TRUMP, What the hell is going on

[Deleted member 15344]

I’m not sure there is any other political leader who plays out things via twitter - it’s alarming at times some of the stuff he posts

 

[sussexhacker]

All this twitter stuff is just to satisfy his huge ego about how powerful he is and how wise he is

The guys a full blown psychopath trying to start a war over Twitter

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Iranians now putting a bounty on Trump's head. Giving him a touch of his own medicine.
I wonder if this will affect gun laws in America now.

 

[User62651]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1213518211813126144

This appeared on my timeline and the man speaks very well. Lots of replies about these actions will create the immigrants that then risk their lives to come to the UK , immigrants created by the wars in Iraq and Syria.

Trump on Twitter is boasting about the amount they have spent on the military’s arms and that they will send stuff to them - it seems a very dangerous game to be playing as and Benn says - innocent people are going to be affected by this just as they were in the Iraq War. I really hope we stay out of this and it will be interesting to see if Iran do go to the UN as well Iraq have done

Wise words from Benn, was a good parliamentarian if nothing else. Very wealthy man for a Commie too. Interesting to see a young(er) engrossed JCorbyn sitting behind!
UK should not be following US blindly into any further middle east war but with TrumpLite in No.10 hanging on a US trade deal to make something of his Brexit policy I expect we will. US should extradite for questioning that woman who allegedly killed the young motorcyclist at the airbase and treat the UK with respect, that response alone shows how the US really values the 'special relationship'. Trump needs removed from office asap.
However Iran have always been sabre rattlers and come out with a lot of public threats and flag burning protests etc over the years but you wonder what really goes on where the power lies in that country so whether this time will be any different remains to be seen. If US wanted that general taken out there are a multitude of stealthy sneaky ways to do it and deny responsibility, a drone attack in a sovereign country like Iraq clearly was intended to be seen and heard around the world by Washington for whatever reason. jUst hope Trump is just a mouthpiece and the real US power is removed from him.
Poor Nazanin stands no chance of getting out, her hunger strike will go unnoticed now.

 

[drdel]

I have a job understanding the 'outrage'. This head of a state sponsored paramilitary organisation has been planing and conducting illegal out-of-country clandestine terrorist operations against western targets for many many years; recently carrying out 14 known attacks. For example, when Bin Laden was taken out there was no similar psuedo outrage. The roles of these two men were pretty much identical and the current threat posed is just as great. Is it because one 'looked' like a rogue terrorist while the other appears dressed as an honourable general?

Perhaps the reaction is more against Trump the person than the (IMO) justified action against a terrorist commander.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I have a job understanding the 'outrage'. This head of a state sponsored paramilitary organisation has been planing and conducting illegal out-of-country clandestine terrorist operations against western targets for many many years; recently carrying out 14 known attacks. For example, when Bin Laden was taken out there was no similar psuedo outrage. The roles of these two men were pretty much identical and the current threat posed is just as great. Is it because one 'looked' like a rogue terrorist while the other appears dressed as an honourable general?

Perhaps the reaction is more against Trump the person than the (IMO) justified action against a terrorist commander.

Maybe Iran views him differently to you and I?
Qassim Soleimani, was an Iranian major general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and, from 1998 until his death, commander of its Quds Force, a division primarily responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operations.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I have a job understanding the 'outrage'. This head of a state sponsored paramilitary organisation has been planing and conducting illegal out-of-country clandestine terrorist operations against western targets for many many years; recently carrying out 14 known attacks. For example, when Bin Laden was taken out there was no similar psuedo outrage. The roles of these two men were pretty much identical and the current threat posed is just as great. Is it because one 'looked' like a rogue terrorist while the other appears dressed as an honourable general?

Perhaps the reaction is more against Trump the person than the (IMO) justified action against a terrorist commander.

The problem is Bin Laden was stateless, working as a rogue terrorist. The General works for a country, a nation. The US move is practically an act of war.

 

[Wolf]

I have a job understanding the 'outrage'. This head of a state sponsored paramilitary organisation has been planing and conducting illegal out-of-country clandestine terrorist operations against western targets for many many years; recently carrying out 14 known attacks. For example, when Bin Laden was taken out there was no similar psuedo outrage. The roles of these two men were pretty much identical and the current threat posed is just as great. Is it because one 'looked' like a rogue terrorist while the other appears dressed as an honourable general?

Perhaps the reaction is more against Trump the person than the (IMO) justified action against a terrorist commander.

Completely different scenarios with the 2 men. Bin Laden was a known terror cell leader who went on publicly released video taking responsibility for the attacks on the west for 9/11. That act alone instantly gave any act by the US in retaliation public support, understanding & desire to remove him from the earth.

With the latest strike carried out by Trump being preemptive people haven't gor the insider knowledge of why this has happened , only the knowledge things reported about the attack and the dislike of Trump so conclusions get drawn without full knowledge and based on personal opinion. What needs to happen now is US release a few facts as to why thsy felt justified in their actions to the public.

 

[drdel]

The problem is Bin Laden was stateless, working as a rogue terrorist. The General works for a country, a nation. The US move is practically an act of war.

I'm sure those killed and injured would respect the differences (sarcasm alert !!!). The fact that this 'General', whose actions have murdered many thousands of people, was state sponsored with access to huge resources is worse in my mind (even though making that distinction is pretty daft). Both were terrorists openly dedicated to removing western assets and people.

Are you suggesting the fact terrorists may be'state' supported means we should sit back and wait for more atrocities to unfold because we might upset their sponsoring state!

 

[drdel]

Completely different scenarios with the 2 men. Bin Laden was a known terror cell leader who vent on publicly released video taking responsibility for the attacks on the west for 9/11. That act alone instantly gave any act by the US in retaliation public support, understanding & desire to remove him from the earth.

With the latest strike carried out by Trump being preemptive people haven't gor the insider knowledge of why this has happened , only the knowledge things reported about the attack and the dislike of Trump so conclusions get drawn without full knowledge and based on personal opinion. What needs to happen now is US release a few facts as to why thsy felt justified in their actions to the public.

They have. 14 attacks in recent months, one on the US embassy; many others previously. He has been tracked as a target for years...

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I'm sure those killed and injured would respect the differences (sarcasm alert !!!). The fact that this 'General', whose actions have murdered many thousands of people, was state sponsored with access to huge resources is worse in my mind (even though making that distinction is pretty daft). Both were terrorists openly dedicated to removing western assets and people.

Are you suggesting the fact terrorists may be'state' supported means we should sit back and wait for more atrocities to unfold because we might upset their sponsoring state!

He is not seen as a terrorist anywhere but the Western World, you are questioning the outrage, if our Chief of the Defence Staff is sending the SAS on clandestine missions in foreign countries and those Countries see our soldiers as terrorists, is the CDS a legitimate target for those nations?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I'm sure those killed and injured would respect the differences (sarcasm alert !!!). The fact that this 'General', whose actions have murdered many thousands of people, was state sponsored with access to huge resources is worse in my mind (even though making that distinction is pretty daft). Both were terrorists openly dedicated to removing western assets and people.

Are you suggesting the fact terrorists may be'state' supported means we should sit back and wait for more atrocities to unfold because we might upset their sponsoring state!

No but it is far more complicated. If you kill a general of a state then that state is clearly going to be pretty hacked off. The consequences are much greater, in a region like the Middle East, with a country such as Iran, even larger. It may be that the US had reached the end of the road, they had uncovered plans that were beyond what this man had done before and so they felt they had no option but when a nation starts assasinating senior officials from other countries you are starting off a chain of events that are very, very difficult to control.

I also do find it disturbing that the US acted entirely on its own here, no discussions with other key nations in the area, no discussions with its allies that will inevitably be affected. Going solo is not good.

 

[Wolf]

They have. 14 attacks in recent months, one on the US embassy; many others previously. He has been tracked as a target for years...

Im not condoning what the general has done in the past. What i am saying is you cannot compare a blatant terrorist to a military general representing an entire country with political backing its not that simple. Which is why the US have to issue a statement of why this action was carried out and why they believe it was legal.

 

[drdel]

No but it is far more complicated. If you kill a general of a state then that state is clearly going to be pretty hacked off. The consequences are much greater, in a region like the Middle East, with a country such as Iran, even larger. It may be that the US had reached the end of the road, they had uncovered plans that were beyond what this man had done before and so they felt they had no option but when a nation starts assasinating senior officials from other countries you are starting off a chain of events that are very, very difficult to control.

I also do find it disturbing that the US acted entirely on its own here, no discussions with other key nations in the area, no discussions with its allies that will inevitably be affected. Going solo is not good.

The UK military etc. has advocated his demise since around 2008 - Millibrand would not agree.

Discussion take valuable time. If the ongoing surveillance saw the 'General's transport on the outer perimeter of the airport there would be a very tight window of just a few minutes to strike without the target vehicle reaching more populated parts of the airfield raising the risk of causing collateral damage and civilians harm. There's no time for tea and biscuits !!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I have a job understanding the 'outrage'. This head of a state sponsored paramilitary organisation has been planing and conducting illegal out-of-country clandestine terrorist operations against western targets for many many years; recently carrying out 14 known attacks. For example, when Bin Laden was taken out there was no similar psuedo outrage. The roles of these two men were pretty much identical and the current threat posed is just as great. Is it because one 'looked' like a rogue terrorist while the other appears dressed as an honourable general?

Perhaps the reaction is more against Trump the person than the (IMO) justified action against a terrorist commander.

As has already been said by others - Bin Laden was a head of a terrorist organisation which was seen that way by all in the world - they wanted terror across every nation

The Iran General is an official military head in a Middle East country - he will only be seen as “terrorist” and evil etc by the Western nations - Trump etc has carried out this public attack by the head of a military

What do you think our reaction would be if someone from Iran killed the head of the RAF who controls the drones that kill people in the Middle East ?

Iran and I have no doubt many Middle East countries didnt see the General as a terrorist but I bet they see some of the US general terrorists When they carry out attacks within Iran , Iraq etc

The difference will be what goes through UN protocols etc - Iran believe this is an act of war because they believe it will be an illegal action outside any UN resolutions- just the same if Iran carries out attacks.

The US needs to come out with the justification for the attack beyond - he is a nasty man , if they can show to the UN etc the attacks he carried out and what he was planning etc then it’s hard for Iran to argue against - if they can’t and it’s just a case of “ using the opportunity to get rid of someone “ then it’s close to starting a war

 

[drdel]

As has already been said by others - Bin Laden was a head of a terrorist organisation which was seen that way by all in the world - they wanted terror across every nation

The Iran General is an official military head in a Middle East country - he will only be seen as “terrorist” and evil etc by the Western nations - Trump etc has carried out this public attack by the head of a military

What do you think our reaction would be if someone from Iran killed the head of the RAF who controls the drones that kill people in the Middle East ?

Iran and I have no doubt many Middle East countries didnt see the General as a terrorist but I bet they see some of the US general terrorists When they carry out attacks within Iran , Iraq etc

The difference will be what goes through UN protocols etc - Iran believe this is an act of war because they believe it will be an illegal action outside any UN resolutions- just the same if Iran carries out attacks.

The US needs to come out with the justification for the attack beyond - he is a nasty man , if they can show to the UN etc the attacks he carried out and what he was planning etc then it’s hard for Iran to argue against - if they can’t and it’s just a case of “ using the opportunity to get rid of someone “ then it’s close to starting a war

Military, security and defence is not the Olympic games: the 'media' has no right to know despite their self righteous belief and the 'public' do not need to know!

This is serious stuff and it IS taken very seriously by senior, intelligent military staff: the USA, UK and other allied embedded staff at the Pentagon, Washington etc will have examined the situation and potential scenarios. It is silly and just not possible or wise to publish sensitive information most probably derived from covert intelligence reports or 'insiders'; it puts those sources in grave danger, jeopardises future info and informs the opposition how you know what you know.

Do you think other nations feel compelled to tell the world and justify actions just to fulfill a mistaken media/public 'right'. Does China, N Korea, Israel, Iraq or Iran etc publishes information about its past, present military and defence action?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Quite a number of folks across the pond asking for a bit of background to the imperative driving this assassination - as it is not easy to see how USA security benefits from it - indeed it increases the risk to US security in a number of areas and diverts resources from other critical security activity.

Even if it is just the Congress Subcommittee on National Security - the members of that committee (esp Dems) then being able to reassure the US public that an attack was imminent without revealing or compromising sensitive security matters or individuals.

 

[Hobbit]

Military, security and defence is not the Olympic games: the 'media' has no right to know despite their self righteous belief and the 'public' do not need to know!

This is serious stuff and it IS taken very seriously by senior, intelligent military staff: the USA, UK and other allied embedded staff at the Pentagon, Washington etc will have examined the situation and potential scenarios. It is silly and just not possible or wise to publish sensitive information most probably derived from covert intelligence reports or 'insiders'; it puts those sources in grave danger, jeopardises future info and informs the opposition how you know what you know.

Do you think other nations feel compelled to tell the world and justify actions just to fulfill a mistaken media/public 'right'. Does China, N Korea, Israel, Iraq or Iran etc publishes information about its past, present military and defence action?

All very valid but why not, if the guy was that bad, arrange a car 'accident.' Why publically attack a recognised sovereign state - its an act of war. Yes, like N Korea et al, not a nice regime but still seen by the UN and many of its neighbours as a country in its own right?

Drone strike on a Talibhan warlord or ISIS I can understand but, as dispicable as the guy and the regime was/are, it just doesn't sit well to do it so publically.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Military, security and defence is not the Olympic games: the 'media' has no right to know despite their self righteous belief and the 'public' do not need to know!

This is serious stuff and it IS taken very seriously by senior, intelligent military staff: the USA, UK and other allied embedded staff at the Pentagon, Washington etc will have examined the situation and potential scenarios. It is silly and just not possible or wise to publish sensitive information most probably derived from covert intelligence reports or 'insiders'; it puts those sources in grave danger, jeopardises future info and informs the opposition how you know what you know.

Do you think other nations feel compelled to tell the world and justify actions just to fulfill a mistaken media/public 'right'. Does China, N Korea, Israel, Iraq or Iran etc publishes information about its past, present military and defence action?

Absolute waffle, we and the USA citizens live in a Democracy, our Governments are accountable, nobody is asking for the weeds and all, just more than is currently being released.
What you are suggesting is any Country can launch an attack in a third party Country and simply state the target is a terrorist in their opinion.
Would we of been justified taking out the Russian in charge of the Salisbury attack?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Military, security and defence is not the Olympic games: the 'media' has no right to know despite their self righteous belief and the 'public' do not need to know!

This is serious stuff and it IS taken very seriously by senior, intelligent military staff: the USA, UK and other allied embedded staff at the Pentagon, Washington etc will have examined the situation and potential scenarios. It is silly and just not possible or wise to publish sensitive information most probably derived from covert intelligence reports or 'insiders'; it puts those sources in grave danger, jeopardises future info and informs the opposition how you know what you know.

Do you think other nations feel compelled to tell the world and justify actions just to fulfill a mistaken media/public 'right'. Does China, N Korea, Israel, Iraq or Iran etc publishes information about its past, present military and defence action?

This is military action in a foreign country against a country not currently at War with the US - it will have to be justified to the UN if Iran do go to the UN and also Iraq because it was carried out on their soil without their knowledge.

This wasn’t military action against the Leader of ISIS for example

If China carried out military action in a foreign country without authority then yes it would need to disclose why , same with any country.

There are many ways to release information on the “whys” without having to disclose sensitive information.

It seems even Congress are asking , no doubt NATO will ask , China will ask -these nations will ask why the US have just killed an Iranian General and on what authority they did so.