Quote (fender @ 3 Jan 2020 11:38)

what i'm saying is that this whole thing didn't START with attacks on US airbases - that's just a narrative chosen to make it look like americans are merely 'defending themselves' while indiscriminately bombing the shit out of people in a region they have no business being in to start with.

this whole framing of the issue very much suggests a very simplistic and shortsighted take of who the bad guys are, when in fact there are almost no good actors in this.

without that choice, one could just as well describe the attacks on US airbases as "consequence" of american terrorism on foreign soil - and with that i don't mean their killing of the terrorists they helped create in the first place, those are still bad guys of course, but the mindblowing body count amongst middle eastern civilians, directly and indirectly affected by america's warmongering.

so when you talk about "state-sponsored attacks", that is pretty ironic, even though i'm sure that's lost on you, as usual. but again, you're just a hack trying to defend whatever trump's latest take on the whole 'interventionist' issue is, so it's hardly surprising to see you bend over backwards to justify warmongering, after you defended abandoning one of the very rare good causes, under the guise of 'NON-interventionism'...

Quote (Goomshill @ Jan 2 2020 11:27pm)

You do have a funny definition of ''popular uprising"
There's been a popular uprising in Iran against the regime after the new gas tax in november. There's been a popular uprising in Iraq against the Iranian backed government for the past 3 months
But armed militia members of a Hezbollah military unit (+2 more) backed by Iran, waving Hezbollah flags, led by the three top commanders of those militias- including the guy who just got his melon Gallagher'd- the same militias who were slaughtering the popular uprising against the regime- led an assault on the US embassy and you call it a popular uprising.

Because I'm looking at the coverage and people are dancing in Baghdad right now to celebrate the strikes;
https://twitter.com/saraassaf/status/1212920600508936192?s=21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saY604j0yCM

Quote (excellence @ Jan 2 2020 11:38pm)

quite a few never-Trumper election-deniers are going to be confused on how to approach this until the anti-American media and (D) party provides them the 'required response'

Quote (balrog66 @ Jan 3 2020 02:13am)

I ain't mourning over the dude, just hope this isn't going to escalate further than it already has.

It's also very odd how many people here suddenly approve of hawkish behaviour when Trump does it.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 3 2020 03:04am)

I think they approve of this behavior because Iran was begging for it and had to be put in its place. The quasi-siege for the US embassy on new years day, clearly arranged and steered by Iranian proxy forces, was one provocation too much.

Quote (Skinned @ 3 Jan 2020 13:12)

It was in Baghdad. Iranians forces aren't operating in the open at the capital of their enemy.

You might as well blame the KGB for the Ferguson riots.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 3 2020 07:20am)

It's really no secret that the Shiite militias in Iraq are under heavy influence by Iran.

Quote (thesnipa @ 3 Jan 2020 13:52)

"we want an end to these pointless endless wars in the middle east" trump voters.

"yeah bomb those fuckers" also trump voters.


yuck.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 3 2020 07:02am)

yeah, lets conveniently ignore the months of provocation by Iran, which largely went unanswered by Trump.

wanting to end the pointless endless wars in the middle east does not, and should not, mean that we take any arbitrarily large amount of shit and abuse. when attacks by Iranian proxy forces killed US personnel and they marched on the US embassy a few days later, a line was crossed and a military answer had to be given.

do I think that it was necessary, or wise, to start with such a drastic step, assassinating one of Iran's very top guys? no - but I can see the rationale behind this strike, and I largely agree with it. wouldnt have chosen such a risky path if I had been in charge, but it's not unreasonable.

Quote (Black XistenZ @ Jan 3 2020 08:02am)

yeah, lets conveniently ignore the months of provocation by Iran, which largely went unanswered by Trump.

wanting to end the pointless endless wars in the middle east does not, and should not, mean that we take any arbitrarily large amount of shit and abuse. when attacks by Iranian proxy forces killed US personnel and they marched on the US embassy a few days later, a line was crossed and a military answer had to be given.

do I think that it was necessary, or wise, to start with such a drastic step, assassinating one of Iran's very top guys? no - but I can see the rationale behind this strike, and I largely agree with it. wouldnt have chosen such a risky path if I had been in charge, but it's not unreasonable.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jan 3 2020 08:04am)

you're of course right, all that provocation was far worse than 9-11 and we all love the Afghan war in hindsight. :rolleyes:

Quote (Skinned @ Jan 3 2020 07:05am)

Didn't Trump pull out of an important resolution negotiated by a previous president because he knows everything?

There has literally been nothing on the news about provocation from Iran.

What has Iran done to trigger the assassination of one of their lead military guys?

There isn't even a Gulf of Tonkin incident here.

You are clearly delusional. If you are not then link the posts where we have been discussing these things, as we would as they happened. These things would not have been not talked about.

Quote (thesnipa @ Jan 3 2020 08:09am)

oil tanker got shot.

isn't it great that we've evolved? oil is no longer the in-the-shadows motivation, it's on the front page.