Iran 3

589 posts / 0 new
Last post
iyraste1313

WILL IT BE WAR? U.S. AIRSTRIKES HIT IRANIAN-BACKED MILITIAS AS THE PENTAGON WARNS MORE MILITARY ACTION MAY BE COMING

Once the dominoes start falling, it could very easily set off a sequence of events that nobody is going to be able to control

Michael Snyder | Economic Collapse - DECEMBER 30, 2019

The conclusion is pretty fanciful...but the popint is taken...The Pentagon is preparing for war on Iran....

Why now?

Possibly? Due to the fact that the US oil (fracking sic) industry is in serious trouble, what with increasing bankruptcies  and expectations of major bankruptcies this coming year?
Which would seriously threaten Trump´s reelection?​

Does it not all come down to personal interest politics, be damned anything or anyone else?

NDPP

US Strikes Iran-Backed Militia Strongholds in Iraq & Syria

https://twitter.com/sahouraxo/status/1211724457963704325

"Iran helps Iraq and Syria in their fight against US-backed jihadists, at both governments' behest and the whole world melts down about 'Iranian aggression'. But when US bombs two sovereign countries, hitting the foes who defeated Al Qaeda and ISIS, no one bats an eyelash."

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

Sometime right before or right after the election seems like a good time to strike.
Idk too much about Iran's climate but in general you can war right before or right after the Monsoon in that area.

NDPP

US Assassinates Top Iranian General As 4,000 Troops Readied For Iraq

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/03/iraq-j03.html

"The targeted assassination of the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) Quds Force commander Major General Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad's international airport early Friday morning has sharply intensified the spiraling conflict between the US and Iran, placing the outbreak of a catastrophic new war in the Middle East on a hair trigger..."

 

John Bolton Cheers Airstrike that Killed Iran General Qassem Soleimani

https://nypost.com/2020/01/03/john-bolton-cheers-airstrike-that-killed-i...

"Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide,' Bolton said in a tweet. 'Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran,' he added. The attack, which was approved by President Trump, killed a total of seven people..."

 

'Tens of Thousands Take to the Streets of Tehran and other Cities to Protest Against American 'Crimes' After US Strikes'

https://twitter.com/amalsaad_lb/status/1213086985344180224

"Why the scare quotes around *crimes*? In international law a judicial killing outside the context of warfare is a violation of the UN Charter and hence illegal, while the use of force against the territorial sovereignty of another state (Iraq) is a crime of aggression."

"So...the US chooses to assassinate one of the top leaders of a sovereign state with which it is not at war while the guest of another sovereign state still reeling from the US slaughter of a million or more of its citizens and all for political convenience."

https://twitter.com/StanleyCohenLaw/status/1213073219537620992

 

lagatta4

Not to mention the infantile cheering about murdering human beings. Are they video-game addicts?  The Iranians I know here, while no fans of either the mullahs or the Shah before, are furious.

bekayne

NDPP wrote:

US Assassinates Top Iranian General As 4,000 Troops Readied For Iraq

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/01/03/iraq-j03.html

"The targeted assassination of the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) Quds Force commander Major General Qasem Soleimani at Baghdad's international airport early Friday morning has sharply intensified the spiraling conflict between the US and Iran, placing the outbreak of a catastrophic new war in the Middle East on a hair trigger..."

 

John Bolton Cheers Airstrike that Killed Iran General Qassem Soleimani

https://nypost.com/2020/01/03/john-bolton-cheers-airstrike-that-killed-i...

"Congratulations to all involved in eliminating Qassem Soleimani. Long in the making, this was a decisive blow against Iran's malign Quds Force activities worldwide,' Bolton said in a tweet. 'Hope this is the first step to regime change in Tehran,' he added. The attack, which was approved by President Trump, killed a total of seven people..."

 

'Tens of Thousands Take to the Streets of Tehran and other Cities to Protest Against American 'Crimes' After US Strikes'

https://twitter.com/amalsaad_lb/status/1213086985344180224

"Why the scare quotes around *crimes*? In international law a judicial killing outside the context of warfare is a violation of the UN Charter and hence illegal, while the use of force against the territorial sovereignty of another state (Iraq) is a crime of aggression."

"So...the US chooses to assassinate one of the top leaders of a sovereign state with which it is not at war while the guest of another sovereign state still reeling from the US slaughter of a million or more of its citizens and all for political convenience."

https://twitter.com/StanleyCohenLaw/status/1213073219537620992

 

But...but...Trump's anti-war!

NDPP

'But...but... Trump is Putin's puppet...!?'

Trump's New Years Killing of Soleimani Finally Blows Up the Fake Russiagate Narrative

https://on.rt.com/a8di

"Just imagine...if Iran's President Rouhani had authorized a New Year drone strike on General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the US Joint Chief of Staff, as he was being driven to the airport in Canada. Would anyone even be suggesting that the attack was done in 'self-defence'? But that's exactly the line we're being fed now about the killing of Qasem Soleimani. Remind me again, who are the terrorists here?

We've been told (ad nauseum) the past few years that Donald Trump was under the control of Putin. That he was  a de facto Russian agent. A marionette of Moscow. At least now, not even the most credulous inhabitant of planet Earth will believe that.  Today's events, for anyone who still had any doubts, shows that the foreign country that has the greatest influence in US policy is not Russia, but Israel..."

NDPP

 US Will Come To Regret Its Assassination of Qassim Soleimani

https://t.co/p9A72ctkbu

"Today the US declared war on Iran and Iraq. War is what it will get..."

 

US Assassination of Top Iranian Military Official May Ignite World War

https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1212943054853689344

"I'll keep following this hugely important story and will probably be writing a lot about it as it unfolds. I encourage everyone who values peace and humanity to follow it as well..."

kropotkin1951

lagatta4 wrote:

Not to mention the infantile cheering about murdering human beings. Are they video-game addicts?  The Iranians I know here, while no fans of either the mullahs or the Shah before, are furious.

The problem is that American Exceptionalism blinds its citizens to the reality of nationality. The fastest way to unify any society on the planet is for a foreign power to invade. Americans would expect every US citizen to step up and defend the homeland if attacked no matter what their political beliefs. There is a pathological disconnect from reality because they also expect that people in other nations will cheer them on when GI's are the invaders.

How many Canadian military personnel are already involved with this rush to war? We know that our forces in the Middle East are integrated into the NATO/US operational structure so we have officers and others in all kinds of roles in Iraq.

So far I have been less than impressed with any of the response to this act of international terrorism from any of our elected politicians. The US specifically claims it killed him to scare (terrorize) the Iranian government. The Iranian people may not like their government but I presume that they will not be bullied so this may get very bloody. The nations of the world, starting with NATO countries, have to reign in the US military's illegal war activities. Imagine if Canada moved a motion of condemnation at the UN as an opening response to the assassination. Oh well I long for the days gone by when there was actually some rule of law in international affairs.

bekayne

bekayne
NDPP

"Qassen Soleimani is responsible for the deaths of American citizens and many other innocent people. He was planning more such attacks. Israel stands with the United States in its just struggle for peace, security and self-defence." PM Netanyahu (and vid)

https://twitter.com/IsraelMFA/status/1213073908221566979

 

Israel Wants US to Attack Iran For Them (and vid)

https://twitter.com/AWAKEALERT/status/1144134909415448576

Ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan tells CBS News Americans should fight Iran for Israel..

 

Global Affairs Canada: Statement From Minister Champagne Following the Airstrike Carried Out By US on Iranian Commander

https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2020/01/statement-from-mini...

"...Canada has long been concerned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, led by Qassem Soleimani, whose aggressive actions have had a destabilizing effect in the region and beyond."

but not USrael's.

NDPP

"In order to get elected Barack Obama will start a war with Iran" (DJT, 2011)

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/141604554855825408

 

The Killing of Soleiman Deserves Widespread Non-Partisan Support

https://twitter.com/bnaibrithcanada/status/1213206685915009024

"The targeted killing of top Iranian warmonger and terrorist Qassem Soleimani should be treated with the same reaction as the killing of Osama bin Laden..."

Sean in Ottawa

lagatta4 wrote:

Not to mention the infantile cheering about murdering human beings. Are they video-game addicts?  The Iranians I know here, while no fans of either the mullahs or the Shah before, are furious.

The Iranians I know are extremely divided and not wanting to talk to each other about this.

I know some that are not very political but see this man as the Iranian "Rambo" and somewhat of a hero and the attack against national pride.

Others have a different view - they view this man as part of the problems the country has. They view him as a key figure in oppression behind the deaths of many in the unrest that swept the country recently. Iranians with this view demonstrated in Toronto in favour of the killing.

As you can imagine well, Iranians in Canada are divided between those who support the government (there are students here for example with no intention other than to return home). There are people who have imigrated to Canada for personal reasons with mixed or positive views of the government. There are those here who hate the government and this man in particular.  I know of people in Iran with this opinion who of course would be unlikely to want to express this latter view publicly but who share it with family.

Some people may be happy that there is more pressure on Iran's government hoping for change and feeling that things are so bad something has to happen. Others are worried about a wider conflict and people dying -- whether or not they support the government is secondary to this fear. The anger of the US doing this is also not entirely divided along support and opposition to the givernment. Not everyone against the government is in favour of the killing. Generally, supporters of the government are furious.

This man was a controversial figure - a hero to hardliners, a strong figure for people whoa are nationalist and a hated figure among others - especially those upset that Iran spends so many resources outside the country at the cost of those resources inside and at the cost of Iran's progress internationally. This man was a long-time architect of this policy of involvement in other countries in the region. This policy is both hated and revered depending who you talk to. 

Many Iranians are aware of this man's reputation as the architect of many of the deaths of demonstrators in Iraq and many in Syria along with support for Assad to maintain a land bridge across the region. Some call him a child killer. His death divides people.

The IRG has tremendous power in Iran and there is a lot of connections it has -- if you want to do much there you need this connection. Some owe their standing to it and so are fiercly loyal. Others are angry about the corrupt preferences. People talk about deep state on this site. For Iranians that is a different thing: the power lies with the Supreme leader and revolutionary Guard. The elections produce a government that has less power. Think of the Supreme leader and IRG as the deep state and you can imagine the bitterness of those opposed to it voting for different directions only to have them be controlled. But if you are on the same side, this figure is the second most powerful person after the Supreme Leader of that deep state. They control everythig from who gets contracts, jobs and many things.

Apart from all this there are fears about what will come next. These fears are shared by people in Iran and Iraq. Iraq fears that it will be the battleground for the US-Iran conflict and that this killing on Iraqi soil only increases this. Iranians are also concerned that violence could move into Iran and so could the cost. The richest oil fields of Iran is a small area in the south-west corner. It lies to the west of a mountain chain running north south. An attack on these field could increase the crisis in Iran as would an attack on refining. Gas is cheap there, even after the increases, but the people have faced inflation in costs across the board with deflation in the value of their money so even modest fuel increases cause great hardship (the unrest that just occured was over fuel increases and rationing).

I do not think that you would get any consensus from Iranians on this action. It is likely there are strong feelings on both sides and that those who do not express them wish to kjeep them private but still hold them. It is possible that you might hear only one side because some will not want to express an opposite opinion among a prevailing group. I was at a home last night with an Iranian who shared with me what she really thought but avoided saying so becuase we were at a place where the people had the opposite point of view. They probably assumed she agreed with them.

The Iranian community in Canada is small. It sometimes has fights within itself but in many places people try to avoid dividing the community where they can even as some stand strongly on one side or another. People in Toronto may be more vocal as the community is bigger there and you can easily find people on the pro-or anti side of government. Here in Ottawa, the community is so small that many fear speaking about politics as they could be isolated from the rest of the community. I think this is on both sides. Persians enjoy social and Farsi language events as you would expect and there is a cost when it comes to stands like this.

Some Iranians I know personally are celebrating this death and they are definitely not pro Trump and still are worried about what will happen. Some may be happy that he died but unhappy that he was killed - like those who would celebrate Trump going of a massive cornonarybut would never want to see him turned into a martyr.

I hope I have explained some of the differing emotions and thoughts I have been hearing.

Sean in Ottawa

Maybe here we can end the opinion that some here had that Trump was less likely to use American military power aggressively?

NDPP

Justin Podur: On the Soleimani Assassination and Preventing World War Three (and vid)

https://twitter.com/justinpodur/status/1213220269483003904

"Justin Podur talks to you from his bunker the day after the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Suleimani in Iraq about who Soleiman was, why this moment is so dangerous, and what the principles of an antiwar movement should be."

 

Too Bad The World's Most Aggressive Military Superpower [And its obedient Canadian vassal] Has No Antiwar Movement.

https://twitter.com/anyaparampil/status/1213172204021657600

"Answer Coalition and Codepink are organizing to revive the anti-war movement...Tomorrow they are holding national rallies to oppose war on Iran & Iraq. Who will join us...?"

Webgear
NDPP

As US Airstrike Ramps Up Threat of War About 500 Canadian Forces Personnel Are Serving in Iraq

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-forces-middle-east-iran-iraq-1...

"Hundreds of CF personnel are in the country on two major missions..."

'Serving' who...?

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

As US Airstrike Ramps Up Threat of War About 500 Canadian Forces Personnel Are Serving in Iraq

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-forces-middle-east-iran-iraq-1...

"Hundreds of CF personnel are in the country on two major missions..."

'Serving' who...?

still the point remains they should leave right away.

NDPP

Pepe Escobar: US Kick Starts Raging 20s By Declaring War on Iran

https://twitter.com/Consortiumnews/status/1213235738982137856

"It does not matter where the green light for the US targeted assassination in Baghdad of Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Suleimani and the Hashad-al Sheabi second-in-command Abu Mahdi al Muhandis came from. This is an act of war. Unilateral, unprovoked and illegal. President Donald Trump may have issued the order. The US Deep State may have ordered him to issue the order. Or the usual suspects may have ordered them all.

According to my best Southwest Asia intel sources, 'Israel gave the US the coordinates for the assassination of Qassem Solemani as they wanted to avoid the repercussions of taking the assassination upon themselves.' We knew it was coming. There were plenty of rumbles in Israeli media by former military or Mossad officials. The only redeeming quality out of this major strategic blunder cum declaration of war may be the final nail in the coffin of Southwest Asia chapter of the US Empire of bases. Iranian Prime Minister Javad Zarif came out with an appropriate metaphor: 'the tree of resistance' will continue to grow, the empire might as well say goodbye to Southwest Asia..."

Let's hope so. No War on Iraq/Iran! No support for USraeli Imperialism from Canada!

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

NDPP wrote:

Let's hope so. No War on Iraq/Iran! No support for USraeli Imperialism from Canada!

Agreed.

NDPP

Toronto Rally: NO WAR WITH IRAN!

Saturday, January 4, 2020, 12:00 - 2:00 PM, US Consulate, 360 University Ave (University Ave & Dundas)

https://m.facebook.com/events/636148700259386

Sorry for short notice. Just heard myself. Nothing on Rabble. An indication of the parlous state of Canadian anti-war activism. Please go if you can, post further actions here if you hear of any and spread the word!

josh

NDPP wrote:

'But...but... Trump is Putin's puppet...!?'

Trump's New Years Killing of Soleimani Finally Blows Up the Fake Russiagate Narrative

https://on.rt.com/a8di

"Just imagine...if Iran's President Rouhani had authorized a New Year drone strike on General Mark Milley, the Chairman of the US Joint Chief of Staff, as he was being driven to the airport in Canada. Would anyone even be suggesting that the attack was done in 'self-defence'? But that's exactly the line we're being fed now about the killing of Qasem Soleimani. Remind me again, who are the terrorists here?

We've been told (ad nauseum) the past few years that Donald Trump was under the control of Putin. That he was  a de facto Russian agent. A marionette of Moscow. At least now, not even the most credulous inhabitant of planet Earth will believe that.  Today's events, for anyone who still had any doubts, shows that the foreign country that has the greatest influence in US policy is not Russia, but Israel..."

LOL.  I'm sure Putin signed off on it.  Like Michael Corleone and Hyman Roth in The Godfater II.

josh

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Maybe here we can end the opinion that some here had that Trump was less likely to use American military power aggressively?

 

Trump has been dead set on a conflict with a Iran from day one.  He's Neocon Don.  But there many who said Clinton, not Trump, was the warmonger.  Like the line about the Goldwater voter who said, They told me if I voted for Goldwater, there would be a war in Vietnam.  And they were right.

lagatta4

The rally in Montréal has already been mentioned, but I'll post it again here:

Non à la guerre en Iran! No war in Iran!

Lundi 6 janvier 2020 de 13:30 à 15:00 EST

U.S. Consulate General Montréal

1134, rue Sainte-Catherine Ouest, Montréal H3B 1H4

40 participant(s) · 119 intéressé(e)s

Détails

Après que le gouvernement des États-Unis a tué un officiel du gouvernement et militaire haut-placé, la possibilité de la guerre est de plus en plus réelle.
Venez dénoncer l'acte de guerre que les États-Unis ont fait et revendiquer haut et fort: Non à la guerre!

After the governement of the United States killed a high ranking official in the military and important figure in the government, the possiblity of war is upon us.
Come and denounce this act of war that the USA committed and demand loud and clear: No to War

Organisé par

ILPS Canada (I have no idea who they are).

lagatta4
Sean in Ottawa

Trunp tweeted this:

"American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"

He is threatening a war crime of attacking nonmilitary cultural targets.

Sean in Ottawa

lagatta4 wrote:

At least Bernie seems forthright: https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/03/bernie-sanders-condemns-tru...

some Democrats are being exposed for what they are.

Sean in Ottawa

Trump could unite Iran by this.

There are Iranians happy that this guy died - still angry at the attack - who will become enraged (as the whole world should be) if cultural or historical sites are attacked.

Anyone know if a US President has ever directly threatened to attack historic or cultural places before?

bekayne

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Trunp tweeted this:

"American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!"

He is threatening a war crime of attacking nonmilitary cultural targets.

The Orange Dove of Peace

kropotkin1951

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Anyone know if a US President has ever directly threatened to attack historic or cultural places before?

What did Truman say before he razed almost every building in North Korea. I don't remember what Obama said before they bombed universities in Libya but I remember Hillary's reaction to another extra judicial killing.  They are all war criminals.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Anyone know if a US President has ever directly threatened to attack historic or cultural places before?

What did Truman say before he razed almost every building in North Korea. I don't remember what Obama said before they bombed universities in Libya but I remember Hillary's reaction to another extra judicial killing.  They are all war criminals.

I do not think they threatened this in advance. That is unusual. Proof in a crime of intention by prior statement is significant and unusual.

I have no doubt that war crimes have been committed in the past by US Presidents and that cultural and historic places have been targeted.

I have not known of a President announcing this intention in advance.

kropotkin1951

Lets all look at the Orange Herring.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Lets all look at the Orange Herring.

I fully accept that not every thing that is discussed is of interest to you. That is why there are so many threads and so many comments to follow. Should I flag every comment that I find uninteresting or sneer at it like you often do?

No, it is not earth shattering - (neither is most of your comments). But when you have a person in this position so flagrantly fly the flag of their guilt it is interesting for a few reasons even if they are substantially the same as others were in the past in terms of behaviour.

To use the threat of attack on important sites of culture to intimidate others into doing or not doing something is not usual. It is also not mere words. This threat is an action in itself.

When you are able to proclaim your guilt that takes a level of confidence, a level of destruction of the previous boundaries. It is an escalation to proclaim your guilt on an international stage. It does say something about the people who are expected to tolerate it (he might still win election). For the President of the US to say this means that he at least eblieves (and may be correct) that his people do not mind threatening and destroying cultural sites. While it has been done before, my question of whether it has been admitted before is valid.

Yes, war criminals have existed in the past. Very few are so confident that war crimes are entirely okay as to announce in advance that they intend this. I asked if there was precedence of this coming from this position.

If you find this uninteresting, I suspect there are a number of threads here that are boring to some but interesting to you.

cco

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Yes, war criminals have existed in the past. Very few are so confident that war crimes are entirely okay as to announce in advance that they intend this. I asked if there was precedence of this coming from this position.

Depends on your definitions. Every American president since Eisenhower has been publicly committed to killing hundreds of millions of innocent civilians in the name of avoiding retreat from Europe and the Pacific Rim. Most citizens of NATO countries have rationalized this with terms like "deterrence".

Don't get me wrong, I despise Trump, but it's worth a good long look at why so many of us seem to consider the destruction of buildings, statues, and prayer sites more significant than the murder of actual people. It sometimes feels like if something lasts longer than a human lifetime, we mourn it more than a human.

kropotkin1951

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Yes, war criminals have existed in the past. Very few are so confident that war crimes are entirely okay as to announce in advance that they intend this. I asked if there was precedence of this coming from this position.

Depends on your definitions. Every American president since Eisenhower has been publicly committed to killing hundreds of millions of innocent civilians in the name of avoiding retreat from Europe and the Pacific Rim. Most citizens of NATO countries have rationalized this with terms like "deterrence".

Don't get me wrong, I despise Trump, but it's worth a good long look at why so many of us seem to consider the destruction of buildings, statues, and prayer sites more significant than the murder of actual people. It sometimes feels like if something lasts longer than a human lifetime, we mourn it more than a human.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Yes, war criminals have existed in the past. Very few are so confident that war crimes are entirely okay as to announce in advance that they intend this. I asked if there was precedence of this coming from this position.

Depends on your definitions. Every American president since Eisenhower has been publicly committed to killing hundreds of millions of innocent civilians in the name of avoiding retreat from Europe and the Pacific Rim. Most citizens of NATO countries have rationalized this with terms like "deterrence".

Don't get me wrong, I despise Trump, but it's worth a good long look at why so many of us seem to consider the destruction of buildings, statues, and prayer sites more significant than the murder of actual people. It sometimes feels like if something lasts longer than a human lifetime, we mourn it more than a human.

You are firmly stepping around the point so carefully that I can see that you must be well aware of it.

Long have politicians stated regret for loss of life and for hitting non military places. They excuse hitting them by claiming necessity.

I asked for examples of threats to target non military targets in advance becuase Trump's tweet was not about the potential for what is presented as regretful colateral damage. It was a threat to target them specifically.

It is not unusual for American leaders to hit non military targets. It is not unusual for them to put them in harms way on purpose. What is unusual is to threaten them secifically in advance to use this threat of cutlural loss. It is unusal for a President in the modern era of "smart bombs" to claim to want to target non military sites of cultural value (you understand he probably means religious as he has a hate on for Muslims).

I cannot help much more if you insist on ignoring the escalation of admitting using this as a threat. Threat and fear are largely what we define as the difference between military action and terrorism. By this definition Trump is taking his illegal act in Bagdad and turning it into an act of mass terrorism.

Many of us here have called the actions of the US terrorism. The US itself has created this distinction in their own rhetoric that accidental collateral damage is not terrorism and that they do not intend it. Now we have Trump admitting to being a Terrorist by that definition.

This is significant becuase it means that he believes that he has the support to be open about using the US military to threaten terrosim and war crimes when previous US presidents -- even when they did the acts -- never felt they could so openly admit it. 

This is not just a statement about the behaviour of the Americans which is not that much different than it has been, but a statement about the evolution of the US national character such that it is more open about committing these crimes. This is in tandem with Trump's pardons of Americans guilty of war crimes. This is no longer about the US denying that it commits war crimes. This is about the US proclaiming that committing war crimes is fine so long as you are American.

It is a change.

You can even say that the dead are still dead but the US government has been at times restrained by attemtps at covering up its crcimes. What Trump is saying directly is that he and the US are no longer restrained by attemtps at denial or attempts to white wash. They are freerer to committ cromes they admit to in the broad daylight of the visibility of their own people. They do this becuase they think that the US gives widespread support for US generated war crimes.

A real pity that you insist on not seeing this as I simply do not believe that it is too difficult or that you are not up for understanding this.

Sean in Ottawa

BTW it is not just the aggressors and the people who enable them who consider that the destruction of sites worse than the murders of some people. The victims in many, many cases do as well. Many poeple consider that what their societies have built, are expected to last longer than themselves and represent a shared public good and well being for their people. There are many, many people in the world who will die to defend some of these sites. This is not me saying that their destruction is worse than murder -- this is a message that you hear from almost every culture.

Of course I understand that there is religious fervour and propaganda driving this. I understand that every society that I know of values these things more than their own people. Some of it is symbols some of it is a bias for the material and the wealthy establishment. this is the same reason why a celebrity dies and people get into a mass upset but thousands of poor people can die of starvation and get barely a thought.

whether you like it or not -- some of these places do hold meaning for some people who may have nothing personally. There are very poor people who value their historic site of culture more than anything else in part becuase they have nothing else. We can sneer at the propaganda if wew like but the reality is that the pain of loss of these sites and sybols is felt by the poorest and many of them as accute as a threat to their own lives -- if you take them at their word.

cco

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is not just a statement about the behaviour of the Americans which is not that much different than it has been, but a statement about the evolution of the US national character such that it is more open about committing these crimes. This is in tandem with Trump's pardons of Americans guilty of war crimes. This is no longer about the US denying that it commits war crimes. This is about the US proclaiming that committing war crimes is fine so long as you are American.

It is a change.

You can even say that the dead are still dead but the US government has been at times restrained by attemtps at covering up its crcimes. What Trump is saying directly is that he and the US are no longer restrained by attemtps at denial or attempts to white wash. They are freerer to committ cromes they admit to in the broad daylight of the visibility of their own people. They do this becuase they think that the US gives widespread support for US generated war crimes.

A real pity that you insist on not seeing this as I simply do not believe that it is too difficult or that you are not up for understanding this.

Not sure if you're talking to me or kropotkin, but the argument against Trump by David Frum types, since the beginning, has essentially been that he's a special kind of evil because he admits publicly to what Obama, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, etc. had the good manners to lie about. Frum has a good career on the talk show circuit these days talking about how terrible Trump is, having apparently recovered entirely from writing the "axis of evil" speech telling Americans why they needed to destroy Iraq (done), Iran (pending), and North Korea (remains to be seen).

I have friends and coworkers from Iran. I'll have to ask, but something tells me they wouldn't be much happier to see Hillary Clinton talking about how much she regretted having to accidentally destroy their cultural sites while invading. Those lies are for us (Westerners), so we can tell ourselves we're governed by responsible leaders doing only "necessary" mass murder. Their absence really complicates things for Trudeau. He might even feel some pressure to stay out of the Iran war.

NDPP

Iraqi Lawmakers Approve Bill to Expel US Forces From Country

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/01/05/615421/Iraqi-lawmakers-draft-U...

"Iraqi lawmakers have unanimously approved a bill demanding the withdrawal of all foreign military forces led by the United States from the country following the assassination of Iran's top military commander, Lt Gen Qassem Soleimani, and the second in command of Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) Abu Mahdi al Mutandis..."

 

Deputy FM Araqchi: Trump's Hostile Remarks Clearly Amount to War Crime

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/01/05/615423/Araqchi-Swiss-envoy-Tru...

"Referring to Trump's threat to strike Iran's cultural sites, the Iranian official said, 'Such a threat is reminiscent of the Mongols' invasion or the acts of terrorists and criminal groups, in the destruction of cultural and historic sites, which according to international law, amount to war crime. The Islamic Republic of Iran will not bow to any threat or intimidation and stands firmly ready to respond to any threat or act against its national security and territorial integrity..."

NDPP

The Real Story Behind the US Attack on Iran (full show)

https://t.co/WTQSrYo4ag

Expert Panel joins Rick Sanchez for discussion.

 

Meet Trump's $100 Million Donor

https://youtu.be/V2YY_xNTM1g

Netanyahu/GOP mega donor says nuke Iran before any negotiations

NDPP

The Jimmy Dore Show

https://youtu.be/rR2ZMduQE2s

Democrats pretend to oppose Iran attack they enabled.

 

This is Suleimani's Funeral in Ahvaz, Iran

https://twitter.com/AmirAminiMD/status/1213828930458804224

"This is the largest crowd I've ever witnessed in my life. I've never seen Iranians so unified, ever. Trump has no idea what he has done."

NDPP

"The United States just spent Two Trillion Dollars on Military Equipment. We are the biggest and by far the BEST in the World! If Iran attacks an American Base, or any American, we will be sending some of that brand new beautiful equipment their way...and without hesitation."

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213689342272659456

 

Breaking: US Customs and Border Protection nationally have been ordered to detain and 'report' all Iranians entering the country deemed potentially suspicious or 'adversarial' regardless of citizenship status. 60+ Iranians held last night at the US/Canada border for 11+hours/see thread."

https://mobile.twitter.com/hodakatebi/status/1213883793435586560

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

This is not just a statement about the behaviour of the Americans which is not that much different than it has been, but a statement about the evolution of the US national character such that it is more open about committing these crimes. This is in tandem with Trump's pardons of Americans guilty of war crimes. This is no longer about the US denying that it commits war crimes. This is about the US proclaiming that committing war crimes is fine so long as you are American.

It is a change.

You can even say that the dead are still dead but the US government has been at times restrained by attemtps at covering up its crcimes. What Trump is saying directly is that he and the US are no longer restrained by attemtps at denial or attempts to white wash. They are freerer to committ cromes they admit to in the broad daylight of the visibility of their own people. They do this becuase they think that the US gives widespread support for US generated war crimes.

A real pity that you insist on not seeing this as I simply do not believe that it is too difficult or that you are not up for understanding this.

Not sure if you're talking to me or kropotkin, but the argument against Trump by David Frum types, since the beginning, has essentially been that he's a special kind of evil because he admits publicly to what Obama, Bush, Reagan, Nixon, etc. had the good manners to lie about. Frum has a good career on the talk show circuit these days talking about how terrible Trump is, having apparently recovered entirely from writing the "axis of evil" speech telling Americans why they needed to destroy Iraq (done), Iran (pending), and North Korea (remains to be seen).

I have friends and coworkers from Iran. I'll have to ask, but something tells me they wouldn't be much happier to see Hillary Clinton talking about how much she regretted having to accidentally destroy their cultural sites while invading. Those lies are for us (Westerners), so we can tell ourselves we're governed by responsible leaders doing only "necessary" mass murder. Their absence really complicates things for Trudeau. He might even feel some pressure to stay out of the Iran war.

I may be the minority here but I do not think they were all lies. I think the US in the past wanted to achieve as much as they could for their imperialist aims without hitting certain sites because these would enrage populations against them and anger the domestic population in the US. At times it is true the US was oblivious to them. Also they weighed hitting nonmilitary sites as a cost and did it anyway at times but routinely would try to avoid them if their aims could be achieved while doing so. They prided themselves in smart bombs to "only kill the bad guys and not others." This has long been part of the US rhetoric and it has affected the actual prosecution of US military aims. This is not being kind either: the US understood the retaliation and anger and additional resistance such actions can inspire. 

The extreme analysis popular here that they never had such restraint considerations is simply false. Examples exist of atrocities but that does not mean that there was not a desire to be seen to avoid such sites and to do so where they could (and still get what they wanted most). The exceptions are famous becuase they are exceptions. This is an important distinction becuase it means that the US has been a bit restrained at times when now the President is not only not restrained but targetting these sites. It is using them as part of terror against the population that lives around them and uses them as well as those attached to them emotionally and any who would go there for refuge.

It is also wrong to say that this is about cultural sites over people. Cultural sites have long been refuges in conflicts due to widespread belief that the enemy would more likely show some restraint in those places. This statement from Trump is telling the Iranian civilian population that they are not safe anywhere and could be targetted when seeking refuge in a historical, nonmilitary cultural or perhaps religious institution. Let's be honest for a moment here: while people on this site may deny this reality, the victims of aggression are aware of it and routinely seek shelter is such places when their cities are threatened. Trump has now told them that there are no limits and no places in the world as he is not restrained and will target them.

It is important to note -- as my Iranian friends have reminded me -- that these cultural sites do not lie in the middle of the desert either. They are in the centre of civilian populations -- city centres. Trump is threatening dog whistle-style an attack deliberately targeting civilians. Go look on twitter and see how this is being recieved on both sides. The Trump cult is happy the US has stated that it will kill indescriminately and destroy anything. All sides see this as a change -- except here.

This is like a threat of the Blitz except it can happen in minutes due to new military technology. Trump routinely speaks in code about his racism. Here he is doing it about his threat of terror on populations around the world whose governments are in military conflict with the US. People here are too blinded to see this as an escalation. Pity.

The threat is itself a war crime.

This is the problem with the extreme analysis that is often so popular here. When you call everything the extreme you are no longer able to recognize escalation.

This means that the US is deliberately welcoming an era where governments consider such sites to be a target they can threaten and hit. And by these sites - I stress it means civilians targetted not just on purpose as a cost considered rarely but as the target threatened in advance as a means of coercion. Trump's tweet is a terrorist act.

The US according to Trump is effectively threatening to use a tactic mass killers sometimes use: create a second bomb designed to kill people running from a first bomb.

I asked if such threat had ever been made before and was not predicting (although I should have) people saying that it makes no difference. 

The idea that this is not an escalation (as some here might claim) is contradicted by the fact that many over many years have chosen to hide in such places for safety believing they would not be as likely to get hit; that often many governments co-locate things at these sites when they want to avoid them being targetted. 

This is a change and those in opposition to the US may also be encouraged to demonstrate to the US what these tactics mean. Trump's threats put US and US allies' civilian and cultural assets in danger. This is not about Iran either: this is a statement meant to be heard by everyone everywhere. As we have seen individuals who are twisted react to these kinds of statements as well as organizations and potentially governments. Look at the violence inspired by Trump's rhetoric in other contexts.

This deliberate threat from the President of the US to target civilian non-military places is a major escalation and it is an increased danger literally to every such place in the world and civilians around the world regardless of their politics or alliances. 

NDPP

What About Continuing Canadian Complicity?

 

NATO Suspends Canadian-Led Iraqi Training Mission After Soleimani Killing

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nato-training-iraq-mission-suspended-1....

"Canadian general is leading the NATO mission. Canada has a significant presence in Iraq, both as part of the anti-ISIS OPERATION IMPACT* and as the nation leading the NATO efforts on the ground..."

Sure sounds like a prime target to me. Canada Out Now!

[email protected]

[email protected]

 

*Operation Impact:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/operations...

iyraste1313

Most recently, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Ali Akbar Salehi, declared that Iran has an adequate supply of 20% enriched uranium., “Right now we have enough 20% uranium,” he told the Iranian Students News Agency, ISNA, “but we can produce more as needed”. He added that the country is resuming uranium enrichment at a far higher level at the Fordow nuclear facility — an underground uranium enrichment facility which is reportedly located on one of the bases of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC­­) — injecting uranium gas into centrifuges and operating 60 IR-6 advanced centrifuges.

This marks a dangerous phase in Iran’s nuclear defiance. Tehran is now using a kind of prototype centrifuge that enriches uranium almost 50 times faster» Majid Rafizadeh further wrote.

NDPP

Iran has repeatedly declared nuclear weaponry unacceptable and inconsistent with its Islamic beliefs. Nor has there ever been any indication that Iran is working towards acquiring such weapons. I am far more fearful of those who have nuclear weapons, especially Israel.

NDPP

KPFA: The Assassination of Iranian General Qassim Suleimani & What Happens Next? (and audio)

https://kpfa.org/episode/flashpoints-january-3-2020/

"We'll be joined by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, activist, Chris Hedges, Professor Boyle and more...

"The Israelis have long spoken openly of their determination to assassinate Suleimani so I wasn't surprised. However, it was a very foolish decision on the part of the United States for several reasons..." - Chris Hedges-

cco

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I asked if such threat had ever been made before and was not predicting (although I should have) people saying that it makes no difference. 

What I said is that deliberately targeting civilians ('countervalue' strikes) has been part of American (and Canadian) policy since John Foster Dulles formulated "massive retaliation" with nuclear weapons in 1954. This isn't the same as blowing up an airfield and not caring that houses next to it will be destroyed as well. It's direct targeting of cities with the goal of maximizing civilian deaths as a "deterrent" to conventional military action, in exactly the way Trump is threatening Iranian civilians if Iran retaliates for the assassination.

The fact that the nuclear war in question hasn't actually happened yet has led to people forgetting about the horror of this policy, or reclassifying it as some kind of brilliant strategy, but it's always been exactly as simple as promising to target civilians. Every president since Truman has maintained it, with some variation in the exact details (target allies or just Russia? Start with a small city or nuke Moscow immediately?). The only sense in which this is different is that the threat is against a non-nuclear power, and even then, that's hardly unprecedented. Again, this doesn't mean that Trump's threat isn't horrifying, just that it's nothing new. The US only tries to avoid civilian casualties when it knows it can win without them. Winning is more important to the Pentagon than pesky things like war crimes treaties.

Sean in Ottawa

cco wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I asked if such threat had ever been made before and was not predicting (although I should have) people saying that it makes no difference. 

What I said is that deliberately targeting civilians ('countervalue' strikes) has been part of American (and Canadian) policy since John Foster Dulles formulated "massive retaliation" with nuclear weapons in 1954. This isn't the same as blowing up an airfield and not caring that houses next to it will be destroyed as well. It's direct targeting of cities with the goal of maximizing civilian deaths as a "deterrent" to conventional military action, in exactly the way Trump is threatening Iranian civilians if Iran retaliates for the assassination.

The fact that the nuclear war in question hasn't actually happened yet has led to people forgetting about the horror of this policy, or reclassifying it as some kind of brilliant strategy, but it's always been exactly as simple as promising to target civilians. Every president since Truman has maintained it, with some variation in the exact details (target allies or just Russia? Start with a small city or nuke Moscow immediately?). The only sense in which this is different is that the threat is against a non-nuclear power, and even then, that's hardly unprecedented. Again, this doesn't mean that Trump's threat isn't horrifying, just that it's nothing new. The US only tries to avoid civilian casualties when it knows it can win without them. Winning is more important to the Pentagon than pesky things like war crimes treaties.

I disagree with all of this and  I was not asking about what they did.

I asked if they have ever threatened this before publicly.

Please give examples becuase I cannot find any.

--

By the way this tweet from Trump according to Iranian friends is very effective in turning those who actually were somewhat supportive of the killing against. 

Many people disliked this man (many others really liked him). those that disliked him were already upset about how he died and the risk to people from that. With the Tweet more support is flowing to the government.

Trump is intentionally doing this or that incompetent. He lies or is nuts when he says he does not want a wider war given everything he is doing to make sure one happens.

Pages