The Anti-Benghazi

[saxitoxin]

Iraqi Police have opened fire on the funeral procession of Gen Soleimini:

https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/statu ... 09698?s=19

It's unclear if any Democrats were in Baghdad at the time to pay respects to the terror mastermind.

As the world continues to wait for Iran's promised "retaliation" nothing seems forthcoming, making the IRI appear impotent and castrated.

[armati]

Middle East atemporal
noiembrie 7, 2012
Netanyahu: “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away”
Filed under: Uncategorized — mihaibeltechi @ 10:45 am
Part 1 – America as an Israeli Colony

https://middleeastatemporal.wordpress.c ... blow-away/

On January 4, 2020 at 10:33 am,
Robert Moriarty says:
Guys:

Anyone not stupid or too lazy to do any background knows that Iran has not threatened to wipe Israel off the map. It never happened and you can parrot all the propaganda you want. It never happened.

Iran has, however, said they will defend themselves against the dozens of acts of war conducted against them by Israel and the US.

To suggest that Iran lacks military capability to hurt the US is even dumber and reflects the utter lack of critical thinking on either Al or JM’s part. OK, yes, Iran can’t defend itself against US air attacks, can’t attack New York, can’t kill hundreds of thousands of US troops in the way US troops have killed hundreds of thousands if not millions of Arabs and Muslims.

So what can they do?

What asymmetric weapons do they have? Just because they don’t have hundreds of nukes such as those poor victims in Israel have, they can shut down the Straits of Hormuz with no more than a dozen or so rockets in a day. Israel could kill 20 million Iranians and they could still shut it down.

If you think Iran is powerless, drop me a line when you are paying $30 a gallon for gas and unemployment is 35% and the US economy just ground to a halt.

The Yinon paper in 1982 called for this attack to take place, Wesley Clark talked about being briefed on this attack in 2002. It has nothing at all to do with Iran and any actions on their part. It is taking place perhaps starting WW III because of a small group of criminals who own and operate Trump like their own personal sock puppet.

If you idiots think that this attack is going to be good for the United States, write me after Iran/China/Russia have convinced the US that being the world’s leading terrorist state is a really bad idea.

Those three countries just finished war games together. Anyone who thinks China and Russia are going to stand by and watch Iran turned into a heap of ashes on behalf of Israel is going to be in for a real surprise. It ain’t gonna happen. WW III is going to be shorter than you imagine and a whole lot worse than you think.

https://lobelog.com/trump-has-a-259-mil ... bomb-iran/

[armati]

War Again on the Front Burner

Paul Craig Roberts

The nonsensical statement below from the Pentagon announcing that the US government has committed an act of war against Iran should frighten everyone:

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

“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.”

Murdering a high-ranking official of a government is an act of war. It is impossible for an act of war to protect US personnel abroad.

It is impossible for an act of war against Iran to deter future Iranian attack plans. Where there was no Iranian attack plan, there now is in response to the murder of Soleimani.

Committing an act of war does not “protect our people and our interests.” It jeopardizes them.

How is it possible for the Pentagon to issue such a nonsensical laughable justification for murdering a top official of another country?

Where was Trump’s mind? Just as he is emerging from the impeachment hoax, why did he commit an impeachable act? Trump attacked another country without Congressional authorization. He thumbed his nose at Congress and the law. It is the duty of the President to enforce the laws of the United States, not break them. The Democrats now have a real impeachable offense to hang around Trump’s neck.

But they will not make us of it. Trump struck down Soleimani, because that is what Netanyahu wanted. The main leaders of the impeachment hoax are Jews, and they are not going to line up against Israel. Adam Schiff, for example, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who is leading the impeachment, gave his approval to Soleimani’s murder when he tweeted that Suleimani “was responsible for unthinkable violence and world is better off without him.”

Israel is the main culprit in this crime. Trump is a secondary culprit. Soleimani himself bears responsibility. He should have known that he was a target and not exposed himself so carelessly. The Russian government also bears responsibility. Russia, China and Iran should long ago have formed a highly visible alliance. Such an alliance would have prevented the crazy and irresponsible act that Israel manuevered Trump into committing. But Putin doesn’t want war, and apparently historians have convinced Putin that alliances are the cause of war. Thus Putin avoids alliances, taking his que instead from American libertarians who say that free trade is the basis of peace. Strength is the guarantor of peace, and strength rests in a powerful alliance against US/Israeli aggression.

Iran’s response was predictable and unfortunate. Iran declared it will take revenge, and most likely will. Iran’s revenge will give Israel the war it wants between the US and Iran.

Iran would have done better to take its revenge and deny responsibility.

Idiot American politicians, one of whom could end up as President, are furthering the cause of war by working up American patriotism with claims, false of course, that Iran is a “terrorist state” determined to harm America, that Iran is responsible for thousands of deaths, including hundreds of Americans, and so forth.

We have heard all of this before. It is the US that is the terrorist state, having destroyed in whole or part seven Muslim countries in the 21st century, producing millions of deaths, injuries, and dispossessed and displaced peoples. I knew it was going to get worse when the Russian government permitted Israel to continue attacking Syrian targets after Russia had rescued Syria from Washington’s proxy army.

As long as Israel runs US foreign policy in Israel’s interest, and as long as “non-compliant” countries are content for Washington to knock them off one by one, war will continue to be our future.

Update: Washington decided to further inflame the situation with another strike: https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ ... commanders

[HitRed]

Sounds biased against Israel. Keep in mind God likes Israel.

[saxitoxin]

Netanyahu: “Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away”

Since Netanyahu is currently indicted on 14 felony charges and in danger of spending the next eight years in jail, I'd be cautious about putting too much faith in his strategic acumen.

[GoranZ]

The USA exports oil. When Churhill was Lord of the Admiralty he realized ships would be better switching from coal to oil. He help found the predecessor of BP. We are now moving from the petrochemical century to the renewable century. The Middle East/oil is worth LESS than 30 years ago.

Are you sure The USA exports oil?
From the official US documents US produces 17.94 but consumes 19.96 Million barrels per day. Source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6

If Saudi oilfields go up in flames it's a win for the shale industries in Pennsylvania and Ohio. We need to win at least one of those states in 2020 to guarantee four more years. And it would cripple the Chinese economy allowing us to extract more trade concessions.

lol, sure it would.

Not now saxy, not now. In order to make a pressure to the Chinese economy you will have to offer them something they need first, and you cant offer them oil

[HitRed]

Oct 18, 2017 · U.S. petroleum exports, led by Texas, hit record levels


Jul 05, 2017 · Oil Exports, Illegal for Decades, Now Fuel a Texas Port BoomOil Exports

Crude petroleum oils represent the fastest-growing among the top 10 export categories, up by 127% from 2017 to 2018

[Dukasaur]

Oct 18, 2017 · U.S. petroleum exports, led by Texas, hit record levels


Jul 05, 2017 · Oil Exports, Illegal for Decades, Now Fuel a Texas Port BoomOil Exports

Crude petroleum oils represent the fastest-growing among the top 10 export categories, up by 127% from 2017 to 2018

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Permian-Oil-Reserves-Are-Grossly-Exaggerated.html

[Evil Semp]

The USA exports oil. When Churhill was Lord of the Admiralty he realized ships would be better switching from coal to oil. He help found the predecessor of BP. We are now moving from the petrochemical century to the renewable century. The Middle East/oil is worth LESS than 30 years ago.

Are you sure The USA exports oil?
From the official US documents US produces 17.94 but consumes 19.96 Million barrels per day. Source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=709&t=6

If Saudi oilfields go up in flames it's a win for the shale industries in Pennsylvania and Ohio. We need to win at least one of those states in 2020 to guarantee four more years. And it would cripple the Chinese economy allowing us to extract more trade concessions.

lol, sure it would.

Not now saxy, not now. In order to make a pressure to the Chinese economy you will have to offer them something they need first, and you cant offer them oil

You can make numbers say what you want. Different types of oil. https://marketrealist.com/2019/05/why-t ... ports-oil/

[2dimes]

Was the pope threatening Irish people in Hawaii? That link didn't work for me.

[mrswdk]

The murder of a foreign government official in an extrajudicial attack by the US Government. The boil is in urgent need of lancing. America will get its just desserts.

I’m not convinced either way here.

I want to know what the guy was doing in Iraq.

If he was on some official diplomatic then the killing (at this time) is probably unjustified.

The UN has already said it was illegal for the US to attack Soleimani (plus the numerous other individuals who were killed in the same strike), and the Iraqi government has said that the US had no permission to launch this attack on Iraqi territory, making it doubly illegal:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/was- ... l-n1109961

If he was in Iraq meeting with militias/terrorists who operate in Iraq but are supported by Iran...

Well i this case he is essentially acting as the modern / 4th Gen Warfare equivalent of a battlefield commander in an active military zone... and he’s therefore a legitimate target.

The Quds Force that Soleimani led was involved in Iraq primarily to support Iraqi militias that were fighting against IS.

[jimboston]

The murder of a foreign government official in an extrajudicial attack by the US Government. The boil is in urgent need of lancing. America will get its just desserts.

I’m not convinced either way here.

I want to know what the guy was doing in Iraq.

If he was on some official diplomatic then the killing (at this time) is probably unjustified.

The UN has already said it was illegal for the US to attack Soleimani (plus the numerous other individuals who were killed in the same strike), and the Iraqi government has said that the US had no permission to launch this attack on Iraqi territory, making it doubly illegal:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/was- ... l-n1109961

If he was in Iraq meeting with militias/terrorists who operate in Iraq but are supported by Iran...

Well i this case he is essentially acting as the modern / 4th Gen Warfare equivalent of a battlefield commander in an active military zone... and he’s therefore a legitimate target.

The Quds Force that Soleimani led was involved in Iraq primarily to support Iraqi militias that were fighting against IS.

Define illegal.

Also, the “UN has already said it was illegal”? What does this mean? The UN speaks with one voice? That’d be a first! Do you mean that one official in the UN stated her opinion that it was illegal? That’s quite a different thing than the whole international community condemning the act...and even further from actually proving it’s “illegal’, whatever that means. How does one (or even many) countries take the US to court here?

[mrswdk]

Oh sorry, it was only the UN official whose specific role is to examine targeted killings. What would she know about the international law concerning the targeted killing of Soleimani?

You are right though, the US has repeatedly violated international law before (e.g. invading Iraq) and escaped unpunished, so there is no reason to think the international community will hold it to account for its crimes this time either.

[jimboston]

Oh sorry, it was only the UN official whose specific role is to examine targeted killings. What would she know about the international law concerning the targeted killing of Soleimani?

You are right though, the US has repeatedly violated international law before (e.g. invading Iraq) and escaped unpunished, so there is no reason to think the international community will hold it to account for its crimes this time either.

What constitutes a crime on a local level is debatable, hence we have trials to prove guilt or innocence.

What constitutes a “crime” in violation of “International Laws” is even more vague and debatable.

How is this any different than self defense?

Also... one person, regardless of her role or experience, does not speak for the entire UN.
You claiming otherwise is excessive exaggeration.

[saxitoxin]

Oh sorry, it was only the UN official whose specific role is to examine targeted killings. What would she know about the international law concerning the targeted killing of Soleimani?

You are right though, the US has repeatedly violated international law before (e.g. invading Iraq) and escaped unpunished, so there is no reason to think the international community will hold it to account for its crimes this time either.

Agnes Callamard is a dullard. She went to school at some secretarial college called the University of the Alps which is ranked #351 in the world. President Trump was educated at the University of Pennsylvania which is ranked #15 in the world.

-First, this was perfectly legal under international law by the standards of the Caroline Doctrine of 1837. The Caroline Doctrine says any nation has a right to engage in preventative self-defense within the territory of another state in the case of an attack against it that is so imminent that no other option to stop it is possible. General S was in Baghdad to put the finishing touches on an attack against the chancery of the United States embassy. As the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Iran it could not entreat the Islamic Republic to stop in a timely enough manner as it has to route its communications to Tehran through Switzerland - the protecting power of the United States - and return communiques have to be routed through Pakistan - the protecting power of Iran. The strike occurred after business hours on a Friday when both the Swiss and Pakistani embassies were closed. Therefore, due to a lack of time to engage in diplomacy given the numerous intermediaries involved, military action was the only possibility and the standards of the Caroline Doctrine are met.

-Second, this was perfectly legal under U.S. domestic law by the standards of the Obama Doctrine of 2013. Section 2 of Public Law 107-40 prescribes that " the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." President Obama set-forth, and this assertion was unchallenged, that 107-40 implicitly includes "associated forces" and that these include any "organized, armed group that has entered the fight alongside al Qaeda." According to U.S. intelligence agencies, Iran has had at least incidental contact with al Qaeda during the process of assisting in the fight against ISIS; the sole standard for invoking 107-40 is if "he [the President] determines" something. President Trump has said he so-determined this, therefore, the standards of the Obama Doctrine are met.

[Dukasaur]

Oh sorry, it was only the UN official whose specific role is to examine targeted killings. What would she know about the international law concerning the targeted killing of Soleimani?

You are right though, the US has repeatedly violated international law before (e.g. invading Iraq) and escaped unpunished, so there is no reason to think the international community will hold it to account for its crimes this time either.

+1

Oh sorry, it was only the UN official whose specific role is to examine targeted killings. What would she know about the international law concerning the targeted killing of Soleimani?

You are right though, the US has repeatedly violated international law before (e.g. invading Iraq) and escaped unpunished, so there is no reason to think the international community will hold it to account for its crimes this time either.

What constitutes a crime on a local level is debatable, hence we have trials to prove guilt or innocence.

What constitutes a “crime” in violation of “International Laws” is even more vague and debatable.

How is this any different than self defense?

Also... one person, regardless of her role or experience, does not speak for the entire UN.
You claiming otherwise is excessive exaggeration.

You're going off the deep end. International laws are pretty clear here. This is an extrajudicial killing of a foreign national.

One person doesn't have to speak for the whole U.N. in the general sense. If a cop watches you murder your wife and says, "Hey, man, that's illegal!" he's on pretty solid ground. He may not "speak for the entire nation" in the general sense, but within the limitations of his office that's exactly the kind of determination he's charged with making. As long as he's within the boundaries of what the law has tasked him with, he is indeed speaking for the nation.

[saxitoxin]

Iran continues to spit fire but not much else, shaking its fist that unspecified "retaliation is forthcoming."

Now, President Trump has grown weary. He has officially notified Iran that - in response to their impotent squealing - he has personally selected 52 targets inside the borders of the Islamic Republic, including ancient cultural sites important for tourism and Iran's sense of self-identity. In the unlikely event Iran attempts even the most half-hearted retaliation, all 52 will be simultaneously wiped off the face of the Earth by Space Force long-range weapon systems. According to the President, one city, military base, or oil field in Iran will be destroyed for each of the 52 American diplomats illegally delayed from leaving Tehran during the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

[saxitoxin]

[GoranZ]

including ancient cultural sites important for tourism and Iran's sense of self-identity

Wait a minute this is Barbarism!
I doubt you will be able to find a single reasonable men in US that would support this

[mrswdk]

including ancient cultural sites important for tourism and Iran's sense of self-identity

Wait a minute this is Barbarism!
I doubt you will be able to find a single reasonable men in US that would support this

Deliberately bombing cultural sites of no strategic or military significance would also be a straight up war crime. But then hey, Trump's already placed himself on that side of the divide by repeatedly pardoning American soldiers who have committed war crimes so I guess if the boot fits ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Don't forget though, it's the Chinese and Russian governments who are the bad guys, not the American government.

[jimboston]

Oh sorry, it was only the UN official whose specific role is to examine targeted killings. What would she know about the international law concerning the targeted killing of Soleimani?

You are right though, the US has repeatedly violated international law before (e.g. invading Iraq) and escaped unpunished, so there is no reason to think the international community will hold it to account for its crimes this time either.

+1

Oh sorry, it was only the UN official whose specific role is to examine targeted killings. What would she know about the international law concerning the targeted killing of Soleimani?

You are right though, the US has repeatedly violated international law before (e.g. invading Iraq) and escaped unpunished, so there is no reason to think the international community will hold it to account for its crimes this time either.

What constitutes a crime on a local level is debatable, hence we have trials to prove guilt or innocence.

What constitutes a “crime” in violation of “International Laws” is even more vague and debatable.

How is this any different than self defense?

Also... one person, regardless of her role or experience, does not speak for the entire UN.
You claiming otherwise is excessive exaggeration.

You're going off the deep end. International laws are pretty clear here. This is an extrajudicial killing of a foreign national.

One person doesn't have to speak for the whole U.N. in the general sense. If a cop watches you murder your wife and says, "Hey, man, that's illegal!" he's on pretty solid ground. He may not "speak for the entire nation" in the general sense, but within the limitations of his office that's exactly the kind of determination he's charged with making. As long as he's within the boundaries of what the law has tasked him with, he is indeed speaking for the nation.

mrswdk said “the UN already stated”...this is a false claim.
If he said that “UN officials stated” then I’d have not brought it up.

mrswdk likes to make sweeping claims and I cannot stand by and let these sweeping (and false) claims go unchallenged.
I’m just pointing out to him that he needs to be a bit more precise.

Your analogy is also incomplete... until we know why this Iranian Military Leader was in Iraq it is ridiculous to assume he was there with good intentions. Most likely he was there to meet with militant groups that Iran subsidizes... militant groups they subsidize that WORK OUTSIDE THEIR OWN BORDERS. He was on a military mission and therefore he was a legitimate target. The ‘battlefield’ of 4th Generation Warfare is not an open field with two. sides squaring off... you can’t look at it like that. Your analogy would. be more accurate if the cop watching the man kill his wife saw that the woman had a gun and was about to kill the husband. I don’t consider this an “extrajudicial” killing because the guy was a military leader in what is essentially an active conflict zone.

BTW... I am NOT saying this was smart, or it was the ‘right thing to do’... what I am saying is that I don’t know.... and frankly neither do you. NO ONE knows if this action the US took to kill this guy was smart... it’ll depend on the repercussions and. the long term impact. If killing this guy seriously impacts the ability of the Iranian Guard to operate effectively in the next couple years... it may have been smart.

[HitRed]

Trump through a bone to the media and they salivated. Everyone knows this except the media.

Trump's inauguration for example. It was a million people but trump said it was 5 or 10 million. The media fact checkers go crazy as if trump doesn't know what the answer to 1+1 is. This is the same. Doesn't trump know culture like targets are off limits? Yes he does. He always takes his statements up 5 or 10 levels. The media goes nuts.

In baseball and football the coach sometimes calls plays or formations just to see how the other team reacts. If the other team burns a timeout you are out thinking them.

[mrswdk]

Your analogy is also incomplete... until we know why this Iranian Military Leader was in Iraq it is ridiculous to assume he was there with good intentions. Most likely he was there to meet with militant groups that Iran subsidizes... militant groups they subsidize that WORK OUTSIDE THEIR OWN BORDERS. He was on a military mission and therefore he was a legitimate target.

As I already pointed out, his Quds Force's primary involvement in Iraq was supporting Iraqi militias in their fight against IS. Given the Trump administration has provided 0 evidence that Soleimani was in Iraq on any business that threatened the US, and given he was there with the knowledge and protection of the Iraqi government (who gave no authorisation for the US to attack him), it is reasonable to assume until proven otherwise he was there to visit those militia, who are currently facing the threat of a resurgent IS.

By your logic (he was involved in conflict therefore he is a legitimate target) I guess every US serviceman currently in the Middle East training, protecting and/or arming forces fighting against IS is a legitimate target for attack by Iran or anyone else then?

[Dukasaur]

Trump through a bone to the media and they salivated. Everyone knows this except the media.

Trump's inauguration for example. It was a million people but trump said it was 5 or 10 million. The media fact checkers go crazy as if trump doesn't know what the answer to 1+1 is. This is the same. Doesn't trump know culture like targets are off limits? Yes he does. He always takes his statements up 5 or 10 levels. The media goes nuts.

In baseball and football the coach sometimes calls plays or formations just to see how the other team reacts. If the other team burns a timeout you are out thinking them.

Mind-blowing that you think it's legitimate for an elected official to deliberately lie, and then compare it to a game.

I was taught that lying is one of the gravest crimes there is. Maybe they don't teach that in your country.

Even if lying is not one of the gravest crimes in the general sense, it's definitely one of the gravest crimes when done by an elected official. An elected official is entrusted with the government of his people, all his people, not just the ones that voted for him. He might lie on the campaign trail, while he's still one among equals, but once elected he's in a special position of trust and any abuse of that trust is a moral outrage.

[Dukasaur]

What constitutes a “crime” in violation of “International Laws” is even more vague and debatable.

Also... one person, regardless of her role or experience, does not speak for the entire UN.

You're going off the deep end. International laws are pretty clear here. This is an extrajudicial killing of a foreign national.

One person doesn't have to speak for the whole U.N. in the general sense. If a cop watches you murder your wife and says, "Hey, man, that's illegal!" he's on pretty solid ground. He may not "speak for the entire nation" in the general sense, but within the limitations of his office that's exactly the kind of determination he's charged with making. As long as he's within the boundaries of what the law has tasked him with, he is indeed speaking for the nation.

mrswdk likes to make sweeping claims and I cannot stand by and let these sweeping (and false) claims go unchallenged.
I’m just pointing out to him that he needs to be a bit more precise.

Having recently been the victim of similarly ridiculous nitpicking by someone else, I have to point out that it's ridiculous nitpicking. How many times have you said, "people hate Justin Bieber" when, in fact, you know damn well that only 98% of people hate Justin Bieber? This is the kind of semantic hair-splitting that people engage in when they have nothing substantive to say.

Your analogy is also incomplete... until we know why this Iranian Military Leader was in Iraq it is ridiculous to assume he was there with good intentions. Most likely he was there to meet with militant groups that Iran subsidizes...

How do you juxtapose those two statements as if they were opposites? Since when is it a crime to meet with your allies? By that logic, every time an American general goes to London to consult with the British, he should be shot.

Of course he was in Baghdad to meet with his allies. In what universe is that a crime?

militant groups they subsidize that WORK OUTSIDE THEIR OWN BORDERS. He was on a military mission and therefore he was a legitimate target. The ‘battlefield’ of 4th Generation Warfare is not an open field with two. sides squaring off... you can’t look at it like that. Your analogy would. be more accurate if the cop watching the man kill his wife saw that the woman had a gun and was about to kill the husband. I don’t consider this an “extrajudicial” killing because the guy was a military leader in what is essentially an active conflict zone.

Yes, he was a military leader in an active conflict zone. Helping the Shiite people of Iraq defend themselves against genocidal Sunni groups like ISIS and al-Queada. In what universe is that a crime?

Since the U.S. won't do anything to help them survive, the least it can do is stay the f*ck out of the way and let them get help wherever they can get it.