• 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

TheContact

Member
Jan 22, 2016
3,107
986
555
Did we attack Iran or did Iran attack us and we responded?

Shocking how when reality factors in your little point here evaporates. You people are small time thinkers, not a unique thought in your heads echoing the twitter meme feed.

Pathetic.
no one attacked us when we bombed Syria’s airports. This is a wag the dog moment and you’re too stupid to realize it. Trump does not care one bit about that contractor. He only cares about himself; that’s how narcissism works.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,833
4,408
1,055
DOD releases statement:

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.


 

DynamiteCop!

Member
Mar 3, 2018
3,113
5,972
515
DOD releases statement:

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.


Seems pretty simple yet people have some mental block relating to the President that doesn't allow them to see the rationality behind all of this.
 

DynamiteCop!

Member
Mar 3, 2018
3,113
5,972
515
no one attacked us when we bombed Syria’s airports. This is a wag the dog moment and you’re too stupid to realize it. Trump does not care one bit about that contractor. He only cares about himself; that’s how narcissism works.
Yet another uninformed person, shocking... You people are like leaves on a tree that never seem to stop dropping out of the sky. You seem to not be familiar with the chemical weapons convention and how that relates to not only our existing military presence in Syria at the time but also our support of the rebel forces there and our obligation and means of protecting the public. Chemical weapons on basically a planetary level are barred from existence and use, and basically everyone who has them is actively destroying them. Syria claimed in 2014 to have destroyed all of their stockpiles, they lied and used them on their own people no less, and as we were there and are the majority military presence responsible we retaliated out of obligation.

I swear to god I'm talking to a bunch of kids in junior high.
 

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
12,045
20,300
905
autoduelist autoduelist


What happened to that autodeulist ?
Um... i've already responded in full, but sure.

I am anti-war. I am not, and have never been, a pacifist.

I want to see our troops home. I recognize that there is no way for me to know if killing a couple HVT targets aids or harms that. We have no idea what intelligence our military was privy to - clearly they knew where these HVTs were.

Afterall, why were all these men together in the first place in Baghdad, just when our Embassy was attacked? To me, this seems likely obviously connected. For all we know, these killings and arrests prevented some Iran sponsored event we will never know about that would have caused war.

That's why I want our troops out of the region. I do not want us to have to make these decisions. But while we are there, these decisions must be made, and I do not presume to have the information our intelligence agencies do. And given there are situations in which I would certainly make the call to eliminate threats, I do not judge when others make said call as long as it seems within reason. Given recent events, and the men in question, this does.

Sometimes we kill for peace. I realize that's not the pacifistic answer some of my anti-war brethen give, but I am not them. Nor is it hypocritical, as some seem to claim. Not all peace accords are built with friendly handshakes. Let us get our troops back home, so we can keep them safe.
 

Liberty4all

Member
Nov 11, 2007
9,563
867
1,350
Um... i've already responded in full, but sure.

I am anti-war. I am not, and have never been, a pacifist.

I want to see our troops home. I recognize that there is no way for me to know if killing a couple HVT targets aids or harms that. We have no idea what intelligence our military was privy to - clearly they knew where these HVTs were.

Afterall, why were all these men together in the first place in Baghdad, just when our Embassy was attacked? To me, this seems likely obviously connected. For all we know, these killings and arrests prevented some Iran sponsored event we will never know about that would have caused war.

That's why I want our troops out of the region. I do not want us to have to make these decisions. But while we are there, these decisions must be made, and I do not presume to have the information our intelligence agencies do. And given there are situations in which I would certainly make the call to eliminate threats, I do not judge when others make said call as long as it seems within reason. Given recent events, and the men in question, this does.

Sometimes we kill for peace. I realize that's not the pacifistic answer some of my anti-war brethen give, but I am not them. Nor is it hypocritical, as some seem to claim. Not all peace accords are built with friendly handshakes. Let us get our troops back home, so we can keep them safe.
Iraq subreddit speculation is that an Iranian backed coup of the Iraqi government was imminent. No idea if true.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
3,833
4,408
1,055
Iraq subreddit speculation is that an Iranian backed coup of the Iraqi government was imminent. No idea if true.
It would explain why so many 'High Value Targets' were hit in one strike and their conspirators were arrested while it was going on. Interesting to see what information comes out in the coming weeks.
 
  • Like
  • LOL
Reactions: JORMBO and Al3x1s

autoduelist

Member
Aug 30, 2014
12,045
20,300
905
Iraq subreddit speculation is that an Iranian backed coup of the Iraqi government was imminent. No idea if true.
I was thinking terrorist attack, but that would also make sense.

Given we hit an airport, I'm also guessing we had the complete support of the Iraqi government for such an operation. That would line up as serious enough that they would give the blessing.
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
14,935
2,195
1,515
That was an irresistible 3 for 1, probably the most economical use of American military might in recent history. At least that we know of. You don't get to ride around in limos while directing state-sponsored terrorism at the US unless you're a Saudi.

For people confused about this, this isn't the start of a war, this is the continuation of one that has been going on for quite some time, unofficially. Soleimani's job was to train, equip, and point terrorists at western interests, primarily US and UK.
 

MisterFalcon

Member
Mar 12, 2013
3,087
262
480
This is some pretty solid intel work to get three major targets in one, clean strike. Maybe they are not 100% Deep State who need to be disbanded after all
 

Xenon

Member
Not going to say Im comfortable at all with this. I need to get a lot more information.

But if this does turn out to be a valid and worthwhile attack. The media's singling out it as Trump's order as if this wasn't something he was advised by the military could backfire in a huge way.
 
Last edited:

PanzerAzel

Member
Oct 31, 2019
157
208
235
I’d be a lot more comfortable with this if I believed the Trump administration actually had a coherent foreign policy goal in mind instead of just winging it.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
3,515
5,341
485
Revenge for their instigation, cute.
Yeah it’s always cute that when we get attacked everyone says aw shucks, but when we hit back it’s “oh you motherfuckers!”

If Iran didn’t want to get dick slapped they shouldn’t have been fucking with us for like, the last four years. Trump has shown incredible restraint and the real reason for Iran’s aggression is twofold:

Trumps policy of sanctions has fucking cornholed them. They are desperate.

Second, they only understand brute force, you try choking them out monetarily and they just show their ass some more.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
3,515
5,341
485
DOD releases statement:

At the direction of the President, the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personnel abroad by killing Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force, a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization.

General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region. General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more. He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months – including the attack on December 27th – culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.

This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans. The United States will continue to take all necessary action to protect our people and our interests wherever they are around the world.


Iran was trying to Benghazi Trump and they got dicked in the butt for it. Sad that the only people upset about it are Iran and Democrats.

I still say we should get the fuck out of the Middle East, but the reality is that presently we have an embassy there now and these fuckers were trying to take it out and we had to defend it and the American lives inside. Very fucking simple, folks.
 
Last edited:

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
14,935
2,195
1,515
Given we hit an airport, I'm also guessing we had the complete support of the Iraqi government for such an operation.
Didn't hit an airport. Hit a group of vehicles leaving an airport. Looks like a single missile, probably from a drone, if the one picture I've seen is legit.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
3,515
5,341
485
Didn't hit an airport. Hit a group of vehicles leaving an airport. Looks like a single missile, probably from a drone, if the one picture I've seen is legit.

“An Iraqi official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Associated Press that al-Muhandis had arrived to the airport in a convoy to receive Soleimani whose plane had arrived from either Lebanon or Syria. The airstrike occurred as soon as he descended from the plane to be greeted by al-Muhandis and his companions, killing them all.”

Seems to be contradictory reporting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: autoduelist
Oct 5, 2014
138
68
410
as kurd im glad this happen, and i hope the iraqi governemt turns on each other, this gives will give the kurds more power send peshmerga back to kerkuk
 

Texas Pride

Member
Feb 27, 2018
1,604
2,340
600
Texas
You kill a US contractor we kill a general. You kill 1 of ours we kill 10 of yours. That's the way you deal with people who only learn the hard way. This also has the dual purpose of letting NK know what happens when the gloves come off at a time they are stirring shit up again. It was directed towards Iran but it put everyone on notice.
 

brap’s dad

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
18,911
34,316
1,450
Australia
How on one hand can people praise trump for pulling troops out of the Middle East and at the same time praise him for potentially starting a war in the Middle East? I remember when trump bombed the Syrian airport a lot of his supporters were upset with him because he ran on the America-first model and to let the Middle East figure their own shit out.

I remember someone here compared Clinton’s air strikes in Iraq to distract from his impeachment. Trump is trying to save his presidency—get us in a war so people are willing to accept his criminal actions.
He didn’t start this. It was a retaliation to Iran attacking the US embassy first — the US was defending itself. You can’t let that kind of thing slide without consequence because it only invites further aggression when they know they can get away with it. Think of this strike as a preventive measure. Iran may well escalate, but that’s on them. They would be idiotic to anyway because they stand no chance against the might of the US military.
 

Lupingosei

Member
Oct 24, 2017
306
579
345
Why is nobody asking what this guy was doing in Iraq in the first place and if that was maybe also one of the reasons why he was taken out. He was also responsible for a lot of dead American soldiers in Iraq.
 
Last edited:

Monsterkillah

Member
Aug 12, 2018
2,548
3,390
535
U.S. sends more troops to Middle East after attack on embassy compound in Baghdad

The Defense Department said in announcing the strike Thursday night that Suleimani had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over several months, including the Dec. 27 attack that killed the contractor.


Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, called the U.S. action "an extremely dangerous and foolish escalation."


"The U.S. bears responsibility for all consequences of its rogue adventurism," Zarif wrote Twitter.


Iran is likely to retaliate with terrorism and cyberattacks, said Norman Roule, a 34-year CIA veteran who oversaw national intelligence policy on Iran before he retired in 2017.

Roule said in a telephone interview that the U.S. move puts the United States and Iran in a confrontation unlike any other since the hostage crisis in 1979.


"I believe it is highly likely the U.S. would not have undertaken this action unless it believed doing so would have prevented the loss of American lives," Roule said. "American officials are fully aware of the consequences such an action would produce."


The former head of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Mohsen Rezaee, vowed “strong revenge against the United States” on Twitter.

Trump has not appeared to comment on the strike, but he tweeted an image of a U.S. flag with no text.
 
Last edited:

Krappadizzle

Member
Oct 4, 2011
12,750
1,416
955
Welcome to more decades of wars, yay!! So much for the anti-war Trump, same shit as all the others, the establishment is thrilled 🙄
Based off of how little you seem to grasp world issues, like at all, we'll just say it's a minor victory in a bigger issue.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: crowbrow

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
9,013
1,422
1,700
He didn’t start this. It was a retaliation to Iran attacking the US embassy first — the US was defending itself. You can’t let that kind of thing slide without consequence because it only invites further aggression when they know they can get away with it. Think of this strike as a preventive measure. Iran may well escalate, but that’s on them. They would be idiotic to anyway because they stand no chance against the might of the US military.
It's not really a question of whether or not Iran will stand a chance against our military in a direct conflict, it's whether or not they can hurt us bad enough that it's not worth us staying in it. If they keep attacking oil fields, guerrilla attacks on our assets, terrorist strikes on US soil, and oh yeah they're restarting their nuclear program since we blew up that agreement...it's hard for me to see the logic in bombing the fuck out of a country where substantial amounts of the population have an apocalyptic martyr complex.

And while I get the mindset of "start shit, get hit" when it comes to dealing with violent attacks, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I don't trust the Trump administration to have thought this through thoroughly at all. I hope I'm wrong and Iran tucks its tail, but I can't see them not killing US military and civilians in retaliation..
 

brap’s dad

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
18,911
34,316
1,450
Australia
It's not really a question of whether or not Iran will stand a chance against our military in a direct conflict, it's whether or not they can hurt us bad enough that it's not worth us staying in it. If they keep attacking oil fields, guerrilla attacks on our assets, terrorist strikes on US soil, and oh yeah they're restarting their nuclear program since we blew up that agreement...it's hard for me to see the logic in bombing the fuck out of a country where substantial amounts of the population have an apocalyptic martyr complex.

And while I get the mindset of "start shit, get hit" when it comes to dealing with violent attacks, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I don't trust the Trump administration to have thought this through thoroughly at all. I hope I'm wrong and Iran tucks its tail, but I can't see them not killing US military and civilians in retaliation..
Yeah, that’s true, but my main point is that people are framing it as though Trump is starting a war when in reality Iran started it. You can’t just flop on your belly and pretend to be a door mat when they make moves like this. You have to show them who’s boss early otherwise the losses will be greater in the long run. Sometimes you have to smack a misbehaving child.
 

lyan

Member
May 21, 2017
198
111
260
Yet another uninformed person, shocking... You people are like leaves on a tree that never seem to stop dropping out of the sky. You seem to not be familiar with the chemical weapons convention and how that relates to not only our existing military presence in Syria at the time but also our support of the rebel forces there and our obligation and means of protecting the public. Chemical weapons on basically a planetary level are barred from existence and use, and basically everyone who has them is actively destroying them. Syria claimed in 2014 to have destroyed all of their stockpiles, they lied and used them on their own people no less, and as we were there and are the majority military presence responsible we retaliated out of obligation.

I swear to god I'm talking to a bunch of kids in junior high.
you can't wake a person pretending to be asleep
 

dragonfart28

Banned
Jun 12, 2009
5,106
736
1,080
That non-interventionist policy strikes again.

This is a very conventional and predictable Republican move.

The swamp is proud.
 
Last edited:

Grinchy

Gold Member
Aug 3, 2010
23,719
8,482
1,115
a cave outside of Whoville.
I’d be a lot more comfortable with this if I believed the Trump administration actually had a coherent foreign policy goal in mind instead of just winging it.
So you actually believe that? That things on the grand scale of US foreign policy are being done without any thought or planning? Do you realize how dumb that sounds?

Not agreeing with policies or plans...fine...but you actually think everyone is "winging it?" That is just such a small-minded comment that I shouldn't even bother saying anything, but this is the kind of shit that Twittiots click Like on all day. Don't be one of those. Have some respect for yourself.
 

Thaedolus

Member
Jun 9, 2004
9,013
1,422
1,700
Yeah, that’s true, but my main point is that people are framing it as though Trump is starting a war when in reality Iran started it. You can’t just flop on your belly and pretend to be a door mat when they make moves like this. You have to show them who’s boss early otherwise the losses will be greater in the long run. Sometimes you have to smack a misbehaving child.
My thought is the "who started it?" question is sort of irrelevant when it comes to getting to the best outcome, i.e. the least amount of loss of life/destruction/money spent. As for what happens in the long run, that remains to be seen, but it seems like we've learned (or maybe we need to learn) from several experiences over the past 60 years that getting into conflicts where people have a lot less to lose than we do isn't really a good idea.
 

dragonfart28

Banned
Jun 12, 2009
5,106
736
1,080
Republicans only have one way to solve their problems and it just continues to create more enemies for the US unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crowbrow

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
3,515
5,341
485
That non-interventionist policy strikes again.

This is a very conventional and predictable Republican move.

The swamp is proud.
What was the policy called when Obama invaded Libya or droned citizens with no due process? Oh yeah, leading from behind or some such nonsense, right? And the press and Left just parroted it lovingly, like good little sycophants.
 
Last edited:

dragonfart28

Banned
Jun 12, 2009
5,106
736
1,080
What was the policy called when Obama invaded Libya? Oh yeah, leading from behind or some such nonsense, right?
This is supposed to be a defence for the same old same old?

Let's try a little harder.

Democrats usually have a casus belli for their exploits.

Here we have no congressional approval for a strike that clearly escalated the situation instead of resolving it.

It's like weapons of mass destruction and we all knew it the moment a few people burned a building.

This is very typical and no one expected any different.
 

HeresJohnny

Member
Mar 14, 2018
3,515
5,341
485
It's going to spawn new terrorist groups to replace Iran's pet terrorist groups?
Crow has openly rooted for Iran and has some pretty far-fetched geopolitical fantasies. Take it with a grain of sand. Iran is the birth canal for terrorists, whether the U.S. uses its military or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Oner

brap’s dad

Formerly 'matt404au'
Apr 25, 2009
18,911
34,316
1,450
Australia
My thought is the "who started it?" question is sort of irrelevant when it comes to getting to the best outcome, i.e. the least amount of loss of life/destruction/money spent. As for what happens in the long run, that remains to be seen, but it seems like we've learned (or maybe we need to learn) from several experiences over the past 60 years that getting into conflicts where people have a lot less to lose than we do isn't really a good idea.
It’s really not irrelevant and we need to get away from this feminised equalising mindset of ignoring who started it and punishing all equally. It doesn’t work with children and it doesn’t work with lunatic regimes like Iran either. Punishing the instigator more than the reactor is the only effective deterrent.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
2,145
2,799
495
It's not really a question of whether or not Iran will stand a chance against our military in a direct conflict, it's whether or not they can hurt us bad enough that it's not worth us staying in it. If they keep attacking oil fields, guerrilla attacks on our assets, terrorist strikes on US soil, and oh yeah they're restarting their nuclear program since we blew up that agreement...it's hard for me to see the logic in bombing the fuck out of a country where substantial amounts of the population have an apocalyptic martyr complex.

And while I get the mindset of "start shit, get hit" when it comes to dealing with violent attacks, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. I don't trust the Trump administration to have thought this through thoroughly at all. I hope I'm wrong and Iran tucks its tail, but I can't see them not killing US military and civilians in retaliation..
They've been doing the bolded for years, so...