Trump asked for options for attacking Iran last week, but held off -source

[Tigerace117]

There is nothing in international law that permits somebody to stage an attack without exhausting first all available means to demonstrate if the other side is honest or not.

As I stated, you just demonstrate your double standards:

First you say thing like



So, you want to see a cold war "context" for operation Ajax which cost thousands of Iranian victims, and you employ the "whataboutism" of the Soviet Union, and then you cry foul when Iran returned the favor with another transgression of the international law which by comparison was peanuts and did not cost any US life.

Hypocritical indeed from your part...

What is not an excuse is to use such things to continue the freezing of assets for Iran. And it makes no sense to have Iran treated differently from any other state which support terrorists, including the US which has sided for decades with the Kurds.

Kurdish militants claim responsibility for Istanbul attack that killed 38

An offshoot of the militant Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) claimed responsibility on Sunday for twin bombings that killed 38 people and wounded 155 outside an Istanbul soccer stadium, an attack for which the Turkish government vowed vengeance.

www.reuters.com

Raising the bar of morality for Iran specifically, in how it conducts foreign policy to serve its national interests is another form of hypocrisy. If anything, Iran has a much better record of foreign policy in the area than most other coutnries there, including Syria, Iraq, and Israel. Iran has never launched a military invasion against its neigbors. By contrast, Iran had to endure an Iraqi invasion supported by chemical attacks by countries like Iraq when Saddam was a US friend!

You cry about “double standards” while defending the storming of the embassy is, again, utterly pathetic. But hey, any excuse to defend your beloved regime.

I am pointing that a coup in 1953 is not an excuse for forty plus years of state directed terrorism, and trying to claim it as such is totally pathetic. By your own standard we would be absolutely justified in turning Tehran into a parking lot tomorrow in retaliation for their murder of several hundred Americans back in the 1980s.

Pointing out that a list compiled by tankies is not a valid argument is exactly that.....unless you also think defending South Korea from invasion is equivalent to bombing a cultural center in Argentina.

But by all means, we should start sending in special forces teams to Iranian embassies across the globe to kidnap the staff and torture them, since apparently doing so is no big deal

Oh look, another “the Kurds are evulllll” post. Yawn. Perhaps Turkey shouldn’t have banned Kurdish for years and spent decades calling Kurds “mountain Turks” if they didnt want to reap what they sowed. By your own standards Istanbul had it coming.

Lol yeah, they “only” helped terrorists do the killing instead. That’s so much better.....not

 

[cabse5]

I see you are fine with nuking Iran.

Won't say any more than this post is a whataboutism.

 

[JANFU]

Won't say any more than this post is a whataboutism.

You brought up the defense of "only following orders".

Would said generals expect their orders to be carried out, unquestionably, by subordinates in the military? BTW, do you know what would happen to subordinates in the military that refused to carry out orders from superiors?

 

[pamak]

You cry about “double standards” while defending the storming of the embassy is, again, utterly pathetic. But hey, any excuse to defend your beloved regime.

I am pointing that a coup in 1953 is not an excuse for forty plus years of state directed terrorism, and trying to claim it as such is totally pathetic. By your own standard we would be absolutely justified in turning Tehran into a parking lot tomorrow in retaliation for their murder of several hundred Americans back in the 1980s.

Pointing out that a list compiled by tankies is not a valid argument is exactly that.....unless you also think defending South Korea from invasion is equivalent to bombing a cultural center in Argentina.

But by all means, we should start sending in special forces teams to Iranian embassies across the globe to kidnap the staff and torture them, since apparently doing so is no big deal

Oh look, another “the Kurds are evulllll” post. Yawn. Perhaps Turkey shouldn’t have banned Kurdish for years and spent decades calling Kurds “mountain Turks” if they didnt want to reap what they sowed. By your own standards Istanbul had it coming.

Lol yeah, they “only” helped terrorists do the killing instead. That’s so much better.....not

I was not the one who started talking about "contexts" My defense started when I saw you trying to apply the double standards of examining certain US activities that violate international law within a broader context but not doing it for Iran.

And you continue to apply the double standards when you ignore the kidnapping of the Taliban who were sent from Afghanistan to Guantanamo (and most of them were eventually released) because you continue to see a larger context which makes the US kindapping and torture (which did violate the international law) reasonable after an attack wich cost 3,000 American deaths and originated from OBL who was shielded by the Taliban. Then , you are whining when Iranians violated the international law to retaliate against the US government when it chose to shield their person of interest who was also responsible for thousands of Iranian deaths, including for the death of about 4,000 demonstrators just a year before the storming of the US embassy. And it is not so much that it bothers me that Americans like you are thinking in such terms. What bothers me the most is that such double standards are used to rationalize a US preparation to bomb Iran. Some people are incapable of learning from history.

With respect to terrorism, my argument is not about finding excuses to justify terrorism. My argument is about the irrationality of holding Iran to unreasonably high standards simply because it violates the international law when it uses some terrorist groups to accomplish its objectives. The US, Russia, Syria, Iraq and Israal have used terrorist groups for years to accomplish their objectives and all of them have violated the international law in many ways with much heavier consequences for the victims. A single aggressive conventional war which violated international laws has cost wayyyyy more innocent victims and civilian lives than all Iranian terrorist actions combined.

I did not say that the Kurd are evil because unlike you I am consistent when I see things in context. The Kurds, like other groups have done some evil things, including terrorist acts that killed innocent Turkish civilians (as I showed in my previous link). But again, this does not put them at some unique level of moral deprivation compared to their antagonists in the region. Notice by the way that if I were to use your double stadards of selectively using "context," I would have criticized you for your attempt to brush off Kurdish terrorism, but I do not criticize you about such thing. I am just criticizing your double standards of examining selectively things within a broader "context."

Historically, it has been, indeed, much better to take the chances of becoming victim of the Iranian sponsored terrorism than becoming a victim of the Syrian sponsored terrorism, or Iraqi sponsored terrorism or a victim of the Israel's "peaceful" expansion policies or of the US "liberation" policies. Iran does not have the capabilities to surpass the harm that other states have inflicted on innocent civilians in the region.

 

[Tigerace117]

I was not the one who started talking about "contexts" My defense started when I saw you trying to apply the double standards of examining certain US activities that violate international law withiin a broader context but not doing it for a country like Iran.

And you continue to apply the double standards when you ignore the kidnapping of the Taliban who were sent from Afghanistan to Guantanamo (and most of them were eventually released) because you continue to see a larger context of a US reasonable response aftter an attack wich cost 3,000 American deaths and originated from OBL who was shielded by the Taliban. Then , you are whining when Iranians violated the international law to retaliate against the US government when it chose to shield their person of interest who was also responsible for thousands of Iranian deaths, including for the death of about 4,000 demonstrators just a year before the storming of the US embassy. And it is not so much that it bothers me that Americans like you are thinking in such terms. What bothers me the most is that such double standards are used to rationalize a US preparation to bomb Iran.

With respect to terrorism, my argument is not about finding excuses to justify terrorism. My argument is about the irrationality of holding Iran to unreasonably high standards simply because it violates the international law when it uses some terrorist groups to accomplish its objectives. The US, Russia, Syria, Iraq and Israal have used terrorist groups for years to accomplish their objectives and all of them have violated the international law in many ways with much heavier consequences for the victims. A single aggressive conventional war which violated international laws has cost wayyyyy more innocent victims and civilian lives than all Iranian terrorist actions combined.

I did not say that the Kurd are evil because unlike you I am consistent when I see things in context. The Kurds, like other groups have done some evil things, including terrorist acts that killed innocent Turkish civilians (as I showed in my previous link). But again, this does not put them at some unique level of moral deprivation compared to their antagonists in the region. Notice by the way that if I were to use your double stadards of selectively using "context," I would have criticized you for your attempt to brush off Kurdish terrorism, but I do not criticize you about such thing. I am just criticizing your double standards of examining things within a broader "context"

Historically, it has been, indeed, much better to take the chances of becoming victim of the Iranian sponsored terrorism than becoming a victim of the Syrian sponsored terrorism, or Iraqi sponsored terrorism or a victim of the Israel's "peaceful" expansion policies or of the US "liberation" policies. Iran does not have the capabilities to surpass the harm that other states have inflicted on innocent civilians in the region.

Your attempted defense of the Iranian regime by grasping at literally any and every straw is, again, deeply pathetic.

Prisoners of war are not “kidnapped” and the fact that you are actually trying to compare enemy combatants taken prisoner on the field of battle to diplomats in an embassy is downright absurd. The fact that you are so desperate to drawn parallels which simply don’t exist is clear cut evidence of your ignorance on the subject. What bothers you is that your beloved regime is rightfully called out on the atrocities it has committed, and no amount of whataboutisms from you can change it.

Your argument is complaining that the Iranian regime is held responsible at all, and then listed a long line of whataboutisms to defend your moaning. By your own standards the Kurds would have every right to set off all the bombs they could assemble in Turkey wherever they pleased, since the Turkish regime has brought it upon themselves via their oppression of the Kurds.

Historically desperately trying to handwave away state sponsored terrorism because ”but America” is as pathetic as ever.

 

[pamak]

Your attempted defense of the Iranian regime by grasping at literally any and every straw is, again, deeply pathetic.

Prisoners of war are not “kidnapped” and the fact that you are actually trying to coma

There were not even considered prisoners of war and certainly were NOT treated as prisoners of war shoud be treated according to the international law.

 

[Tigerace117]

There were not even considered prisoners of war and certainly were NOT treated as prisoners of war shoud be treated according to the international law.

Claiming that POWs were “kidnapped” is, again, pathetic. But hey, maybe we should have taken a page from Turkey‘s book and banned them from speaking Pashto

 

[pamak]

Claiming that POWs were “kidnapped” is, again, pathetic. But hey, maybe we should have taken a page from Turkey‘s book and banned them from speaking Pashto

U.S. Torture: Complicity and Accountability | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

After 9/11, the United States began a program of kidnapping, torture, and secret imprisonment of terrorism suspects with the help of more than 50 countries around the world. These governments allowed the CIA to abduct people from their soil, use their airports and airspace to extrajudicially transfer prisoners under brutal conditions ("extraordinary rendition"), or establish secret prisons where prisoners were tortured.

ACLU is not pro-Iranian.

 

[Tigerace117]

U.S. Torture: Complicity and Accountability | American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org

After 9/11, the United States began a program of kidnapping, torture, and secret imprisonment of terrorism suspects with the help of more than 50 countries around the world. These governments allowed the CIA to abduct people from their soil, use their airports and airspace to extrajudicially transfer prisoners under brutal conditions ("extraordinary rendition"), or establish secret prisons where prisoners were tortured.

ACLU is not pro-Iranian.

ACLU also has a rather loose definition of the word “kidnapping” apparently.

 

[pamak]

ACLU also has a rather loose definition of the word “kidnapping” apparently.

Bush also

https://webcache.googleusercontent....05170147-story.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[/URL]


In Afghanistan, however, President Bush took the position that while the accords applied, no one the United States is fighting is entitled to Geneva protection as a prisoner of war because al-Qaida members are not connected to a state that is party to the treaties, and Taliban fighters do not have the military organizational structure required for protection.

 

[Tigerace117]

Bush also

https://webcache.googleusercontent....05170147-story.html+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[/URL]

In Afghanistan, however, President Bush took the position that while the accords applied, no one the United States is fighting is entitled to Geneva protection as a prisoner of war because al-Qaida members are not connected to a state that is party to the treaties, and Taliban fighters do not have the military organizational structure required for protection.

Bush claimed that the Taliban fighters were “kidnapped“? Got a source for that?

 

[pamak]

Bush claimed that the Taliban fighters were “kidnapped“? Got a source for that?

The Bush link was to counter your claim that the Taliban captives were treated as prisoners of war.

The violations of international law in different prisons that held such captives has been documented.

CIA "renditions" and secret prisons

A European investigator said on Friday he had proof the CIA ran secret prisons in Poland and Romania to interrogate suspects in its war on terrorism.

www.reuters.com

September 2006 - President George W. Bush acknowledges CIA has interrogated dozens of suspects at undisclosed overseas locations and says the last 14 of those held have been sent to U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

That is what kidnappers do.

They hold captives in undisclosured locations. By contrast, POWs and their location are reported to agencies like the red cross

 

[pamak]

Id say the UN resolutions requiring the Taliban to turn over Bin Laden were promulgated under and a part of international law.

In which resolution did you see the authorization of military force in response to Taiban's refusal to extradit OBL to the US withour evidence?

 

[pamak]

Nothing there that contradicts a thing Ive said. And if you click on the linked to page for the shah

Shah of Iran
Reign	16 September 1941 – 11 February 1979

1941, when Britain and Russia forced his father from the throne and installed the son.

What you say is irrelevant to what I say.

My point was that the Shah rose to absolute power. And if you actually read the details of the operation Ajax, you will see that initially the coup failed and the Shah went to Baghdad. He returned back to Iran when the coup finally (and with the support of the US) succeeeded.

Historians say American diplomats lied to shah of Iran about Queen Elizabeth backing 1953 coup, citing cables

The U.S. ambassador to Iran mistakenly told the shah in 1953 that Britain’s newly enthroned Queen Elizabeth II backed a plan to overthrow the country’s elected prime minister and Americ…

www.chicagotribune.com

The 1953 coup ended up successfully empowering the shah, even after he fled to Baghdad and onto Italy when it looked as though it would fail.

 

[pamak]

Its against the interests of the USA that Iran has a nuclear bomb.

which is why it should not dimantle Obama's agreement.

 

[pamak]

You have to be able to see the big picture, here.

There are two main instigators of ME violence, the KSA, and Iran...I didn't include Israel 'cause Israel is fighting to survive in the ME against the violence of the KSA and Iran.

The US, under Trump, is the proposed 'stabilizer' of the ME.
Under Trump, the US has 'controlled' the KSA. Under Trump, the US is attempting to control Iran.

EDIT: IMO, it's anyone's guess whether the incoming Biden administration contributes to the stabilization of the ME.

First of all, I do not buy anymore the argument that israel is different because it fights for its survival. They are a nuclear power and the survival of their state is not in question. Now, if you want to talk about the Palestinian survival of state aspirations , you will be correct.

I also do not buy that the US is capable of stabilizing things in ME. The US approach of bombing countries (not to mention the disastrous invasions in the region) simply does not work.

Iran has shown to be a rational adversary, so there is no reason to ignore diplomacy and negotiations when they appear to work. Iran shoud not be treated as a nation of lunatics who are ready to commit a national suicide in the name of Islam or because of their anti-semitism or whatever. Iran should be treated as the very rational soviets were treated during the Cold War.

Also, if one really wants stablization in the ME, he must support a policy that supports fair solutions by offering both carrots and sticks to every side that is involved in ethnic disputes as it happens between the Israelis and the Palestinians which will become an even bigger challenge as demographics change in favor of a people who still have not achieved self-determination. Same with the Kurds and their antagonists in the region.

 

[cabse5]

You brought up the defense of "only following orders".

You brought up the idea of subordinates in the military not following orders from superiors.

Now, you realize what is expected from the military when an order from a superior is given and what is expected from the military when an order from a superior is refused? Hum?

 

[cabse5]

First of all, I do not buy anymore the argument that israel is different because it fights for its survival. They are a nuclear power and the survival of their state is not in question. Now, if you want to talk about the Palestinian survival of state aspirations , you will be correct.

I also do not buy that the US is capable of stabilizing things in ME. The US approach of bombing countries (not to mention the disastrous invasions in the region) simply does not work.

Iran has shown to be a rational adversary, so there is no reason to ignore diplomacy and negotiations when they appear to work. Iran shoud not be treated as a nation of lunatics who are ready to commit a national suicide in the name of Islam or because of their anti-semitism or whatever. Iran should be treated as the very rational soviets were treated during the Cold War.

Also, if one really wants stablization in the ME, he must support a policy that supports fair solutions by offering both carrots and sticks to every side that is involved in ethnic disputes as it happens between the Israelis and the Palestinians which will become an even bigger challenge as demographics change in favor of a people who still have not achieved self-determination. Same with the Kurds and their antagonists in the region.

You need to use your eyes. Trump has stabilized things in the ME.

Tensions still exist in the ME but the reason for the stability in the ME is those actors who mainly caused the tension in the ME (Saudi Arabia and Iran) are currently being constrained by the Trump administration.

Side note: I doubt the Biden administration knows how to keep the ME stabilized. In fact, I think the Biden administration will fuel the fire of destabilization in the ME with the Biden administration's apparent love of one of the main protagonists in the ME, Iran.

 

[Athanasius68]

which is why it should not dimantle Obama's agreement.

The Iran deal didn't end Iran nuclear program.
It expires in 2025-- in which case Iran can go build one.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Has a lame duck ever preemptively started a war before?

Lawl. The only people worried about military attacks from Iran are civilian airliners filled with Canadians.

 

[Metric Mouse]

The news over the last few days seems to be that Biden is being counseled NOT to rejoin the agreement.
I guess we will see when he names Blinken tomorrow.
Heck, Obama's diplomat over there is saying Biden should not reverse the Trump Mid-east policy.

Do you have a link to that?

 

[Tigerace117]

The Bush link was to counter your claim that the Taliban captives were treated as prisoners of war.

The violations of international law in different prisons that held such captives has been documented.

CIA "renditions" and secret prisons

A European investigator said on Friday he had proof the CIA ran secret prisons in Poland and Romania to interrogate suspects in its war on terrorism.

www.reuters.com

September 2006 - President George W. Bush acknowledges CIA has interrogated dozens of suspects at undisclosed overseas locations and says the last 14 of those held have been sent to U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

That is what kidnappers do.

They hold captives in undisclosured locations. By contrast, POWs and their location are reported to agencies like the red cross

Except, again, they are prisoners of war captured in the process of planning or orchestrating acts of mass murder, and your claims that they were “kidnapped” are as pathetic as always.

But I get that you are upset that there was no location revealed for a death squad to try and storm in order to torture and or murder more Americans.

 

[rhinefire]

There has never been an American president more mentally and emotionally unstable than Trump. This is proven by the fact that America awoke every morning fearing to learn what he did or said over night and by the fact that he thinks he can overturn the election as his advisors and friends are walking away from him..

 

[snakestretcher]

No he didn't. there's no evidence of that claim other then that you assume without evidence Iran was complying with a nuclear deal before.

The IAEA has all the evidence you need, or are you suggesting they're lying for some reason? The IAEA have confirmed that Iran was in compliance with the deal.

IAEA Says Iran Abiding by Nuclear Deal | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

You really should try keeping up with events. Oh, and do try avoiding far-right lunatic websites-because it appears that's where your 'information' comes from. Good grief.

 

[Tigerace117]

The IAEA has all the evidence you need, or are you suggesting they're lying for some reason? The IAEA have confirmed that Iran was in compliance with the deal.

IAEA Says Iran Abiding by Nuclear Deal | Arms Control Association

www.armscontrol.org

You really should try keeping up with events. Oh, and do try avoiding far-right lunatic websites-because it appears that's where your 'information' comes from. Good grief.

Using William Blum as a source means you don’t have room to talk when it comes to the lunatic fringe.