Iraqi PM: Soleimani was in Iraq to discuss Iran-Saudi de-escalation when he was killed

[Brian4Liberty]

The Saudi's set him up...

wouldn’t surprise me.

That's how I would do it , only I would expect the prey too smart to take the bait .

That would explain quite a bit.

Who remembers Jamal Khashoggi? He took the Saudi bait.

Supposedly ordered by Jared Kushner's good buddy, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS).

[Warlord]

Who remembers Jamal Khashoggi? He took the Saudi bait.

Supposedly ordered by Jared Kushner's good buddy, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS).

There's a lot of speculation Brian. No one knows for sure. We don't have the full story yet we're supposed to believe that liar Pompeo. Many Republicans have swallowed his story hook line and sinker. It's 2003 all over again, WMDs and Bush. War is popular especially in the GOP.

[Brian4Liberty]

Meh... possible, but this paints Trump as a feckless victim, which I am hard pressed to buy. Possibly, Trump is one of Themme and everything we see is pure theatre. The Donald is treading a remarkably fine line such that I STILL do not know whether he is to be trusted. If he's a bad guy, I have to hand it to him for his virtuoso performance in this regard. Most have neither the brains to sort the role to this level of detail, or the patience to see it through. If he is a bad guy, he represents dedication to an objective that the number of others of equal commitment since the days of Sumer cn probably be counted on one hand, possibly with fingers left over. With that said, I will still not commit my trust to him. This has been quite the wild ride.

Yes, the drunken monkey is hard to read at times. But the bottom line is usually himself, that much seems consistent.

Why make the decision to kill Soleimani? Put it in personal terms. Emotion and motivations. He wants to look tough. There is a huge voter base for that. Hannity and the neoconservatives have been ecstatic. It’s his wet dream. People were always talking about taking Soleimani out, and Trump likes to do things that other politicians were “afraid” to do.

Emotionally, there was the back and forth of militia base attacks, but then it was escalated with the mob attacks on the US Embassy. Probably angered Trump.

Now, many media pundits are bringing up the pending impeachment. Right wingers are saying “there can’t be an impeachment while this warm war is going on with Iran! Anyone who does is an anti-American traitor!” The Democrats are saying he did it to distract from and avoid the impeachment. But most personally relevant? Bolton had starting making derogatory remarks about Trump, hinting he would give negative testimony in an impeachment trial. Killing Soleimani is also a dream of Bolton. Would it bring Bolton back over to Trump’s side? Would that be a consideration?

[navy-vet]

This smells like BS. He was a general. Not a diplomat.

Exactly!

[Swordsmyth]

Who remembers Jamal Khashoggi? He took the Saudi bait.

Supposedly ordered by Jared Kushner's good buddy, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS).

The only evidence we were given of that was the assertions of the Turks.

[osan]

Nomenclature is not an issue here, it can by called anything and that won't change ground realities about this incidence and risk of escalation on wars path.

What do you mean "nomenclature is not an issue here"? Which nomenclature and how is it not at issue? Semantics is the essence of communication. Word choice dictates semantics. I'm thinking nomenclature is central to any discourse, including the ordering of pizza.

Just to understand your premise and views about 'bad actors' and 'justice', if in coming years GOP wars neocons party received another blowback from voters and a POTUS named Al Assad Hussein Omani got elected (repeating Barack Hussein Obama election blowback) with mideast donors money and decided to drone Israeli PM Netanyahu declaring him a 'bad actor' who had killed many civilians of other races, would you see that as 'just' action?

I might.

What is not disputed in reporting about him so far is that he :

- helped US overthrwow Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11

- helped US form Iraqi government after Saddam overthrow

- helped defeat ISIS in Syria, Iraq

- helped Lebanon defeat Israel in 2006 war that killed over 100 Israeli soldiers

What is disputed about his role:
- he was working for CIA and killed 600 troops in Iraq

Is/isn't disputed... according to whom? My only point is that Soleimani put himself into that game and if he guilty as charged, killing him could be strongly argued as valid. I don't trust much that is presented to us, so I reserve all judgments on such matters.

All this aside, I firmly agree with bringing the troops home. I would further close most foreign bases, reducing them to dust so nobody else can make use of the infrastructure. As a practical measure, I might maintain a handful of such bases in the most strategically important locations as a purely practical measure. While that latter bit may grate against one's ideals, the real world remains as it is and regressing completely in accord with those ideals might not work out too well when, in the wake of the sucking noise made by the power vacuum precipitated by our withdrawal, the likes of China and Russia take up residence in places that would prove potentially very threatening from any of several standpoints.

There is a certain low denominator that is dictated by those willing to plumb the depths. Fail to follow suit at your peril because those who do will hold some essential advantage of power that you may not be able to afford to forgo.

Human beings are $#@!ty, nasty creatures, speaking on the mean. The current, deplorable state of human political affairs proves this beyond any credible argumentation.

For me, the question is not how we can bring to the fore our ideals, but how to make the current reality less horrible. The percentage of humanity that understands freedom and actually wants it is likely well under one percent of one percent. Those numbersdon't speak well of the odds for the future, all else equal. So at this point, dealing with the $#@! that is seems to make the most sense.

[Influenza]

This smells like BS. He was a general. Not a diplomat.

He was actually both. He helped convince Putin to enter the Syrian war on the side of Assad.

[osan]

Yes, the drunken monkey is hard to read at times. But the bottom line is usually himself, that much seems consistent.

Why make the decision to kill Soleimani? Put it in personal terms. Emotion and motivations. He wants to look tough.

Whoa thar, cowboy. Not so fast. I would almost bet money I do not have that you are not in possession of sufficient good information to make such as assertion, but if I am mistaken please do correct me.

I don't trust Trump, yet I have not the information to condemn him, either. As I wrote in another post, he is walking a very tight line that bespeaks a skill and discipline few in the entire history of humanity have ever demonstrated.

There is a huge voter base for that.

Cannot disagree with that.

...Trump likes to do things that other politicians were “afraid” to do.

For one thing, your attribution of motive seems questionable at best, but even if true, that is not necessarily a bad thing as your tone seems to imply.

Emotionally, there was the back and forth of militia base attacks, but then it was escalated with the mob attacks on the US Embassy. Probably angered Trump.

What leads you to conclude that Trump was angry? I can as easily see his actions as being pragmatically chosen for effect.

Now, many media pundits are bringing up the pending impeachment.

Pending? I thought he's been impeached already. Are you referring to the senate trial?

Right wingers are saying “there can’t be an impeachment while this warm war is going on with Iran! Anyone who does is an anti-American traitor!”

This is the first I've ever heard of this.

The Democrats are saying he did it to distract from and avoid the impeachment. But most personally relevant? Bolton had starting making derogatory remarks about Trump, hinting he would give negative testimony in an impeachment trial. Killing Soleimani is also a dream of Bolton. Would it bring Bolton back over to Trump’s side? Would that be a consideration?

Trump does not strike me as one to suck the enemy's dick just for a get-out-of-jail-free card. Trump has his problems, to be certain, but I do not as yet see any clear evidence of his being the sort of lowlife that, say, Obama is.

One of the big problems I see in people is an inability or unwillingness to regard Trump without emotion. I seem to be one of the rare few. For whatever reason, media spin being a real likely candidate for root cause, the vast plurality of people seem to be driven by emotion, rather than logic. This is bad juju; poison that cannot lead anywhere good, save by some monumentally freakish coincidence. And that is one strong reason why humanity is likely doomed - we are our own worst enemies.

[osan]

Nice, you found a suitable definition, written in a dictionary from the 1800's. Literally every other modern dictionary mentions nothing of the justifiability of the killing when defining "assassinate."

Your words imply that you are of the school of thought that believes in a "living" language... which is precisely the same mindset of those who view the Constitution as a "living document". The juju there is, ironically, bad almost beyond words.

Altering the semantics of words is perhaps the single greatest error that human beings make, and that is really saying a lot.

Imagine inverting the definitions of "right" and "left" in your thoughts. Now imagine following the directions you get from, say, Google Maps. This is perhaps the most trivial example I can disgorge. Things would get a whole world worse in other cases, and in fact have become so. Consider how incapable Johnny Q has become in terms of parsing the semantics of the Constitution. Why is that? Because his understanding of words is screwed to depths sufficient to render him a functional imbecile. Forget putting the works of Shakespeare before his mug... and that's just Middle English. Pass into old English and basically nobody is able to discern what in hell is going on.

Assassination refers to the the sudden, unexpected killing of someone, typically of prominence, regardless of whether or not it's justifiable.

I demonstrated that this is, in fact, incorrect. You are attempting to claim that the bastardized definitions available in modern, and dare I say $#@!TY, dictionaries are correct, whereas those found in the more authoritative sources are mistaken by some unstated and presumably arbitrary magic. I do trust you see the deep problem with this, or at least I hope you do.

We humans live by the most tenuous of threads. Language is the single most important skill we gain in life, yet we treat it as if it were of no consequence. Your apparent position on the issue at hand is right along that very line and I don't understand how you could adopt so dismissive a posture with respect to this question.

Anyhow, the horse is dead and no point in beating it any further. We can agree to disagree on the matter.

[Influenza]

Your words imply that you are of the school of thought that believes in a "living" language... which is precisely the same mindset of those who view the Constitution as a "living document". The juju there is, ironically, bad almost beyond words.

Altering the semantics of words is perhaps the single greatest error that human beings make, and that is really saying a lot.

Imagine inverting the definitions of "right" and "left" in your thoughts. Now imagine following the directions you get from, say, Google Maps. This is perhaps the most trivial example I can disgorge. Things would get a whole world worse in other cases, and in fact have become so. Consider how incapable Johnny Q has become in terms of parsing the semantics of the Constitution. Why is that? Because his understanding of words is screwed to depths sufficient to render him a functional imbecile. Forget putting the works of Shakespeare before his mug... and that's just Middle English. Pass into old English and basically nobody is able to discern what in hell is going on.


I demonstrated that this is, in fact, incorrect. You are attempting to claim that the bastardized definitions available in modern, and dare I say $#@!TY, dictionaries are correct, whereas those found in the more authoritative sources are mistaken by some unstated and presumably arbitrary magic. I do trust you see the deep problem with this, or at least I hope you do.

We humans live by the most tenuous of threads. Language is the single most important skill we gain in life, yet we treat it as if it were of no consequence. Your apparent position on the issue at hand is right along that very line and I don't understand how you could adopt so dismissive a posture with respect to this question.

Anyhow, the horse is dead and no point in beating it any further. We can agree to disagree on the matter.

You don't believe in living languages? That's rather strange. We should all be communicating in a series of grunts then. Languages are changing... all the time.

[juleswin]

This smells like BS. He was a general. Not a diplomat.

Rudolf Hess is most famous for undertaking a secret solo flight from Bavaria to Scotland in May 1941 to deliver proposals for peace between Germany and Great Britain. Regarding Hess's mission as unauthorized and doubting his sanity, the British government held Hess as a prisoner of war through the end of World War II.

He too was a general on a mission on peace. And yeah, the west gave him a life sentence for his actions.

[Warlord]

Iranian president:

-
"General Soleimani fought heroically against ISIS, Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al. If it weren’t for his war on terror, European capitals would be in great danger now," Rouhani said.

"Our final answer to his assassination will be to kick all US forces out of the region."
-

[Swordsmyth]

Rudolf Hess is most famous for undertaking a secret solo flight from Bavaria to Scotland in May 1941 to deliver proposals for peace between Germany and Great Britain. Regarding Hess's mission as unauthorized and doubting his sanity, the British government held Hess as a prisoner of war through the end of World War II.

He too was a general on a mission on peace. And yeah, the west gave him a life sentence for his actions.

Hess was not a General.
He was Deputy Fuhrer, that would be like a Vice President.

[osan]

You don't believe in living languages? That's rather strange. We should all be communicating in a series of grunts then. Languages are changing... all the time.

Well, you go right on ahead and keep believing that. It is pretty clear you do not know what I know about language.

[osan]

Iranian president:

-
"General Soleimani fought heroically against ISIS, Al Nusrah, Al Qaeda et al. If it weren’t for his war on terror, European capitals would be in great danger now," Rouhani said.

Does he mean to imply that Iran is not an insane theocracy on the order of Saudi, or worse; that they are some sort of crusaders for sanity and moderation, in apparent disobedience to their beloved prophet? I remember 1980 very clearly - how Iran went from a cosmopolitan culture to one of eighth-century vintage. The cleaer impression I got in those days was that the Iranian people were not particularly enthusiastic about the regression into barbarity, especially the women. But there were enough of those lame-brained simps who were apparently given arms with which to impose the criminality attributed to God in that vile tome they worship. Present day leader cannot be taken seriously.

[angelatc]

From the Oxford etymological dictionary:

assassinate (v.)

1610s, from past participle stem of Medieval Latin assassinare (see assassin). "Assassinate means to kill wrongfully by surprise, suddenly, or by secret assault" [Century Dictionary]. Of reputations, characters, etc., from 1620s. Related: Assassinated; assassinating.

Please address your attention to the bold, italicized, underlined term. Now go back to what I wrote. The assumption has been by some that he was wrongfully killed. That assumption is eminently questionable and has in no way been established as being truth, at least no to my eyes.

How's this? According to our moral code, we don't kill people until they've been tried and convicted. Our constitution calls for the issuance of a letter of Marque and Reprisal.

[Swordsmyth]

How's this? According to our moral code, we don't kill people until they've been tried and convicted. Our constitution calls for the issuance of a letter of Marque and Reprisal.

Foreign enemies engaged in killing our people never got a trial and the purpose of Letters of Marque was to authorize private entities to engage in what would otherwise be a government action.

The Barbary Pirates didn't get trials.

[angelatc]

Foreign enemies engaged in killing our people never got a trial and the purpose of Letters of Marque was to authorize private entities to engage in what would otherwise be a government action.

The Barbary Pirates didn't get trials.

Oh, the Barbary Pirates argument. It's almost like you weren't here for the past 9 years, and just joined to support Trump instead of the constitution. Like it or not, Ron Paul indicated that Bin Laden should have been pursued with a letter of Marque and Reprisal. Since he has spent the majority of his life studying history, AND THESE FORUMS ARE NAMED AFTER HIM, I am going to stand with him, and the Constitution, on this.

[Swordsmyth]

Oh, the Barbary Pirates argument. It's almost like you weren't here for the past 9 years, and just joined to support Trump instead of the constitution. Like it or not, Ron Paul indicated that Bin Laden should have been pursued with a letter of Marque and Reprisal. Since he has spent the majority of his life studying history, AND THESE FORUMS ARE NAMED AFTER HIM, I am going to stand with him, and the Constitution, on this.

Ron said that OBL should have been dealt with through a Letter of Marque as a cheaper alternative to the Afghanistan war.
That has nothing to do with whether foreign enemies engaged in killing Americans have to have a Letter of Marque issued before they can be killed or whether they have to get a trial.

[angelatc]

Ron said that OBL should have been dealt with through a Letter of Marque as a cheaper alternative to the Afghanistan war.
That has nothing to do with whether foreign enemies engaged in killing Americans have to have a Letter of Marque issued before they can be killed or whether they have to get a trial.

You seriously think that Ron Paul believes at any level that the president has the right to assassinate a man without any input from Congress in an undeclared war?

Go home, you're drunk.

[osan]

How's this? According to our moral code, we don't kill people until they've been tried and convicted.

That only hold for persons on US soil, so far as I am aware.

Our constitution calls for the issuance of a letter of Marque and Reprisal.

It also says "shall not be infringed", and yet...

So long as agents of a "state" are working against the people of another, regardless of how obliquely (and I would add that Soleimani wasn't very oblique in this regard), a positive state of war exists between the two entities, regardless of whether anyone will acknowledge it, formally or otherwise. If Johnny is stabbing Jimmy in the neck with a broken coke bottle, a state of war exists between them even if either or both parties deny it.

In such respects, human beings are odd creatures. Odd, cowardly, stupid, despicable... They seem so prone or willing to be seduced and mislead by the bull$#@! tenets of their respective bull$#@! cultures. "Hey, there's no declaration of war, so..." $#@!'s sake, really? The most basic things that less-than-utterly-dull children dope out in seconds, leaves a vast multitude of adults in dead waters for entire lifetimes. Were I to raise children to adulthood on Mars, free of the stupidity that creeps upon us in piecemeal fashion in the manner of the proverbial boiling frog, landing upon earth as adults would lead them to the immediate conclusion that they are being gaslit. I'd bet money I don't have that the cognitive dissonance would be so violent, they'd never speak to me again, tell me to $#@! off for pulling such a $#@!ty stunt on them, and then get back in their ship to Mars, never to return. THAT is how bad things are on earth today. We are a race of raving madmen, and that is no exaggeration.

[angelatc]

That only hold for persons on US soil, so far as I am aware.



It also says "shall not be infringed", and yet...

So long as agents of a "state" are working against the people of another, regardless of how obliquely (and I would add that Soleimani wasn't very oblique in this regard), a positive state of war exists between the two entities, regardless of whether anyone will acknowledge it, formally or otherwise. If Johnny is stabbing Jimmy in the neck with a broken coke bottle, a state of war exists between them even if either or both parties deny it.

In such respects, human beings are odd creatures. Odd, cowardly, stupid, despicable... They seem so prone or willing to be seduced and mislead by the bull$#@! tenets of their respective bull$#@! cultures. "Hey, there's no declaration of war, so..." $#@!'s sake, really? The most basic things that less-than-utterly-dull children dope out in seconds, leaves a vast multitude of adults in dead waters for entire lifetimes. Were I to raise children to adulthood on Mars, free of the stupidity that creeps upon us in piecemeal fashion in the manner of the proverbial boiling frog, landing upon earth as adults would lead them to the immediate conclusion that they are being gaslit. I'd bet money I don't have that the cognitive dissonance would be so violent, they'd never speak to me again, tell me to $#@! off for pulling such a $#@!ty stunt on them, and then get back in their ship to Mars, never to return. THAT is how bad things are on earth today. We are a race of raving madmen, and that is no exaggeration.

That's about what I thought you'd say . But again, I would point out that Ron Paul's philosophy is different. And he's a better man than I.

[AngryCanadian]

You seriously think that Ron Paul believes at any level that the president has the right to assassinate a man without any input from Congress in an undeclared war?

Go home, you're drunk.

I agree and what threat did this Iranian general pose to Americans? was it maybe he wanted to unify the militants agaisnt the American troops occupying Iraq? or did a specif nation probably asked Trump to kill the general instead?

I hope the NeoCons would understand that killing a general of someone else country that doesn't make unification of militants drop their morale at least it seems its that what they are hoping for.

They seem to be trying to prevent the insurrection that happened in 2004/2006 agaisnt the occupation bad way.

[angelatc]

I agree and what threat did this Iranian general pose to Americans? was it maybe he wanted to unify the militants agaisnt the American troops occupying Iraq? or did a specif nation probably asked Trump to kill the general instead?

I hope the NeoCons would understand that killing a general of someone else country that doesn't make unification of militants drop their morale at least it seems its that what they are hoping for.

They seem to be trying to prevent the insurrection that happened in 2004/2006 agaisnt the occupation bad way.

Seems weird that the same people who think that the government allowed 9/11 to happen seem to be oblivious to the fact that this ore-emptive war nonsense is quite probably setting the stage for another "unifying event" on our soil.

[osan]

You seriously think that Ron Paul believes at any level that the president has the right to assassinate a man without any input from Congress in an undeclared war?

Go home, you're drunk.

I fear you may be over simplifying the reality.

What you assert may be valid under circumstances where men are, on the average, sane, honest, and of good integrity. Certainly I could accept it as so under circumstance of peace between America and X. But the reality today is not so clear cut. This post-enlightenment world has legions running about sawing heads off other human beings, flying passenger jets into office buildings, setting fires to burn areas the size of entire nations, destroying cathedrals that have stood for nearly a thousand years, and so on down a long list.

There are enormous events occuring sub rosa. My little brother may be the foremost intelligence authority on the planet, I kid you not. His work has literally changed the ways in which the world prosecutes warfare, he is that extraordinary in his abilities. Without breaking his oath of secrecy, a discussion with him would reveal to you how tangled the webs are, and how dangerous, virtually all of it hidden from the daily reality of Americans. We have the luxury of our ignorance, under which to hold opinions based on ideals that cannot rule the day under current circumstances. The dangers are so vast and deep that most Americans would lapse into catatonic non-function, were they to become aware. He and I have had long discussions about these realities of which most are utterly unaware. The $#@! is very real, very bad, and if survival is on the agenda, then steps we regard as repugnant in order to remain nominally safe from the ravening maniacs who wait just outside the gates, waiting to consume your children.

Given all that, droning one such as Soleimani readily becomes a valid gamble when the totality of context is properly put together and evaluated.

Living by ideals that limit one's praxeological prerogatives when the Other is unwilling to be likewise restrained, is a dangerous game on the best of days. The distaste so many Americans seem to hold for these sorts of actions is something only those who are insulated from much of the ugly side of reality can afford. Were hundreds and thousands of bombs going off in shopping malls and offices and churches from sea to shining sea, those same people would be shrieking for someone to DO something and they would give no damn who did it, or how, so long as it was effective.

The other side of that coin, of course, is that those who make such decisions do so with integrity, wisdom, and basic competence worthy of the trust of those whom they ostensibly serve. Those conditions do not exist, and so we have little basis for trusting that those people act in good faith and competence. As much as I would like to believe Trump is a good guy, I cannot quite cross that line precisely because I have experienced the lies and betrayals of jackals, soon going on sixty two years worth, and cannot tell who's who where politics are concerned.

Needless to say, it is clear that humanity is in a very tight corner. That said, I would not be too quick to assess Trump's action against Soleimani as so much as even ill-advised, much less criminal. At the very least, we have to acknowledge and properly value the fact the likelihood that there exist circumstances that, were we privy, would radically alter our opinion on such matters.

What we see so often in the world today is all the proof an intelligent and decent man needs to see the virtues of the Golden Rule, of personal integrity, of goodness, of love, and of freedom. Sadly, I see no basis for not being deeply doubtful that we as a statistical gestalt will choose virtue over convenience, meaning that for all practical purposes, we are hosed.

[AngryCanadian]

Seems weird that the same people who think that the government allowed 9/11 to happen seem to be oblivious to the fact that this ore-emptive war nonsense is quite probably setting the stage for another "unifying event" on our soil.

I find it more weird that our Canadian boy justin trudeau is now claiming along with America that Iran was behind the downing of the airliner without any actual evidence? hm

[osan]

That's about what I thought you'd say . But again, I would point out that Ron Paul's philosophy is different. And he's a better man than I.

Dr. Paul's normative philosophy is similar to my own. We depart in the positive. Ignore and deny practical reality at one's peril in matters such as this.

Sadly, it is most often the man who will stoop the lowest that sets the practical standard for the rest.

[osan]

I agree and what threat did this Iranian general pose to Americans?

Unless everything we have been told about Soleimani is a bald-faced lie, he was very active factor in far flung warring. Until he would have retired such that he no longer posed any material threat to any American, he validly remains in the crosshairs because he puts himself in such peril. He could have stopped any time he wished, but chose otherwise, which bought him getting all blowed up. I have no problem with killing such people. Had he confined his activities to the valid defense of Iran from foreign aggressors, this killing would have clearly been outright murder. That, however, was apparently not the case. He discounted his own life and waived his claims thereto, got called on it, and rolled snake eyes.

was it maybe he wanted to unify the militants agaisnt the American troops occupying Iraq?

I doubt it was that, though cannot say with full confidence that it wasn't. Given the pressures on Trump, I deeply doubt he is so foolish as to engage in actions that

or did a specif nation probably asked Trump to kill the general instead?

In a world gone mad, little can be ruled out. That said, I doubt Trump would accede to such a request. It does not appear that Trump is in any way blood-thirsty.

I hope the NeoCons would understand that killing a general of someone else country that doesn't make unification of militants drop their morale at least it seems its that what they are hoping for.

Neocons don't seem to be mentally sound, so your hope is likely wasted effort.

[osan]

I find it more weird that our Canadian boy justin trudeau is now claiming along with America that Iran was behind the downing of the airliner without any actual evidence? hm

Today on NPR it was reported that Iran has admitted to having shot down the aircraft, and that it was "accidental'. Do you need more evidence than that? I mean, it's friggin' NPR, a raft of leftist filth who spare no opportunity to malign Trump.

[Mach]

I fear you may be over simplifying the reality.

What you assert may be valid under circumstances where men are, on the average, sane, honest, and of good integrity. Certainly I could accept it as so under circumstance of peace between America and X. But the reality today is not so clear cut. This post-enlightenment world has legions running about sawing heads off other human beings, flying passenger jets into office buildings, setting fires to burn areas the size of entire nations, destroying cathedrals that have stood for nearly a thousand years, and so on down a long list.

There are enormous events occuring sub rosa. My little brother may be the foremost intelligence authority on the planet, I kid you not. His work has literally changed the ways in which the world prosecutes warfare, he is that extraordinary in his abilities. Without breaking his oath of secrecy, a discussion with him would reveal to you how tangled the webs are, and how dangerous, virtually all of it hidden from the daily reality of Americans. We have the luxury of our ignorance, under which to hold opinions based on ideals that cannot rule the day under current circumstances. The dangers are so vast and deep that most Americans would lapse into catatonic non-function, were they to become aware. He and I have had long discussions about these realities of which most are utterly unaware. The $#@! is very real, very bad, and if survival is on the agenda, then steps we regard as repugnant in order to remain nominally safe from the ravening maniacs who wait just outside the gates, waiting to consume your children.

Given all that, droning one such as Soleimani readily becomes a valid gamble when the totality of context is properly put together and evaluated.

Living by ideals that limit one's praxeological prerogatives when the Other is unwilling to be likewise restrained, is a dangerous game on the best of days. The distaste so many Americans seem to hold for these sorts of actions is something only those who are insulated from much of the ugly side of reality can afford. Were hundreds and thousands of bombs going off in shopping malls and offices and churches from sea to shining sea, those same people would be shrieking for someone to DO something and they would give no damn who did it, or how, so long as it was effective.

The other side of that coin, of course, is that those who make such decisions do so with integrity, wisdom, and basic competence worthy of the trust of those whom they ostensibly serve. Those conditions do not exist, and so we have little basis for trusting that those people act in good faith and competence. As much as I would like to believe Trump is a good guy, I cannot quite cross that line precisely because I have experienced the lies and betrayals of jackals, soon going on sixty two years worth, and cannot tell who's who where politics are concerned.

Needless to say, it is clear that humanity is in a very tight corner. That said, I would not be too quick to assess Trump's action against Soleimani as so much as even ill-advised, much less criminal. At the very least, we have to acknowledge and properly value the fact the likelihood that there exist circumstances that, were we privy, would radically alter our opinion on such matters.

What we see so often in the world today is all the proof an intelligent and decent man needs to see the virtues of the Golden Rule, of personal integrity, of goodness, of love, and of freedom. Sadly, I see no basis for not being deeply doubtful that we as a statistical gestalt will choose virtue over convenience, meaning that for all practical purposes, we are hosed.

That's what I came up with, I gave Don the benefit of the doubt, but I'm still anti-war.

Just Wikipedia, but the guy specialized in using "outside resources."

Qasem Soleimani - Qasem Soleimani (Persian: قاسم سلیمانی‎, pronounced [ɢɒːˌsem(e) solejmɒːˈniː]; 11 March 1957 – 3 January 2020), also transliterated as Qassem Suleimani or Qassim Soleimani, was an Iranian Major General in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and, from 1998 until his death in 2020, commander of its Quds Force, a division primarily responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operations.

---

The Quds Force (Persian: سپاه قدس‎ sepāh-e qods)[4] is a unit in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) specializing in unconventional warfare and military intelligence operations. U.S. Army's Iraq War General Stanley McChrystal describes the Quds Force as an organization roughly analogous to a combination of the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) in the United States.[5] Responsible for extraterritorial operations,[6] the Quds Force supports non-state actors in many countries, including Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Yemeni Houthis, and Shia militias in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan.[6]

You would think people would be amazed at Trumps consistency on his anti-war stance, but they just keep pretending he is a Bush Jr.... I have to say, I think he really cares, and that coming from me is personally inconsistent, in itself.