• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Iran Quds Force head Qassem Soleimani killed in Baghdad strike

finowns

Member
May 10, 2009
3,586
1,226
920
I’m of two minds: escalation with Iran is dumb but are we supposed to ignore Iran undermining our strategy for Iraq? It’s such an impossible quagmire. The Iraq war was a colossal blunder.
 

Xenon

Member
How the hell was he allowed to go on air with that on Fox news? Good on Tucker for not being a Trump cuck.
Tucker has always been more anti left than pro Trump. It was a good take but not the only one. I'm still not sure how I feel about it. Yet you have a foreign government relying on citizens of the world's distaste for war to openly support terrorists and dictators in the region. It most likely it's not worth stopping if it leads to war. But the act itself is a response and not the initiation of conflict.
 
Last edited:

Cybrwzrd

Anime waifu panty shots are basically the same thing as paintings of the french baroque masters, if you think about it.
Sep 29, 2014
6,415
9,480
910
Tucker has always been more anti left than pro Trump. It was a good take but not the only one. I'm still not sure how I feel about it. Yet you have a foreign government relying on citizens of the world's distaste for war to openly support terrorists and dictators in the region. It most likely it's not worth stopping if it leads to war. But the act itself is a response and not the initiation of conflict.
Tucker made this video just a month ago.


He isn't a partisan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xenon

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
6,370
7,895
1,590
That's a group of cars, not a wedding.

Maybe Soleimani was on his way to a wedding too.
According to the victims, on 12th December 2013, Abdallah Mabkhut al-Ameri, his new wife and about 60 of their friends and family, were travelling in a wedding procession
Is acting purposefully dense the only strategy that remains with you lot?
 

Doc Honk

Member
Oct 21, 2014
2,097
1,864
760
I take it you are agnostic atheist then? I mean, you wouldn't be a hypocritical Christian of course. Islam and Christianity are pretty much neck and neck when it comes to tyranny. Hey we do have something in common after all. Organised religion is a plague.
Nah, I'm religious actually, I was just taking it out on here, I think I went a bit overboard sorry. I don't have the view that organized religion is bad for society (my post history can confirm this), but I do believe Islam should be questioned. But that is beside the point, which is it's weird to have the Guardian, the NY Times, and fake celebrities cry out about the loss of this man. To answer your question about ISIS, fuck them too, I hate them, but it doesn't make this Salami Mohamed a saint.
 

Dontero

Member
Apr 19, 2018
2,280
2,224
565
Saw this one as well. But they're the exception from him. Would love to see him do more. Sadly like everyone else in this country he's distracted by the our political circus.
??

Tucker was never pro-Trump. He only was when Trump agenda was right.
Tucker did like 20 different pieces about immediate surrounding of Trump and how Trump might go to war because of them.
He lately did piece about Singer Republican mega donor and how he destroy people lives.
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
3,107
986
555
So, what is your opinion on other military actions in the ME?




"Why didn't Trump bomb some Russians who did nothing to the US over fake chemical attacks?"



"Why is Drumpf leaving Syria! We have to act to stop bad Assad man and help terrorists take over the country!"

"We are betraying allies we have a duty to protect, unlike our embassy officials who General Gibs just attacked!"

You are just as much a dolt as Dullspur. Or a massive hypocrite. Not that those are mutually exclusive.
I believe the definition of a hypocrite is when trump said he wanted to take troops out of the Middle East but in the last 6 months we’ve deployed over 5,000 more troops and only removed a very very small amount of troops that were protecting the Kurds in a defensive position, not because he wanted to pull troops out of the Middle East, but because he acquiesced to turkeys request and said it would be bad if they attacked the Kurds, which they did, in which ISIS prisoners was released. It was objectively a bad move to remove those few fighters defending the Kurds and the two things are not equivalent
 

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
3,107
986
555
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: crowbrow

JordanN

Member
Apr 21, 2012
19,804
8,527
1,025
Brampton, Ontario

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
8,207
7,342
1,470
I’ve been thinking a lot about this story since it broke. I’ve been for removing all the troops from the Middle East for a long time now. Initially I felt this action was justified due to Iran’s constant escalation. I’m starting to lean towards this being one step too much now though. There may have been better ways to show strength and retaliate other then killing this bad dude. Sure he deserves death, but this may end up setting off a chain of really bad consequences for both sides that lead to even more fighting in the Middle East. It probably won’t be worth it in the end.

This could end up amounting to nothing or could end up being the blunder that causes Trump re-election.

And I will also add I strongly disagree with targeting cultural sites. I guess that’s what has sparked my change of heart. Reading that made me realize they are willing to take this a lot further then I initially thought possible. There’s nothing to gain from this type of fight.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Hotspurr

TeamGhobad

Member
Oct 15, 2018
3,932
4,195
485
I wish them luck but eh, why would the U.S listen?

They still have bases in Japan long after WW2 ended, they'll only leave if an American President actually gives the go ahead to do so.
if the democratic parliament tells them to leave. they will leave. or u know they are a foreign occupation on iraqi sovereign land.

and its not just the americans its all foreign troops
 
Last edited:

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
3,494
3,354
600
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: Shodan09

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
3,107
986
555
Lot's of brianwashed people. Nothing to see there.

Also good luck with their military actions rofl.
he basically said they were going to retaliate in order to balance the scales and then that’s where it would end. They do plan on striking. I doubt trump is just going to let it happen and not do anything in retaliation. if they strike us, its going to escalate exponentially and it’s not going to be good for_anybody_
 

Sterling88

Member
Sep 19, 2019
80
134
235
I’ve been thinking a lot about this story since it broke. I’ve been for removing all the troops from the Middle East for a long time now. Initially I felt this action was justified due to Iran’s constant escalation. I’m starting to lean towards this being one step too much now though. There may have been better ways to show strength and retaliate other then killing this bad dude. Sure he deserves death, but this may end up setting off a chain of really bad consequences for both sides that lead to even more fighting in the Middle East. It probably won’t be worth it in the end.

This could end up amounting to nothing or could end up being the blunder that causes Trump re-election.

And I will also add I strongly disagree with targeting cultural sites. I guess that’s what has sparked my change of heart. Reading that made me realize they are willing to take this a lot further then I initially thought possible. There’s nothing to gain from this type of fight.
Iran can't be left to do whatever the fuck it likes. They need to be reminded not to stir shit up, and the best way to do that is with force.

Trump has a plan in mind, I'm sure. I'm pretty certain he'll keep Americans safe. That being said, stay safe any US servicemen and women affected by this stuff.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
8,207
7,342
1,470
Iran can't be left to do whatever the fuck it likes. They need to be reminded not to stir shit up, and the best way to do that is with force.

Trump has a plan in mind, I'm sure. I'm pretty certain he'll keep Americans safe. That being said, stay safe any US servicemen and women affected by this stuff.
I never said Iran should be allowed to do whatever it likes to do.
 

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
3,494
3,354
600
he basically said they were going to retaliate in order to balance the scales and then that’s where it would end. They do plan on striking. I doubt trump is just going to let it happen and not do anything in retaliation. if they strike us, its going to escalate exponentially and it’s not going to be good for_anybody_
Yea i just going to strike some US targets. Hey man then it will just magically end. Like i said that guy is retarded.
 
Last edited:

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
3,107
986
555
Yea i just going to strike some US targets. Hey man then it will just magically end. Like i said that guy is retarded.
it’s definitely lip service so they appear to be the morally correct ones in this instance, saying they don’t want war. They know if they strike a US target it will lead to war
 

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
3,007
3,756
1,705
Montreal, Quebec
I believe the definition of a hypocrite is when trump said he wanted to take troops out of the Middle East but in the last 6 months we’ve deployed over 5,000 more troops and only removed a very very small amount of troops that were protecting the Kurds in a defensive position, not because he wanted to pull troops out of the Middle East, but because he acquiesced to turkeys request and said it would be bad if they attacked the Kurds, which they did, in which ISIS prisoners was released. It was objectively a bad move to remove those few fighters defending the Kurds and the two things are not equivalent
Let's face it, he's damned no matter what he does.

We've seen stories going both ways and the partisanship makes it so a large chunk of the public flip flops, blindly supporting the stories going in both directions. When he was pulling troops out of Syria he got trashed for it, now that he's adding troops for security purposes he's trashed for it, too. Trump's supporters have, for the most part, firmly stood behind him since November 2016 and his opponents have been criticizing absolutely everything he does, going as far as spinning the positive to sound negative because they desperately want to see him removed from office.

You can't have it both ways, life isn't a safe space - a lesson that appears to be getting lost over time. If you support troop withdrawal then you have to accept the negative consequences with the positive. Same goes with taking out the world's most vicious war criminals. There will always be consequences, both good and bad. If you pay careful attention to the most vocal critics against Trump that's what they're using to criticize him, the potential consequences that may or may not come to pass. Going with that logic they wouldn't ever take action against anyone/anything. That's an insupportable position for a leader, yet it's one the 2020 Dem candidates hold. Trump, on the other hand, is living up to his words from the campaign trail.



Obama made his share of questionable decisions that left certain regions of the world in bad shape and had many civilians killed, yet you don't hold that against him. Ignorance helps explain that for most people, everyone's bombarded by political stories in the Trump era and more aware of what's going on even if they don't bother to dig into the details, but proper perspective is often missing and that's in large part thanks to the partisan media coverage. There's proof of that in this very thread with members that have repeatedly mocked Fox News now appearing to know very little, if anything, about one of its prime time hosts.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
12,024
20,219
905
I’ve been thinking a lot about this story since it broke. I’ve been for removing all the troops from the Middle East for a long time now. Initially I felt this action was justified due to Iran’s constant escalation. I’m starting to lean towards this being one step too much now though. There may have been better ways to show strength and retaliate other then killing this bad dude. Sure he deserves death, but this may end up setting off a chain of really bad consequences for both sides that lead to even more fighting in the Middle East. It probably won’t be worth it in the end.

This could end up amounting to nothing or could end up being the blunder that causes Trump re-election.

And I will also add I strongly disagree with targeting cultural sites. I guess that’s what has sparked my change of heart. Reading that made me realize they are willing to take this a lot further then I initially thought possible. There’s nothing to gain from this type of fight.
You may be correct, our response may butterfly out of control. Or perhaps it's true we had intel he was planning an attack. And if we hadn't killed him perhaps 300 Americans would be dead, and our war machine would be in motion. It's impossible to judge. It's why I want us out of the theatre. But either way, fear of reprucussions is not a particularly good reason to allow a terrorist leader to live... for there are significant potential negative reprecussions to letting him live as well.

As for Trump saying 'cultural sites', that bothers me too. While the drone strike on a terrorist leader is easy to understand, why would Trump possibly want to hit cultural sites? Why would our military intelligence include them in a list of 52 tactical sites [it's not like Trump hand picked them]? It makes no sense, none whatsoever. His own base would flee. Nobody supports destroying cultural sites... which indicates to me Trump is saying something to Iran I am not equipped to hear.

Perhaps it's just a strong arm threat with no teeth, and he's playing off his persona knowing that Iran does not want to risk war with us. Or perhaps he was letting Iran know something - for example, that we know where a hidden weapon research center is. Everyone acts like Trump is a lone ranger, but forgets he has access to some of the best intel in the world. That doesn't make him right all the time, but it does mean it's impossible to accurately judge from nose bleed civilian seats.

Edit to add: of course, it's also possible it's just an actual threat. I just don't see how that makes sense. A very big chunk of his base is anti-war, and cultural sites are off limits to nearly all.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Shaqazooloo

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
30,738
40,494
1,170
You may be correct, our response may butterfly out of control. Or perhaps it's true we had intel he was planning an attack. And if we hadn't killed him perhaps 300 Americans would be dead, and our war machine would be in motion. It's impossible to judge. It's why I want us out of the theatre.

As for Trump saying 'cultural sites', that bothers me too. While the drone strike on a terrorist leader is easy to understand, why would Trump possibly want to hit cultural sites? Why would our military intelligence include them in a list of 52 tactical sites [it's not like Trump hand picked them]? It makes no sense, none whatsoever. His own base would flee. Nobody supports destroying cultural sites... which indicates to me Trump is saying something to Iran I am not equipped to hear.

Perhaps it's just a strong arm threat with no teeth, and he's playing off his persona knowing that Iran does not want to risk war with us. Or perhaps he was letting Iran know something - for example, that we know where a hidden weapon research center is. Everyone acts like Trump is a lone ranger, but forgets he has access to some of the best intel in the world. That doesn't make him right all the time, but it does mean it's impossible to accurately judge from nose bleed civilian seats.
Unless they have intelligence that shows strategic military locations (Missile launch) right at those sites.

Otherwise, it doesn’t sit well with me either, even if used as a chest puff moment.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
30,738
40,494
1,170
No. but I'm Iranian not muslim. I liked him cause he was a war hero during the Iran-Iraq war and also he killed ISIS and the Taliban.
But do you still like a man who caused death to hundreds of innocents the past few years?

His past doesn’t earn a get out of jail free card, if he just goes and brings a different brand of atrocities in a new power vacuum.
 

TeamGhobad

Member
Oct 15, 2018
3,932
4,195
485
But do you still like a man who caused death to hundreds of innocents the past few years?

His past doesn’t earn a get out of jail free card, if he just goes and brings a different brand of atrocities in a new power vacuum.
A soldier following orders. dont get it mixed up. i hate Iran foreign policy, infact Israel is the only natural ally of Iran, and if Iran was smart they would have teamed up with them and by now bombed the Saudis into shits who are the true enemy of Iran. But unfortunately the mullahs are too dogmatic in their thinking. Still the mullahs are in their 80s now and once they are gone they won't be replaced. Hopefully the military takes over and we can actually use a foreign policy that works. You can't conduct a foreign policy where both the jews and arabs are your enemies doesn't make logical sense.
 
Last edited:
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: autoduelist

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
14,927
2,188
1,515
Swedish nationalists are mourning Soleimani....interesting.
Of course they are, Trump isn't going to drop a cruise missile on them in Sweden. It's like the people who trashtalk until you turn around and give them the eye, at which point they stfu, look at the ground and slowly gtfo.

The entertaining part is the response always seems to be depicted as terrorism instead of military action of any sort.
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,799
1,636
885
So, what is your opinion on other military actions in the ME?




"Why didn't Trump bomb some Russians who did nothing to the US over fake chemical attacks?"



"Why is Drumpf leaving Syria! We have to act to stop bad Assad man and help terrorists take over the country!"

"We are betraying allies we have a duty to protect, unlike our embassy officials who General Gibs just attacked!"

You are just as much a dolt as Dullspur. Or a massive hypocrite. Not that those are mutually exclusive.
Yes I’m generally hawkish. And I’m mostly neutral on him bombing the guy, though the official justification and framing is Strong Man bullshit that’s clearly trying to provoke war. But I’m not fine with him sending in troops, nor with having basically unprotected embassies in hostile middle eastern areas waiting for shit to start up after ripping up a nuclear deal and sanctioning the shit out of the country. Syria was a case of directly abandoning allies against the IS vs this, which is sending troops in for that BDE Trump craves at the polls. If you can’t parse the difference in context then I can’t help you.

But keep digging up my post history like it’ll prove you’re not a Trump Cultist. I mean you keep replying to me like I’m talking to you personally every time I post. Seems like you’re trying to tell us something 👌
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
30,738
40,494
1,170
Locking up Obama, Bush, Mueller, etc. any day now, right?

They have quite the innocent civilIan, women and children body count.

While I mentioned on the surface this doesn’t sit well, but we don’t know the context of said sites. They could have military facilities and missile launch batteries sitting next to them.

Not like regimes such as the one there have not always done so in the past to help mask and keep them “off the radar”.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Dec 3, 2013
30,738
40,494
1,170
By the way 'Trump Cultists' new word of the 20's I assume, is pure projection from the TDS addled left who still, cannot meme.
You’re all cultists that don’t subscribe to my brand of cult!

Just more parallels of extremism.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Teletraan1

infinitys_7th

Gold Member
Oct 1, 2006
6,370
7,895
1,590
But I’m not fine with him sending in troops,
Which was done shore up security in case Iran escalates their hostilities further.

Again, this is what a Defense Department does - defend.

I don't get how hawks hate the idea of the US defending itself. You want all this money wasted on putting terrorists in power in Syria and Libya and Iraq in place of relatively stable governments, but when someone attacks the US like General Salami did you just bend over and spread your cheeks.

Fuck that. I expect my military to kill those who attack my country and protect the lives of its taxpayers. Why else do we pay taxes for a DoD? Anything less is fraud.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: desertdroog

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
3,107
986
555
Let's face it, he's damned no matter what he does.

We've seen stories going both ways and the partisanship makes it so a large chunk of the public flip flops, blindly supporting the stories going in both directions. When he was pulling troops out of Syria he got trashed for it, now that he's adding troops for security purposes he's trashed for it, too. Trump's supporters have, for the most part, firmly stood behind him since November 2016 and his opponents have been criticizing absolutely everything he does, going as far as spinning the positive to sound negative because they desperately want to see him removed from office.

You can't have it both ways, life isn't a safe space - a lesson that appears to be getting lost over time. If you support troop withdrawal then you have to accept the negative consequences with the positive. Same goes with taking out the world's most vicious war criminals. There will always be consequences, both good and bad. If you pay careful attention to the most vocal critics against Trump that's what they're using to criticize him, the potential consequences that may or may not come to pass. Going with that logic they wouldn't ever take action against anyone/anything. That's an insupportable position for a leader, yet it's one the 2020 Dem candidates hold. Trump, on the other hand, is living up to his words from the campaign trail.



Obama made his share of questionable decisions that left certain regions of the world in bad shape and had many civilians killed, yet you don't hold that against him. Ignorance helps explain that for most people, everyone's bombarded by political stories in the Trump era and more aware of what's going on even if they don't bother to dig into the details, but proper perspective is often missing and that's in large part thanks to the partisan media coverage. There's proof of that in this very thread with members that have repeatedly mocked Fox News now appearing to know very little, if anything, about one of its prime time hosts.
so there’s a very big difference as to when and why he pulled the troops embedded with the kurds. It’s not as black and white as comparing that to when he said he would pull troops out of iraq and Syria. Which by the way he hasn’t done—in fact he’s put more in. I do agree that the people who hate trump will hate him for everything he does and ignore the good thing he does, while his supporters, both politicians and otherwise, are dead loyal to him no matter what he does. Neither of these attitudes are healthy.

yea I wasn’t a fan of Obama’s drone strikes either. Nor bush’s (collateral murder). He also fucked up with the fast and furious just as bush did.

I also think the media wasn’t fair to Obama either, he got shit for putting Dijon mustard on a hot dog, wearing a tan suit, bowing too low when in Saudi Arabia, asked a marine to hold an umbrella over his head while he did a press conference in the rain, took a trip with the First Lady when the economy wasn’t so great, used a selfie stick, didn’t always wear a suit in the White House, didn’t look as powerful in juxtaposition to Putin (hilarious looking back at that now) etc..
 
Last edited:

Arkage

Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,799
1,636
885
*checks Vox*

Ding:

I believe the point at which I identified Trumpism as a cult is when he literally said he could shoot someone in broad daylight and lose no voters, said Ted Cruz' dad helped assassinate JFK, and continually said for years that Obama was born in Kenya to create his political career.

But, ok, sure, Trump is clearly a totally normal American President and has no cult like tendencies than any other. This is just politics as normal. I can't imagine why leftist kept warning about normalization while people like yourself constantly try to normalize the shit Trump does.


Which was done shore up security in case Iran escalates their hostilities further.

Again, this is what a Defense Department does - defend.

I don't get how hawks hate the idea of the US defending itself. You want all this money wasted on putting terrorists in power in Syria and Libya and Iraq in place of relatively stable governments, but when someone attacks the US like General Salami did you just bend over and spread your cheeks.

Fuck that. I expect my military to kill those who attack my country and protect the lives of its taxpayers. Why else do we pay taxes for a DoD? Anything less is fraud.
Describing the embassy vandalism as "Attacking the US" has got to be the most hyperbolic description I've heard, that only the purist of neocons would bother trying out. Or describing sending troops into Iraq or Iran as "protecting the US" - Christ even I didn't make such an absurd argument for keeping troops in Syria: they were there to protect allies that helped us. And how about we just withdraw completely from Iraq/Iran so there are no futher hostilities in the first place? Trumps the one who decided to rip up a nuclear deal and place sanctions. And Trumps the one who murdered their top military commander over what amounts to petty vandalism. That shit is ridiculous levels of escalation of his own creation, and its no surprise this is timed to start up in an election year.
 
Last edited:

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
12,024
20,219
905

Pompeo said, “Soleimani, the terrorist, was engaged in active plotting. There was an attack that was imminent that could have killed dozens or hundreds of Americans. We found an opportunity and we delivered.”
Pompeo added, “He was traveling the region when he landed in Baghdad. The travels before that put him in places all around the region, which were aimed solely at building out what they were referring to as the big attack. They were aiming to take down significant amounts of Americans. It would’ve undoubtedly killed locals too. Iraqis, Lebanese, Syrians, perhaps, people all throughout the region. This was an attack that would have been to some scale.”
Assuming we trust Pompeo, then the kill was justified. And if we throw out all intelligence, then we might as well flip a coin on foreign policy. While I am sure there are bad actors in military intelligence, I'm even more confident terrorist organizations have terrorists.