Rayvin

Yeah I'm getting none of these references, sorry On Russia, Corbyn condemned the Salisbury attacks and said the evidence pointed towards Russia but, once again, that the UK should abide by international law and follow due process. Because he isn't a chest thumping psychopath. So you can wonder all you like, but the answer is that he has been consistent. I'm trying to angle this away from Corbyn tbf as he is indeed irrelevant now, which is why i dropped him from the previous post altogether - but ultimately you mention "terrible US imperialists" as if it's some kind of exaggeration. It isn't. They are terrible. They are imperialists. And whenever someone in the middle east commits "an act of terror" against them, it's because they've been committing acts of terror themselves to provoke it. No one should have any sympathy for the US at the state level. This is the price they pay for their foreign policy. No sympathy at all. Reap what they sow, etc etc. If they would just fuck off out of the region, Islamic terror would be far easier to hate on - except that very probably it would cease altogether. The US creates these problems and then bitches on when it gets hit. They know exactly what they're doing and in any objective sense are the real bad guys in that region. Unless they know something the rest of us don't.

But what is it you think they should do? I mean you're basically saying we need to see both sides of this, which is fine, but I'm curious about how we can have sympathy for the US when it invades other countries and then is surprised when, rather than line up to get shot to pieces by high tech military hardware, the enemy forces instead hit them where it hurts - their civilians. We would do exactly the same and would call it justified.

I don't get the reference either way, sorry.

I sometimes wonder what we expect these "terrorists" to do when we invade and destabilise their regions with reckless abandon. Bend over and take it? If they were attacking us without provocation I would agree with you. But they aren't. They're attacking us because we have forced them to, and because they can't fight back conventionally because we have overwhelming force. I don't get why this isn't more obvious. What would you have these countries do? Nothing?

Toby? Who the fuck is Toby?

Tbh I overreacted a bit to that comment as I knew what you were getting at. And you're right. Even Gloom and ewerk are basically right. It just pisses me off that the truth is seen as a problem instead of something to aspire to.

Fair enough it's what you're reading into it, but he didn't say it. His stock response in reality is always to call for restraint and to step back from violence. You can choose to interpret in the way you have, but it's not his stock response. It's your stock assumption.

Did he actually say that or is that journalistic license?

Indeed. See my posts in the other thread for what I think about the US in all this, but i guarantee you that they don't give a shit about this plane as far as political consequences go.

I feel like we're arguing two different things now. Morally, this entire thing is reprehensible and the US are at least as bad as Soleimani ever was. The plane crash is a tragedy and the whole affair is a pathetic display. But politically, for Trump and even the US, this looks like a win. He won't care about that plane, it doesn't hurt him. If anything it just makes the Iranians look worse.

On the other hand, Iraq has just revealed that Iran gave them advance notice of the strike, which was passed on to the US. Which is something i suggested about a page back. It's looking more like theatre by the minute IMO. But yes, I suspect they shot it down. Was also interested about that earthquake near one of their nuclear facilities.

I'm not reading anything, I'm just looking at the situation. Trump has managed the following: - Eliminate fairly powerful and problematic anti US individual. - Make the US look powerful and prepared to act on the world stage. - Look strong at home for his core vote, while conjuring an enemy for everyone to be vaguely afraid of in the run up to an election. - Also look like the responsible adult in the room if he takes it no further. - Has suffered absolutely minimal repercussions in terms of damage caused by the response. What has it cost them? - US allies around the globe alarmed initially, but if it settles down from here it will change to modest approval. - Some damage to their military bases in Iraq. - ...? I thought it was a moronic decision when it looked like it would lead to war, but since it hasn't, I have to hold my hands up and say that it does appear to be a fairly well calculated move. I'm very happy to hear some alternative view on it, I'm not falling over myself trying to find a Trump win here because we need the daft bastard to go asap, but this really feels like a Trump win. He punched Iran square in the face and all they've managed to muster is a bit of a tantrum. It's depressing, but I'm struggling to see it any other way.

RLB has confirmed that she's more than happy to nuke people, if it will win her votes. There you go, she's isn't totally a lost cause.

Have we even responded to any of this beyond some panicked statements of "careful now" He's not wrong though.

Pity they didn't have the power to take control prior to that. Honestly, I think Trump just rubber stamped it. It's come off so well for the US (assuming it remains as it is) that I genuinely suspect the deep state (/Parky) or whatever other factions in the US get involved in such things more or less put it in front of him and told him that it'd be a vote winner with very limited repercussions. I genuinely don't believe Trump has just assassinated someone, without incident, all on his own accord.

I'm not blind to this, I do get it. I just cannot bring myself to overlook the hypocrisy.

A vote for the truth is a vote for the Tories anyway, apparently.

Deep down I would want to say "all the actions that you have suggested Suleimani is guilty of, are also carried out by the US in multiple theatres around the world. If i call this man a terrorist, then by YOUR definition, so must the US be. Is that what you're saying? I can't answer you until you're clear on this point, as my understanding is that both sides are doing the same things. Now fuck off".

Yeah but he didn't call the US terrorists either. The problem he has is that he can't say one side are without the other side being the same. So he can't lie, basically. If I was him I would have said "clearly the US defines any group which funds and arms political groups in other states who have the direct intent of carrying out violence against civilian forces with a view to destabilising the country in question, as terrorists. By their definition, Suleimani was indeed a terrorist, and i agree with them that any actors involved in such things should be termed as such. We should stand up against such behaviour wherever and from whoever it manifests."

How will the white house have achieved that, exactly? You think they asked Iran to fire a useless broadside against US assets so that everyone could step back? It's possible but it would be high treason, you would think. It's possible he's lucky indeed But it's also possible that for all everyone goes on about having the might to stand up to the US, they are literally in a class of their own in military terms, and not even Iran is prepared to go toe to toe with them. That's exactly how it looks to me. I think they believe Trump is a loose enough cannon to actually make good on his threats. And I think they've reasoned that he has to do a lot more than kill one guy to be worth the risk of the US flattening them. Whether Trump knew this or not, plenty in the white house will have. And they will be emboldened by it.

I might as well vote Tory then.

Gloom, the argument you have just made is exactly the one I was making. I'm not defending Iran. You have just responded to me saying "you can't say Iran are terrorists without saying the US are" by replying that "you can't say the US are without saying Iran are". I know you can't. It's literally my point. I actually don't think either side are terrorists because the word is borderline meaningless since the West doesn't recognise the term in reality, but only in propaganda. It's beyond Corbyn because he can't bring himself to say that the US are terrorists, I would guess. And because he won't do that, he can't say the same for Iran.

He backed down on that yesterday. Said something about being advised it was against the law, said "they can kill Americans but we can't hit their cultural sites, that's the law. That's ok, I will follow the law".

FYP.

If he doesn't attack, I think he can still claim this. Killing one guy and successfully calculating that the other country doesn't have the balls to really hit back is a powerful play. I actually doubt Clinton would have done it. Iran are definitely hoping that's the end of it now. Messages coming from their state news channel almost sound like pleading.