US assassinates Iranian general in Iraq

Golah veNekhar

Well-known member
Dec 16, 2018
It should be obvious by now. Trump and his administration are puppets on Netanyahu's strings.
People like Clanrickard and Douglas Murrary as well as his fans admire Jews for their business ruthlessness however something that does not register is that for all of the absolute ruthlessness of a lot of these Jews in extracting their shekels for the Goy there is the often incredible generosity that these Big Jews have towards what they regard as "Jewish causes". Large amounts of ghettos used to actually survive on the generosity of sometimes just one Jewish wealthy in the Early Modern period. Israhell now is a ghetto that relies incredibly on the genersoity of Seppo Court Jews like Sheldon Adelson and others to keep the "bi-partisan support for Israel" sweet which I am sure takes vasts amount of money (their are similar "big donors" to the Democrats). You just cannot imagine the likes of Clanrickard or Douglas Murrary fans giving away huge slabs of their cash like these Jews do.


Nov 23, 2012
This is a bare-naked assertion entirely free of argument or evidence. Would you like to supply either?
It's speculation about the future. What evidence do you expect for that? Assume there's an implied "IMO" there if you like. :sneaky:

I notice though that you've ignored my substantive point that we should be thoroughly suspicious of Trump's explanations for what is, after all, the extra judicial murder of a member of a sovereign government that is probably illegal under international law and is certainly tantamount to a declaration of war.

You may think it's wild speculation to expect a negative fallout from that for the rest of us, but it seems almost inevitable to me.


Well-known member
May 23, 2017
That gruesome hyena had it coming and the world is a better place for his having been turned into smoldering burger meat.
It’s always the insecure hate filled little loons that use terminology like this ... normal decent people simply don’t talk like this

Only sad bitter insecure little creatures ... yuk


Feb 27, 2010
An unusually rubbish-strewn response from you. Let's work through it.

Rubbish. There is and was zero prospect of Iran declaring war on the US. For the Iranians it would be tantamount to setting a 72 hour countdown timer to the end of their "Islamic Republic" regime. Even they are not as deranged as you in their thinking when it comes to Trump.

Rubbish. It did the opposite. It was a shot across the bow of the black winged ghouls of Tehran who, despite a lackluster token response rapidly pulled their heads in. And have kept them pulled in by and large.

"Someone once claimed they were acting in self-defence when the murdered someone, therefore claims of acting in self-defence are automatically invalid" Jesus. Wept.

Of course it does.

The first non-garbage section of your post. Trump instinctively knows something Obama did not. That there are people (and regimes) in the world who only understand one thing. And that is the threat of annihilation. I note your silence on Obama's pathetic and irrelevant posturing over Syria. In Trump's case, this knowledge doesn't work out well for him in negotiation with Europe or Canada, but it works great with regimes like China and Iran. An ill wind and all that.
Just cutting through the fog of gratuitous insults and red herrings, I will just make two points:
  • It is a simple logic chain:
    1. The last Republican Administration, that of Bush-Cheney, lied about Iraq
    2. This Administration have a tenuous relationship with truth
    3. Therefore, this Administration needs to try harder to convince the public. It hasn't, and it doesn't. All it does is just re-echo Bush on Iraq. They have yet to come up with a convincing reason for assassinating Soleimani, an act has has not ceased the slide into war.

When the administration shared its intelligence with select members of Congress, many of them came away unimpressed, if not outright disgusted. Rep. Gerry Connolly described the presentation as “sophomoric and utterly unconvincing.” Even Republican Senator Mike Lee, heretofore an unquestioning Trump supporter, called it the worst briefing, at least on a military issue, he’s seen in the “nine years [he’s] been here.”
  • About the "threat of annihilation", well Iran will certainly be familiar with it, because Israel already possesses nuclear submarines with nuclear missiles targeting Tehran. Since you say that is "the only thing they understand", then how come Iran has not given in already? And the US has its own deterrence umbrella. Even if the Mullahs are a despicable regime, maybe they are thinking in terms of deterrence and national defence? But they did already agree to give up nuclear ambitions in the JCPOA. And if regime change is now ruled out (as Trump says) why did he jettison the JCPOA in the first place?

Kevin Parlon

Well-known member
Dec 4, 2008
Because that is the cartoon version being sold to idiots.
Assertion without evidence or supporting argument 1: Whereas you know the real version. Am I right?

It's not what's actually happening
Assertion without evidence or supporting argument 2: OK. What is?

, and it's always a mistake to swallow a comfortable lie. In this case, it's a lie that's more likely to increase terrorism in the west than reduce it.
Assertion without evidence or supporting argument 3: It's a "comfortable lie."
Assertion without evidence or supporting argument 4: "this is more likely to increase terrorism"

Trump's financial/business connections with Soleimani are enough to make his current version of events highly dubious.
Assertion without evidence or supporting argument 5: Trump is financially connected to Iranian director of terror ops. Argument? Zero. Evidence? Zero.

Ditto his continued friendship with murderers like MBS or indeed Putin. Etc.
The Irish government maintain cordial relations with Saudi Arabia too. Is Varadkar MBS' friend too? Or is this conclusion only drawn when you don't like the figure in question?

Basically his version just doesn't stand up
Assertion without evidence or argument 6

and the extra judicial killing of members of a foreign government is a dangerous game to play anyway.
1. It wasn't an extrajudicial killing. It was a defensive strike on a leader of terror operations against US forces (had previously carried out an attack in Europe BTW) 2. A "member of a foreign government". No a military leader who was in a 3rd country actively coordinating further attacks on US forces (who have permission of the Iraqi people to be there).

When it's based on obvious lies, then it's folly.

No matter how revolting the person killed may have been.
I think it would be fair to say you have not made much headway in establishing it was based on lies.[/QUOTE]

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies