Iran issues warrant for the Arrest of President Trump - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15104273
Patrickov wrote:
Some yes and some no. If this is to be applied, at least people need to have total freedom of movement.



Hmmmmm -- to *me* this kind of approach is *problematic* because the term 'politics' *implies* that there's a uniform *consistency*, meaning a single policy *everywhere*.

If the issue at-hand is 'killer cops' then there should be a fundamental *change* in police procedure so that these summary executions don't *happen* anymore, as a matter of governmental *policy*.

Would there be some specific population or locality where there should be a *looser* approach in policy to killer-cops? I just don't see how geography would be pertinent at all for this issue.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So then who / what body should have *authority* over the U.S. / NATO, since they've been 'tactically wrong'? (What's to prevent Western militarism from being 'tactically wrong' in the *future*?)



Patrickov wrote:
First, the citizens of those countries themselves.



Okay, yes, I agree, and we saw it historically from the people of Syria in 2013 when -- from recollection -- many went to the government buildings that were targeted for missile strikes by the U.S. / Obama.


Patrickov wrote:
Second, a smaller international body which does not include countries that do not respect the game rules.



Ultimately I don't think that *any* organization of capitalists will be able to be 'non-capitalist' in their decision-making -- the U.N., ICC, UNSC, etc. won't be able to have the *people's* best interests in mind with whatever approaches they come up with. We saw this clearly with MINUSTAH's treatment of Haitians.


UN hides its role in Haiti cholera outbreak

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/0 ... t-m02.html


---


Patrickov wrote:
I agree that the United States are to blame for police violence around the world, but the problem for many other places in the world is that they have even worse civil rights or even more authoritarian governments than the United States to begin with.



ckaihatsu wrote:
What do you think should *happen* with those socially reactionary places?



Patrickov wrote:
First, they simply cannot model their police after the United States. Come to think of it, if it is unacceptable in the United States why is it acceptable elsewhere in the first place?



Yes, I definitely agree with this ethos.


Patrickov wrote:
Second, for those countries I am afraid at least sanctions or embargo is required. Let those of their citizens who know better decide the rest. Lose some kind of conflicts or economic / resource competition should it arise.



'Embargo', though, implies some kind of regulation from *without* -- meaning *externally* to the country at-hand.

Trump has been *fucking up the world* with the additional sanctions set up during his administration, and how would a country *select* those who 'know better' -- these points just *beg the question* of how to get to an appropriate policy in the first place.
#15104279




Finfinder wrote:If Iran took out an American terrorist who murdered hundreds of innocent victims including women and children? Yea imagine that. Qasem Soleimani is your hero.


Soleimani was leading successful fighting against Islamists in a few ME countries where the U.S. had created them or unleashed them. He was killing the bad guys, if I'm to get to your level of language. He was successful at it too, which is why he was so popular, and also why he was assassinated.
#15104283
skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/OlafFoss/status/1278149149666488320?s=20





Soleimani was leading successful fighting against Islamists in a few ME countries where the U.S. had created them or unleashed them. He was killing the bad guys, if I'm to get to your level of language. He was successful at it too, which is why he was so popular, and also why he was assassinated.


If I'm able to to dumb it down to your level of the truth then it is true to say he was also killing American soldiers and murdering innocent civilians.
Last edited by Finfinder on 01 Jul 2020 16:00, edited 1 time in total.
#15104284
skinster wrote:



Stunning

Interpol says it can't act on Iran's request to arrest Trump for murdering Gen Soleimani. It claims its rules don't allow this, it acts as a liaison between law enforcement bodies & its charter makes it politically neutral

So why is an Iranian politician on their list?




«Murder, pure and simple»

«Interpol won’t put out a red notice on Trump, because it codes his actions as political rather than criminal. But it has entertained many charges against individuals guilty of similar crimes»



Chalk up *another* win for American exceptionalism.
#15104311
Finfinder wrote:I thought he might be popular because he was an Anti-semite and liked the killing of Jews. Surprised you forgot to mention that part...... convenient. :roll:


Not sure what this has to do with the myth you're perpetuating about Soleimani targeting Americans, replacing an old lie with a new one is sure one way to debate tho. :lol:
#15104372
skinster wrote:Not sure what this has to do with the myth you're perpetuating about Soleimani targeting Americans, replacing an old lie with a new one is sure one way to debate tho. :lol:


To one person a hero to another person cold blooded murderer. I'm on the right side of the facts. You can try to spin that he is a hero to the world, but civilised people know otherwise. .
#15104409
Finfinder wrote:Why always the anger, hostility and personal attacks?
Yes, why do you always do that? You invite me to respond, in kind.

Finfinder wrote:The USA doest train terrorist including suicide and road side bombers. Just because you are anti American doesn't make your argument hold water.
What do you think drone pilots do? Is it because the technology is advanced that it isn't the same thing? What's the difference between a suicide bomber blowing up a hospital and a drone blowing up a hospital?

I am anti-American terrorism and imperialism. I am against a government that thrives on American exceptionalism and exploitation.
#15104484
ingliz wrote:Are the Americans really so stupid as to think you can fight wars without consequences? 600 casualties is chicken feed, the cost of doing of doing business, and war is a business.

Iran's loss of General Soleimani is the cost of doing business in terrorism. :lol:
#15104486
Hindsite wrote:the cost of doing business

So why the 'poor me' complaint to anybody that will listen when Iran uses its proxies to kill Americans? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


:)
#15104501
ingliz wrote:Are the Americans really so stupid as to think you can fight wars without consequences? 600 casualties is chicken feed, the cost of doing of doing business, and war is a business. :lol:


I'm not stupid enough to see you fabricate a post and words and attached my name to it. I didn't post that.
Who is stupid now ?


I found the article you stole that quote from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... n-soldiers

Qassem Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers
by Jerry Dunleavy, Justice Department Reporter | | January 02, 2020 11:28 PM

Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian military general who was killed in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq on Thursday, was responsible for the deaths of over 600 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

“General Soleimani and his Quds Force were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more,” the Pentagon said. “He had orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months — including the attack on December 27th — culminating in the death and wounding of additional American and Iraqi personnel. General Soleimani also approved the attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad that took place this week.”

The Department of Defense added that the strike against Maj. Gen. Qassim Soleimani, the leader of the Quds Force, the extraterritorial wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, “was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”

President Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced last spring that the State Department was designating the IRGC a "foreign terrorist organization," following months of speculation that the administration was considering blacklisting the most powerful branch of the country's armed forces. Though the State Department has long labeled the Iranian regime the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, it had never before classified an element of a foreign government as a terrorist group, and the IRGC joined a list including al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Islamic State, and Boko Haram.

“With this designation we are sending a clear signal to the Iranian regime — including Qasem Soleimani and his band of thugs — that we are standing up to the regime’s outlaw behavior," Pompeo said. “The blood of the 603 American soldiers … is on his hands and the hands of the IRGC more broadly."

skinster wrote:I proved how your earlier myth about Soleimani targeting American troops, a regurgitation of Dick Cheney propaganda, was BS. You've shared your opinion thus far and no facts, although I agree one person's freedom fighter is another's terrorist yada yada.


Your proof is Twitter. :lol: :roll:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/soleima ... d=68056126
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 806630001/

https://nypost.com/2020/01/04/inside-th ... soleimani/
Last edited by Finfinder on 02 Jul 2020 14:49, edited 2 times in total.
#15104503
If the U.S. was limited in geography to North America and it was physically invaded within those shores, then all of its nationalist hoopla would be *valid*, and any countering *would* be 'defense'.

But as things are what the U.S. national security state means by 'defense' is defense of the *empire*, wherever that may be extended-to geographically on a worldwide basis.

So if the U.S. invades another country, like Iraq, and establishes a 'Green Zone' military base there, and is attacked by Iraqis there, the U.S. political establishment then cries 'defense' and uses whatever weaponry it has to 'defend' that military installation, in a country *outside* of the actual geography of the U.S.

And then Hindsite goes and calls anyone *opposing* this imperialism a 'terrorist', even if those people are *in the U.S.* (BLM, Antifa) and are nowhere near those military bases in foreign countries.

Anyone who opposes the U.S. empire, anywhere in the world, *should* more-accurately be called 'anti-imperialist' because the U.S. empire *does* exist, because of its *own* militarist terrorism -- there should be a poll to see what percent of the U.S. actually *supports* its imperialist, 'supercop', protection-racket militarist global role.
#15104507
Obama Did More Than Just Look the Other Way at Soleimani; the Iran Deal Gave Him Amnesty

ofcourse you won't find this on Google

Members of the Obama administration have had little trouble — or shame — expressing their opinions on the wisdom of the Trump administration’s decision to take out Iranian Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani Thursday. The latest example comes from former Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who told Rachel Maddow that the Obama administration never had the opportunity to take out the lifelong terrorist, awful as he was. To punctuate her point that the decision was a bad one, she even implied that Team Obama probably wouldn’t have killed him anyway since the risks outweighed the benefits.

But let’s just be clear here: Susan Rice is a liar, and not in a squishy way but in a very specific way. Because her boss wasn’t simply content to look the other way as Soleimani defied travel bans and met with Putin in Russia while Obama pushed for support of his Iran Deal, for example; but because the previous administration actively, as part of the annex to the Iran Deal, granted Soleimani amnesty by removing him from the Treasury Department designated terrorist list he had been on since 2007.

In fact, Team Obama may even have been responsible for saving Soleimani’s life by alerting him to an Israeli plot to assassinate him.

But let’s back up and listen to what old Susan had to say about what her administration would (or, more accurately, wouldn’t) have done if only they’d been given the chance.


Gen. Soleimani is the commander of the Quds division of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. He’s charged with exporting the Islamic Republic’s revolution to the rest of the Mideast and beyond. He has American blood on his hands. He is, then, America’s enemy.

@skinster Obama seemed to know your hero killed hundred of Americans.

Or is he? Gen. Joseph Dunford, Obama’s candidate to become the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last week that Soleimani is directly responsible for killing at least 500 US troops in Iraq. He’s also responsible for many deaths of others in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. That’s the nature of his business.

So America has made sure, since 2007, to name him on all lists of Iranians targeted for international sanctions.

No longer. According to the deal

https://www.redstate.com/slee/2020/01/0 ... m-amnesty/
#15104530


Finfinder wrote:Your proof is Twitter. :lol: :roll:


If you clicked on the link I shared, you would see the report from an American Historian who researched the claims/lies made by the American government about Soleimani being a fighter against American troops to justify his assassination. Here it is again, for people who don't know how to click on links: https://truthout.org/articles/lies-abou ... stify-war/
#15104544
skinster wrote:https://twitter.com/Iran/status/1278637038087143425?s=20

If you clicked on the link I shared, you would see the report from an American Historian who researched the claims/lies made by the American government about Soleimani being a fighter against American troops to justify his assassination. Here it is again, for people who don't know how to click on links: https://truthout.org/articles/lies-abou ... stify-war/


An American liberal historian who has a long career criticizing the right. That and Twitter is your evidence I don't think you can get a lower standard.

ingliz wrote:Yes you did. You reposted a tweet from skinster and attached your name to it.


:)



So you are admitting you are completely dishonest and you purposely copied and edited Skinsters post to make it look like I posted it. :knife:
Election 2020

Maybe it would not be so bad a thing (and worth[…]

Joe Biden

He could very well the logopenic variant of Alzhe[…]

Thank Goodness for Sane People

You both haven't noticed yet that politically the […]

You can block the airway without physically damag[…]