-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US Department of Defense confirms it targeted/killed Qasem Soleimani, commander of Iran's Quds Force, outside Baghdad Airport
- Thread starter poklane
- Start date
- Status
They can resign. Theoretically they can decide (as advised by DoD lawyers) that the order is not legal... which also involves resignation.
This will go over well. I can't see any possible negative repercussions from this unhinged belligerence.
I still don't think Iran is going to directly make military attacks. They will likely stick to things like cyber attacks. Trump is so mercurial that I don't think he even knows what he is willing to do - I just can't see a direct military attack being worth the risk to Iran.
See them take a page from Russia's election interference playbook and watch how fast Republicans suddenly care about election cybersecurity
Mosques
Holding a grudge over the Iran hostage crisis is fucking pathetic. It was 40 years ago.
This is why killing Suleimani was such a dumb fuck move. US assets will be hit in one way or another. If Trump responds with an extremely disproportionate strike (there is a big chance of this happening) then really that's uncharted territory, even more so than now.
I think it's becoming more and more clear this was done to distract from impeachment and for the 2020 election.
The international community needs to get the fuck off their ass and begin start de-escalating. Offer Iran some economic bones and sanctions relief.
I strongly doubt Iran-proper will directly attack US assets. They would want to be able to deny being involved to keep escalation to a minimum.
Trump has a magical "newsworthiness" exemption to Twitter rules.
Any attack from a pro Iranian militia will be interpreted as an attack from Iran it sounds like.
Twitter gives exceptions to world leaders on a whole bunch of its rules.
That's legitimately insane. For all the faults of the United States, it has been military policy basically forever that "cultural significance" is a key reason not to attack a specific target.
He's famous. Twitter upholds trump's maxim "famous people can do whatever the hell they want."
Whenever an American soldier die, the US just bomb shit. Sometime it's stuff that is connected to the death, sometime it isn't, but they always bomb the ever living shit out of everything when it happens.
If American soldiers get hurt, people will die, and if history is any indication, a large number of them are going to be civilians.
IMO, cyber still seems like the much more likely attack by them. They can do more actual damage, and it greatly lowers the risk of US military retaliation.
Having one of their proxies target a US bases in no way helps Iran, and the ramifications could be dire. Cyber can cause real damage and it is infinitely less likely to receive US wrath.
Trump is literally begging Iran for a war and it's so obvious, everyone should be able to see right though this shit and our media (as well as the candidates other than Bernie) need to do a better job.
Not just that.
The fact that he says he would target sites of Iranian cultural value means that he is threatening to commit a war crime.
At war we're championing them for doing deeds that may actually be harming the nation, and then if they are killed or injured doing so, the system basically ignores them. I don't understand why anyone would volunteer for our military.
"& the Iranian Culture"
wtf has he done to be given the benefit of the doubt, especially when it's spelled out like that right there
The economic incentives are pretty damn serious. For many people, it's a really good way to move up into the middle class. And don't forget, most soldiers in the military are not in combat roles, and only a very small percentage of them actually see combat.
Of all the things trump does, Twitter TOS violations is literally the thing I am least concerned over. You can't "deplatform" of #cancel the dude with the nuclear codes.
It's better that Trumps allowed to tweet because then people are warned and can be appropriately outraged and push back
(Unfortunately) he's in a very very privileged position.
As in, being a President of a superpower.
It's shitty, but he's beyond "deplatforming".
Again, it's not just a war crime (which of course is bad enough). It's against US military rules of conduct and, even completely divorced from any moral considerations, is just incredibly counterproductive to any strategic plan.
People respond poorly to having their culture targeted for destruction. It does not pacify them, it enrages them, far more than a forgin power targeting legitimate military targets.
Deranged to threaten to go after country's cultural heritage like some two bit terror group.
Unless you live in Laos. Or any other nation on the end of secret conflicts.
Twitter is a private company that has no duty to the public to provide Trump a pulpit.
Twitter is a company in a capitalist society. Trump makes twitter lots of money. Twitter is not going to kick Trump off.
Please. Twitter loves all the clicks he generates. He's not getting banned.
I didn't mean to imply that the US never destroyed sites of cultural significance (obviously they have), but targeting sites because of their cultural significance is against policy, and even if done in secrete (which is of course awful), actively advertising that fact is absolutely insane.
Agreed.
But I'd argue that there's public interest (due to his position) in Trump tweeting as opposed to him not.
Like, he's one of the most powerful people on the planet.
Whether you like him or hate him, there's an interest in what he says.
He doesn't get more powerful through Twitter allowing him to post. And if they blocked him from posting directly, then there'd be nothing stopping him from just releasing it through other means and it still being all over Twitter through secondary reporting.
At least this way, it's a primary source of the POTUS publishing stuff publicly.
Last edited:
There was no strategic reason for that, the US was just frustrated and that was a really famous temple.
That was Vietnam's Angkor Wat, only better preserved, and the US turned it into rubble because it was losing the Vietnam war and had no idea what to do.
Umm, from that article:
I'm completely open to the possibility it was targeted for it's cultural significance, but do you have any sources for that? I want to know about this.
Either way, that's obviously abhorrent.
"VIet Cong base area" is just what Nixon called the South Vietnam countryside.
This is just the bullshit America said to justify their carpet bombing campaign, they didn't know where the VC are. That attacked was also heavily condemned at the time.
I have been also been there, that place has no strategic importance, it's not in the way to or from anywhere important, nor is it a fortress.
It's just an ancient temple complex like Bagan or Angkor Wat but we never really got to see it because the US was bringing freedom to Indochina.
So, no source, but it's what you think the rational was.
OK, well, it's certainly posssible you are right.
Sure, but when the consequences for doing so are literally zero what's stopping the mask even going on.
Wait till you find out what China Ian doing in Africa if you think only America is evil. I don't see anyone praising what's the U.S. Is doing, but using Russia as if they haven't been just as bad for the Middle East is baffling to me. They literally helped prop Assad up.
Like I said, it's considered inherently counterproductive (and obviously immoral) in modern military doctrine.
But Trump is an idiot and completly without morals, so you're right, why would that stop him.
Source to what?
To how the US used the term "Viet Cong base area"?
I'm basing it mostly on reading books about the war, but you can see from this wiki list -
These are areas where the US thought there is VC activity, not a specific actual bases where Vietnamese were getting weapon training, which is not something the US was ever really able to find.
Dude is intelligent, if people like this were more popular people would be better informed.
- Status