Octopus Overlords

Reading up on Soleimani, it seems he basically was the second most important man in Iran after Khamenei. Some commenters say that this was not a procovation, but a declaration of war by the US.

I guess we'll now see whatever attacks Qasem Soleimani was supposedly planning come to fruition as his death is avenged.

Did they think there wasn't anyone else who could pull up his PowerPoint slides and carry out his plans?

Iraqis hate Iranian influence in their affairs and had been actively protesting against it. But that will take a backseat to US assassinations on Iraqi soil.

Daehawk wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:29 am Why is Iraq allowing Iranians in their country like this? And why is the crowd of protesters Iranian? Does Iran simply outright own Iraq after everything the US did to control it ?

abr wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 8:29 am Reading up on Soleimani, it seems he basically was the second most important man in Iran after Khamenei. Some commenters say that this was not a procovation, but a declaration of war by the US.

Indeed:

In killing General Suleimani, President Trump took an action that previous presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama had rejected, fearing it could end in catastrophe, destabilizing the region further and perhaps leading to all out war between the United States and Iran.

Fits within the narrative we've been hearing about for 3+ years - that he doesn't listen to advisors and just does what he wants.

“For 23 years, he has been the equivalent of the J.S.O.C. commander, the C.I.A. director and Iran’s real foreign minister,” Mr. Dubowitz said, using an acronym for the United States Joint Special Operations Command. “He is irreplaceable and indispensable” to Iran’s military establishment.

For those same reasons, other regional analysts warned, Iran is likely to respond with a intensity of dangerous proportions.

Hold on to your butts.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:51 am

Trump Thinks Attacking Iran Will Get Him Reelected. He’s Wrong.

Beginning in 2011, and continuing through the next year, Donald Trump began obsessively predicting that President Obama would start a war with Iran in order to be reelected. Trump stated it publicly, on at least a half-dozen occasions, explicitly positing that attacking Iran would help Obama win reelection.

Just like Trump’s notions that Obama would direct his attorney general whom to investigate or not, or pressure the Federal Reserve to loosen the money supply in order to help his party win the next election, Trump’s attacks on Obama were the purest form of projection. They reflect his cynical belief that every president will naturally abuse their powers, and thus provide a roadmap to his own intentions.

This makes the point that Trump has in many areas evidenced an assumption that all presidents corruptly abuse their power. So insofar as Trump accused Obama of planning to attack Iran to win reelection, it may well indicate that he believes that war with Iran would be beneficial to reelection, and so it's entirely reasonable that he now thinks that war with Iran is a good idea for that reason. Which is scary in terms of how this is likely to shake out, even leaving aside whatever Iran is going to do.

The good news, such as it is, is that the evidence that conflict with Iran would help Trump politically isn't all that strong. Though I worry a bit that an Iranian counter-attack, particularly if it took place on U.S. soil, could generate a positive political impact for Trump.

And he claims Bolton was too hawkish?

Jaymann wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:16 pm And he claims Bolton was too hawkish?

There is some irony in firing Bolton and *then* going to war with Iran. Must be painful for Bolton to watch from the sidelines.

But I do wonder whether this is part of Trump getting more worried about reelection over the past month or two, and trying (in his own stupid, reckless way) to find ways to boost his chances.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:12 pm


Trump Thinks Attacking Iran Will Get Him Reelected. He’s Wrong.

Not to trivialize, you know, war, but I do seriously wonder what this will do his "I don't like him but... [democrat bogeyman]" supporters. On their right hand Jesus! On their left hand, many of them have lived through war I haven't seen or am too young to remember. They have live their lives being war weary. My old man, as prime example, lobbied against his children and grand children even joining the military. He did everything in his blue collar financial power to keep us all from considering joining. While he was fond of the Kittyhawk, he wouldn't even talk about his actual service days until he was in 70s. I have (and have had) hosts of relatives and neighbors from youth who share that common culture.

And then there's friggen emboldened friggen assassination. Jesus. I.

Casus belli

Thucydides argued that the three primary real reasons for waging war are reasonable fear, honor, and interest, while the stated reasons involve appeals to nationalism or fearmongering (as opposed to descriptions of reasonable, empirical causes for fear).

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:39 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:12 pm


Trump Thinks Attacking Iran Will Get Him Reelected. He’s Wrong.

Not to trivialize, you know, war, but I do seriously wonder what this will do his "I don't like him but... [democrat bogeyman]" supporters. On their right hand Jesus! On their left hand, many of them have lived through war I haven't seen or am too young to remember. They have live their lives being war weary. My old man, as prime example, lobbied against his children and grand children even joining the military. He did everything in his blue collar financial power to keep us all from considering joining. While he was fond of the Kittyhawk, he wouldn't even talk about his actual service days until he was in 70s. I have (and have had) hosts of relatives and neighbors from youth who share that common culture.

And then there's friggen emboldened friggen assassination. Jesus. I.

It's hard to predict. On one hand there can be a "rally 'round the flag" effect. On the other hand the public is already weary of war in the Middle East, and so who is going to be excited about the prospect of another Middle Eastern war?

I think the most likely outcome, without material support from Democratic leaders, is that any Iranian conflict becomes just another partisan issue that mostly washes out. But Iranian reprisals, depending on their scope, could change that.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:39 pmI have (and have had) hosts of relatives and neighbors from youth who share that common culture.

I was in high school when Desert Storm kicked off and I kinda remember wondering if I would be compelled into service post-graduation. I would imagine my peers with kids of a certain age are wondering the same thing right now. That being said, I think the days of a ground-force invasion are long gone. Iran likely realizes they're going to need to be sneaky about how they respond. While they could certainly come up with some type of overt military action, I'd think they could make a bigger point by screwing with regional oil (theirs) and covertly sabotaging our refineries. Driving up home-heating oil prices in the winter along with what would happen at the pump would likely be more impactful, IMHO. I guess we'll see.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:12 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:39 pmI have (and have had) hosts of relatives and neighbors from youth who share that common culture.

I was in high school when Desert Storm kicked off and I kinda remember wondering if I would be compelled into service post-graduation. I would imagine my peers with kids of a certain age are wondering the same thing right now. That being said, I think the days of a ground-force invasion are long gone. Iran likely realizes they're going to need to be sneaky about how they respond. While they could certainly come up with some type of overt military action, I'd think they could make a bigger point by screwing with regional oil (theirs) and covertly sabotaging our refineries. Driving up home-heating oil prices in the winter along with what would happen at the pump would likely be more impactful, IMHO. I guess we'll see.

This is also going to depend on the Iranian government's assessment of its domestic political situation as well. The Iranian government is probably more worried about its own people than about the U.S. military at this point. I suspect that they're going to feel like they need to do *something* public in reprisal, not just covert deniable counter-measures. Where they land on what the right mix of responses is...who knows.

I feel like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ is the official emoji of the Trump administration. So much of what he's done results in everyone looking around and wondering what's going to happen. Every day for the last 3+ years has him taking us further and further into uncharted waters.

No question. We are now the baddies.

Assassinating foreign leaders takes us down a path that will be filled with unintended consequences.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:12 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:39 pmI have (and have had) hosts of relatives and neighbors from youth who share that common culture.

I was in high school when Desert Storm kicked off and I kinda remember wondering if I would be compelled into service post-graduation. I would imagine my peers with kids of a certain age are wondering the same thing right now. That being said, I think the days of a ground-force invasion are long gone. Iran likely realizes they're going to need to be sneaky about how they respond. While they could certainly come up with some type of overt military action, I'd think they could make a bigger point by screwing with regional oil (theirs) and covertly sabotaging our refineries. Driving up home-heating oil prices in the winter along with what would happen at the pump would likely be more impactful, IMHO. I guess we'll see.

Yeah, this definitely won't result in a conventional war.

They'll sink a few tankers and we'll launch a few airstrikes. Probably we'll destroy their above-ground nuclear facilities, although the important ones are probably unreachable. Any ground fighting will be inside Iraq between Iraqi forces and Iran-allied militias.

There will be some back and forth until it settles into some semi-stable condition that somehow benefits Vladimir Putin.

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:43 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:12 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:39 pmI have (and have had) hosts of relatives and neighbors from youth who share that common culture.

I was in high school when Desert Storm kicked off and I kinda remember wondering if I would be compelled into service post-graduation. I would imagine my peers with kids of a certain age are wondering the same thing right now. That being said, I think the days of a ground-force invasion are long gone. Iran likely realizes they're going to need to be sneaky about how they respond. While they could certainly come up with some type of overt military action, I'd think they could make a bigger point by screwing with regional oil (theirs) and covertly sabotaging our refineries. Driving up home-heating oil prices in the winter along with what would happen at the pump would likely be more impactful, IMHO. I guess we'll see.

Yeah, this definitely won't result in a conventional war.

They'll sink a few tankers and we'll launch a few airstrikes. Probably we'll destroy their above-ground nuclear facilities, although the important ones are probably unreachable. Any ground fighting will be inside Iraq between Iraqi forces and Iran-allied militias.

There will be some back and forth until it settles into some semi-stable condition that somehow benefits Vladimir Putin.

They'll hit soft targets in the Middle East. Possibly even Europe. They can't fight a symeteical war with the US and everyone knows that.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:42 pm No question. We are now the baddies.

Assassinating foreign leaders takes us down a path that will be filled with unintended consequences.

I get what you’re saying, but this is wrong on many levels.

Suleimani was a very bad actor, responsible for many terrorist attacks including the recent attack on a U.S. base in Iraq that killed an American contractor and injured others.

We are also making a lot of assumptions about the motives behind taking this action now. We don’t know what operational plans Suleimani was working on or when they were about to come to fruition. A number of analysts have opined that something big must have been in the offing and the decision was made that taking out Suleimani was the best way to disrupt those plans:

Norman Roule, now retired, tracked Iran through his career with the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. He told NPR's All Things Considered the death of Soleimani was significant.

"You can expect seismic waves to go through the Shia communities of Lebanon, Iraq and Iran," Roule said. "You can expect that the Iranians and the Iraqi militia groups will certainly seek some sort of retribution."

Roule called Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was also killed, Soleimani's "senior-most lieutenant in the Iraqi military architecture."

Roule said he believed the U.S. would not have carried out the strikes unless "a significant terrorist attack was underway or about to be undertaken by these individuals and if neutralizing these individuals would prevent that."

There’s an argument to be made that Iran needs to be confronted before it becomes an even more destabilizing force in the Middle East.

Of course, Trump does not have the knowledge or temperament to wisely navigate in these troubled waters. He also has great incentive to distract from his impeachment troubles with a foreign crisis of some kind.

But that doesn’t make us “the baddies.”

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:00 pm We are also making a lot of assumptions about the motives behind taking this action now. We don’t know what operational plans Suleimani was working on or when they were about to come to fruition. A number of analysts have opined that something big must have been in the offing and the decision was made that taking out Suleimani was the best way to disrupt those plans:

At least we know we can always trust Republicans to be honest and judicious in launching middle-eastern wars based on secret threats and secret evidence that they know about secretly.

And Trump has already retweeted the suggestion that Democrats are allied with Iran...

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:00 pm

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:42 pm No question. We are now the baddies.

Assassinating foreign leaders takes us down a path that will be filled with unintended consequences.

I get what you’re saying, but this is wrong on many levels.

Suleimani was a very bad actor, responsible for many terrorist attacks including the recent attack on a U.S. base in Iraq that killed an American contractor and injured others.

We are also making a lot of assumptions about the motives behind taking this action now. We don’t know what operational plans Suleimani was working on or when they were about to come to fruition. A number of analysts have opined that something big must have been in the offing and the decision was made that taking out Suleimani was the best way to disrupt those plans:

Norman Roule, now retired, tracked Iran through his career with the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. He told NPR's All Things Considered the death of Soleimani was significant.

"You can expect seismic waves to go through the Shia communities of Lebanon, Iraq and Iran," Roule said. "You can expect that the Iranians and the Iraqi militia groups will certainly seek some sort of retribution."

Roule called Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was also killed, Soleimani's "senior-most lieutenant in the Iraqi military architecture."

Roule said he believed the U.S. would not have carried out the strikes unless "a significant terrorist attack was underway or about to be undertaken by these individuals and if neutralizing these individuals would prevent that."

There’s an argument to be made that Iran needs to be confronted before it becomes an even more destabilizing force in the Middle East.

Of course, Trump does not have the knowledge or temperament to wisely navigate in these troubled waters. He also has great incentive to distract from his impeachment troubles with a foreign crisis of some kind.

But that doesn’t make us “the baddies.”

Yeah, the big picture on this is a little complicated. Suleimani was undeniably a very bad actor, and had been involved in very bad acts (including arguable acts of war against the U.S.). He may well have been involved in planning future such attacks. Deciding to take him out is necessarily risky, but not necessarily the wrong decision.

But part of the rot of the Trump administration is that Trump has long since forfeited any presumption of competence or honest dealings. If this were coming out of essentially any other administration (including the GWB administration) I'd be considerably less skeptical. But I have less than zero faith than the decision to do this was made by the books.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:11 pmBut part of the rot of the Trump administration is that Trump has long since forfeited any presumption of competence or honest dealings. If this were coming out of essentially any other administration (including the GWB administration) I'd be considerably less skeptical. But I have less than zero faith than the decision to do this was made by the books.

Why so skeptical? Senator Graham just said they talked about it over golf. What's the BFD?

I wonder if Graham allows Trump a "gimmie" from 45 yards out.

Iran is part of the folks who do shit stuff then when they get some payback they bitch to high heaven about it then want to strike back...when they are the assholes to start with. Its why I got sick of the Palestinians. They fire rockets or something then when they got smacked they'd cry foul and plead to sympathy against the horrible people who smacked them.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:11 pm But part of the rot of the Trump administration is that Trump has long since forfeited any presumption of competence or honest dealings. If this were coming out of essentially any other administration (including the GWB administration) I'd be considerably less skeptical. But I have less than zero faith than the decision to do this was made by the books.

Look at that, we see eye to eye. How often does that happen? Right down to the GWB administration, wherein I was publicly very skeptical. And the only reason I had to be skeptical of his administration was the I never accepted the RM9 argument of "top men working on it" to along side the fact that I already disagreed with Clinton re-opening Iraqi strikes after Bush the Elder declared a weird sort of victory in nothing wherein it was revealed I would never understand the goals of the war while also abandoning the Kurds.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:15 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:11 pmBut part of the rot of the Trump administration is that Trump has long since forfeited any presumption of competence or honest dealings. If this were coming out of essentially any other administration (including the GWB administration) I'd be considerably less skeptical. But I have less than zero faith than the decision to do this was made by the books.

Why so skeptical? Senator Graham just said they talked about it over golf. What's the BFD?

Nothing says get ready for terrorist reprisal like that headline.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:11 pm
It's hard to predict. On one hand there can be a "rally 'round the flag" effect. On the other hand the public is already weary of war in the Middle East, and so who is going to be excited about the prospect of another Middle Eastern war?

The same idiots that were tired of war when we left the Kurds in Syria will now be energized by a conflict with Iran.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:12 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:39 pmI have (and have had) hosts of relatives and neighbors from youth who share that common culture.

I was in high school when Desert Storm kicked off and I kinda remember wondering if I would be compelled into service post-graduation. I would imagine my peers with kids of a certain age are wondering the same thing right now. That being said, I think the days of a ground-force invasion are long gone. Iran likely realizes they're going to need to be sneaky about how they respond. While they could certainly come up with some type of overt military action, I'd think they could make a bigger point by screwing with regional oil (theirs) and covertly sabotaging our refineries. Driving up home-heating oil prices in the winter along with what would happen at the pump would likely be more impactful, IMHO. I guess we'll see.

Since we've basically no room left for sanctions tightening, I'm worried about what our reprisal to their reprisal will be.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:42 pm No question. We are now the baddies.

Assassinating foreign leaders takes us down a path that will be filled with unintended consequences.

I'm not convinced they're all unintended.

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:31 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:12 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:39 pmI have (and have had) hosts of relatives and neighbors from youth who share that common culture.

I was in high school when Desert Storm kicked off and I kinda remember wondering if I would be compelled into service post-graduation. I would imagine my peers with kids of a certain age are wondering the same thing right now. That being said, I think the days of a ground-force invasion are long gone. Iran likely realizes they're going to need to be sneaky about how they respond. While they could certainly come up with some type of overt military action, I'd think they could make a bigger point by screwing with regional oil (theirs) and covertly sabotaging our refineries. Driving up home-heating oil prices in the winter along with what would happen at the pump would likely be more impactful, IMHO. I guess we'll see.

Since we've basically no room left for sanctions tightening, I'm worried about what our reprisal to their reprisal will be.

I'm also worried about the possibility that Trump *wants* a war with Iran now for political reasons, and won't be satisfied unless and until he provokes Iran into armed conflict.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:33 pm

Alefroth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:31 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:12 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:39 pmI have (and have had) hosts of relatives and neighbors from youth who share that common culture.

I was in high school when Desert Storm kicked off and I kinda remember wondering if I would be compelled into service post-graduation. I would imagine my peers with kids of a certain age are wondering the same thing right now. That being said, I think the days of a ground-force invasion are long gone. Iran likely realizes they're going to need to be sneaky about how they respond. While they could certainly come up with some type of overt military action, I'd think they could make a bigger point by screwing with regional oil (theirs) and covertly sabotaging our refineries. Driving up home-heating oil prices in the winter along with what would happen at the pump would likely be more impactful, IMHO. I guess we'll see.

Since we've basically no room left for sanctions tightening, I'm worried about what our reprisal to their reprisal will be.

I'm also worried about the possibility that Trump *wants* a war with Iran now for political reasons, and won't be satisfied unless and until he provokes Iran into armed conflict.

I also think wanting a bigger trophy than OBL is part of it.

Granted, I had never heard the guy's name before this morning, but it's been fascinating to watch the legend of Soleimani's villainy grow throughout the day in conservative circles.

- It started with Trump taking out an Iranian general who was second in command
- Then he may have been planning attacks on US troops
- Then he was responsible for hundreds of US troop deaths
- Then he had killed thousands of civilians
- Then he was responsible for thousands of US troop deaths
- Then he was planning a major civilian strike on US soil

I have seen each of these posted on social media throughout the day, each one more embellished than the last. By tonight, I expect that Soleimani will have personally coordinated a nuclear strike, multiple genocides, and a worldwide puppy-kicking cabal.

None of this is to say he wasn't a bad dude, as I'm fully certain he was. But the growing level of hyperbole seems to be a bit...excessive.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 12:12 pmit may well indicate that he believes that war with Iran would be beneficial to reelection

I don't think that's his angle, I think he's calling Iran's bluff. Consider the possible outcomes:
1. Iran ultimately doesn't do much of anything= Trump looks strong, wins election
2. Iran does some destructive but pointless things, then the US retaliates even harder= Trump looks strong, wins election
3. Iran does something which rocks the US, then the US retaliates even harder= Trump looks strong, wins election
4. Iran does something which rocks the US but for some reason we can't do anything bigger in retaliation= Trump looks bad and loses the election

He had the odds in his favor. Outcome #4 is definitely possible but I can't imagine what it would be. This guy they killed was high ranking, some random terrorist bombings in retaliation aren't going to hurt Trump's re-election campaign. Iran is in a sticky situation. They need to go big or go home, and either way they will suffer some blowback. UNLESS they have some capabilities which people don't know about, then things will get interesting.

Kurth wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 2:00 pm

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:42 pm No question. We are now the baddies.

Assassinating foreign leaders takes us down a path that will be filled with unintended consequences.

I get what you’re saying, but this is wrong on many levels.

Suleimani was a very bad actor, responsible for many terrorist attacks including the recent attack on a U.S. base in Iraq that killed an American contractor and injured others.

He was not a good person but sorry to say but American contractors get killed *all the time* in Iraq and Afghanistan. It isn't justification for assassination. We have in the past stooped to assassination but never someone so prominent and never openly. This was essentially a 'dick swinging' move by this shambles of a President. He is a lawless thug and again this is another case of irreparable damage to our nation's prestige. Our allies are almost assuredly scrambling if not outright in a panic right now. We've made of mess of the middle east and this guy just kicked the hornets nest through his complete and utter recklessness. He just put American lives at risk everywhere.

We are also making a lot of assumptions about the motives behind taking this action now. We don’t know what operational plans Suleimani was working on or when they were about to come to fruition. A number of analysts have opined that something big must have been in the offing and the decision was made that taking out Suleimani was the best way to disrupt those plans:

Norman Roule, now retired, tracked Iran through his career with the CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. He told NPR's All Things Considered the death of Soleimani was significant.

"You can expect seismic waves to go through the Shia communities of Lebanon, Iraq and Iran," Roule said. "You can expect that the Iranians and the Iraqi militia groups will certainly seek some sort of retribution."

Roule called Iraqi militia commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, who was also killed, Soleimani's "senior-most lieutenant in the Iraqi military architecture."

Roule said he believed the U.S. would not have carried out the strikes unless "a significant terrorist attack was underway or about to be undertaken by these individuals and if neutralizing these individuals would prevent that."

Oh this is weapon's grade horseshit. The only way to disrupt an attack was to take out the number 2 guy in Iran? Bullshit. Bullshit on bullshit. It invites escalation. It isn't proportional. It is insane.

There’s an argument to be made that Iran needs to be confronted before it becomes an even more destabilizing force in the Middle East.

Of course, Trump does not have the knowledge or temperament to wisely navigate in these troubled waters. He also has great incentive to distract from his impeachment troubles with a foreign crisis of some kind.

But that doesn’t make us “the baddies.”

It absolutely does and again here we see people telling us to believe the 'very serious people' when the last 20 years have shown that they are wrong *over and over* again. We created this shit show. We maintain it and de-escalate and re-escalate it randomly. We aren't a force for good anymore. We are definitely the baddies. Get used to that fact. The lights have been turned off in the shining city on the hill.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:43 pm Granted, I had never heard the guy's name before this morning, but it's been fascinating to watch the legend of Soleimani's villainy grow throughout the day in conservative circles.

- It started with Trump taking out an Iranian general who was second in command
- Then he may have been planning attacks on US troops
- Then he was responsible for hundreds of US troop deaths
- Then he had killed thousands of civilians
- Then he was responsible for thousands of US troop deaths
- Then he was planning a major civilian strike on US soil

I have seen each of these posted on social media throughout the day, each one more embellished than the last. By tonight, I expect that Soleimani will have personally coordinated a nuclear strike, multiple genocides, and a worldwide puppy-kicking cabal.

None of this is to say he wasn't a bad dude, as I'm fully certain he was. But the growing level of hyperbole seems to be a bit...excessive.

This is why I'm intensely dubious about the whole affair. You don't run a regime like Iran if you're a decent person but this is cartoonish. It reminds me of all the other times GOP leadership has lied to us over the last 20 years.

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:43 pm Granted, I had never heard the guy's name before this morning, but it's been fascinating to watch the legend of Soleimani's villainy grow throughout the day in conservative circles.

- It started with Trump taking out an Iranian general who was second in command
- Then he may have been planning attacks on US troops
- Then he was responsible for hundreds of US troop deaths
- Then he had killed thousands of civilians
- Then he was responsible for thousands of US troop deaths
- Then he was planning a major civilian strike on US soil

I have seen each of these posted on social media throughout the day, each one more embellished than the last. By tonight, I expect that Soleimani will have personally coordinated a nuclear strike, multiple genocides, and a worldwide puppy-kicking cabal.

None of this is to say he wasn't a bad dude, as I'm fully certain he was. But the growing level of hyperbole seems to be a bit...excessive.

Someone on Twitter did searches on all the politicos and pundits calling Soleimani the WORLD'S BIGGEST BAD GUY etc.

Not a single one of them had ever mentioned him before today.

Reuters, 10/3/19

A senior Iranian official said on Thursday that Tehran had foiled a plot by Israeli and Arab agencies to assassinate Major-General Qassem Soleimani, head of the elite Quds Force.

State media quoted Hossein Taeb, the Revolutionary Guards security chief, as telling a conference that the plotters had planned to buy a property adjacent to the grave of Soleimani’s father and rig it with explosives to kill the commander.
...
Taeb said an unspecified number of people had been arrested in the plot, which he said had been “years in planning”.
...
It was not possible to independently verify the events described by Iranian media.

Plots within plots...

Holman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 5:31 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:43 pm Granted, I had never heard the guy's name before this morning, but it's been fascinating to watch the legend of Soleimani's villainy grow throughout the day in conservative circles.

- It started with Trump taking out an Iranian general who was second in command
- Then he may have been planning attacks on US troops
- Then he was responsible for hundreds of US troop deaths
- Then he had killed thousands of civilians
- Then he was responsible for thousands of US troop deaths
- Then he was planning a major civilian strike on US soil

I have seen each of these posted on social media throughout the day, each one more embellished than the last. By tonight, I expect that Soleimani will have personally coordinated a nuclear strike, multiple genocides, and a worldwide puppy-kicking cabal.

None of this is to say he wasn't a bad dude, as I'm fully certain he was. But the growing level of hyperbole seems to be a bit...excessive.

Someone on Twitter did searches on all the politicos and pundits calling Soleimani the WORLD'S BIGGEST BAD GUY etc.

Not a single one of them had ever mentioned him before today.

Wow, he was a Voldemort level bad guy.

Zarathud wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 1:42 pm No question. We are now the baddies.

Assassinating foreign leaders takes us down a path that will be filled with unintended consequences.

You've been the baddies for a while. Trump merely doesn't care to hide it.

It's not that the Irani general wasn't a bad guy - it's that the consequence of murdering, and openly admitting to and bragging about murdering (not assassinating, since assassinations usually infer obfuscation of who and why) such a person is potentially so extreme that it's just not a risk that is reasonable to take. This is not some random terrorist leader of some rebel ISIS cell or something - it is literally one of the highest officials of a sovereign nation. And your administration isn't even trying to deny they intended to do just this - quite the contrary. Which means they're goading Iran into war.

Would you consider an Iranian-backed plot to kill one of your generals as anything other than a war declaration? Imagine if the Ayatollah bragged about it openly after the fact?

And for those of you who think Iran can't hurt the USA, you do realize Iran is allied to Russia?

My facebook feed indicates that Americans are rushing to gas stations because prices went up 25 cents overnight.

When the Germans think you're the big bad, you need to do a little soul-searching.

Asked to rank the greatest threat to world peace between Trump, Kim, Putin, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Chinese President Xi Jinping, 41 percent named Trump, compared to Kim at 17 percent, Khamenei and Putin at 8 percent and Xi at 7 percent.

Pollsters surveyed 2,000 Germans for the poll between Dec. 16 and 18.

Germans know from bad guys.

I was trying to draw an analogy to assassinating a US figure, and couldn't come up with a comparable #2. Certainly not the non-entity Pence...Moscow Mitch? Kushner? Giuliani?

Kraken wrote: ↑Fri Jan 03, 2020 6:22 pm
Germans know from bad guys.

I was trying to draw an analogy to assassinating a US figure, and couldn't come up with a comparable #2. Certainly not the non-entity Pence...Moscow Mitch? Kushner? Giuliani?

I would think it would be the rough equivalent of assassinating Mike Pompeo, or possibly the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. They're not equivalent figures in terms of conduct, but in terms of importance in governing structure.