nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

ancapailldorcha

This thread is a continuation of the megathreads for discussing the presidency of Donald Trump and any matters which relate to this.

Please keep discussion civil and constructive and bear the charter in mind before posting.

Update 16/5/20:

Threadbanned users:

Outlaw Pete
everlast75
mcmoustache
BonnieSituation

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

osarusan

I think it's a real stretch to try and pin the downing of the flight on anything other than Iranian failure.

StringerBell

osarusan wrote: »

I think it's a real stretch to try and pin the downing of the flight on anything other than Iranian failure.

Of course, when you treat the incident as if it happened in a vacuum. The thing is, nothing actually happens in a vacuum.

osarusan

StringerBell wrote: »

Of course, when you treat the incident as if it happened in a vacuum. The thing is, nothing actually happens in a vacuum.

Even within the context of heightened tensions caused by the assassination and subsequent retaliation, I think it's a real stretch.

StringerBell

osarusan wrote: »

Even within the context of heightened tensions caused by the assassination and subsequent retaliation, I think it's a real stretch.

I'm ok with that. I draw a different conclusion but accept that yours is not an unreasonable position to hold.

I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that without the action of the Trump administration this plane would have made its journey unmolested as it has done 5 days a week up to that night.

AbusesToilets

It's hard to look at the last weeks actions and not see it as a win from Trump's perspective. Killed a top enemy of the US, Iran snookered themselves, increases the likelihood of US troops being made to leave Iraq. Seems he's managed to blunder his way into a beneficial situation for himself fairly handily. He can stand on a stance of taking decisive action, possibly fulfill a promise to bring troops home, and weakened the US's biggest rival in the region.

Yay

osarusan

Yeah, the US managed to assassinate a leading figure in the Iranian military, and the retaliation cost no loss of life, just some damage to a base, and they get to impose sanctions with widespread support/acceptance.

The downed flight is a different tangent but a huge Iranian own goal, just when they might have felt that they had saved face to a degree.

People have mentioned Iran playing the 'long game' and cyberwarfare and proxies but I'm not sure there is too much to that.

Not sure they want their troops to be leaving Iraq anytime soon though.

Christy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's hard to look at the last weeks actions and not see it as a win from Trump's perspective. Killed a top enemy of the US, Iran snookered themselves, increases the likelihood of US troops being made to leave Iraq. Seems he's managed to blunder his way into a beneficial situation for himself fairly handily. He can stand on a stance of taking decisive action, possibly fulfill a promise to bring troops home, and weakened the US's biggest rival in the region.

Yay

I think openly advocating that the US should commit war crimes could come back to haunt him.

I mean I get the US has been involved in dodgy dealings for a while in that area but an official presidential statement advocating that US should commit war crimes is something new.

duploelabs

osarusan wrote: »

Yeah, the US managed to assassinate a leading figure in the Iranian military, and the retaliation cost no loss of life, just some damage to a base, and they get to impose sanctions with widespread support/acceptance.

The downed flight is a different tangent but a huge Iranian own goal, just when they might have felt that they had saved face to a degree.

People have mentioned Iran playing the 'long game' and cyberwarfare and proxies but I'm not sure there is too much to that.

Not sure they want their troops to be leaving Iraq anytime soon though.

To think that the matter of assassination and the resulting response from Iran is closed, is very naive. The purpose of sanctions was to turn the people against the ruling party to affect regime change, and it was working. But the assassination unified the nation of Iran behind its government, undoing years upon years of sanctions

26000 Elephants

Stallingrad wrote: »

The Iranians were probably primed for a response to their missiles being launched and someone just made a tragic mistake firing on a civilian target.

They must have been watching Hannity on Fox News at the time - he said the US had B-52' bombers heading to 'the region' during a screed hinting at an all out attack on Iran.

What did Woody Allen say about life imitating bad TV?

I think the US' decent to full blown terrorist state along with Iran and the rest is nearly complete. They are all the same now, with no regard to international law or decency.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1215642262748659714?s=19

Almost like a quid pro quo, if you will....

eire4

duploelabs wrote: »

Not to trivialise it, but it's nothing more than a wag the dog scenario. The Trump administration is still yet to publish any evidence of the immediate threat of war to warrant the hit of Sulimani, and any response from him is to 'trust the intelligence departments. The same intelligence divisions that he's constantly derided when they conflicted with his' cultured' World view

From anything I have seen that is because there was no evidence to justify the US assassination. Even a couple of Republicans basically admitted as much yesterday after a so called briefing. Then there has been the usual lies and blaming the whole fiasco this has become on Obama lying that Obama paid the Irian's money as part of the nuclear deal they signed which is just a lie they simply unfroze what was Iranian money. Bottom line is while far from perfect the deal with Iran had calmed things and set a platform to maybe build on in the future and instead everything has got worse and worse since the US ditched that deal.
I should also say once again what is not addressed is Iran is portrayed as this purely evil country and this is all coming from a country in the US that is hand in glove in bed with and propping up once of the most oppressive nasty regimes in the world in Saudi Arabia. Iran are certainly not good guys but they are not worse then the Saudi's.

eire4

Christy42 wrote: »

I think openly advocating that the US should commit war crimes could come back to haunt him.

I mean I get the US has been involved in dodgy dealings for a while in that area but an official presidential statement advocating that US should commit war crimes is something new.

Not his first go round either openly advocating for committing war crimes after he talked about deliberately targeting and killing the families of ISIS fighters.

eire4

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1215642262748659714?s=19

Almost like a quid pro quo, if you will....

Would not surprise me as with most things its all about him not what is in the best interest of the collective but whats in it for him. Now as a result tensions are a lot higher and thanks to a monumental screw up in not closing their own airspace on Wednesday almost 200 completely innocent civilians are dead as part of the whole fiasco.

Christy42

eire4 wrote: »

From anything I have seen that is because there was no evidence to justify the US assassination. Even a couple of Republicans basically admitted as much yesterday after a so called briefing. Then there has been the usual lies and blaming the whole fiasco this has become on Obama lying that Obama paid the Irian's money as part of the nuclear deal they signed which is just a lie they simply unfroze what was Iranian money. Bottom line is while far from perfect the deal with Iran had calmed things and set a platform to maybe build on in the future and instead everything has got worse and worse since the US ditched that deal.
I should also say once again what is not addressed is Iran is portrayed as this purely evil country and this is all coming from a country in the US that is hand in glove in bed with and propping up once of the most oppressive nasty regimes in the world in Saudi Arabia. Iran are certainly not good guys but they are not worse then the Saudi's.

Indeed. In addition to the lack of evidence we also know Pompeo lied about it. He said they didn't know when the attack was going to be (or where) but they did know it was imminent? How did they know that if they didn't know when it would be?

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/EricColumbus/status/1215642262748659714?s=19

Almost like a quid pro quo, if you will....

GOP Senators you say ? Well seeing as Lindsay graham is all praise and if you believe him was more in the loop on the plans than nearly all in congress he's clearly one of those GOP senators.

jjpep

His trumpness seems to be telling a few more fibs on a different topic here;

BBC News - Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149

Such a classy guy...

Itssoeasy

jjpep wrote: »

His trumpness seems to be telling a few more fibs on a different topic here;

BBC News - Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149

Such a classy guy...

He's just someone who can't stand other people getting recognition for things they've actually done as opposed to him and his family who've bought everything they've gotten yet still are shunned by the people in New York they want to be liked by. Money can't buy class as they say.

woohoo!!!

jjpep wrote: »

His trumpness seems to be telling a few more fibs on a different topic here;

BBC News - Trump says he deserves Nobel Peace Prize not Abiy Ahmed
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-51063149

Such a classy guy...

Just give him a Noble prize, and say nathin

Cody montana

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Just give him a Noble prize, and say nathin

With chocolate inside?

Water John

Nah, just give him an Ignoble one, he won't spot the difference.

droidus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It was not an illegal attack and referring to him as a "high ranking member of their government" is laughable. He was a terrorist, pure and simple, and the pearl clutching over his death by the left (worldwide) is, as ever, very telling.

The U.N. Charter states that the use of force is legitimate only if undertaken in self-defense or authorized by the United Nations. There is no justification for this attack under either of these criteria. It was an assassination, illegal under international law. By your standards any state which designates a person as a terrorist would be permitted to murder them without trial.

This is not 'pearl clutching' its simply fact.

Manic Moran

droidus wrote: »

The U.N. Charter states that the use of force is legitimate only if undertaken in self-defense or authorized by the United Nations. There is no justification for this attack under either of these criteria. It was an assassination, illegal under international law. By your standards any state which designates a person as a terrorist would be permitted to murder them without trial.

This is not 'pearl clutching' its simply fact.

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

droidus

Strangely enough, whether or not 'people' think something is a 'bad call' doesn't have any grounding in the framework of international law designed to prevent powerful nations from acting with murderous impunity.

Timberrrrrrrr

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

Any (reputable) sources he was?

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

He aint dead, kidnapped, but not dead

spacecoyote

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

It's almost impossible to prove a negative & is a pretty farcical attempt to justify an action

StringerBell

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

That's not really how the whole evidence thing is supposed to operate.

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

I'm not even going to point out the difference between the two, because you already know, and if you don't already know I'm absolutely flabbergasted all things considered.

eire4

If the US had any real legitimate justification for this assassination it would have been out before now. But all we have is changing excuses which differ by the day. Any creditability to tell the truth in this regime has long since evaporated but whether this whole fiasco which has indirectly caused the death of 200 odd innocent civilians is a case of wag the dog or not it is clear that once again all we are getting is lies as excuses.

As for any interest in international law that is risible. From a man who has just recently threatened to commit a war crime by destroying cultural sites and of course this is not the first time he has been open about being happy to commit war crimes.

MadYaker

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

If we can't find evidence that he isn't a terrorist he must be a terrorist. Gotcha. Tbh if thats how it works for US intellegence and military it would explain a lot. Lets ignore the fact that there shouldn't be a single US soilder in Iraq to start with.

Manic Moran

MadYaker wrote: »

If we can't find evidence that he isn't a terrorist he must be a terrorist. Gotcha. Tbh if thats how it works for US intellegence and military it would explain a lot. Lets ignore the fact that there shouldn't be a single US soilder in Iraq to start with.

The foreign operations of Quds and IRGC have been well known in public domain circles for many years. I'm not responsible if you don't keep up with that aspect of current events. . It's the cost of doing business. We kill their soldiers, they kill ours. Business as normal. If the Soviets killed a CIA commander in Afghanistan in company with the Mujahadeen, there wouldn't have been a particular outcry. After all, was there proof there was ever a CIA operative in Afghanistan in the mid-1980s? Do you doubt that there was such a person?

smurgen

Manic Moran wrote: »

Is there any reputable source anywhere which indicates that Soleimani was not actively partaking in the organising and supplying for attacks against US and allied forces?

I mean, there's no evidence that OBL was actively about to attack anyone when we violated Pakistani sovereignty to kill him (Did the US have Pakistani permission to do any strikes at all in the country?) but not many people think it was a bad call.

The burden of proof rests upon those making accusations.