Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    2. GTANet 20th Anniversary

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Announcements

    2. Support

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

Middle Eastern Conflict [General]


Recommended Posts

We need to take back the British Empire, relocate Australians to Saudi Arabia, do you think if Britain knew about all the oil in Saudi Arabia we would have given that land to some ultra conservative Muslims?!

f*ck no!

If we knew then what we knew now, Saudi Arabia would be as white as Canada or Australia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

I heard he was behind that hijacking of a British flagged ship in that region in 2019, 

Where did you hear that? That was an Iranian Naval Revolutionary Guard action, what did the Quds Force have to do with it?

 

58 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

We need to take back the British Empire

Lol

 

58 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

do you think if Britain knew about all the oil in Saudi Arabia we would have given that land to some ultra conservative Muslims?!

Oil extraction in Saudi Arabia began in the early 1920s and US companies including Gulf and Standard were already active within KSA before 1932.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Trump's comments about the 52 cultural sites in Iran is merely bluster. Of course, the preservation of human life is the most important thing, but it is also a real tragedy when places of historical significance are vandalised or destroyed. It was wrong when ISIS did it, and it would be equally wrong if Trump were to do it. My gut tells me it's an empty threat, and either he or his aides would understand the backlash that would cause, but with things as they are, who can tell?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

NPR's international correspondent reporting that the US asked the Iraqi PM to mediate with Iran for them, and killed Soleimani when he came to Iraq to meet with the PM for that purpose. 

Quote

This is stunning - #Iraq prime minister tells parliament US troops should leave. Says @realDonaldTrump called him to ask him to mediate with #Iran and then ordered drone strike on Soleimani. Says Soleimani carrying response to Saudi initiative to defuse tension when he was hit.

Source

 

Hooo boy. I'm not sure I could think of a better way to disincentivize negotiation, or to make oneself seem any less trustworthy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe that to be an empty threat.  The US keeps plenty of lists for almost every country about potential targets to strike.  So having a list of 52 targets in Iran was easy for Trump, the only hard part might have been which targets not to include in the list.  But Iranian intelligence probably already know which 52 targets he is talking about.  Should it come to a strike, the Iranians would probably have moved out the important contents of those targets beforehand, and abandon them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 6:36 PM, ilovebender.com said:

 

I get it,

"Death to America!"

You guys hate America, etc etc...

 

I'm sorry your boyfriend Iraian Regime and Putin's Russia are crying, God Bless America though.

I don't like mullahs and gopniks either, that doesn't give the right to america to toy with the rest of the world. america is probably the only nation where some 90 billionaires and lots of homeless drug addicts live in the same city, you've got a border problem which further accelerates this drug problem, you've got tons of arrogant mofos who enjoy policing people's thoughts. yet you still think it's okay to intervene in business you're not really part of. for the record I think all of these problems are caused by the same kind of people (or a "machine", I don't know, even Trump is a part of this clown world. Not that I didn't expect a man like him to be not part of it but it was really fun watching people get mad at him all the time for no apparent reason lmfao)

so that is my opinion on this. if you want to get sh*t done in a place where you're not relevant, then clean your sh*t first so rest of the world can't call you fat, dumb, entitled warmongering cunts

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Caysle said:

... america is probably the only nation where some 90 billionaires and lots of homeless drug addicts live in the same city,

New York City...

Image result for pure joy homer simpson

Full disclosure, when I went, it reminded me of where I come from, and I didn't expect that in America, and I saw Philadelphia! NYC was like home, put home into perspective on my return to the UK that year.

 

Quote

 

you've got a border problem which further accelerates this drug problem, you've got tons of arrogant mofos who enjoy policing people's thoughts. yet you still think it's okay to intervene in business you're not really part of. for the record I think all of these problems are caused by the same kind of people (or a "machine", I don't know, even Trump is a part of this clown world. Not that I didn't expect a man like him to be not part of it but it was really fun watching people get mad at him all the time for no apparent reason lmfao)


so that is my opinion on this. if you want to get sh*t done in a place where you're not relevant, then clean your sh*t first so rest of the world can't call you fat, dumb, entitled warmongering cunts

Yeah, no, Iran was like 'we're going to piss you off' and the person who tempted the orange guy got blown up.

Edited by ilovebender.com
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Yeah, no, Iran was like 'we're going to piss you off' 

Sponsoring and arming proxy forces to conduct deniable operations within the sphere of influence of your adversaries is basically how the US had maintained its position as the sole global superpower. I don't really think they're in much of a position to criticise other powers doing the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Sponsoring and arming proxy forces to conduct deniable operations within the sphere of influence of your adversaries is basically how the US had maintained its position as the sole global superpower. I don't really think they're in much of a position to criticise other powers doing the same.

Why not?

Since when were that regime in Iran and America equal?

 

Edited by ilovebender.com
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

Why not?

Kinda makes a mockery of international law when you punish other nation states for acting the same way as you. No better than Russia in that regard.

 

The age of the US as a "true" global superpower is rapidly coming to an end. The US has lost huge amounts of influence in East and South-East Asia, and in the Middle East.

They've been impotent in responding to Chinese hegemonic claims over South China Sea, and been usurped by Iran as the primary power in the Levant.

 

I see actions like this as little more than the death-throes of their strategic decline; much like the invasion of Afghanistan was for the Soviet Union. 

 

9 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

Since when were that regime in Iran and America equal?

I don't recall claiming they were, but I also don't see how this is relevant.

You're the one who's been making arguments based on (poorly formed) moralistic assessments, so maybe you can tell me?

 

9 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

[idiotic video]

The notion of the US as a "bringer of Democracy" in the Middle East is frankly hilarious.

They've been propping up autocrats, overthrowing democratic regimes and invading nations to depose tyrants, then replacing said tyrant with another tyrant, for the best part of a century.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sivispacem said:

 

 

The notion of the US as a "bringer of Democracy" in the Middle East is frankly hilarious.

They've been propping up autocrats, overthrowing democratic regimes and invading nations to depose tyrants, then replacing said tyrant with another tyrant, for the best part of a century.

Time to do it again?

f*ck the Ayatollah.

You're saying American values are worse than the Ayatollah's?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

You're saying American values are worse than the Ayatollah's?

Yet again, your powers of comprehension have utterly failed you.

The current Iranian regime is a direct result of US interventionism in Iranian domestic politics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Time to do it again?

f*ck the Ayatollah.

You're saying American values are worse than the Ayatollah's?

 

Historically, America has pretty much never instigated a regime change in the Middle East (or elsewhere, for that matter) with the goal of instilling American (or even more generally, Democracy) values. This is the essence of what Sivispacem is saying (and is fact).

So with that in mind, how on earth do you arrive at concluding he is saying what you're asking? lol

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pesos said:

Historically, America has pretty much never instigated a regime change in the Middle East (or elsewhere, for that matter) with the goal of instilling American (or even more generally, Democracy) values. This is the essence of what Sivispacem is saying (and is fact).

So with that in mind, how on earth do you arrive at concluding he is saying what you're asking? lol

I'm just saying they're the lesser of the two evils.

 

People seem to forget US and UK for that matter (where I'm posting from) have interest in the region; interests like transportation of fuel commodities and other such things; Because of Iran, because of ISIS, it's a more hostile environment than the EU! Doing business in that part of the world is challenging when you're out there earning a living and then you're killed, attacked by a state backed militia group; that's like Jeremy Corbyn or Maduro on steroids, making it an even tougher business environment than Latin American Dictatorships! - but a business environment nonetheless, why can't America protect its interests that are under threat all the time? You forget yourself if you're from the UK or from the US thinking they have a right to blow up private enterprise of any foreign owned company and to disrupt the governments in these neighbouring countries they're messing up vested interests in because they're foreign, that's worse than Jeremy Corbyn's protectionism.

Edited by ilovebender.com
Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard someone comment in the media at the weekend that certain sections of the elite in Iran had come to regard Soleimani as a liability because he had gone too far with his 'Shia crescent' strategy and was not only draining the coffers of Iran but stoking up too much tension and violence in the region.  So Trump's actions have not only got rid of a troublesome individual to the regime's benefit, but that removal can be blamed on the Great Satan.  Now Khamenei can shed tears at his funeral whilst enjoying the benefits of his removal.  A win-win result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

I'm just saying they're the lesser of the two evils.

 

People seem to forget US and UK for that matter (where I'm posting from) have interest in the region; interests like transportation of fuel commodities and other such things; Because of Iran, because of ISIS, it's a more hostile environment than the EU! Doing business in that part of the world is challenging when you're out there earning a living and then you're killed, attacked by a state backed militia group; that's like Jeremy Corbyn or Maduro on steroids, making it an even tougher business environment than Latin American Dictatorships! - but a business environment nonetheless, why can't America protect its interests that are under threat all the time? You forget yourself if you're from the UK or from the US thinking they have a right to blow up private enterprise of any foreign owned company and to disrupt the governments in these neighbouring countries they're messing up vested interests in because they're foreign, that's worse than Jeremy Corbyn's protectionism.

You get your panties all in a twist over the EU acting in its own self interest when it comes to trade, but America gets a free pass for unlawful attacks on foreign soil (and worse) in your books? Ok bud.

 

Nevermind that America is largely to blame for the very hostile environment you bemoan. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ned Bingham said:

Heard someone comment in the media at the weekend that certain sections of the elite in Iran had come to regard Soleimani as a liability because he had gone too far with his 'Shia crescent' strategy and was not only draining the coffers of Iran but stoking up too much tension and violence in the region.  So Trump's actions have not only got rid of a troublesome individual to the regime's benefit, but that removal can be blamed on the Great Satan.  Now Khamenei can shed tears at his funeral whilst enjoying the benefits of his removal.  A win-win result.

There's also the theory that some sections of Iran's rulers were worried that the moderates were starting to gain ground.  By having Trump strike in the way he did, that section of society has been silenced overnight, the hardliners are back in control and the situation returns to normal for them.

 

This theory is backed up by the thought put forward by Raavi, in that Soleimani was pretty much in the open and very public, almost goading Trump into the attack.  In a way, knowingly martyring himself for the hardliners and at the same time, showing Trump up for being a trigger-happy idiot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pesos said:

You get your panties all in a twist over the EU acting in its own self interest when it comes to trade, but America gets a free pass for unlawful attacks on foreign soil (and worse) in your books? Ok bud.

 

Nevermind that America is largely to blame for the very hostile environment you bemoan. 

Of course, anyone who hates America of course will over look America as being the victim.

So Iranian backed militia in the area get a free pass when targeting Americans working on American interest and for America to protect American lives and American interests becomes unlawful despite them being under constant attack.

Militia backed by the Iranian Regime's method might be more extreme than Maduro or Jeremy Corbyn, but their message is the same

'Hey, foreigner, we're taking control!'

Is that okay for Iran to be protecting it's own interests by putting a bullet through the heads of their competitors?! f*cking hostile business environment so America have every right to defend themselves from this type of hostility.

1 hour ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

...

 

This theory is backed up by the thought put forward by Raavi, in that Soleimani was pretty much in the open and very public, almost goading Trump into the attack.  In a way, knowingly martyring himself for the hardliners and at the same time, showing Trump up for being a trigger-happy idiot.

So this was a calculated and planned attack to bring about war?

 

What about Iranian refugees from such a crises?

 

Will Turkey have enough room or will the EU (EU27) be f*cked and will a flood of Iranian and Syrian refugees released from Turkey be an issue the EU27 must address for being so stupid for out sourcing their responsibilities when it was the EU28 to someone like Erdogan? 

 

I hope after Brexit, refugees in Turkey used to scare the EU into paying doesn't remain UK's problem that's why we need Brexit to be the UK's Manroe Doctrine citing we left the EU and that our problems aren't the same.

We need divergence; why should UK be forced to? If UK helps, it should be because UK wants to, not because it's an EU problem - that's why Brexit should be a British Monroe Doctrine to the EU stating our independence and our problems aren't shared so we can do what we want.

In a nut shell, we need Brexit to enshrine into law that any problem the EU has isn't necessarily UK's problem citing self determination and the right to do our own thing.

Edited by ilovebender.com
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Of course, anyone who hates America of course will over look America as being the victim.

So Irainan backed militia in the area get a free pass when targeting Americans working on American interest and for American to protect these American interests then becomes unlawful.

Their method might be more extreme than Maduro or Jeremy Corbyn, but their message is the same

'Hey, foreigner, we're taking control!'

 

Critiquing something doesn't equate to hating something. But you've already been told as much and failed to comprehend.

 

No one said they necessarily get a free pass, but it's largely irrelevant to the point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pesos said:

Critiquing something doesn't equate to hating something. But you've already been told as much and failed to comprehend.

 

No one said they necessarily get a free pass, but it's largely irrelevant to the point.

Donald Trump certainly showed Iran when he had that guy blown up that they don't get a free pass. I'm saying you think they should get a free pass based on your assumption of America defending itself is illegal because they're foreign or something.

Edited by ilovebender.com
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Donald Trump certainly showed Iran when he had that guy blown up that they don't get a free pass. I'm saying you think they should get a free pass based on your assumption of America defending itself is illegal because they're foreign or something.

Iran and Iraq have an agreement whereby the former can operate within Iraqi borders, so you're going to have to get specific or stop rambling.

 

Again, though, that doesn't matter in relation to the point at end. It's a question of whether the US violated international law or not. Given that the US intelligence community contradicts the White House's claims re: imminent threats, it's pretty damning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

So this was a calculated and planned attack to bring about war?

 

Nope, this was calculated and planned for over the last 18 months or so, after the US pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement, to show everyone else just how Trump thinks (not very well) and that he cannot be trusted in the slightest.

 

 

29 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

What about Iranian refugees from such a crises?

 

Will Turkey have enough room or will the EU (EU27) be f*cked and will a flood of Iranian and Syrian refugees released from Turkey be an issue the EU27 must address for being so stupid for out sourcing their responsibilities when it was the EU28 to someone like Erdogan? 

 

Turkey isn't Iran and I doubt there will be many refugees from the region.  Iran will be no pushover, as stated before and the civilian population isn't going to like the US advancing on their homes.  They will be treated as hostile invaders, not the heroes you expect.

 

 

29 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

 

I hope after Brexit, refugees in Turkey used to scare the EU into paying doesn't remain UK's problem that's why we need Brexit to be the UK's Manroe Doctrine citing we left the EU and that our problems aren't the same.

We need divergence; why should UK be forced to? If UK helps, it should be because UK wants to, not because it's an EU problem - that's why Brexit should be a British Monroe Doctrine to the EU stating our independence and our problems aren't shared so we can do what we want.

In a nut shell, we need Brexit to enshrine into law that any problem the EU has isn't necessarily UK's problem citing self determination and the right to do our own thing.

 

Prepare to be bitterly disppointed, because that refugee wave isn't coming.  The EU's stance has been to apply the diplomatic channel and Boris signed the French and German letter in support of this path, they're waiting this out and the UK agrees with that.  It's the correct path to take currently as Iran doesn't need war, it's already proved it's point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pesos said:

Iran and Iraq have an agreement whereby the former can operate within Iraqi borders, so you're going to have to get specific or stop rambling.

 

Again, though, that doesn't matter in relation to the point at end. It's a question of whether the US violated international law or not. Given that the US intelligence community contradicts the White House's claims re: imminent threats, it's pretty damning.

Well then the answer is no, America didn't violate international law, America were stopping an attack by killing these people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Well then the answer is no, America didn't violate international law, America were stopping an attack by killing these people.

They DID violate IHL, as well as clearly Iraqi sovereignty and quite possibly also the VCDR se. As I already addressed on the last page.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Raavi said:

They DID violate IHL, as well as clearly Iraqi sovereignty and quite possibly also the VCDR se. As I already addressed on the last page.

Yeah, you're obviously missing the point that Iran violated Iraqi sovereignty by installing a pro Iranian puppet of a government.

Did you know Iraqis were cheering the death of this man who was in Iraq in effect occupying Iraq for Iran?

This guy targeted American interests, and was behind that American contractor killed there, and since the militia attacked the embassy, was probably planning more attacks against Americans there; how is it illegal for America to defend itself against an unlawful Iranian backed militia in Iraq?

The UN can't even condemn these attacks because the commander was under a UN travel ban and so shouldn't really have been in Iraq in the first place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal
27 minutes ago, Raavi said:

They DID violate IHL, as well as clearly Iraqi sovereignty and quite possibly also the VCDR se. As I already addressed on the last page.

In fact, violating international law wasn't enough apparently. Not only did these morons undermine their own policy of containg Iranian influence/cooperation in Iraq by further delegitimizing the US presence, but they embarrassingly violated their own agreement with Iraq by accidentally killing an Iraqi security forces vice commander in the same strike (Abu Mahdi al-Muhandes). It's another one of those deliberately-omitted details in inittial reports from the major US press outlets.

 

 

 

Strategically, the goals of reactionary cheerleaders aren't even served by this strike. They've just dug in their heels because that's what stupid peopele do when they're wrong. This guy was martyred just before his goodwill may have naturally declined anyway in the face of recent civil uprisings against the state in Iran. He and most military leaders in Iran have historically taken a hardline against protesters. Not to mention the fact his harm to the US war industry's objectives was mostly complete, and spanned the last 20 years.  He was all but retired. So the hit was stupid from all angles.

 

Removing him in these twighlight years at best exhausts extra resources along with the US' little remaining goodwill to achieve something that would have happened anyway...his passing of the baton to some other general. Even in the delusional mindset that considers this a victory, it's a pyrrhic one.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Did you know Iraqis were cheering the death of this man who was in Iraq in effect occupying Iraq for Iran?

This relevant to it being in accordance with international law, how exactly?

 

7 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

This guy targeted American interests, and was behind that American contractor killed there, and since the militia attacked the embassy

 

Glad you agree it was indeed a retaliatory strike. We're getting somewhere.

 

12 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

was probably planning more attacks against Americans there

 

This does not even come close to meeting the Caroline test. Which I already pointed out to you on the previous page, not going to repeat myself.

 

12 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

how is it illegal for America to defend itself against an unlawful Iranian backed militia in Iraq?

If only you had the faintest clue of international law, you'd know how many problems this sentence contains. Let's break it down shall we?

 

"Defend itself" - please point me to the ongoing/imminent armed attack by Iran against the US

"unlawful (Iranian backed) militia" - as opposed to a lawful Iranian backed militia?

"In Iraq" - please point me to the treaty establishing that the Baghdad International Airport is US soil

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raavi said:

 

 

"Defend itself" - please point me to the ongoing/imminent armed attack by Iran against the US

"unlawful (Iranian backed) militia" - as opposed to a lawful Iranian backed militia?

"In Iraq" - please point me to the treaty establishing that the Baghdad International Airport is US soil

 

 

The UN put a travel ban on him, he shouldn't have been in Iraq because he was banned from leaving Iran by the UN.

The militia who attacked the US embassy in Baghdad wrote that he was their leader in spray paint as they attacked the embassy.

View image on Twitter

When Iran propped up this puppet government in Iraq, I wonder what their campaign was?

'Vote for me or I'd kill you!' (Not very lawful).

 

  • Attacking Americans and American interest.
  • Shouldn't have been in Iraq under the UN travel ban placed upon him.
  • Iran violated Iraqi sovereignty anyway when they propped up this puppet government in Iraq to serve Iran. 
Edited by ilovebender.com
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

The UN put a travel ban on him, he shouldn't have been in Iraq.

 

Please point me to the part of the resolution that instituted the travel ban where it states that violation makes him fair game to be blown to smithereens by drone?

 

12 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

The militia who attacked the US embassy in Baghdad wrote that he was their leader in spray paint as they attacked the embassy.

 

Ah yes the horrible attack that consisted of rioting outside the embassy gates and causing a grand total of 0 casualties. Please tell me how this constitutes an imminent/ongoing armed attack?

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.