblue chug tonight?

Coco wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:.

I love it...

Alexa, how many bottles of red did Mellsblue chug tonight?

Dry January. So, sadly, none.

Digby wrote:Just the three to go then.

Four?

Two drivers and two close protection team.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

Digby wrote:Just the three to go then.

Four?

Two drivers and two close protection team.

Ah, I was counting the main man as the 4th of 7, this suggests it was Suleimani and 7 others

A fucking masterclass in rambling incoherence and poor decision making in the complete absence of strategy. Utter, utter incompetence for all the world to see. Just astoundingly bad, at everything.

Mikey Brown wrote:

That’ll end well.

I'm not sure I'll ever stop finding it fascinating to watch the people in the background of these videos. Who are they? Where did they come from? Surely it would be career suicide for any gigging actor to take a job doing this? Are they real?



Are these the people that really are having to run their dishwasher 10 times in a row? Flush their toilet 15 times? Who stand for hours and hours under a shower that is barely dripping? Is this a thing? I'm genuinely curious.

He is clearly connecting with these people on some level, the woman to the right of him for example clearly finds every single word he says hysterical, particularly "toilet" and "faucet".

United by bigotry Mikey boy. That's the only consistent narrative coming out of the government toilet at the moment. Only a very special snowflake could frame household water pressure as an example of an attack on the christian values of middle America by elitist overlords that sympathise more with foreign invaders than they do with the second amendment. They are under attack by their own shadows. It is literally that ridiculous. Both comical and absurdly terrifying at once.