It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

IRGC leader Soleimani has been killed in targeted assassination near Baghdad

page: 35
79
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

He did warn them...




posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

This is a a good point. Those who oppose keep trying to give him situations that he should not handle.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop


I agree, Iran cannot take this without response.


Iran is poking the (Trump) Bear. The bear is getting angrier after each provocation.


The size and scale of that response will dictate how the US respond - if they do.


This assessment is correct. The absence of U.S. strategy beyond reactionary Trump is behind my reasoning.


Iran's making statements that this has crossed a line.. If I were a troop stationed in any base in the ME, I would be very alert.. Lots of missiles could be lobbed at them!


Iran is more likely to attack military land and naval targets.


I think either a ship will be sunk or multiple bases hit im guessing..


Damaging or sinking frigates represents a "victory" in itself. The UK and Australian shipyards are in seven-year timelines for the construction of new frigates.

Nor is there any reason for America's allies to contribute naval and air forces beyond escorting shipping through the Persian Gulf. Australia is amidst domestic bushfire crises. One can only dread the impact of wartime fuel shortages on firefighting efforts.

In a roundabout way, I have come to another overlooked point. The USN, RAN, RNZN are either facing shortages of personnel or frigates. Neither the RN and RAN have enough surface ships or submarines to sustain losses.



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

Do you believe regime change is the goal of U.S. policy towards Iran? Unless regime change is the goal, destabilising Iran makes no sense. The Arab Spring displayed how regime change in the Middle East doesn't lead to stability or democratic regimes.

Why wouldn't Iranian hardliners push for war with the U.S. to preserve their regime?



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 11:44 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: The GUT





posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 03:08 AM
link   
Uh Oh... Former Secretary of State JOHN KERRY helped SOLEIMANI get wealthy by avoiding sanctions!

www.thedailybeast.com...

There needs to be a new ATS thread on John Kerry's shady dealings with Iran. Lots of stuff coming out now. I think Kerry even has relatives living in the country.
edit on 1/4/2020 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

What's redacted on the lower-right picture? They find more of Salomani further down the road?



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 03:36 AM
link   
After reading: www.thegatewaypundit.com... ting-in-4-dead-americans/

As Jack Posobiec pointed out on Friday, General Qassim Soleimani planned and financed the attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

President Trump's statement about the U.S. Embassy in Iraq "not being another Benghazi", makes even more sense.




posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: CitizenZero
Trump just now.

“ We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war”



How is killing another countries top military brass not an act of war? It's illegal regime change just like Iraq.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Thousands of Iranians and Democrats mourn a astute military figure......

Again just another sign Of what a Democrat today

When trump called ms13 animals Democrats got upset

When trump kills an evil military leader in a foreign country with ties of attacking the American embassy....Democrats are upset.

Wtf are wrong with the present day Democrat,they have completely abandoned common sense.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Bloodworth

Nobody is mourning Soleimani's death. If his death occurred in a vacuum devoid of political repercussions I think everyone on this site would say the world is better off without him. But his death will have political repercussions.

Can you honestly say the world is better off without him if his death ultimately instigates a war that leaves hundreds of thousands dead in the Middle East, including thousands of US soldiers?

That's why people take issue with this assassination of a political and military leader. Because all it is going to lead to is more death. And for what? A better fiscal year for the MIC.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

So we should have allowed Sulibooli (or whatever his name is) to have killed a few more Americans because now, with him dead, others might get pissed and kill more?

Is that what you're saying?



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: CitizenZero
Trump just now.

“ We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war”



How is killing another countries top military brass not an act of war? It's illegal regime change just like Iraq.


Was he on Iraqi Soil as is the claim or not? Then the known terrorist was stupid. He exposed his terrorist buddies to being killed and paid his stupid tax.

No way it was wrong. Look at the citizens of Iran dancing in the streets. Look at the American Iranians on twitter celebrating DJT. Of course that will hurt the leftist narrative of the media so you have to dig, once again to know the truth. It is out there and it looks like we have created a huge void in the terrorist leadership in 30 days.
edit on 4-1-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

I'm still guessing he was in Iraq for either a comi-con or a goat convention.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Or maybe just a good old fashioned pillaging of the Embassy and the people inside to be their sex toys for a few hours before being impaled. These people are sick.
edit on 4-1-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

Iranian terrorists go-to is usually an embassy, they have a history of that.

I'm guessing they thought Trump might have been another Jimmy Carter.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
Sadly, it was the Palestinians that are Iranian backed terrorist that kidnapped and murdered the Jewish athletes at the Olympics in Germany in 1972. The history of the Iranian backed terrorist needs more exposure and the people of Iran need our help removing this blight upon mankind in the Mullahs of Iran and Iraq.
www.britannica.com...

It may be the Iranians were not pulling the strings then but they are now and probably were working all the angles even with the Shah in power.
edit on 4-1-2020 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: xpert11
a reply to: tanstaafl

Do you believe regime change is the goal of U.S. policy towards Iran?

For some, like former MSA Bolton, obviously, yes. That is why he was fired.

Trump is not interested in that, but he is up against a massive entrenched bureaucracy that is.


Unless regime change is the goal, destabilising Iran makes no sense.

So we should just sit back and let them escalate? They killed an American. We retaliated.

I hope that Iraq votes to get us out of Iraq and Trump takes the opportunity to leave them to their fate. That is what he campaigned on.



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Yeah? So? You think politics is instantaneous? You think there wasn't a lot of back and forth in those 3 years?


You obviously didn't read the article, the trip manifested over the preceding year due to the oil crisis which wasn't around when Nixon decoupled the dollar.


Not for us - but it was for them. Would you rather have gold? Or paper containing empty promises?


It had nothing to do with gold convertibility, you obviously didn't read the article.


Not exactly - it was about maintaining the superiority of the US Dollar, and ipso facto, the US as the primary world super power.


No, it wasn't, you obviously didn't read the article.


Which they could promptly convert into gold - until 1971 that is, hence the need for a 'new deal'.


The 'new deal' wasn't until 1974 and onward, gold wasn't the issue, you obviously didn't read the article.

Looks like you had a little ad hom-ectomy there too. You obviously have anger issues. Maybe read the article, it might calm you down.



new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in

join