qassem soleimani assassinated

If a war does happen (or even just asymmetric war), you’ve already been biased to believe it’s justified and you don’t even realize it.
It's not a one way street buddy. This thread on the whole has been a biased fever dream mourning the loss of a terrorist who has taken the lives of Iranian and American citizens. Pretty pitiful that's how far you people will go to take away a win from Trunp. No one told you you had to like him, but if he does something right my God is it that hard for you to give it to him? Are you hearing even half of the shit your spewing out? "You don't know the historical context." Yea I do actually, Ive taken quite a few history courses that have covered the Middle Eastern Conflict, yes I am well aware the United States is not perfect in all of this (we covered them Militarily in the 50s in exchange for oil and we wrongfully abused it), but that does not excuse the fact that the Iranian Regime is evil as all shit. Obama paid the same regime that's been spouting "Death to America" even during and after they recieved their money, and look what happened. ISIS became bigger under Obama, and after minimal Military action, Trump demolished them. Iran has been funding terror networks within the middle east, and behind closed doors have been working towards a nuclear weapon for when the Iran Nuclear deal wouldve expired. You're an honest idiot to believe paying them will make them leave us alone, you're only giving into them, and that gives them creedance to demand money again or else. Yes, a regime that religiously chants death to America, killing their own protestors, and persecuting an entire set of people in the Kurds, yes I would unequivically label them as a terrorist regime. If you've actually listened to any news for the past ten years (or can look passed your case of Trunp Derrangement Syndrome, one of the two), you wouldn't be such a fool to actually defending them.
 

atomicllamas

but then what's left of me?
is a Site Staff Alumnusis a Super Moderator Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
why is everyone so virtiolic

like i mean i get it this is as political as it gets but u guys could at least provide sources for the claims ur making instead of hurling insults at one another
I’ve explicitly tried to not be vitriolic here, tbh, linking is painful cause I’m on my phone rn, but the last time I linked a source for every single thing I posted in a reply to deceit (p sure it was about ice detainment camps and family separation) he hit me up with that “bUT thAtS FaKe nEWs” and I’m not gonna go through the effort to link every source if that’s the reply I’m gonna get.

It's not a one way street buddy. This thread on the whole has been a biased fever dream mourning the loss of a terrorist who has taken the lives of Iranian and American citizens. Pretty pitiful that's how far you people will go to take away a win from Trunp. No one told you you had to like him, but if he does something right my God is it that hard for you to give it to him? Are you hearing even half of the shit your spewing out? "You don't know the historical context." Yea I do acyually, Ive taken quite a few history courses that have covered the Middle Eastern Conflict, yes I am well aware the United Stayes is not perfect in all of this, but that does not excuse the fact that the Iranian Regime is evil as all shit. Obama paid the same regime that's been spotting "Death to America" even during and after they recieved their money, and look what happened. ISIS became bigger under Obama, and after minimal Military action, Trump demolished them. Iran has been funding terror networks within the middle east, and behind closed doors have been working towards a nuclear weapon for when the Iran Nuclear deal wouldve expired. You're an honest idiot to believe paying them will make them leave us alone, you're only giving into them, and that gives them creedance to demand money again or else. Yes, a regime that religiously chants death to America, killing their own protestors, and persecuting an entire set of people in the Kurds, yes I would unequivically label them as a terrorist regime. If you've actually listened to any news for the past ten years (or can't look passed your case of Trunp Derrangement Syndrome), you wouldn't be such a fool actually defending them.
Literally called Iran’s government garbage and said I’m glad Soleimani is dead (even though this was a terrible way to do it). But you right I’m basically an Islamist terrorist now that Trump won xD.
 
I’ve explicitly tried to not be vitriolic here, tbh, linking is painful cause I’m on my phone rn, but the last time I linked a source for every single thing I posted in a reply to deceit (p sure it was about ice detainment camps and family separation) he hit me up with that “bUT thAtS FaKe nEWs” and I’m not gonna go through the effort to link every source if that’s the reply I’m gonna get.


Literally called Iran’s government garbage and said I’m glad Soleimani is dead (even though this was a terrible way to do it). But you right I’m basically an Islamist terrorist now that Trump won xD.
It is garbage, Ill say it loudly. Theyre killing their own people, that is bloody disgusting. Its pretty sad that you're dead serious on defending that let alone addressing it. Also, thanks for proving my point on that last sentence, never called you that, shows how much you read. Ill gladly call you an apologist though.

Edit: Yea I am very glad Soleimani is dead. No one else will get killed at his hands, he can rot in hell.
 
Last edited:
Wow, oof. You really got me with that one. You already embarrassed yourself enough, Im finished here. I can only say so much until I'm blue in the face for you to twist them and say something dummer.

Edit: I can't help myself.
Me: we shouldn’t commit war crimes, especially in regions we’ve already played a part in destabilizing

Deceit: you support Iran’s extermination of the Kurdish people

:smogthink:
And once again that gives the Iranians the right to kill their own people why?
 
Last edited:

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Deceit you should read all of llama’s posts twice before responding to them, I think you’re missing some pretty important points.

Just because many on the far left here derive enjoyment from trying to bait anyone even close to the center with cascades of vaguely derisive bullshit doesn’t mean you should lead with this vitriolic rant against a user trying to actively and honestly engage with you. Kind of shows that the victim complex thing is at least somewhat just in your head, and it’s also generally a really awful look.

No one has ever won an argument on the internet, just remember that. The point is to have a discussion to hopefully garner some alternative points of view that can help improve and inform your own. Changing your mind on something even slightly is only viewed as a sign of weakness or lack of purity by the extreme fringes who treat politics as a pseudo-religion.
 
Last edited:

GatoDelFuego

Legendary Cat
is a Forum Moderatoris a Live Chat Contributoris a Site Staff Alumnusis a Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Leader Alumnusis a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Moderator
Obama paid the same regime that's been spouting "Death to America" even during and after they recieved their money, and look what happened. ISIS became bigger under Obama, and after minimal Military action, Trump demolished them. Iran has been funding terror networks within the middle east,
You must be fucking joking dude lol
 
Interesting how the thread jolts to a stop

Edit: I dont think theres much more to be said on the topic. The people who think Trump is wrong firmly believe that occupation of Iran is imperialist, and the people who agree with Trump think the General deserved to die. Thats why theres a recursive loop here between two arguing parties - two unshakable parties trying to change the other.
 
Last edited:
This should be the biggest red flag to yourself regarding your perspective on a political situation. There cannot be any fundamental understanding of a situation when one side is framed in the worst possible moral light.
Im gonna say it for the 6th time. They're killing their own people. 1500 of them last year alone. That includes protestors, gays, christians, among a slew of others. Yes its an evil dictatorship. That is one of the most immoral things you can do. Im not sure what you dont get by that.

Edit:
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/iran
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-protests-specialreport/special-report-irans-leader-ordered-crackdown-on-unrest-do-whatever-it-takes-to-end-it-idUSKBN1YR0QR

I'm not framing them in the worst possible light. This is the garbage this regime does. Y'all are making them appear much more morally just than they actually are as permanent victims of imperialism. I get it, but that only goes so far after now 70 years. The US is not responsible for how they decide to treat their own citizens and how they fund terror networks. Not one person in this entire thread has yet to justify why its ok for them to murder protestors, gays, and christians for example, and persecute minorities like the Kurds. Why is any of that ok to you people? Before you say "we've never said it was" or whatever other shit you want to push out, no one here's acknowledged it let alone, did we just ignore that part because it hurts your narrative?
 
Last edited:
Im gonna say it for the 6th time. They're killing their own people. 1500 of them last year alone. That includes protestors, gays, christians, among a slew of others. Yes its an evil dictatorship. That is one of the most immoral things you can do. Im not sure what you dont get by that.
I dont objectively disagree with you but if youre basing a government's capacity for "evil" based on their persecution of people who are different then I have sad news to tell you about America :^)
 
I dont objectively disagree with you but if youre basing a government's capacity for "evil" based on their persecution of people who are different then I have sad news to tell you about America :^)
I don't deny Americas done shit. Slavery, Jim Crowe, the practical genocide of Native Americans, don't get me wrong here I do know that. However, it's a bit hard to argue that America's done nothing to right those wrongs of the past and move forward. Genocide, Slavery, and forms of Discrimination have been present in at least one time or another among all civilizations. Religious tolerance, Abolition of Slavery (and extending the equality of rights to minorities on the whole), Universal Human Rights, these are unique accomplishments of Western Civilization by in large (which includes the US in very large part).
 
Not one person in this entire thread has yet to justify why its ok for them to murder protestors, gays, and christians for example, and persecute minorities like the Kurds. Why is any of that ok to you people? Before you say "we've never said it was" or whatever other shit you want to push out, no one here's acknowledged it let alone, did we just ignore that part because it hurts your narrative?
Why would anyone? This thread is about a government assassinating a high level foreign government official on foreign soil. That action does not become more or less justified based on the possible actions of other entities within the country, not does it make it appropriate to denigrate the entire population of the country as a whole. It is unreasonable for you to push the burden of equivalency to other people on a side topic they did not initiate. And, as the previous poster said, the US government is hardly in a position to claim moral superiority.


I understand the desire to protect what feels important to you. Home and country is something very strongly ingrained in many people. Fortunately for me I am not American and so I have the luxury of freedom from the rose colored glasses that tint their actions to their citizens. Their actions against Iran were Wrong. The life of their target, even if a morally reprehensible individual, was not within their rights to decide. And the decision maker was someone as morally reprehensible or worse. These are the facts.
 
Why would anyone? This thread is about a government assassinating a high level foreign government official on foreign soil. That action does not become more or less justified based on the possible actions of other entities within the country, not does it make it appropriate to denigrate the entire population of the country as a whole. It is unreasonable for you to push the burden of equivalency to other people on a side topic they did not initiate. And, as the previous poster said, the US government is hardly in a position to claim moral superiority.


I understand the desire to protect what feels important to you. Home and country is something very strongly ingrained in many people. Fortunately for me I am not American and so I have the luxury of freedom from the rose colored glasses that tint their actions to their citizens. Their actions against Iran were Wrong. The life of target, even if a morally reprehensible individual, was not within their rights to decide. And the decision maker was someone as morally reprehensible or worse. These are the facts.
No, that's opinion mate. I believe we were right to kill Soleimani, because we had intel that he was about to kill more Americans and potentially attack more of our outlining embassies. I'd like to say my opinion is backed by most Iranian citizens, given the US just reignired mass-protests against the regime.

Edit:
The decision maker is morally reprehensible or worse? Look man I don't deny Trump is not my compass for moral character, he can be a sleezebag and a bully, but I don't see him using the military to kill the millions of protestors against in the US or use capital punishment on the libs/really anyone he disagrees with (unless petty insults towards his opponents and the press now count as that). That's definitely not fact lmfao, but I am genuinely sorry to hear that you feel that way.
 
Last edited:

UncleSam

Leading this village
is a Forum Moderator Alumnus
Ya I was with you Texas but there’s really no comparing Trump to Soleimani. Trump may be a shitbag of a president and therefore the expectations ought to be completely different from what we would expect from a third world theocratic terrorist / general / strongman, but there’s not even close to a moral comparison between the two. If you do want to go that route and expand on that feel free (maybe in a new discussion thread?), but I very much doubt that you’ll get me to even consider them as being in the same league.
 
I'm not interested in a compare and contrast. Trump does a fine job exemplifying his complete lack of morality on his own without me to herald it.

His relevance to this discussion is in relation to the timing of his decision to order this assassination which was undeniably done in an attempt to manipulate the circumstances of both the upcoming election and his pending impeachment trial.
 
I'm not interested in a compare and contrast. Trump does a fine job exemplifying his complete lack of morality on his own without me to herald it.

His relevance to this discussion is in relation to the timing of his decision to order this assassination which was undeniably done in an attempt to manipulate the circumstances of both the upcoming election and his pending impeachment trial.
How do you know that? Once again are you sure it isn't because Iran just attacked our embassy?...
 
"Assume stupid shit" the man has been impeached it's "assuming stupid shit" to imagine there's zero political motivation behind the timing of this attack.


Defense Secretary Mark Esper stating today that the idea of imminent attacks from Soleimani was not based on intelligence but in fact nothing more than unfounded belief: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/13/trumps-four-embassies-claim-utterly-falls-apart/

The transcript verbatim:

ESPER: Well, what the president said was he believed that it probably and could have been attacks against additional embassies. I shared that view. I know other members of national security team shared that view. That’s why I deployed thousands of American paratroopers to the Middle East to reinforce our embassy in Baghdad and other sites throughout the region.

MARGARET BRENNAN: “Probably” and “could have been.” That is — that sounds more like an assessment than a specific, tangible threat with a decisive piece of intelligence.

ESPER: Well, the president didn’t say there was a tangible — he didn’t cite a specific piece of evidence. What he said is he probably — he believed, could have been —

BRENNAN: Are you saying there wasn’t one?

ESPER: I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies. What I’m saying is, I share the president’s view that probably — my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies.



This may come as a surprise but the office of the President does not convey magical powers upon it's holder. The President of the United States and the electorate who "elected" him are fallible. Stop assuming that his motives are benevolent when there's years worth of evidence to the contrary and start thinking critically about why he does the things that he does.
 
"Assume stupid shit" the man has been impeached it's "assuming stupid shit" to imagine there's zero political motivation behind the timing of this attack.


Defense Secretary Mark Esper stating today that the idea of imminent attacks from Soleimani was not based on intelligence but in fact nothing more than unfounded belief: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/13/trumps-four-embassies-claim-utterly-falls-apart/

The transcript verbatim:

ESPER: Well, what the president said was he believed that it probably and could have been attacks against additional embassies. I shared that view. I know other members of national security team shared that view. That’s why I deployed thousands of American paratroopers to the Middle East to reinforce our embassy in Baghdad and other sites throughout the region.

MARGARET BRENNAN: “Probably” and “could have been.” That is — that sounds more like an assessment than a specific, tangible threat with a decisive piece of intelligence.

ESPER: Well, the president didn’t say there was a tangible — he didn’t cite a specific piece of evidence. What he said is he probably — he believed, could have been —

BRENNAN: Are you saying there wasn’t one?

ESPER: I didn’t see one with regard to four embassies. What I’m saying is, I share the president’s view that probably — my expectation was they were going to go after our embassies.



This may come as a surprise but the office of the President does not convey magical powers upon it's holder. The President of the United States and the electorate who "elected" him are fallible. Stop assuming that his motives are benevolent when there's years worth of evidence to the contrary and start thinking critically about why he does the things that he does.
Yea, if one embassy is attacked, it would be pretty smart to protect the others. That's typical protocol with anything that's attacked...protecting the surrounding area.

How about this friend. Stop assuming he's only out for personal gain, especially when backing it with "start thinking critically" or (paraphrasing) "that's just what he does and there's mounds of evidence throughout his presidency" (without even naming one). That ain't enough to justify your point. That's a seriously dumb line of attack, given again, he killed Soleimani in retaliation of Iran attacking our embassy. That's a deterrent so that Iran does not do something like that again, and keep us away from war without being pushovers. For the sake of argument though, let's say sure, for some dumb reason it was solely for boosting his impeachment chances and election chances. It sure is helping him, because a majority of voters support what he did. His approval rating also shot up as a result of his recent actions. I think y'all might be on the wrong side of history. https://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-press/2020/01/08/politico-morning-consult-poll-voters-back-trumps-decision-to-killtop-iranian-military-commander-1523316

P.s. It's hard to say he wants to help his impeachment chances when we all know where this is going. It barely passed the house on strictly partisan lines with Dems deffecting (and one of them converting to the GOP from my home state), and the Senate is either going to aquit him or dismiss the charges. We don't know for sure because the dumbass speaker decided to hold them until just now. Do you think he would seriously want help, if you want to take that route of argument? Because he seems to be doing just fine according to the Senate.
 
Last edited:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/07/politics/qasem-soleimani-reasons-justifications/index.html
Later in the same appearance, the President specifically said the strike was an act of retaliation.
"Don't forget, in our case it was retaliation because they were there first," Trump said. "They killed -- look, I don't have to talk about him for 18 to 20 years. He was a monster."
Is this enough proof that it was retaliation (thus illegal given international law) and not self-defense? I hope so.

It's not like he doesn't get anything out of this, 2020 elections are coming up and the preludes of a global recession are widely discussed by economists.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top