Current Events > Iranian general killed by U.S. airstrike on Baghdad

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://youtu.be/Hyfk9qSt-p8

---

REMercsChamp posted...

Saudi Arabia is a US ally

and this^

billman1000 posted...

From Trump just now

General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more...but got caught! He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people, including the recent large number of PROTESTERS killed in Iran itself. While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country. They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago!

Because Trump is such a trustworthy source and has never lied.


---

REMercsChamp posted...

Saudi Arabia is a US ally

That harbors terrorists that attack the U.S.

soleimani was a bad man and the author of many people's ethnic cleansing

assassinating him was illegal, contrary to US interests, contrary to stability in the region, will cost many more american lives in reprisal, and could lead us to war with iran

don't be a sheep

---

lolife67 posted...

That harbors terrorists that attack the U.S.

US ally that props up islamist madrassas across the world, funded ISIS against Iran, denies its people basic human rights and political freedoms, and assassinated Jamal Khashoggi and had him cut into pieces and chemically dissolved

cool story bro

---

Motherfucker started a war

---

billman1000 posted...

They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe.

And here's the gaslighting part.

whitelytning posted...

In general I don't really have an issue with the US taking action against the spread of Iranian influence so long as it is justified. I think we should all wait for more information or an explanation from the white house about what happened or why the strike happened when it did before judging it. Making any statement about the merits of it at this point seems foolish.

Posts like this are what I'm talking about:

You have no knowledge, one way or the other, if it was pointless.

Laugh my motherfucking sctrotum off. Imagine trusting anything the white house has to say with dickless donald in it...
---

billman1000 posted...

From Trump just now

?General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more...but got caught! He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people, including the recent large number of PROTESTERS killed in Iran itself. While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country. They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago!?

So basically what you're saying is that the exact opposite of all of that is true.
---

It's sad how quickly Trunp supporters are saying this is a good thing and the US needs to intervene in more foreign affairs. I thought they wanted Trump elected because he wasn't going to get us involved in more foreign conflicts

---

Machete posted...

Laugh my motherfucking sctrotum off. Imagine trusting anything the white house has to say with dickless donald in it...

I don't really disagree that much with you on that. It's the biggest problem with Trump. He is a liar and his administration cannot be trusted to tell the truth or provide anything close to it even when we need them too but that may end up being a bad thing for him.

However, I still think it's worth waiting to hear what the response is. Maybe there will be actual information for the first time?

IMO the politicized nature of every event is a bad thing. Does Trump get the benefit of the doubt? No, he lost that. But the reality is that there are bad things going on around the world. Iran is not a friend and has bad intentions for the US and it's allies. As an American I'm going to give my nation (not Trump) the benefit of the doubt and not jump to an uninformed politically based opinion about a military act because I personally don't like the president.

---

whitelytning posted...

. As an American I'm going to give my nation (not Trump) the benefit of the doubt and not jump to an uninformed politically based opinion

Giving the US government the benefit of the doubt on issues of war is an uninformed, politically based opinion. And more importantly, it's a bad idea.
---

Antifar posted...

Giving the US government the benefit of the doubt on issues of war is an uninformed, politically based opinion. And more importantly, it's a bad idea.

How? It has nothing to do with my party affiliation or the guy in charge.

---

whitelytning posted...

How? It has nothing to do with my party affiliation.

Political and partisan are two different words that mean two different things.
---

whitelytning posted...

I don't really disagree that much with you on that. It's the biggest problem with Trump. He is a liar and his administration cannot be trusted to tell the truth or provide anything close to it even when we need them too but that may end up being a bad thing for him.

However, I still think it's worth waiting to hear what the response is. Maybe there will be actual information for the first time?

IMO the politicized nature of every event is a bad thing. Does Trump get the benefit of the doubt? No, he lost that. But the reality is that there are bad things going on around the world. Iran is not a friend and has bad intentions for the US and it's allies. As an American I'm going to give my nation (not Trump) the benefit of the doubt and not jump to an uninformed politically based opinion about a military act because I personally don't like the president.

That's like saying "well maybe if I shoot myself in the dick 999 times, the thousandth shot will make it grow several extra inches"
---

Antifar posted...

Giving the US government the benefit of the doubt on issues of war is an uninformed, politically based opinion. And more importantly, it's a bad idea.

Let's break this down even further:

Uninformed -- what's more uninformed? Jumping to a conclusion about a military action based solely on ones party affiliation or feelings about a politician or waiting for information to come out before assuming the worst?

Politically based -- I don't really see how partisan v. Political has any relevance here or to the point I was making.

Bad idea -- again, I just don't agree. Waiting for information before forming an opinion seems like the better idea for me. Not sure how it makes sense to do the opposite.

The government took action in a foreign country. Until there is a reason to suggest they did something wrong (which they absolutely could have done) I'm going to understand that it happened for a purpose that supports the continued success of the country. Thinking the opposite seems like the more dangerous position to me.


---

whitelytning posted...

The government took action in a foreign country. Until there is a reason to suggest they did something wrong (which they absolutely could have done) I'm going to understand that it happened for a purpose that supports the continued success of the country.

This is a really bad default position to have with regards to the US military. What you're describing is not a neutral waiting for the facts, but a reflexive support.
---

whitelytning posted...

Until there is a reason to suggest they did something wrong (which they absolutely could have done) I'm going to understand that it happened for a purpose that supports the continued success of the country.

Why is this sentence implying it couldn't be both
---

Antifar posted...

This is a really bad default position to have with regards to the US military. What you're describing is not a neutral waiting for the facts, but a reflexive support.

Its not neutral because my default is a belief in the U.S. system of government (not the current president). As the constitution says, the gov exists to serve the people and the most basic of all functions of service is protection from external threats. When actions are taken abroad by my nation, it is completely rational to understand that those actions are taken to serve my need for security. I could be wrong and I am in no way saying the US always acts only for that purpose but until I know more I'm not going to assume the worst bases on my own hatred for the president as others are doing.

---

The US has lied about WMDs in Iraq to justify going to war with Iraq. There's not really a good reason to trust that the US government will tell the truth when it comes to justifying launching missiles.

---

whitelytning posted...

I could be wrong and I am in no way saying the US always acts only for that purpose but until I know more I'm not going to assume the worst bases on my own hatred for the president as others are doing.

It's got nothing to do with the current president; the US has a decades-long track record of poor decision making abroad, to put it mildly.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

How old are you? Because this is very naive.

Exactly. Govt has been on a dark path since they killed JFK. They do not support the people.

---

This isn't going to lead to WW3, but I would expect Iranian pressure on and around Iraq and Israel to significantly ratchet up. They can do way more damage for way less risk by giving Hezbollah better weapons versus a direct strike on US troops. Lobbying hard to ally with Iraq to force the US out of the country is another possibility that would have significant regional consequences. I would also expect to see more actions in the strait to disrupt shipping routes.

The bigger problem is that the US has killed any ability it has to justify the attack. Showing evidence doesn't mean much post-Bush, they didn't coordinate with allies prior to the strike so nobody can say "yea, we saw the intel too and believe it". There's really no objective way for the government to provide sufficient evidence to justify the strike (as they're claiming it was necessary to prevent an imminent attack) to convince people it was a proper response.

---

Big failure of our society that we didn't shame pro-Iraq war pundits out of work

https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1213140433292988418
---

The incels: "Ignorance is strength! War is peace! Trump is God!"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50980704

---

Get ready for another war people. Possibly WWIII.

---

Antifar posted...

Big failure of our society that we didn't shame pro-Iraq war pundits out of work

https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1213140433292988418

well shit

---

ehhwhatever posted...

Get ready for another war people. Possibly WWIII.

I don't think this will be world war 3. It could happen. But instead I think we're going to see unconventional warfare instead. Like what we've seen the whole time we've been in the middle East. But on a different level. Probably even attacks again in the United States. Not large-scale like 9/11. But their goal now is going to be doing what they're good at which is small-scale terrorist attacks.

Like others have said I don't think they would want to risk large-scale warfare. And in some ways that is good. But in other ways it means a lot more innocent people are going to be hurt or killed in retaliation. Which is actually a lot more effective than conventional warfare anyway in a lot of ways

---

Get ready for more terrorist attacks. Didn't have to worry about those in a while. We got crazy people shooting schools and crazy ass terrorist blowing everything up. Happy New Year!

Antifar posted...

Big failure of our society that we didn't shame pro-Iraq war pundits out of work

https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1213140433292988418

People should really learn. How many examples do we need that destabilizing a region makes things less peaceful?

---

uwnim posted...

People should really learn. How many examples do we need that destabilizing a region makes things less peaceful?

They dont actually think that it helps

they are warmongers who benefit from the destabilization, and just write this stuff to convince stupid people to support them

---

Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?

---

Terrorist attacks won't bring him back alive.

---

hopefully this is added to the pile of illegal shit trump is held accountable for by the voters

---

billman1000 posted...

From Trump just now

General Qassem Soleimani has killed or badly wounded thousands of Americans over an extended period of time, and was plotting to kill many more...but got caught! He was directly and indirectly responsible for the death of millions of people, including the recent large number of PROTESTERS killed in Iran itself. While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country. They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago!

But Mr. President, did he die like a dog??

---

Tmaster148 posted...

Because Trump is such a trustworthy source and has never lied.

I mean, this guy *was* blacklisted by multiple governments/organizations and it's pretty well known that his military unit was responsible for training rebel groups with opposing interests to the US and US-backed forces.

---

I recall a lot of trump supporters justifying their vote because Hillary would be the war hawk or start WW3.

Yet here we are.

---

https://twitter.com/SamuelvPraneeth/status/1213178564763369473

Huh
---

good

fuck that guy

---

how dare trump kill a terrorist responsible for hundreds of american deaths!

---