US officials have confirmed that they were given advance notice Tuesday night before Iranian missile strikes against bases hosting US troops, part of what is seen as a concerted effort to avoid casualties.
Iranian FM Javad Zarif said the advance notice was provided to the Iraqi government, citing respect for Iraqi sovereignty. Iraq told the US, giving time to get people out of the way of the attack.
In addition, there are reports that the Iranians were directly communicating with the US through multiple sources, including the Swiss Embassy in Iran, to assure them that the attacks were the extent of their retaliation and that they are done.
President Trump confirmed that Iran is “standing down” after the attack, though his comments were mostly boilerplate about the Iran nuclear deal, and he accused President Obama of providing the funds Iran used to buy the missiles fired on Tuesday.
Trump and Zarif had both pointed to deescalation on Tuesday night in Tweets, with the takeaway that Iran considered what they did proportionate, and that the US could live with that since there were no casualties.
Other analysts suggested that some Iranian missiles were deliberate duds “designed to miss,” giving Iran a chance to play up the attack domestically, in reaction to calls for revenge after the death of Qassem Soleimani, without doing anything so serious that it would escalate the fight any further. This was supported by photos of unexploded ballistic missiles inside Iraq.
This restored some Iran deterrent capability, and provided the US with an off-ramp to avoid further tit-for-tat escalation. It seems the US is taking that, even if Trump is calling for more NATO involvement and more sanctions. That rhetoric returns the US to mostly an ex ante state, however, and so the US can also be said to be standing down, even if it is in Trump’s usual, bellicose manner.
One side murders a high ranking general and relishes in that fact while the other side gives notice of an impending retaliation attack in order to avoid any casualties. Now which side is the actual state sponsor of terror?
As usual, you miss the trees for the forest.
US keals OBL= AQ neutered;
US keals al-Bagdady = ISIS neutered;
US keals Soleimeni = Iran—-neutered!
Terrorists are enemy combatants.
Why am I not surprised that you, John Bolton and Nikki Haley again see eye to eye. Why not visit a neocon echo chamber instead of sticking your nose in here to spew forth more drivel?
You may have noticed the forest but you missed the matrix.
Analyze this:
Iran stands down,
Trump doesn’t pull the trigger,
WWIII averted;
Soleimeni assumed room temperature;
and a call goes out —for peace.
While the stock market soars,
Rand Paul congratulates and
the MIC winces!
False. Irans harsh revenge is America leaving the region. America is no longer welcome in the middle east.
15 ballistic missiles, shot into the sand, = weak, tottering and pathetic.
But just enough to prevent a war. F*cking brilliant.
Taking Soleimani’s head, without a war,
while cowing the regime,
THAT is brilliant!
“while cowing the regime”
Hardly.
15 ballistic missiles shot into the ground is your first clue, Clouseau.
LOL, yes!
We will accept the symbolic Iraqi vote to LEAVE!
The American taxpayers thank the Iraqi parliament for doing so!
Adios!
America’s revenge on Iran,
is to get out of the way and
let the Shia and Sunni do what they always will do,
keal each other!
I call that a win/win.
Block this clown. He’s either a bot or a troll, but more to the point a time-water with nothing of substance to say.
LOL
Couldn’t have said it better, bro. I am on cloud 9 this morning, I was fully expecting full on WW3 when I woke up. Can’t tell you how happy I am that war has been averted for now.
Meaningless, because neither side of the point has any authenticity.
Please expand if you would. What game is afoot? Federal Reserve/BIS shenanigans???
Federal Reserve/BIS? Are you joking or is this the limit of your understanding of the Middle East?
No asshole, far from it. You are the one claiming to understand the matrix. So you can please enlighten us all.
Since you couldn’t demonstrate politeness, I suggest you stick with Federal Reserve and BIS shenanigans.
Sorry. I don’t know what you are talking about.
The Iranians didn’t give advance notice out of kindness of their heart. There are players in the backstage that most people are not aware. In short, this was part of the script.
I’m not that naïve. When it’s David against Goliath you have to use your head. Still, way too pragmatic to be terrorists. While assassinations are becoming of terrorists.
the actual state sponsor of terror
Murders a high ranking official in a very public place, with little regard for additional casualties, threatens further attacks on civilian/cultural sites, promises to increase a program of collective punishment – sanctions, all in order to achieve political objectives.
The very definition of the term.
The definition of terrorism is attacking non-combatant civilians for the purpose of influencing state policy.
The killing of Soleimani fails the first part of that definition. He was a military combatant.
The problem with killing him (other than that his side has a better claim to be legitimately operating in the Middle East than the US does) isn’t that it was terrorism. It’s that the killing occurred on the soil of a supposed sovereign ally of which he was an invited guest, allegedly under pretenses of a false peace proposal, and that five officers of that ally’s own forces were killed in the action.
Point taken re Soleimani and Iraqi sovereignty. The rest seems to fit- the people of Iran are made to feel unsafe and that they will continue to suffer and be killed unless a political result is reached that satisfies the aggressor.
Yep.
Look, when I say that the assassination of Soleimani wasn’t “terrorism,” that doesn’t mean I think it was a good idea, or not a crime, etc. I also don’t think that rape is embezzlement or that shit is Shinola.
A. There is no official state of war between Iran and the US.
B. He was on a commercial flight going to attend the funeral of the people the US had just killed.
C. He was also to act as a plenipotentiary in delivering Iran’s reply to the KSA.
Being a military man doesn’t change any of that. Plenty of military are engaged in completely non-military activities. There was no combat, no conflict, etc.
You’d have a point if he was on his way to kick off and command a theater-wide offensive designed to turn the ridiculously overrated US military into a grease stain, which they are fully capable of doing without a single doubt.
Soleimani was not a military combatant. Who declared war against Iran?
And where did you get your definition of terrorism?
Wikipedia says: “Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentional violence, ***GENERALLY*** against civilians, for political purposes.. [emphasis added].
Just because the Zionists hate Iran does not create a legal state of war.
“Soleimani was not a military combatant. Who declared war against Iran?”
What does the latter question have to do with the former claim?
He was a member of the Iranian armed forces, whose reputation was built on commanding troops (Iranian and allied) in battle all over the region, and he and the regime he serves have been at combat loggerheads with the regime Trump commands for decades.
Killing Soleimani wasn’t terrorism for the same reason that the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing wasn’t terrorism: Because words mean things. Military attacks on military personnel may be any number of things, but they aren’t terrorism.
Skywalker: “Soleimani was not a military combatant. Who declared war against Iran?”
Knapp “What does the latter question have to do with the former claim?”
There is no legal state of war between Iran and the US. Soleimani was an official of a government which is not at war with the USA travelling with diplomatic immunity under the protection of a US ally. He was not an enemy combatant unless Congress declared war or authorized the use of force against Iran.
18 U.S.C. §2331[1] of the US Criminal Code defines “international terrorism” as:
“activities that . . .
(B) appear to be intended . . .
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, ***ASSASSINATION***, or kidnapping;”
The US international terrorism statute seems to fit the crime. Have you seen any evidence that Soleimani was involved in hostilities against the United States? Have the Revolutionary Guards ever engaged US forces? And it you have such evidence, you should share it with Trump. He could use it.
Hmm, this is interesting.
So since you define “terrorism” in terms of whatever the US regime says it is, I assume you agree that Soleimani was also a “terrorist?” After all, the US regime says he is, right?
You still have given no authority for your erroneous assertion that international terrorism is restricted to “non-combatant civilians” and that Soleimani was a “military combatant.” Under US and international law a government official is not a “military combatant” unless a state of war exists between two countries. Soleimani was a military combatant against ISIS. But unless and until Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force against Iran, its officials are not military combatants against the United States.
The second Bush administration invented the illegal category of “enemy combatant” expressly for the purpose of denying POW status to members of non-state entities like Al Quada.. Even Bush and Obama never pretended that government officials could be “enemy combatants” subject to assassination, kidnapping or rendition.
You have gone further than even Bush or Obama by expanding the category of “enemy combatant” to “military combatant.” Simply put, a state of war does not exist between the US and Iran.
I don’t define “terrorism” as “whatever the US regime says it is.” I cited a section of the US criminal code to demonstrate that you had no basis for labeling Soleimani a “military combatant” with respect to the US.
“You still have given no authority for your erroneous assertion that international terrorism is restricted to ‘non-combatant civilians'”
I haven’t said anything at all about “international terrorism.”
What I’ve done is offered the traditional, not legal definition of terrorism. The traditional definition of terrorism is that it consists of attacks on civilian non-combatants, not military personnel, and that its goal is to influence state policy through creation of terror.
“and that Soleimani was a ‘military combatant.'”
Since Soleimani clearly considered himself a military combatant, and since Soleimani’s bosses clearly considered him a military combatant — else they would not have sent him into combat and he would not have gone — is there some particular reason why I would need to offer any other “authority” as to his status?
” Under US and international law a government official is not a ‘military combatant’ unless a state of war exists between two countries.”
Under US law, I’m pretty sure you’re correct. The Geneva Conventions of 1949, on the other hand, “shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.”
If you think that the US and Iran are not engaged in “armed conflict” for, oh, 40 years now, I humbly request contact information for your drug dealer, because he’s giving you some goooooooooooood stuff.
It’s all well and good to quibble over a definition, citing various “authorities”. As has been said, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Neither the dictionary, legal definitions by various jurisdictions with their disparate motivations, or variants of common usage, can pin down the meaning. It’s all over the place.
I would simply start with the words terror and terrorize. Which to my way of thinking makes the US the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, terrorizing, and “terrorism”. Across the world, the US is ready to murder, with impunity, anyone for whatever reason, and then invent the “justification”, as in “he was planning imminent attacks”.
Re the Soleimani homicide, I would use the terms murder and assassination and act of war. The first is unlawful homicide, the second is supra-legal political violence, and the third is the term for broad supra-legal violence in the sovereign domain. I use the term “supra-legal” to indicate that, international “law” notwithstanding, there is no law where there is no competent authority to enforce it. In that sovereign domain there is only “the strong do as they wish, the weak suffer as they must.”
I agree 100% that the US government is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.
The pro US imperialism mod that takes his cues directly from the US propaganda.
Not too bright, either, are you?
Do you think the US would call it terrorism if one of our foes assassinated our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in a 3rd country by an incinerating drone attack?
Before or after our missile strikes?
Yes, I do. The US government calls EVERYTHING it doesn’t like “terrorism.” But that doesn’t make it terrorism.
Terrorism: “The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.” Source: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/terrorism
It doesn’t say exclusively against civilians. Also, since the US is not officially at war with Iran or Iraq, and furthermore since those people were not engaged in combat, this was unlawful. And there certainly were political aims, though we can argue about what they were.
Here’s your crow. Feel free to prepare it however you want. 🙂
I didn’t say the killing wasn’t “unlawful.” I said it wasn’t “terrorism.” There’s a difference.
I also don’t call it “terrorism” when an Iraqi militia kills a US soldier, or when a Saudi pilot trainee kills his US military instructors.
Things should be called what they are, even if calling them something else makes for better propaganda.
The killing of Soleimani was unlawful, it was evil, and it was stupid. There’s no need to embellish those qualities by pretending it was “terrorism.”
The fact that the man was a general doesn’t preclude it from being terrorism. He was not killed in battle or on a battlefield, he was specifically targeted by a long-range attack at an airport, for the purpose of affecting Iranian policy, not in an attack by American forces trying to capture a city, for example. If the Iranians decided to kill an American general via a car bomb for the purpose of affecting American policy while the general was in France and not on a battlefield, let’s say, would that be a terror attack? Yes.
“If the Iranians decided to kill an American general via a car bomb for the purpose of affecting American policy while the general was in France and not on a battlefield, let’s say, would that be a terror attack? Yes.”
True, if words mean whatever you want them to mean, at the time you happen to want them to mean that thing.
Tulsi Gabbard live on Congressional briefing
Spot on.
And still no proof presented that the general was an imminent threat.
The “imminent threat” business is a total lie (of course) intended to give legal cover and gull the red, white and blue flag-draped.
i Agree.
who shoot down the plane then? also it isnt a terrorist attack killing military combatants.
What a well calibrated response. The Iranians for sure don’t want a war, they look like they are going to win this without firing a shot. Iraq will kick the Americans out (maybe they go maybe they don’t) but I bet the rest of our NATO allies will respect Iraqi sovereingty leaving just us.
You have quite a valid point here and I agree. This was a well calibrated response from the Iranians. Yes, indeed, they don’t want a war; they look like they’re going to win this without firing a shot .. Iraq will kick the Americans out (maybe they leave, maybe they don’t) but I, too, bet the rest of our NATO allies will respect Iraq’s sovereignty, leaving just us, if we don’t leave with them.
It certainly would be very stupid of the Americans if they don’t leave Iraq with their NATO allies .. The Iraqis will certainly drive them out if they refuse to leave.
excellent news, we could hardly hope for better!
the US has been warned, and the Iranians have taken some ‘revenge’ for the assassinations, and without provoking a very very large and devastating conflict
and both sides have saved face, which is really the good work of diplomacy and the diplomatic mind-set which seeks to avoid unnecessary bloodshed and yet gain some advantage.
It’s good that they gave the heads up but I don’t think they missed on purpose. Their missile systems are junk, not that much better than Saddam’s were. The intel groups have been hyping Iran’s capacity for a long time making them out to be a much bigger threat than they are. That’s been documented by a couple of decent anti-war people before. Trump hyped the threat too as part of his excuse for pulling out of the nuke agreement, that was as much BS as the rest of it. Iran has a lot of missiles but their tech is lousy. Maybe they have better drone tech now but I’m not surprised at all that they didn’t do much damage.
Iran is not in the business of violence, and as you know the sanctions stop it getting even spare parts for cars. Iranians use their brains and have a rich culture and history.
If somebody has enough gall to kill a very important and loved leader of a sovereign nation or any other human being, in front of God and everybody without batting an eye, then bragging about how powerful this nation is, do you think that somebody would think twice about intentionally shooting down an airliner full of innocent people? Makes me wonder and if that is so, makes me ashamed to be an American.
That already happened. Iranian airliner in a scheduled flight. US missile from our ship. Took forever to say sorry. Lies were told that airliner did not respond to request to identify, while knowing full well that the request was made on military channel to which civilian airlines have no access to.
What you described is a country that has abrogated every pretension on global leadership, Not the kind of leadership neocons salivate for — invading everyone we disagree with. What sorry state would be any corporation in, if their executives take sides, punish they dislike, and not care one whit about the success or failure of their business. We are not leaders, we are wreckers of relationships and commerce. Just so that our rulers can satisfy their client’s interests, and desires. We provide no mediation, we do not consult with anyone other then our partners in crime.
All pretense has fallen off, and the world will seek advice elsewhere.
Was there ever an apology? I know Bush 1 refused to apologize. I think some medals were handed out also. Maybe a promotion?
This is just Iran taking some immediate action in order to satisfy its electorate that some “revenge” for Suleimani has been taken.
The *real* retaliation will come at a later date and will have at least some degree of “plausible deniability” attached to it, probably because it will come from some Iranian ally such as Lebanese Hezbollah and not directly from Iran itself.
Way too militant. The prize here is a US departure from Iraq and Syria. Stay focused.
Yes, the animus will remain, but retaliation/revenge must serve a purpose. The Iranians are thoughtful, strategic, patient, deliberate. The bully US — subverted by criminal Israel — is more emotional, impulsive, and injudicious.
But this is precisely the problem. As long as Trump is a totally ignorant, buffoonish President who can be led by the nose by bogus “intelligence” from the myriad neocons and warmongers he has surrounded himself with, war with Iran is inevitable. Sooner or later, the neocons will foment a casus belli that will cause Trump to authorize a military strike of some sort against Iran itself, which Iran will have no choice but to retaliate for and which will then escalate to full-scale war.
As far as the Soleimani strike, the carefully calculated Iranian retaliation was merely to show that they have retaliated within a reasonable time frame, to satisfy the desire for revenge on the part of their electorate. The Iranians’ *real* retaliation will come at a later date, probably through one of their allies to allow for “plausible deniability.”
You may argue that Iran’s real goal is US being forced out of Iraq and Syria and so they will not retaliate further. This is probably not true. First, because the US is not going to leave Iraq and Syria. You can’t have a war with Iran without tens and scores of thousands of US troops in Iraq – so they not only are not going anywhere, regardless of what Iraq wants, but they will be reinforced with even more forces. Therefore, when this becomes apparent to Iran, Iran will have to retaliate more forcefully for the assassination at a
later date.
Secondly, even if the US does leave Iraq and Syria, thus handing Iran a success, this does not equate in Iran’s eyes to the assassination of a major Iranian leader. That demands a retaliation in kind, i.e., a senior US military officer – or perhaps a senior officer of a US ally, such as Israel – must be assassinated, or at the very least some major US or US ally military asset must be destroyed.
To quote Rambo, “Nothing is over! You just don’t turn it off”. This alleged “de-escalation” is merely temporary.
Somewhat relieved today that hostilities have cooled to a large degree at least for now. But given the wants of Pompeo, Bibi (Jared) and the PNAC never enders, the danger of imminent largescale conflagration with Iran doesn’t feel vanquished, just delayed. Everyone besides our politicians, elites and corrupted MIC controlled media seems to want U.S. forces to leave Iraq. Donald Trump, this is your moment to prove Justin and your base right – GET US OUT OF IRAQ NOW! You will be a true hero and win a landslide reelection. Show Pompeo the door as well. Kansas needs him.
And ask Tulsi Gabbard to step in and take Pompeo’s place as SoS. (Then groom her for a transition to the New Improved Trumpublican Party and a presidential run in 2024. I can dream can’t I?)
Right, because someone who says he never disagrees with Mr. Cholesetrol is going to pick his polar opposite.
Here’s a few satellite photos released by NPR and PressTV on the Iranian missile damage to Ain al-Assad.
https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/01/08/615682/Iran-missile-attack-Iraq-air-base-Qassem-Soleimani
Just to be clear, we are at war with Iran. We have been for a while. We are at war with Iran.
What do you mean “we?” Speak for yourself.
Good summary of what happened. And a very good Iranian response. That casualties are avoided on Iraqi soil is the key to calming the situation. Other then US, other countries will head for an exit.
This leaves US with a decision. It can continue with Trump rhetoric of “Obama gave them (their) money”, they are dangerous to somebody (no candidate for the victimhood found yet).
UAE hightailed to Iran, Saudi Arabia asking Russia to investigate September bombing. In short, nobody is asking to be protected, and nobody believed tanker sabotage stories, nor US version of how on earth Saudis got attacked with hundreds of billions of US dollars spent on missile defense.
The issue is — Trump and his handlers must now decide. To wee or get off the potty. Cannot continue with the same whining. Iran has proven one thing — it did not crumble after US threats. It even issued the warning – what happens if US attempts to escalate following Iran’s retaliation. Fairly clean cut.
Thus US position vs Iran is where it was before — but US position in Iraq has altered.
US actions were not well thought through, in my view. More like an expression of rage over the last few months real or perceived slights. The last three being Saudi invitation to Russia, Iran-China-Russia naval drills in the Gulf of Oman, and the latest combo — Turkey support for Tripoli, nixing Israeli gas pipeline plans to Greece, and beefing up Tripoli for negotiations,
TODAY’S follow up — Putin and Erdogan opening Turk Stream gas pipeline poised to go to Europe, while Israeli pipe cannot proceed. In attendance, Presidents of Bulgaria and Serbia, two customers and transit countries to awaiting Hungary, Austria and Central Europe.
And to top it off — the joys of seeing Russia and Turkey being on the opposite sides if Libyan divide — dissipated like a fog that it was. The two Presidents are calling on both sides to negotiate.
US basically just lost negotiating position. With Turkish forces now in Tripoli, and more coming, Tripoli got leverage. US COUNTED on Tripoli being quiet while Trump was charming General Haftar. Now suddenly — no footing. To make it worse — Russia and Egypt helped Haftar when US ditched him in favor of UN recognized government. But now when he controls most of the territory, Russia and Egypt got some help — from Saudi Arabia and UAE!
Tripoli will now not be attacked, and the final shape of Libyan government will be decided by negotiations, using Turkey, Russia and Egypt as intermediaries, assisted by Saudi Arabia and UAE.
Translated, Saudi Arabia and UAE would not mind getting energy footing in Libya. Which suits Russia just fine — did not want to be alone in Libyan energy sector and get US and European wrath.
I am so impressed with your depth of knowledge. It’s like you’re a fly on the wall of a bunch of different high level meetings.
It is really not needed to be a fly on the wall. I do not mind bragging, I am a good researcher. There are multiple sources I follow regularly, foreign in particular. And follow writers who have a heart in right place, even when not particularly thorough, and also those who I cannot stand, but on some topics they are superb.
Over time, one learns different styles, both the leaders as well as cultural characteristics of societies they represent. Snd know what message is aimed domestically, what to other ears, and whose. I used to work for UN — East Africa and Yemen — so have a habit of knowing economic issues. I grew up in Europe, so additional perspective.
No, no special access required. Everything is made public, one way or another. What makes a difference is a consistent tracking of events and places over decades. It is easy to then notice when something does not add up.
US under Trump is a classical mercurial being. When Trump is happy, he loves the world, when unhappy, thunder and lightening.
But for better or worse, he is a change agent.
Great contribution!
The Supreme Leader made a brilliant strategic move: Making it clear to the US that they are perfectly willing to step over Trump’s dogmatic and aggressive red lines, while enabling an off-ramp from the cycle of escalation. Trump had to swallow his pride and admit all that hot air he’s been talking was just empty threats.
Iran is now well-positioned to support Iraq in insisting on the removal of US occupying troops. I doubt Europe will push the issue of nuclear deal compliance on Iran now, regardless of Trump’s endless demands.
It very much looks as if Uncle Shamuel is just a “paper tiger”. A hot war will mean closure of the Strait of Hormutz and oil prices will be Sky rocketing to $3 to 400 dollar a barrel. It will result in a devastating effect on global ecomies. Uncle Shamuel will isolate itself even more and make more enemies even among its current allies. Oil tankers and possibly war ships will becoming sitting ducks. Sure Uncle Shamuel is capable of decimating Iran if it wanted too, but the price is too high. Even Trump and the Swamp realises this.
Very impressive response by Iran. The Iranian regime resisted the urge to react emotionally to Trump’s criminal provocation. Iran wants to avoid war with the US because Iran believes they wnill inevitably become the leading economic and political power in the ME if there is peace. They have sought détente with their neighbors except Israel and removal of theUS from the ME for 42 years. The advance warning of the strike minimized the possibility of escalation by the US. But the advance warning also demonstrated the inability of the US to defend against Iran’s ballistic missiles. Iran Press TV reports that every missile reached its target. If a single missile was intercepted, I am sure the Pentagon would have reported it.
Trump may be too arrogant to understand what Iran’s successful attack demonstrated. But the military commanders in the Pentagon and NATO now realize that the 35 US bases in the ME and possibly the Fifth Fleet would be destroyed if Iran launched an all out missile attack
I’m not sure if I’d go as far as that — for example, the US, being forewarned of the attack and having evacuated, might have refrained from trying to shoot down the missiles precisely so that it could evaluate their destructive power in a real attack.
But I will go this far: So far, the Iranians are definitely the adults in this particular room.
If Trump deliberately refrained from stopping incoming missiles targeting US materiel, that would be an impeacheable crime. As far as I know, no one has ever stopped a real high tech BM attack in combat. And I don’t count Iron Dome taking down fireworks fired from Gaza or unguided WWII vintage Katyusha rockets used by Hezbollah. Iran has some sophisticated guided missiles.
But I agree, that the Iranians kept their cool. My fear is that Trump might force them to retaliate for real.
“If Trump deliberately refrained from stopping incoming missiles targeting US materiel, that would be an impeacheable crime.”
Well, anything’s impeachable. But how would it be a crime? Military commanders make decisions all the time regarding what should be defended or not defended and why.
The Iranians have shot down a US drone or two. How many US drones did they detect, and watch, and analyze, and test the evasion capabilities of, INSTEAD of shooting them down, as a way of figuring out how best to shoot them down?
Caveat: I don’t know whether there were e.g. Patriot batteries in place or not, and if there were I don’t know whether they were used or not, and if they were used I don’t know how well they worked. I’m just saying I can see plausible reasons for them not being there and/or not being used.
Patriot missiles proved enormously unreliable in the Iraq wars. If they were there, I can’t imagine a rational CIC missing a chance to demonstrate their capability against incoming Iranian missiles.
That seems to be a contradictory statement. If the Patriots are unreliable, why would a CIC want to publicly demonstrate their unreliability some more.
The Trump personality cult are all over this board pretending this is all part of Trumps master plan to get out of the middle East. All Trump has to do is do just what he did 2 days before he assassinated General Soleimani – make some statements about wanting out of Syria. Really the Trump cult members are polluting the fuck out of this country and this board. They cannot reconcile conflicting messages made by their dear leader.
Trump ramps up military spending and drone strikes and kills hundreds, maybe thousands by now, jacks the fuck out of military spending stokes flames of war in Palestine murders a national hero of Iran and Iraq and here we have these cult members telling saying direct quotes about “enemy combatants” a la George Bush.
I bet if you ask most all of the pro US imperialist Trump cult members here they will go all into “Deep State” deranged fantasys about Trump 4d chess playing against everyone in the US government. This while he does all he can to push a coup de estat in Venezuela. You Republican Trump cult members are just as bad if not worse than the imperialist Obama cult members who thought Obama was a peacenik. You are apologists and rationalists of the indefensible.
There are rational Trump supporters and cult-ish Trump supporters. In your Trump-hate, you lump them all together. Fail.
As Bianca says, “US under Trump is a classical mercurial being. … But for better or worse, he is a change agent.”
And the world, in particular the US, needs change.
Not if it’s for “worse”. You Trumpsters can’t get that in your head. The old status quo will look good in comparison and will be more firmly entrenched. God, we’ll probably be stuck with Biden.
Pretty limp retaliation. People here should really just give up hope that Russia or Iran is going to ride over the hill White Knight style, unless absolutely forced to. I for one also thought Iran’s response would be vastly worse. Trump was right. I was wrong.
The GOP never misses a chance to smear Obama or HRC, do they? A cheap lie about Obama, brought to you by a literal flag humping trust fund kid who claimed the US troops liberated the airports from the British in 1776 and that the Iranian nuclear deal somehow allowed the Iranians to pursue nuclear weapons. But hey, he was on a reality show!