I think I'd rather go to sleep than try to solve the continuing effects of colonialism and free agency tonight.
You are provoking multiple members of this community. Is this seriously how ResetEra's moderators want to run things here? Cause if so, I'm out.Well clearly my language doesn't shut down discussion, as we are still discussing things right now.
I second this.
Will only serve to stir shit.
Iran should have come clean right out of the gate, what a clusterfuck.
You are provoking multiple members of this community. Is this seriously how ResetEra's moderators want to run things here? Cause if so, I'm out.
A "threat" which almost nobody believes to have been credible, btw. That cannot be overstated.Uh huh, but accountability for non Americans seems to be drone strike to the face, yet every former President walks free. You're saying that the US acted (by bombing a sovereign country) to a threat, yet the US have people doing the exact same thing, directly or indirectly, yet no one is droning them.
Probably best if you did leave for your own sanity.You are provoking multiple members of this community. Is this seriously how ResetEra's moderators want to run things here? Cause if so, I'm out.
Calling Soleimani just a military general really doesn't convey who this man was or the crimes he committed, inside and outside of Iran.It's Iran's fault because they literally did it and then tried to lie about it. It's America's fault that they created a scenario where this could happen. And no one should be going to war over it.
Also the Soleimani takes are rhetorical and pointless. Saying a military general is no angel because he kills people adds nothing. The part no one will bring up is that all these American adversaries wouldn't be ending any American military (that's the word that's conveniently omitted) lives if America wasn't out there fighting proxy wars to maintain its stranglehold on large sections on the world.
Calling Soleimani just a military general really doesn't convey who this man was or the crimes he committed, inside and outside of Iran.
That he stands in opposition to the US doesn't make him a sympathetic figure. I really just don't understand the need to paint him in any was besides the man he was.
It doesn't give the right to an international country assassinating him! This is how wars are started!!Calling Soleimani just a military general really doesn't convey who this man was or the crimes he committed, inside and outside of Iran.
That he stands in opposition to the US doesn't make him a sympathetic figure. I really just don't understand the need to paint him in any way besides the man he was.
But this conversation has clearly run its course, at least from my end.
The job of a moderator is to keep a discussion under control, not provoke its community.Answering questions with answers you don't like does not qualify as provocation.
If we're going to say assassinating people who comitted war crimes is a ok then I have a list of US figures that might interest Iran including such names as Oliver North.Calling Soleimani just a military general really doesn't convey who this man was or the crimes he committed, inside and outside of Iran.
That he stands in opposition to the US doesn't make him a sympathetic figure. I really just don't understand the need to paint him in any way besides the man he was.
But this conversation has clearly run its course, at least from my end.
Who has done this?Calling Soleimani just a military general really doesn't convey who this man was or the crimes he committed, inside and outside of Iran.
That he stands in opposition to the US doesn't make him a sympathetic figure. I really just don't understand the need to paint him in any way besides the man he was.
But this conversation has clearly run its course, at least from my end.
Sigh.It doesn't give the right to an international country assassinating him! This is how wars are started!!
This.
Anyone trying to say that Trump played no part in this is just plain wrong.
Can we just respect both points of view? I think Iran is 100% responsible. They panicked and shot the damn plane. Didn't follow protocol of shutting down airspace when they were anticipating American missiles. Blame Trump for tearing jpoca and stirring shit but this could have been avoidable if Iran knew what it was doing. I just can't get myself to defend iran after they killed protestors and covered it up. They tried to cover this as well but it was too late so they are apologizing. Disgusting regime.
I mean Soleimani was pretty much a bad guy. What I mean with my post that I guess I should have worded better, is that calls for accountability usually means 'the US can and should bomb anyone anywhere, because they're a threat'. But as they say, every sitting US president has been a war criminal. I'm not saying they should be droning them or something. But if Americans love their accountability of bad guys, how come not even a lawsuit have been filed against them in the International Court.A "threat" which almost nobody believes to have been credible, btw. That cannot be overstated.
Yes you did. You said ''the US acted because he killed Americans', implying that you're okay with the US government organizing extrajudicial killings.
Exactly.It doesn't give the right to an international country assassinating him! This is how wars are started!!
It doesn't give the right to an international country assassinating him! This is how wars are started!!
The job of a moderator is to keep a discussion under control, not provoke its community.
What? That's adding a ton of meaning to that statement that simply isn't there. I have only ever said that the assassination was a stupid, overly provocative act.Yes you did. You said ''the US acted because he killed Americans', implying that you're okay with the US government organizing extrajudicial killings.
If a moderator is to be able to participate in discussions and post things I (and others here) fundamentally can't agree on, it would be nice if the Ignore function could be used against them (barring Threadmarks, etc). Unless they speak on the behalf of the entire team, which I sure as hell hope not.A moderator is also a poster, and can engage in debate on thread-related topics the same as anyone. Discussing this is what we're all here for, is it not? They have, as far I saw, articulated their opinion in a calm and composer manner.
The tone of your posts suggest otherwise.What? That's adding a ton of meaning to that statement that simply isn't there. I have only ever said that the assassination was a stupid, overly provocative act.
No, they don't. They only look that way if you think the act of killing Soleimani can only be judged on the value of Soleimani as a person, and not the inherent wrongness of the act and the damage it caused in response.
Guess it isn't a problem if they assassinate one of the U.S.'s members of congress then, huh? C'mon.US soldiers killed: 0
Civilians killed: 176
worst retaliation ever?
There's no doubt he was responsible for some dark shit. But the apparent threat that is being used as an excuse for his assassination in this scenario is very clearly lies. And So when someone in this thread says that the US was "responding to a threat" (not you specifically, but it has been mentioned a few times here and in other threads) as an excuse for this extrajudicial killing, it really raises my eyebrows.I mean Soleimani was pretty much a bad guy. What I mean with my post that I guess I should have worded better, is that calls for accountability usually means 'the US can and should bomb anyone anywhere, because they're a threat'. But as they say, every sitting US president has been a war criminal. I'm not saying they should be droning them or something. But if Americans love their accountability of bad guys, how come not even a lawsuit have been filed against them in the International Court.
Yes you did. You said ''the US acted because he killed Americans', implying that you're okay with the US government organizing extrajudicial killings.
Exactly.
I didn't say that and I didn't do that. It's also super weird seeing you pull that out of nowhere given how many times you've had to say the following:That he stands in opposition to the US doesn't make him a sympathetic figure. I really just don't understand the need to paint him in any way besides the man he was.
You do your argument no service by willfully misrepresenting others.
Who is saying otherwise?
Why are you putting quotes around a word I never used?
I haven't accused anyone of anything, I asked one person a question based on their post.
A moderator is also a poster, and can engage in debate on thread-related topics the same as anyone. Discussing this is what we're all here for, is it not? They have, as far I saw, articulated their opinion in a calm and composer manner.
Saying that the US shares the blame is not the same as absolving Iran or defending them.It's difficult to posit a scenario in which this could be any more Iran's fault.
Trying to pass off any blame for this fuck up is defending Iran's fuck up.
There is no ambiguity in this scenario. It can't be explained by increased tensions caused by Trump, because all of those possibilities are excluded by the situation. No military should have policies and procedures in place that could allow this to happen.
It's the single biggest military fuck up regarding commercial airlines in modern history.
The plane took of from Iran's International Airport.
It was shot down shortly after take off.
It was shot down in Iran airspace.
How does a military fuck up this badly?
Put the plane in Iraq airspace, put it near the border, have it be an incoming flight, change virtually any circumstance and you might be able to point to increased tensions being a cause. But given what we know, there is no reason to accidentally identify this commercial flight as a possible target.
As stupid as it was for Trump to target and kill Soleimani and as much of a walking disaster Trump is, i'm not going to even attempt to defend Iran in what is indefensible.
What defines a monster? Someone that you heard on the news was a "bad guy"? It seems like we're going to need some criteria before we use language that dehumanizes people on 'the other side' because dehumanization is often the first step in laying the groundwork for a war or some other atrocity.No, they don't. They only look that way if you think the act of killing Soleimani can only be judged on the value of Soleimani as a person, and not the inherent wrongness of the act and the damage it caused in response.
The man was a monster, both inside and outside Iran. Killing him was dumb. Both statements are true.
Conflicting reports. Some say it turned around only afterwards, others day before.Do we have any info about why the plane was turning around before getting hit?
That is ridiculous.If a moderator is to be able to participate in discussions and post things I (and others here) fundamentally can't agree on, it would be nice if the Ignore function could be used against them (barring Threadmarks, etc). Unless they speak on the behalf of the entire team, which I sure as hell hope not.
Do we have any info about why the plane was turning around before getting hit?
Saying that the US shares the blame is not the same as absolving Iran or defending them.
Iran and the US are both at fault here. The blood is on both their hands.
36% equally culpable? Insane. Trump escalated the events but this isn't some cartoonish scene of a stand-off and someone getting jumpy because the clock strikes. Iran aren't new to this and this wasn't a misfire in amongst a bombing run.
How is it ridiculous?
They're incompetent? But then again their incompetence is part to blame with Trump!!!!!!!Why would Iran even send the plane off when they were anticipating an air strike? How could they not tell the difference between an airliner and an F16?