Iraqi TV: Iran’s Gen. Soleimani killed in Baghdad strike

Does that mean America is?

I’d say that there is a higher probability that he was, given that that’s how he and the Iranian regime seem to perceive international affairs. America’s just here for freedom and fries. They’re here for far deeper reasons.

 

So now every enemy to the US are terrorists? How profound!

 

The general has been labeled a terrorist since 2007. Sorry you support these guys.

 

Well I've no doubt certain factions in the middle east do regard Soleimani as on the side of the angels...or houris or whatever. You may well side with such factions, however the late general was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans which made him a legitimate target.

 

I’ll leave the “siding” of either factions to the ordinary type.

This is not about whether he was a legitimate target or not, and you know it. Then again, when a culture is solely conditioned by Netflix and football, I don’t expect you to get it.

 

By whom, the American government? And...?

 

Based on his terrorist activities. Well known worldwide. Sorry you feel the need to defend terrorists.

 

And I’m that sorry your reading comprehension is at the level of “retarded.”

Like I said, he’s only a terrorist because the American government said he ways.

Next....

 

German and other governments too. Sorry you love this guy.

 

I may not "get it" since I may be misinterpreting what you were saying. My post, that you responded to was, "...but that doesn't mean Soleimani was on the side of the angels."

Your response was:

"Does that mean America is?

I’d say that there is a higher probability that he was..."

The way I read that, you are saying that Iran and Soleimani are more likely on the side of the angels than the US. If that's an incorrect interpretation feel free to correct.

 

No it did not.

Meanwhile Iraq parliament just kicked your Troops out of the country.

What does this feel like?

 

Oh really, because you say so? The reality is that America owns the world, and America decides who is and who isn’t a terrorist.

Sorry, I ain’t buying.

 

It was a non binding resolution where forces remain.

 

Their PM said he will accept the parliament resolution and sign it.

Iraq is over for you. You lost there, all investment.

 

The point was that America and Trump are not going about this is in a fashion that takes into consideration the cultural and eschstological implications that this death will have.

Their actions are reflective of a drunk football team: “yay terrorist dead!”; and the morons on the internet are a testament to that.

You’re still a very young nation, so perhaps you guys need more time on the world stage to understand. Perhaps you need more pain.

 

I dont recall

 

The latest on this is that prior to killing Soleimani, the Iranian people/youth were protesting and rebelling against their government. Now they are rallying around their government against the US.

Nice job tRump, ya DOPE!

 

We've killed many top tier terrorists since 9/11 including Bin Ladin, al-Baghdadi, and now Soleimani. Each time their followers threatened, and actually delivered, retaliation of some sort. Your argument seems to be don't do anything, just take it over and over again. Surely you can understand why that's not a compelling argument?

And you didn't respond to the "angels" point; Soleimani, side of the angels or no?

 

The Shiite faction voted for a resolution and most Sunni didn’t even attend. No one has been kicked out. This is the Iranian Shiite effort to take over Iraqi politics. Of course you applaud.

 

I didn't say he was an angel - nor on the side of angels ... but neither are we -which is what you seem to have bought into - at least to some degree ...

To some degree I have as well - in that we have a much better set of founding principles (respect for individual liberty) - so in a way we represent the right side. I am no fan of Strict Sharia - Islamists - as they hate individual liberty - want to force their religious beliefs on others through physical violence (Law)

If your world is that simplistic, (followed by beneath your level snide comment)

My world isn't simplistic - which is why I seek to quantify which side right and which side is wrong.

You thusfar have not given any justification - other than a black white paradigm either - So you project when you point finger at me.

My claim is that those fighting for Iraq - or aiding or supporting the fight for Iraq are the side of right.

The question is not about Saddam Hussein .. but what the people of Iraq want - it is their nation - and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people died in this conflict.

History has dictated that the initial attack which toppled Saddam - was illegal .. a violation of international law - but beyond this - NATO took a pass. We had people raging in the streets demanding the name of French Fries be changed to "Freedom Fries"

Not even Canada joined in. The only nation of significance was the Brit's - CIA - MI5 are joined at the hip - as are we as nations. And they own us so- no big surprise.

Then - after the fact - all the justifications we had presented to the world - turned out to be a sham. Saddam was not building a nuke - and he did not have an active chemical weapon's program .. and he was not in league with Al Qaeda.

So we invaded another nation - based on a sham -based on demonstrable lies, falsehoods, and false narratives - an action which ended up killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people.

We had no legitimate right to kill these people - at least not in the initial invasion. After Saddam was toppled - we have a different story.

We install a Shia Regime - universally recognized as a blunder - so dumb one questions how this could not be intentional.

This regime immediately replaces all of the Sunni in Gov't ..and Military elite - with Shia. But lets these folks keep their guns.

You then have a civil war break out - a power struggle between Sunni and Shia.

Not sure how many of the 600 were killed in the initial invasion - (which Soleimani would have been in the right) or during the civil war/insurgency

This is where things get complicated - there are two factions fighting for power in a nation - are we justified sending in troops to fight the other side -

Immediately the Propaganda machine goes to work to try to "demonize the other" - The side that had just been ousted from power. "We are Fighting Al Qaeda". At this point it as not as much as a false narrative as the initial invasion as Al Qaeda now has a foothold.

Saddam is Gone .. but the whole structure of society under him - remains. Much has been written about what a huge blunder putting a Shia Regime in. Should have been a coalition between power factions.

But we didn't do that - we stripped power from one .. and gave it to the other side.

If you lose your job - your livelihood because your are not getting another Job - because you are Sunni - you are probably not happy about it.

The right side in such chaos - is hard to assess at the best of times.

Whether we on the right side in aiding one of these two sides in this power struggle - albeit one of our own creation - is a completely separate question.

What is preposterous nonsense is justifying the killing of a General - 20 years after the fact - who was aiding the other side - on the basis of "We were on the side of right". - and he killed many of our soldiers.

If there was a nation invading our land - or our Neighbor (Mexico) and we were fighting against that invader - our Generals we call Hero's.
I suspect Iran does the same.

There is a longstanding code among nations that we don't kill each others diplomats - and people in positions of power. This is a good code - as I would not like to see our Hero's be subject to perpetual fear - always be worried about assassination - not able to travel freely.

Turns out this general had been very active in the war in Syria. His mission was to kill ISIS and Al Qaeda .. and he was very good at this mission.

In this conflict - ISIS/Al Qaeda is the side we are on - they are our proxy army - fighting against the people of Syria to install a Saudi Inspired Strict Sharia Totalitarian nightmare.

In this conflict - our Pentagon, CIA, and Officials of State - are responsible for leading a global effort (to Arm, Supply and Support the Radical Islamist Proxy Army in Syria) - an effort which led to the death of over 400,000, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Soleimani was fighting against our Al Qaeda/ISIS led proxy army - the one which Russia, Iran and the Syrian Army Defeated - not Donald Trump.

So tell me who is on the side of right here .. and why the Pentagon Generals .. are not just as guilty as Soleimani ?

 

You are the one that supports terrorists.

Soliemani's Job - over the last decade was to kill Al Qaeda/ISIS. .. and he was very successful.

 

The image that comes to mind after reading so many of your posts.

 

Sunni are a minority. Even when all attend they would be outvoted. There is no future for Sunnis in Iraq. They are the faction that supported ISIS. They can be lucky they are allowed to exist there.

That said what you expect? That we shout HURRA! And support this american ************?

 

LOL, and Americans but apparently you like that.

 

Of course you support Iran taking over Iraq.