James Corbett totally destroys the LIE that Soleimani was responsible for 600 American deaths

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Willtell

For my next trick....

LMAO......So sad but true. Now if he could just make them disappear.

I have no doubt that Soleimoni was a bad guy. But after months of research I also believe Bush was a very evil man. Very likely he was evil incarnate. It is my belief that Bush ran the operation to kill JFK and was instrumental in setting up the drug smuggling operation in Arkansas. The drug operations destroyed millions of lives and hundreds of American families.

Corbett selectively leaves out two critical facts:

1. Hezbollah receives considerable amount of funding and training from Iran.
2. In 2011, the Obama administration sanctioned Soleimani for an alleged assassination on the Saudi ambassador of the U.S.

Corbett does admit Soleimani likely does however have blood on his hands. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that in the real world. It's almost as if he needed Soleimani to state clearly that yes, he has killed hundreds of Americans and he's proud of it and will do it again.

Never going to happen. It would be like Hillary saying she did have classified and above data unsecured in her home. It was proven that she did and she's still denying it. At some point the situation must be dealt with and that is what happened.

If Soleimani was on a peace mission he had channels to clearly state that to the US and Iraq. He never did. He was running around in the shadows all while the US embassy was being attacked. Just for point two alone he should have been taken out years ago.

a reply to: Willtell

The criticism is on a later report and the fact that the Pentagon has not released documentation other than the study conducted that initially determined that 608 US troops were killed by Iranian EFPs, IEDs, small arms fire, RPG fire, sniper fire, and other means via proxies in the service of Iran.

Here's the kicker Willtell, Soleimani was the commander of the Quds force as well as the IRGC. James Corbett's entire premise prejudges the study and the report as "lies" simply because he said so not because he presented any evidence in the video that it is a lie. Additionally, the distinction between Hezbollah and Iran as independent agents ignores some pretty glaring FACTS, namely:

Hezbollah was commanded by Soleimani via the Qud's force:
Here's Hezbollah's official site
www.moqawama.org...

From that site and translated using Google Translate:
bdel-Hadi: If not for the martyr Soleimani, the Palestinian resistance would not have established the equation of terror with the enemy

...the martyr Soleimani and the Islamic Republic have done a lot for the Palestinian cause and the martyr Brigades, Ezzedine Al-Qassam. The martyr Soleimani contributed to developing the capabilities of the resistance, especially the missiles, and all of this is his complete conviction that it is necessary to confront the Zionist entity and its occupation of Palestine and the need to liberate it.

YOU are the one being lied to here. Those are the first two glaring ommissions by your boy Corbett.

Tell him to go back to school.

AND YOU. You need new heroes kid.

You have been screaming at people on this thread about facts but you seem to be taking everything said at face value with little analysis beyond.

a reply to: Willtell

I haven't forgotten

"Dirty Wars" by Jeremy Scahill. Copy/paste and research it.

Buy the book and read it, if you haven't already.

a reply to: Willtell

OK, so what I got form that video is that Soleimani was basically the man to take the brunt of the force for all the wrong doings in Iraq and surrounding areas, but wasn't exactly directly involved in all of it?

Is that the gist?

a reply to: strongfp

Yeah sorta kinda...
I mean Charles Manson didn’t kill anyone himself.

a reply to: Bluntone22

I'm all for free speech.

If people choose to side with terrorists, anti-Americans, and desire to destroy our country from within, then that is their right.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The guy just went on and on about how many people died, how they died, but didn't exactly fault blame on anyone, and exempted Salami, somehow.

I mean, I guess there is a slight benefit of the doubt, but, Soleimani definitely had his icky fingers in all affairs regarding modern day 'guerrilla' warfare in those regions.

Obama approved over a couple thousand drone strikes, some against Americans with no due process. This guy was a known terrorist. Even Obama sanctioned him as such. If anyone wants to go after Trump over this and give Obama the green light on all his strikes they should do everyone a favor and stop voting because their reality looks like an amusement park funny mirror.

a reply to: Willtell

Addressing you:

You and I have had many disagreements. Every one of those disagreements was predicated on false information or assumptions on your part based on a source that agrees with you.

This is NOT how you debate and it is NOT how you support your positions and justify them TO YOURSELF.

Finding a source that agrees with your existing worldview does not make the opposing view a lie. Most of the problems you're having on ATS is your refusal to analyze your own sources and then getting angry with those who disagree with your conclusions. The analysis you need to do REQUIRES YOU to accept that your notions might be wrong or that your sources might be cherrypicking for the same reasons you are, CONFIRMATION BIAS.

Unlike others, I do NOT want you banned. I want you to figure this crap out already and defend your positions in an intelligent way. PLEASE.

a reply to: projectvxn

You and I have had many disagreements. Every one of those disagreements was predicated on false information or assumptions on your part based on a source that agrees with you

The thing is on this I agree with Corbett, That's the way it is. I don't agree with him on everything, he's a libertarian mainly, and on some issues, we don't agree. But on most we do.

This is NOT how you debate and it is NOT how you support your positions and justify them TO YOURSELF.
Most of the problems you're having on ATS is your refusal to analyze your own sources and then getting angry with those who disagree with your conclusions.

You try to debate with these right-wingers snipping. I can handle it but it's they who don't know how to debate.

I am NOT a dogmatic or rigid person. It's they who start the insults and intolerance, not me. look at the thread and see for yourself. But I'm not taking abuse from idiots. They attack me I attack back. They start the insults and never attempt to even have a civil conversation.

After one does an OP like this I have to take on the trolls who only want to snipe but never have a serious discussion.

I respond to civil people in a civil manner and uncivil, insulting people, in the same manner, they react to me.

a reply to: Willtell

You try to debate with these right-wingers snipping.

I understand that. I've had my fair share of debates with some of the individuals here who consider themselves right-wing.

But that isn't the issue here. YOU have to be able to defend your ideas and as the OP you have to be able to direct the conversation. After all, it is YOUR thread, yes?

To do that you really need to analyze your ideas and sources. This isn't about agreement or disagreement, this is about logical consistency. Corbett's analysis is not logically consistent and it sacrifices accuracy in favor of political expediency and you do too. You want to fight, I get that. But you need to have your gun zeroed and your aim true if what you're looking for is a victory.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Willtell

OK, so what I got form that video is that Soleimani was basically the man to take the brunt of the force for all the wrong doings in Iraq and surrounding areas, but wasn't exactly directly involved in all of it?

Is that the gist?

He was the top Iranian military leader and had associations with Shia militias. But they are or were mainly fighting ISIS, not Americans. There's no American, Shia militia war going on.

Sure, in the past he may have had incidents of clashes with Americans but the Pentagon doesn’t ever give precise examples of how he killed hundreds of Americans. It's presumed because he is their top guy. And the US as they were jining up a war in Syria with false propaganda now they're doing the same to Iran

a reply to: Willtell

You try to debate with these right-wingers snipping. I can handle it but it's they who don't know how to debate.

I am NOT a dogmatic or rigid person. It's they who start the insults and intolerance, not me. look at the thread and see for yourself. But I'm not taking abuse from idiots. They attack me I attack back. They start the insults and never attempt to even have a civil conversation.

You should probably try to read this very thread then... include your posts in the read.

Then consider the fact that if people are basically calling you a political hack then it isn't intended as an insult in this case.

It's merely a statement of fact based on your posts.

Take some responsibility for what you post.

a reply to: Willtell

Dude. Seriously. There is so so much proof in this thread alone. Read it and refute it. Or read it and shut up.

Your denial of the proof at this point is flat-earther level ignorant.

a reply to: Willtell

I think there is a something you need to understand and actually take seriously here. As much as I do not like Trump, for the most part, and as much as I think he had no idea what he was getting himself into, Soleimani was dabbling in the theater of war, and he knew the consequences.

A terrible man by all means, but a person you have to hand admirable military victories once said:

It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.

Doesn't matter what you say or do now, he's dead. My personal opinions on the matter are honestly for another discussion. the fact of the matter is, he played the devils advocate and lost.

a reply to: Willtell

Thanks... You've now 100% absolutely convinced me that you ARE an anti-US disinfo agent. Before I thought you were just misinformed and missguided but you actually seek untruths so strengthen your position. It's specifically toward the US. It's ALWAYS specifically towards the US and the republican side.


I'd ask your motivation but It really doesn't matter at this point.


Thanks man.... You've saved me time from reading any articles and responses from you ever again - while giving you the benefit of the doubt enough to at least hear you out.


You're on your own, buddy.

a reply to: Lumenari




Being called a political hack is no big thing.

Were all political hacks when we take a stand on much of anything political.

This is above political hacking in that guys like Corbett are librarians, like Rand Paul. It's not about the standard left/right divisions. But these trolls engage in that light.

So it's not your standard political hackery talking about the lies of the US over their ME adventures.

The lie on Iraq is history, the lies on Libya and Syria are history to the detriment of those countries’ innocent civilians.

originally posted by: sine.nomine
a reply to: Willtell

Dude. Seriously. There is so so much proof in this thread alone. Read it and refute it. Or read it and shut up.

Your denial of the proof at this point is flat-earther level ignorant.

What are you talking about? Speak clearly or go back to sleep.