Current Topics
First Bernie Sanders Thread 2020
by Jeffery J. Haas
16 minutes 32 seconds ago
Good News!
by jgw
Yesterday at 09:42 PM
Bloomberg
by jgw
Yesterday at 09:31 PM
Coronavirus: The Plague of The 21st Century?
by logtroll
Yesterday at 08:56 PM
ReaderRant RoundTable for Winter 2020
by Jeffery J. Haas
Yesterday at 08:23 PM
Democrating Efforts
by jgw
Yesterday at 08:13 PM
What should we be doing to adapt to large scale crises?
by Greger
Yesterday at 07:48 PM
Is it too soon to be talking 2020?
by Hamish Howl
Yesterday at 06:38 PM
Heard any good car jokes lately?
by Jeffery J. Haas
Yesterday at 02:07 AM
living library
by Hamish Howl
02/24/20 02:44 PM
Above the law: DOJ lowering Stone sentencing
by Greger
02/23/20 08:24 PM
Why not?
by chunkstyle
02/23/20 03:55 PM
Bro or NOT Bro?
by Greger
02/20/20 07:26 PM
Growth, hunh, good god yaw, what is it good for?
by CPWILL
02/18/20 11:37 PM
Thorium Reactor
by jgw
02/18/20 07:05 PM
Ahhhhhhhh - the perfection of Capitalism
by jgw
02/16/20 09:43 PM
Prognostications on the demise of Herr Dicktater
by logtroll
02/15/20 04:10 PM
Iowa caucuses fail dismally.
by Greger
02/14/20 09:43 PM
Biden's Huge Lead in National Poll of Black Voters, 27% Want Black Running Mate
by Greger
02/13/20 07:17 PM
The Departed - 2020
by Jeffery J. Haas
02/12/20 05:30 PM
Forum Stats
6289 Members
60 Forums
16822 Topics
295900 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 5 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 12 >
Topic Options
#319967 - 01/13/20 01:25 AM Re: iranian general qassem soleimani [Re: jgw]
Jeffery J. Haas Online   happy
It's the Despair Quotient!
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 08/03/04
Posts: 15070
Loc: Whittier, California
He can't even decide what he thinks the WORD "IMMINENT" even means!
_________________________
"The Best of the Leon Russell Festivals" DVD
deepfreezefilms.com

Top
#319969 - 01/13/20 02:03 AM Re: iranian general qassem soleimani [Re: CPWILL]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 9290
Loc: North San Diego County
Quote:
If we declared we no longer recognized the Iranian regime, wouldn't this same logic mean that there was no longer such a hindrance in killing its members?


No, because everybody else in the world recognizes Iran as a sovereign state. If anybody can just declare themselves sovereign, and that makes them sovereign, that's the same argument as our so-called Sovereign Citizens. Nobody else thinks they are sovereign, so they are just criminals when they break laws. Same for beheading, kidnapping, keeping sex slaves, etc. All things ISIS did.

Top
#320079 - 01/16/20 05:30 PM Re: iranian general qassem soleimani [Re: Hamish Howl]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 17266
I hadn't jumped in yet, but I thought I ought to. I'm starting with HH's post because it sets up the discussion well:
Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Well, anyway, calling Soleimani a terrorist is a category error.

He was a commissioned officer working under the auspices of his nation. You'd think the right wingers would latch onto that, because it makes Iran even more culpable, but when you say it, everyone starts screeching that you love Iran and hate America.

Thing is, category errors are the worst kind of mistake, because they blind you to reality a piece at a time, and eventually you have what is called an "outside context problem", because you can no longer see things coming as they exist in the real world.

It's worth mentioning that any given individual or group that has an outside context event will only have one, because they typically aren't around long enough to have another one.
The assassination (definitionally) of Suleimani was, again, definitionally, an "act of war."

His designation as a "terrorist" is a political, not a legal designation. Legally, he was an officer in the Iranian military. Legally, we are not at war with Iran. Because we are not at war with Iran, legally, attacking Iranian military targets is an act of aggression, thus an "act of war" under both international law and U.S. domestic law. BTW, it should be noted Iran has also conducted a number of acts of war against the United States, including shooting down a drone.

What made Suleimani a "legitimate" target is his participation in combat activities in war zones. Iraq is one of them, as is Syria. His participation in these activities removes many of his sovereign protections (i.e., his status as an Iranian military officer). If he had merely been a "collateral effect" of an otherwise legitimate military operation (which we are legally authorized to conduct in Iraq), there would be no problem with this result. Oops, our bad! A little closer is his participation in activities hostile to United States troops, although it would be more difficult to prove that.

But the biggest problem isn't the legal one, it is the practical, tactical, strategic one. We have given up the high ground. Suleimani was, legitimately, the head of Iran's equivalent of Director of the CIA or Commander of US Special Forces Command. Do we want our officers and directors to be legitimate targets of Iran, or Russia, or Syria or any other agency with an axe to grind?

Top
#320081 - 01/16/20 06:38 PM Re: iranian general qassem soleimani [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 2899
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
Should probably mention that Iran has now called the Army of the United States a terrorist organization.

Top
#320087 - 01/17/20 12:47 AM Re: iranian general qassem soleimani [Re: NW Ponderer]
CPWILL Offline
newbie

Registered: 12/26/19
Posts: 157
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
I hadn't jumped in yet, but I thought I ought to. I'm starting with HH's post because it sets up the discussion well:
Originally Posted By: Hamish Howl
Well, anyway, calling Soleimani a terrorist is a category error.

He was a commissioned officer working under the auspices of his nation. You'd think the right wingers would latch onto that, because it makes Iran even more culpable, but when you say it, everyone starts screeching that you love Iran and hate America.

Thing is, category errors are the worst kind of mistake, because they blind you to reality a piece at a time, and eventually you have what is called an "outside context problem", because you can no longer see things coming as they exist in the real world.

It's worth mentioning that any given individual or group that has an outside context event will only have one, because they typically aren't around long enough to have another one.
The assassination (definitionally) of Suleimani was, again, definitionally, an "act of war."

His designation as a "terrorist" is a political, not a legal designation. Legally, he was an officer in the Iranian military. Legally, we are not at war with Iran. Because we are not at war with Iran, legally, attacking Iranian military targets is an act of aggression, thus an "act of war" under both international law and U.S. domestic law. BTW, it should be noted Iran has also conducted a number of acts of war against the United States, including shooting down a drone.

What made Suleimani a "legitimate" target is his participation in combat activities in war zones. Iraq is one of them, as is Syria. His participation in these activities removes many of his sovereign protections (i.e., his status as an Iranian military officer). If he had merely been a "collateral effect" of an otherwise legitimate military operation (which we are legally authorized to conduct in Iraq), there would be no problem with this result. Oops, our bad! A little closer is his participation in activities hostile to United States troops, although it would be more difficult to prove that.

But the biggest problem isn't the legal one, it is the practical, tactical, strategic one. We have given up the high ground. Suleimani was, legitimately, the head of Iran's equivalent of Director of the CIA or Commander of US Special Forces Command. Do we want our officers and directors to be legitimate targets of Iran, or Russia, or Syria or any other agency with an axe to grind?


This is a thoughtful take, but I have to ask; what, exactly, do you think it is Iran has been doing, if not targeting our personnel? If the worry is "Well Iran May Decide To Try To Get Some American Officers Killed", well, that boat has long since sailed.
_________________________
Winter Is Coming

Top
#320088 - 01/17/20 01:46 AM Re: iranian general qassem soleimani [Re: CPWILL]
rporter314 Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 7067
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
what, exactly, do you think it is Iran has been doing, if not targeting our personnel?
Or one could ask what is the US doing in Iraq, threatening Iranian sovereignty?

So the question is would Iran be targeting US military personnel if the US was no int Iraq? or Afghanistan?

We have been at war with Iran since 1979 and only the Iranians seem know it.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Get off the crazy train!!! ... dump Trump

Top
#320089 - 01/17/20 03:32 AM Re: iranian general qassem soleimani [Re: rporter314]
Greger Offline


Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 16262
Loc: Florida
Quote:
one could ask what is the US doing in Iraq, threatening Iranian sovereignty?


I could get more upset with Iran if they were stationing troops in Canada and lobbing missiles into Michigan.
_________________________
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...

Top
#320093 - 01/17/20 05:06 AM Re: iranian general qassem soleimani [Re: Greger]
rporter314 Offline
veteran

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 7067
Loc: Highlands, Tx
think 1962 ... one of my uncles was flying 30 days in the air a SAC bomber ...

yeah paranoid folks get batsheiscrazy if you make a move which looks like a threat
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty
Get off the crazy train!!! ... dump Trump

Top
#320095 - 01/17/20 05:43 AM Re: iranian general qassem soleimani [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 9290
Loc: North San Diego County
The main problem is that killing Suleimani sets up an Iranian assassination of an American Secretary of Defense or Commander-In-Chief as tit-for-tat in the eyes of all the other countries of the world. What's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Which Republicans don't seem to understand.

They do stuff they would scream about if the Democrats did to them, with no thoughts about next week, or next year when power shifts the other way. Like refusing to vote on Merrick Garland. Do they think they can do that and not have it done back to them? Or changing Senate rules so a simple majority is all that's required to get their way? What happens when the Senate shifts back to a slight Democratic majority?

Top
#320117 - 01/18/20 12:07 AM Re: iranian general qassem soleimani [Re: pondering_it_all]
Greger Offline


Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 16262
Loc: Florida
We f*ck 'em square in the ass is what happens.
_________________________
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...

Top
Page 5 of 12 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 12 >

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 26 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
RoughDraft274, CPWILL, Kevin Kohler, Keridan, Chagos
6289 Registered Users
A2