Petraeus on the Soleimani kill

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Petraeus believes the action to be of greater significance than bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi given that this guy actually had more power than both of them. His reasoning for supporting it is the same as mine: it puts state-sponsored terrorists on notice and this helps with deterrence.

Just because you’re hiding under the flag of another country - you are not safe. The US and its allies will kill you and those that facilitate your efforts.

And to all who oppose this action strictly because you think our President is a dolt (which he assuredly is), take a step back and look at the big picture. This guy was a monster - and now he’s in pieces.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01...killing-its-impossible-overstate-significance

 

[toastedbread]

Petraeus believes the action to be of greater significance than bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi given that this guy actually had more power than both of them. His reasoning for supporting it is the same as mine: it puts state-sponsored terrorists on notice and this helps with deterrence.

Just because you’re hiding under the flag of another country - you are not safe. The US and its allies will kill you and those that facilitate your efforts.

And to all who oppose this action strictly because you think our President is a dolt (which he assuredly is), take a step back and look at the big picture. This guy was a monster - and now he’s in pieces.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01...killing-its-impossible-overstate-significance

That's right if you are looking at everything in a vacuum. PMF responds tonight and kills 5 US soldiers. Now what do you do?

We've had other opportunities to take out QS. Previous administrations determined it was not in our best interest to take that action.

 

[UncleMark]

Petraeus believes the action to be of greater significance than bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi given that this guy actually had more power than both of them. His reasoning for supporting it is the same as mine: it puts state-sponsored terrorists on notice and this helps with deterrence.

Just because you’re hiding under the flag of another country - you are not safe. The US and its allies will kill you and those that facilitate your efforts.

And to all who oppose this action strictly because you think our President is a dolt (which he assuredly is), take a step back and look at the big picture. This guy was a monster - and now he’s in pieces.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01...killing-its-impossible-overstate-significance

Do you have confidence in this administration to kind of navigate all those calculations?
Well, I think that this particular episode has been fairly impressively handled. There's been restraint in some of the communications methods from the White House. The Department of Defense put out, I think, a solid statement. It has taken significant actions, again, to shore up our defenses and our offensive capabilities. The question now, I think, is what is the diplomatic initiative that follows this? What will the State Department and the Secretary of State do now to try to get back to the table and reduce or end the battlefield consequences?
​

This is the scary part. I don't think Trump will let the career diplomats do their jobs, and will insert himself in the process. Then he'll play hardball, requiring total capitulation before offering anything in return.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Petraeus believes the action to be of greater significance than bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi given that this guy actually had more power than both of them. His reasoning for supporting it is the same as mine: it puts state-sponsored terrorists on notice and this helps with deterrence.

Just because you’re hiding under the flag of another country - you are not safe. The US and its allies will kill you and those that facilitate your efforts.

And to all who oppose this action strictly because you think our President is a dolt (which he assuredly is), take a step back and look at the big picture. This guy was a monster - and now he’s in pieces.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01...killing-its-impossible-overstate-significance

Before this happened I posted about Iran being responsible for killing hundreds of Americans and wounding many more and there hadn't been any repercussions for that. Finally we have a repercussion. It's satisfying when a guy that deserves killing is killed.

 

[iu_a_att]

Petraeus believes the action to be of greater significance than bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi given that this guy actually had more power than both of them. His reasoning for supporting it is the same as mine: it puts state-sponsored terrorists on notice and this helps with deterrence.

Just because you’re hiding under the flag of another country - you are not safe. The US and its allies will kill you and those that facilitate your efforts.

And to all who oppose this action strictly because you think our President is a dolt (which he assuredly is), take a step back and look at the big picture. This guy was a monster - and now he’s in pieces.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01...killing-its-impossible-overstate-significance

It is worth thinking through the principle that any state can legitimately assassinate anyone it decides is a bad guy. The world is full of monsters. Putin is a really bad actor...would it be a good idea to take him out too? Should the Clinton administration have assassinated Milosevic? We have had laws on the books against political assassination. We have had international agreements. Are those all off? Were they a mistake?

 

[toastedbread]

It is worth thinking through the principle that any state can legitimately assassinate anyone it decides is a bad guy. The world is full of monsters. Putin is a really bad actor...would it be a good idea to take him out too? Should the Clinton administration have assassinated Milosevic? We have had laws on the books against political assassination. We have had international agreements. Are those all off? Were they a mistake?

Yea but those guys weren't designated terrorists! And did they have a UN travel ban in place? That's the admin line.

For better or worse, our public officials are now in the firing line.

Revenge won't taste so sweet if war erupts. Btw, it's astounding to me how people are willing to give this admin the benefit of the doubt on something as serious as this, given their penchant for lying about everything...

Edit: and dare I say a lot of anger is misplaced. Where is the anger directed at those who blundered into Iraq? And do families of Iraqi civilians killed by coalition forces have grounds for seeking revenge against American forces? (Hard to put an exact number on that, but it's in the thousands at a minimum.)

 

[toastedbread]

It is worth thinking through the principle that any state can legitimately assassinate anyone it decides is a bad guy. The world is full of monsters. Putin is a really bad actor...would it be a good idea to take him out too? Should the Clinton administration have assassinated Milosevic? We have had laws on the books against political assassination. We have had international agreements. Are those all off? Were they a mistake?

This would be my take in a nutshell. I think Susan Rice hits the mark.

 

[iu_a_att]

Yea but those guys weren't designated terrorists! And did they have a UN travel ban in place? That's the admin line.

For better or worse, our public officials are now in the firing line.

Revenge won't taste so sweet if war erupts. Btw, it's astounding to me how people are willing to give this admin the benefit of the doubt on something as serious as this, given their penchant for lying about everything...

Edit: and dare I say a lot of anger is misplaced. Where is the anger directed at those who blundered into Iraq? And do families of Iraqi civilians killed by coalition forces have grounds for seeking revenge against American forces?

If a state is capable of extracting meaningful revenge then they won't be the target of political assassination.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

This would be my take in a nutshell. I think Susan Rice hits the mark.

Exactly.

 

[toastedbread]

If a state is capable of extracting meaningful revenge then they won't be the target of political assassination.

Dunno about that.

Exactly.

Ah! The great "strategy"!

https://apnews.com/64c608c6d15bf797...n=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

AP says nyet.

Sounds like the "imminent" intelligence was cooked too, to make it "legal".

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

That's right if you are looking at everything in a vacuum. PMF responds tonight and kills 5 US soldiers. Now what do you do?

We've had other opportunities to take out QS. Previous administrations determined it was not in our best interest to take that action.

Previous administrations were wrong

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

It is worth thinking through the principle that any state can legitimately assassinate anyone it decides is a bad guy. The world is full of monsters. Putin is a really bad actor...would it be a good idea to take him out too? Should the Clinton administration have assassinated Milosevic? We have had laws on the books against political assassination. We have had international agreements. Are those all off? Were they a mistake?

Has Putin sent guerillas in to train Iraqi insurgents on how to create lethal, armor-defeating IEDs? Has Putin been repeatedly caught funneling money and weapons into terrorist groups that attack our allies?

Do you think that there are some people who’s bloodthirst and mantra make them worthy of death to stop more deaths? If you don’t, we’re done here.

 

[iu_a_att]

This would be my take in a nutshell. I think Susan Rice hits the mark.

An interesting take.

Yea but those guys weren't designated terrorists! And did they have a UN travel ban in place? That's the admin line.

For better or worse, our public officials are now in the firing line.

Revenge won't taste so sweet if war erupts. Btw, it's astounding to me how people are willing to give this admin the benefit of the doubt on something as serious as this, given their penchant for lying about everything...

Edit: and dare I say a lot of anger is misplaced. Where is the anger directed at those who blundered into Iraq? And do families of Iraqi civilians killed by coalition forces have grounds for seeking revenge against American forces? (Hard to put an exact number on that, but it's in the thousands at a minimum.)

The weak wisely misplace their anger lest they irritate the strong.

Has Putin sent guerillas in to train Iraqi insurgents on how to create lethal, armor-defeating IEDs? Has Putin been repeatedly caught funneling money and weapons into terrorist groups that attack our allies?

Do you think that there are some people who’s bloodthirst and mantra make them worthy of death to stop more deaths? If you don’t, we’re done here.

i think there are many such people. Putin, Kim, drug lords, sex traffickers others.

 

[HillzHoozier]

our President is a dolt

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I just received an email from CERT that we should be prepared for cyber attacks.

 

[toastedbread]

An interesting take.
The weak wisely misplace their anger lest they irritate the strong.
i think there are many such people. Putin, Kim, drug lords, sex traffickers others.

The President has now threatened war on Iranian soil, if Iran responds. Threatening historical/cultural sites! Brilliant! Let's bomb Persepolis! This is going to end very, very well.

All hail the geniuses leading us and those who have bought into the "strategy"!

 

[toastedbread]

I just received an email from CERT that we should be prepared for cyber attacks.

Don't worry about a little cyber attack! We are going to bomb Hafez's tomb!

 

[sglowrider]

 

[UncleMark]

I just received an email from CERT that we should be prepared for cyber attacks.

I'd be careful about any emails from @toastedbread

 

[sglowrider]

I'd be careful about any emails from @toastedbread

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Petraeus believes the action to be of greater significance than bin Laden and Al-Baghdadi given that this guy actually had more power than both of them. His reasoning for supporting it is the same as mine: it puts state-sponsored terrorists on notice and this helps with deterrence.

Just because you’re hiding under the flag of another country - you are not safe. The US and its allies will kill you and those that facilitate your efforts.

And to all who oppose this action strictly because you think our President is a dolt (which he assuredly is), take a step back and look at the big picture. This guy was a monster - and now he’s in pieces.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-01...killing-its-impossible-overstate-significance

OBL was more significant symbolically, but Soleimani is more significant operationally. OBL brought some sense of closure but this hit saved many many lives.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The President has now threatened war on Iranian soil, if Iran responds. Threatening historical/cultural sites! Brilliant! Let's bomb Persepolis! This is going to end very, very well.

All hail the geniuses leading us and those who have bought into the "strategy"!

Calm down

 

[toastedbread]

Calm down

The president tweeted a threat to commit war crimes. I'm awaiting your denunciation with baited breath.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

Has Putin sent guerillas in to train Iraqi insurgents on how to create lethal, armor-defeating IEDs? Has Putin been repeatedly caught funneling money and weapons into terrorist groups that attack our allies?

Do you think that there are some people who’s bloodthirst and mantra make them worthy of death to stop more deaths? If you don’t, we’re done here.

Do you think Iran will view this as a a serious act of aggression and will respond in kind? If you don't, we're done here.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

The president tweeted a threat to commit war crimes. I'm awaiting your denunciation with baited breath.

War Crimes. You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[toastedbread]

War Crimes. You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

View embedded media

You’re ascribing a meaning to what Trump said that might not literally mean a cultural protected site. If a regional HQ has their headquarters in an old building it’s a military target.

 

[toastedbread]

You’re ascribing a meaning to what Trump said that might not literally mean a cultural protected site. If a regional HQ has their headquarters in an old building it’s a military target.

Oh sure... "IRANIAN CULTURE" does not mean Iranian culture. Give me a break. Good night.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Oh sure... "IRANIAN CULTURE" does not mean Iranian culture. Give me a break. Good night.

No I’m sure you’re right. I’m sure he’s planning to destroy the Persepolis.

edit : here’s long time Democrat Wesley Clark explaining why the tweet was a good idea. You’re gunna need a California King fainting couch.

 

[hoosboot]

Has Putin sent guerillas in to train Iraqi insurgents on how to create lethal, armor-defeating IEDs? Has Putin been repeatedly caught funneling money and weapons into terrorist groups that attack our allies?

Do you think that there are some people who’s bloodthirst and mantra make them worthy of death to stop more deaths? If you don’t, we’re done here.

Well...not specifically, but Putin is undoubtedly as bad a guy as Soleimani. I get the general gist of what you're saying, but just wondering where we draw the lines. Would it be okay if an American President ordered the killing of MBS?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Well...not specifically, but Putin is undoubtedly as bad a guy as Soleimani. I get the general gist of what you're saying, but just wondering where we draw the lines. Would it be okay if an American President ordered the killing of MBS?

If MBS was killing Americans, yes.

 

[twenty02]

Well...not specifically, but Putin is undoubtedly as bad a guy as Soleimani. I get the general gist of what you're saying, but just wondering where we draw the lines. Would it be okay if an American President ordered the killing of MBS?

I would draw the line based upon how much direct American blood is on the hands of the "bad guy".

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If MBS was killing Americans, yes.

Not sure I'm comfortable living in a world where that would be acceptable. I guess there's an argument to be made that decapitation is preferable to war, but still...

 

[toastedbread]

I would draw the line based upon how much direct American blood is on the hands of the "bad guy".

And how many pints of blood is that?

 

[toastedbread]

Not sure I'm comfortable living in a world where that would be acceptable. I guess there's an argument to be made that decapitation is preferable to war, but still...

I'd argue that rigging an election/attempting to rig a presidential election is more serious than the death of a single American. I don't have an exact number in mind that tops the act of rigging an election. I would characterize interfering with electoral processes to be an act of war.

I would also suggest that perpetrating attacks on critical infrastructure is possibly more serious.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'd argue that rigging an election/attempting to rig a presidential election is more serious than the death of a single American. I don't have an exact number in mind that tops the rigging of an election. I would characterize interfering with electoral processes to be an act of war.

Taking out Putin would be even more unacceptable than taking out MBS. You don't target heads of state, except in the rare case that you are attempting to capture them and try them for crimes against humanity and/or war crimes.

 

[toastedbread]

Taking out Putin would be even more unacceptable than taking out MBS. You don't target heads of state, except in the rare case that you are attempting to capture them and try them for crimes against humanity and/or war crimes.

I'm not advocating for that. In fact I strenuously disagree with those in favor of targeted assassinations. I'm simply making the case that if you go down that rabbit hole, then I consider an attempt to rig a Presidential election to be more serious than the killing of 1 individual American.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm not advocating for that. In fact I strenuously disagree with those in favor of targeted assassinations. I'm simply making the case that if you go down that rabbit hole, then I consider an attempt to rig a Presidential election to be more serious than the killing of 1 individual American.

I'd have to think about that, but my gut says I disagree. There's the possibility that one individual American would be me, and personally, I'd rather be alive in a dystopia than dead in a functioning democracy.

 

[toastedbread]

I'd have to think about that, but my gut says I disagree. There's the possibility that one individual American would be me, and personally, I'd rather be alive in a dystopia than dead in a functioning democracy.

lol.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Not sure I'm comfortable living in a world where that would be acceptable. I guess there's an argument to be made that decapitation is preferable to war, but still...

I don’t know how else to say it. If MBS was dispatching state forces to engage in acts of terrorism against Americans, training insurgents engaged with Americans how to kill Americans, etc, he is a military target.