Pompeo defends U.S. killing of Iranian as Democrats ask 'Why now?'

[tomazbodner]

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Pompeo repeatedly said Soleimani's killing made Americans safer, but he also tallied the steps the United States is taking to guard against Iranian retaliation, including warning Americans to leave the region, boosting the U.S. military presence and shoring up cybersecurity systems.

I read in some other news yesterday that Iraqi parliament voted to kick US (and NATO) military out of Iraq and prohibit US or anyone else from performing any operations in their country. Not sure there's much point in linking the article as it's not in English, but basically Iraqi government would now need to carry out parliament's direction. Sending 1000s of troups to Iraq therefore was a bit of waste of travel then.

[sammieuk1]

I doubt whether Soleimani would have been concerned with public opinion before blowing something up now take out his replacement times a million or two????

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, sammieuk1 said:

I doubt whether Soleimani would have been concerned with public opinion before blowing something up now take out his replacement times a million or two????

It seems you you don’t understand the President of the US is not some vicious armed thug, answerable to nobody whenever he feels the urge to kill people.

 

The lack of accountability of military leaders in Iran is irrelevant, the President of the US is accountable for his actions.

[Cryingdick]

25 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I know there was no imminent attack planned on the US, because if so pompeo would not have deflected questions about it.

 

That's how you know? sounds like a guess to me.

[RuamRudy]

43 minutes ago, rabas said:

But the US military-intelligence complex is pretty good at that. They got Soleimani tout suite.

 

Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani

 

"In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.

...

What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”.

...

So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something."

[The Deerhunter]

4 hours ago, gargamon said:

Trump needs a war to ensure his reelection. Its as simple as that.

Exactly. When he should be trying to make peace with them or at least get out of bed with the Saudis who are every bit as bad.  Trump should read the history of the Iran Iraq war.  Those people fighting a religious war don't even bother to count their own dead. It is only the enemy dead that they count.  Like Stalin sending men armed with scythes or sticks against the Wehrmacht tanks and MG 42's.  Political gain at the polls is the only reason.  Would the incumbent US president  have won a second term without 9/11?

Edited January 6, 2020 by The Deerhunter

[earlinclaifornia]

2 hours ago, Skallywag said:

Was surprised to see Geraldo Rivera speaking the truth on Fox news, as he is also a contributor there at times.  

 

Geraldo is BACK! yea!

[sammieuk1]

20 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It seems you you don’t understand the President of the US is not some vicious armed thug, answerable to nobody whenever he feels the urge to kill people.

 

The lack of accountability of military leaders in Iran is irrelevant, the President of the US is accountable for his actions.

That brings us on to why admit to killing him why not just go with that was not me me routine favored by Putin and the Ayatollah's until it all blows over literally???? 

[earlinclaifornia]

46 minutes ago, tomazbodner said:

I read in some other news yesterday that Iraqi parliament voted to kick US (and NATO) military out of Iraq and prohibit US or anyone else from performing any operations in their country. Not sure there's much point in linking the article as it's not in English, but basically Iraqi government would now need to carry out parliament's direction. Sending 1000s of troups to Iraq therefore was a bit of waste of travel then.

Done already: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/5/iraq-parliament-votes-expel-us-military/

[earlinclaifornia]

57 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure where you find evidence of any risk analysis.

Fair question.  You get advise from experts around the world. Not an entirely novel idea I think.

[sammieuk1]

1 hour ago, Skallywag said:

Doesn't the Quran teach forgiveness?  hahaha

Yes shortly after your head has been cut off????

[AgMech Cowboy]

4 hours ago, gargamon said:

Trump needs a war to ensure his reelection. Its as simple as that.

Just the opposite.

[meand]

"Imminent threat" rings a bell, doesn't it. Before the Iraq debacle it was all about a supposed imminent threat. 

 

This is their new thing, just say someone is coming to kill us and provide no proof and you got your war. But the real truth is their wars for profits are WHAT makes the people come to kill us. 

[Pedrogaz]

Personally I am sick and tired of unjustifiable and immoral US aggression around the world. 

[AgMech Cowboy]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

'Why now?'

Should have been, 'About time.'  Clinton was afraid to take out Osama and look what it got us.

[stevenl]

30 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Done already: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/5/iraq-parliament-votes-expel-us-military/

And Trump has now declared he will put massive sanctions on Iraq, unless they pay billions for the expenses the US had in Iraq, especially the military construction projects.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

And Trump has now declared he will put massive sanctions on Iraq, unless they pay billions for the expenses the US had in Iraq, especially the military construction projects.

‘The Art of the Deal’.

[Nigel Garvie]

4 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And Trump has now declared he will put massive sanctions on Iraq, unless they pay billions for the expenses the US had in Iraq, especially the military construction projects.

I bet the Chinese and Russians can't wait, they can barely believe their luck.

 

 

[Sujo]

Isis cant believe its luck also. They are now trumps number 1 fans.

[tyga]

So taking out one guy at the top will stop some imminent threat, like he is the only guy who can carry it out? it is not like you send a drone in to take out a guy about to explode a device on a barracks before he has the chance to press the button. Come on, you could take out any leader in any country and the threat will not disappear if the regime continues. So the Iranians will all say, oh you took out number 2, shake in their boots and think we can't go ahead with that 'imminent' threat now. Really? However good a general he was (and excellent one by all accounts) he is not irreplaceable and it won't stop anything. It is a ridiculous claim by Pompeo and he should be challenged!

[tyga]

25 minutes ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

Should have been, 'About time.'  Clinton was afraid to take out Osama and look what it got us.

Apart from a sense of revenge, what exactly will this killing achieve in a positive sense?

[tyga]

33 minutes ago, Pedrogaz said:

Personally I am sick and tired of unjustifiable and immoral US aggression around the world. 

agreed. Imagine if it was the other way round and the Iranians took out Pompeo with a drone when he was in Iraq because they don't like him being responsible for deaths in Syria/Iraq/Yemen/Iran etc. The US would be outraged and rightly so.

 

[Saint Nick]

4 hours ago, BobBKK said:

It is obvious that TVF members do not have the intelligence information behind this. What if they had killed the 9/11 plotters before the attack?  no doubt some here would cry about that too.

 

A huge terrorist attack could have been/was prevented and one scum was sent to hell. Job well done now shut down the embassies and get US citizens out of there and let them stew in their fundamentalist broth.   

"A huge terrorist attack could have been/was prevented and one scum was sent to hell. Job well done now shut down the embassies and get US citizens out of there and let them stew in their fundamentalist broth."

 

And since "  It is obvious that TVF members do not have the intelligence information behind this", how the hell do you back up your arrogant claim?

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

34 minutes ago, AgMech Cowboy said:

Should have been, 'About time.'  Clinton was afraid to take out Osama and look what it got us.

but, but Hilary's emails

and what about Benghazi?????

[earlinclaifornia]

Now Asians are getting the hell out of ME: 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/philippines-prepares-evacuate-citizens-middle-020635138.html

[earlinclaifornia]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

and what about Benghazi?????

Simple, Benghazi 2. TY trump.

[Saint Nick]

If there is evidence for an imminent attack why not come forth with it?

Too little time to fake the evidence?

 

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Saint Nick said:

If there is evidence for an imminent attack why not come forth with it?

Too little time to fake the evidence?

Such evidence obviously does not exist.

The credibility of the current U.S. president is less than zero.

Decent Americans are embarrassed and disgusted by this unneeded  escalation of the Iranian conflict which of course started with the totally self destructive trashing of the nuclear deal. Trashed why? Because it had Obama's brand on it. 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Jingthing

[HuskerDo]

Why now?

 

Because the previous administration was weak. They could have done the same but weren't strong enough. Either that or were too aligned with the Iran point of view.

[Nigel Garvie]

32 minutes ago, tyga said:

agreed. Imagine if it was the other way round and the Iranians took out Pompeo with a drone when he was in Iraq because they don't like him being responsible for deaths in Syria/Iraq/Yemen/Iran etc. The US would be outraged and rightly so.

 

Precisely:-

Iran supports 73% of the world's dictatorships, and has a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons and WMD. As of 2014 Iran was involved in 134 foreign wars and interventions. It is also one of the world's most racist countries, and police regularly murder minority citizens with no repercussions. Iran also has the largest per capita number of prisoners, and poor people die there without medical treatment if they can't afford it..................oh no WAIT, that's all the US.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Nigel Garvie