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

    1. GTANet.com

    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

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    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
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Middle Eastern Conflict [General]


Recommended Posts

Raavi
36 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

 

The best part is that they don't actually go on to substantiate the headline. There is pretty much zero legal argumentation. They completely conflate a situation where war already has been declared e.g. post-attack on Pearl Harbor (which would be jus in bello, but this for the most predates IHL as the bulk of it came about post-WWII) and the current situation with the drone strike where no war has been declared AND there was no imminent/ongoing attack, let alone something the scope of Pearl Harbor to speak of. They basically say: "we once killed the adm. responsible for pearl harbor, which now 80 year later gives us carte blanche to just off any enemy commander as we see fit". That does not even begin to constitute a valid legal argument. 

 

What a terrible article. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

America once killed an entire population of indigenous people in order to make room for Americans.

 

I guess they now have the justification to purge the world to make room for Americans! They did it once, in completely different circumstances, but it surely can be applied to now!

 

You know, ilovebender is the exactly perfect portrayal of your average Trumpeter. His style of "arguing" (if it can be called such), consists of making wild claims, not substantiating anything properly, calling you an America/Britain hater, and not responding to anything directed at him that more than fully proves him wrong. It's incredible. We can use this and the EU and the Britain threads to make a decent study on the mind of a complete failure of a human being.

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

America once killed an entire population of indigenous people in order to make room for Americans.

 

I guess they now have the justification to purge the world to make room for Americans! They did it once, in completely different circumstances, but it surely can be applied to now!

 

You know, ilovebender is the exactly perfect portrayal of your average Trumpeter. His style of "arguing" (if it can be called such), consists of making wild claims, not substantiating anything properly, calling you an America/Britain hater, and not responding to anything directed at him that more than fully proves him wrong. It's incredible. We can use this and the EU and the Britain threads to make a decent study on the mind of a complete failure of a human being.

Trump's got an excellent foreign policy, credit where credit's due, doesn't mean I agree with ICE agents creating checkpoints violating rights in America to pass freely within the United States in the name of security.

So what if I believe America are better than the EU or the Ayatollah, and what?

 

1 hour ago, Raavi said:

 

The best part is that they don't actually go on to substantiate the headline. There is pretty much zero legal argumentation. They completely conflate a situation where war already has been declared e.g. post-attack on Pearl Harbor (which would be jus in bello, but this for the most predates IHL as the bulk of it came about post-WWII) and the current situation with the drone strike where no war has been declared AND there was no imminent/ongoing attack, let alone something the scope of Pearl Harbor to speak of. They basically say: "we once killed the adm. responsible for pearl harbor, which now 80 year later gives us carte blanche to just off any enemy commander as we see fit". That does not even begin to constitute a valid legal argument. 

 

What a terrible article. 

He was an enemy commander was he not?

He was planning attacks on Americans was he not?

I don't think war needs to be declared to assassinate an enemy commander getting ready to attack Americans.

 

I'd like to see where war has to be declared first to assassinate an enemy commander who's plotting attacks. 

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

Trump's foreign policy has put the US at odds with its closest allies, among others, so I'm at a loss as to how his foreign policy is 'excellent' when all signs point to abject failure.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck
59 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

Trump's got an excellent foreign policy, credit where credit's due, doesn't mean I agree with ICE agents creating checkpoints violating rights in America to pass freely within the United States in the name of security.

So what if I believe America are better than the EU or the Ayatollah, and what?

That has literally nothing to do with anything I've said. Or with the topic at hand. But then, I expected no less.

 

The only good point in Trump's foreign policy were the easing of tensions with North Korea. Everything else has been an utter failure.

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

That has literally nothing to do with anything I've said. Or with the topic at hand. But then, I expected no less.

 

 

2 hours ago, Tchuck said:

 

 

You know, ilovebender is the exactly perfect portrayal of your average Trumpeter...

I thought you called me a Trump supporter so I corrected you with my view on ICE and me not liking it looking like a police state demanding papers at checkpoints impeding on rights of free passage.. Or his 'Muslim' ban or some detention camp @Pesos'll be detained in if a jaguar doesn't eat him en route to America. (He said he potentially could be moving to America, so I just assumed that's factoring in all the jaguars on his walk up).  ;)

1 hour ago, Pesos said:

Trump's foreign policy has put the US at odds with its closest allies, among others, so I'm at a loss as to how his foreign policy is 'excellent' when all signs point to abject failure.

They suggested turning their back on NATO when Trump suggested they pay their agreed GDP and declared Trump hostile citing an end to reliance to trust America and forge for a joint European armed force as soon as he assumed office; who needs enemies with 'closest allies' like that?

Last I heard, Trump was for Brexit saying Britain's in a better place for leaving the EU and is eager to sign a post EU trade deal with the UK - that's hardily putting UK at odds or even at the back of the queue like Obama said shortly before the referendum.

 

His 0 tolerance of Iran dicking around being dicks, why not? Least this President delivers.

Just this week he vowed Iran will never get the bomb.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/jan/06/iran-qassem-suleimani-funeral-donald-trump-nato-iraq

 

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

Just this week he vowed Iran will never get the bomb.

Hollow words from the orange dolt, as by unilaterally suspending US involvement in the JCPOA and conducting very likely illegal attacks on Iranian government employees abroad, he's done more to to enable Iran's access to highly enriched uranium, and performed more actions which may be seen as justifying a deterrent WMD programme, than anyone.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
10 hours ago, ilovebender.com said:

If that's really the best case you have, let me introduce you to a suitable counter article :

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/lies-the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-the-illegal-murder-of-soleimani/?fbclid=IwAR0Oni1YEF62mqSdNlqY-zsOwmsd2iNQwSsuTObJnufN8Nby51EXzQbnyAc


The wording by Pompeo has managed to fall into this trap, quoted :
 

"Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.

What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again."

 

The final paragraph is also rather blunt :

"
The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple."

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSpectre

My boyfriend is at the Qatar air base not far from Iran. Supposedly it is a strategic target for Iran should the US retaliate. I'm freaking the f*ck out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham

Went to bed expecting war in the Middle East.  Got up this morning to find it has seemingly dissipated like a fart in a large room.  Never mind, if the 'Allies' do leave Iraq a full-scale conflict is sure to break out, along the lines of "Our version of Islam trumps your version of Islam".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran's response was extremely timid compared to what might be described as proportional.  It might well be better the US' best case scenario.  Iran clearly does not want to escalate this any further.  If anything, it has given them what they wanted; dampening calls for democratic elections in Iraq and Iran, and increased their influence in the region, in particular in Iran, from which they will now be able to force out US troops.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
acmilano
2 hours ago, Svip said:

Iran's response was extremely timid compared to what might be described as proportional.  It might well be better the US' best case scenario.  Iran clearly does not want to escalate this any further.  If anything, it has given them what they wanted; dampening calls for democratic elections in Iraq and Iran, and increased their influence in the region, in particular in Iran, from which they will now be able to force out US troops.

Hope you are right,and that it will stop on this. Full scale conflict won't bring anything good to anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the ball's in US court now.  So I guess it's all up to President Trump, what happens now.  But considering the press conference he just gave, it sounds like he is backing down.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have the proxy wars begun? Some reports have suggested a explosion occurred in the cargo hold.   Plus Iran is refusing to hand over the black box to investigators. 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51032651

 

The question is, would Iran slaughter it's own people to bloody the nose of the West and it's allies?   In my opinion yes they would. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Iran has amongst the worst air safety records in the world. It's far from surprising really. It's also not technically their prerogative to hand over the black box to anyone; as the accident (or incident) happened within their territory they have jurestiction for the investigation with the airline's nation of origin and the aircraft manufacturer bring secondary parties.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
On 1/7/2020 at 7:35 AM, sivispacem said:

Hollow words from the orange dolt, as by unilaterally suspending US involvement in the JCPOA and conducting very likely illegal attacks on Iranian government employees abroad, he's done more to to enable Iran's access to highly enriched uranium, and performed more actions which may be seen as justifying a deterrent WMD programme, than anyone.

If it was illegal, does it still mean it was immoral?

Would you rather that commander was still alive, able to plot and target?

Jeremy Corbyn would be pleased reading your post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ned Bingham
On 1/7/2020 at 2:35 AM, Tchuck said:

America once killed an entire population of indigenous people in order to make room for Americans.

Quite right too.  They were only grubbing about, wearing animal skins and hunting buffalo using inefficient methods.  Would the indigenous population ever have imported millions of black Africans as slaves, thereby in time giving the world soul and rap music?  I think not.

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

If it was illegal, does it still mean it was immoral?

I try and avoid talking about "mortality" in the context of international relations. It contributes nothing of value to discourse on the subject, and distracts people from more important considerations like legality or illegality.

 

It also requires you to believe in universal objective morality- which most rational and sane people don't- or have a nuanced enough understanding of social/political/cultural/ethnic/religious factors which drive different moral outlooks, which nobody outside of career ethics wonks have time to cultivate.

 

States almost always act in rational self-interest; you just need to understand the rationale that drives the action.

 

1 hour ago, ilovebender.com said:

Would you rather that commander was still alive, able to plot and target?

In isolation, I don't particularly care. I'm not going to throw a street party to celebrate; nor am I going to lament his demise as an individual.

 

In the wider context of regional and geopolitical affairs, I believe his assassination will do more harm than good. Notwithstanding the escalation and increased chances of direct and indirect action against Western interests in retaliation, it's always easier to be able to predict the actions of a known quantity than it is an unknown one. Replacing Soulimani with another commander who is less well understood makes predicting future activities harder and is likely to drive changes in Modus Operandi that will make dealing with Iranian proxies abroad even more challenging.

 

In short, I don't think his death improves the safety or security of either the US or UK, and nor do most other SMEs.

 

1 hour ago, Svip said:

It's hard not to see this as a win for Iran and a defeat for the US.

It is exceptionally difficult to see it as anything other than a woeful own-goal. No militia commander is going to want to have any kind of engagement with the US after this fiasco, so you can kiss, for instance, the chances of further mediation between the Afghan government and Taliban goodbye.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com

I guess Trump shot himself in the foot when he said he wanted to pull out of Iraq; now if he gets thrown out I doubt he'd go.

That's the only 'own goal' I see there @sivispacem.

But this is going to be a damp squib other than that need for extra service personnel, it's not going to be all out war or WWIII or nothing major like that, just business as usual except now Iran's taken down a notch for knowing America can and will strike and take out their number 2 if agitated enough.

Edited by ilovebender.com
Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
10 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

just business as usual except now Iran's taken down a notch for knowing America can and will strike and take out their number 2 if agitated enough.

 

It could also be seen as, 'Iran knows exactly how to make Trump commit a criminal act and then act correctly in the face of International Law.'

Nothing like proving another nation can manipulate the President of the USA in such a way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
1 minute ago, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

 

It could also be seen as, 'Iran knows exactly how to make Trump commit a criminal act and then act correctly in the face of International Law.'

Nothing like proving another nation can manipulate the President of the USA in such a way.

If it's so illegal, why isn't anyone saying it's illegal but Corbyn and Iran?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle Sikee Atric
7 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

If it's so illegal, why isn't anyone saying it's illegal but Corbyn and Iran?

I'll just quote my previous post, Craig Murray is recognized as a specialist in International Law.....
 

On 1/7/2020 at 11:38 AM, Uncle Sikee Atric said:

If that's really the best case you have, let me introduce you to a suitable counter article :

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/lies-the-bethlehem-doctrine-and-the-illegal-murder-of-soleimani/?fbclid=IwAR0Oni1YEF62mqSdNlqY-zsOwmsd2iNQwSsuTObJnufN8Nby51EXzQbnyAc


The wording by Pompeo has managed to fall into this trap, quoted :
 

"Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.

What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again."

 

The final paragraph is also rather blunt :

"
The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple."

 

Law discussions tend to take a while, not be decided in a few hours.  (Unless the guilty party actually admits their mistake and confesses.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem
31 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

If it's so illegal, why isn't anyone saying it's illegal but Corbyn and Iran?

Well Iraq have, as have two of the other five UNSC members, a raft of other states both regionally and further afield, several experts on both ethics and international law, senior figures within the US' military community, and a variety of other prominent legal experts including UN advisers on the laws of war, some of whom have been cited on previous posts and pages.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com

Iran shot down an aeroplane and that's all anyone cares about on the news; Who cares about some dead butt hole commander assassinated by America? Just people in this thread who hate America I guess.

I've heard more about the "illegal" killing of that commander in this thread than I have watching the news all day and all night.

I think people in this thread, indeed, this D&D suffer from over dramatic-ism;

They see Trump drone attack Iran by taking out their number 2 in Iraq, suddenly it's WWIII.

As I predicted, this has been rather a damp squib, I predict the same for Brexit.

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

Iran shot down an aeroplane and that's all anyone cares about on the news; Who cares about some dead butt hole commander

People with attention spans longer than eight seconds.

 

26 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

 than I have watching the news all day and all night.

Maybe get a f*cking job/a life (delete as appropriate) instead of watching mass media for 24 hours solidly like some kind of amorphous blob who can't move from a sofa.

 

28 minutes ago, ilovebender.com said:

suddenly it's WWIII.

Ironically, you've voiced concerns about "WWIII" in this thread whereas I've not even mentioned it and most of their posters have only spoken about it in the context of its extreme unlikeliness.

 

Which you'd know if you could read.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovebender.com
5 minutes ago, sivispacem said:

People with attention spans longer than eight seconds.

Actually, no, people who seem to be over dramatic still care about Trump assassinating that commander.

It wasn't even illegal. 

The same over dramatic people being over dramatic about Brexit.

 

Really, you're in for a big disappointment and a feeling of huge embarrassment when you realise leaving the EU wasn't the end of the world; like Y2K and the Millennium Bug or UK not joining the single currency; nothing's going to happen - quit being so over dramatic about literally everything you don't agree with.

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

Do you have something to contribute? I see a lot of whining and very little contributing.

 

Sh*t, or get off the pot.

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.