https://www.timesofisrael.com/assassination-or-defensive-action-soleimani-killing-ignites-freighted-debate/
After Friday’s targeted killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani,
newsrooms struggled with the question: Had the United States just
carried out an assassination? And should news stories about the killing
use that term?
The AP Stylebook, considered a news industry bible, defines
assassination as “the murder of a politically important or prominent
individual by surprise attack.”
Although the United States and Iran have long been adversaries and
engaged in a shadow war in the Middle East and elsewhere, the US has
never declared formal war on Iran. So the targeted killing of a high
Iranian state and military official by a surprise attack was “clearly an
assassination,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, an expert in international
law and the laws of war at the University of Notre Dame School of Law.
Those who are merciful to the cruel will one day be cruel to the merciful.
ReplyDeleteSame left wing people who you attack on a daily basis in Israel you are now supporting in America. What is the professor saying about soleimani orders the should dead protesters on the streets?
more platitudes
ReplyDeletehow about something involving wisdom i.e.what is trump's plan and goals which he doesn't want to discuss?
the general reaction I have gotten from Israelis is it was a dumb decision!
which Israelis are these?
ReplyDeleteHow is it different from when Israel assassinates a hamas or Hezbollah leader?
Obviously I cannot speak from Trump or his cabinet.
What Pompeo has said so far, is that they are not the same as Obama, who for example promised harsh action on the use of chemical weapons, and then when the Syrians did use illegal chemical weapons, he did absolutely nothing.
Long term they want to change the regime in Iran, which for 40 years has been terrorizing the West, Israel and now the whole region including Saudi arabia.
Also. Iran is on the brink of getting nuclear weapons. This needs to be stopped. Some leftists say it's a natural right for Iran to have nukes, since America, UK, France, Israel also have them. Would you be happy if Hitler had nukes too?
ReplyDeleteIsrael tried to kill this guy previously but the plans was leaked and thereby nixed by the Obama administration. Obviously the Israelis you talk to aren't working in the security apparatus
ReplyDeletesource?
ReplyDeleteAn Arab news report claimed that in 2015, Israel was “on the verge” of killing Iranian General Qassem Soleimani but President Barack Obama’s administration leaked details of the plans to Iran.
ReplyDeleteAn account of the leak was published in Haaretz in 2018. Haaretz cited a January 1, 2018 report in the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida that said that Israel was “on the verge” of assassinating Soleimani three years ago, near Damascus, but the United States warned the Iranian leadership of the plan, revealing that Israel was closely tracking the Iranian general. The incident, the report said, “sparked a sharp disagreement between the Israeli and American security and intelligence apparatuses regarding the issue.”...
https://www.breakingisraelnews.com/142705/report-obama-thwarted-israeli-plans-to-kill-soleimani-in-2015-by-leaking-plans-to-iran/
that is your "proof"?!
ReplyDeleteYou asked for a source. He cited multiple sources. I was going to point you to the haaretz article. That is a source. The Kuwaiti article is another source. If you wish for absolute proof in this world, there isn't absolute proof for many things.
ReplyDeletefrom the Times (London)
ReplyDeleteInteresting that Israel at one point sided with Islamic Iran in order to free 50,000 Jews.:
January 6 2020, 5:00pm, The Times
Was America to blame for Soleimani’s worldview?
Jack StrawShare
Save
General
Qassem Soleimani’s worldview was forged as “a direct result of US
involvement in the Iran-Iraq War”. That’s the judgement of US General
Stan McCrystal, a former commander of US forces in Iraq.
The significance of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War on the psyche not just of Soleimani
but on the whole of the Iranian regime cannot be overstated. Most of
the senior figures in Tehran, from Supreme Leader Khamenei and President
Rouhani downwards, had searing experiences in that war.
The
conflict began as an unprovoked adventure by Saddam Hussein. The
Iranians found themselves completely isolated. The Soviet Union and
France piled in to support Saddam, quickly followed by the US, the UK,
and virtually every other world power.
There was just one, extraordinary, exception – Israel. It
became the only reliable western supplier of arms to Iran – an
estimated $2 billion worth. China, North Korea and Libya also sold arms
to Iran but their kit was principally Soviet-made. Since most of Iran’s
arms were of US (and UK) origin Iran’s greatest need was for
US-compatible spare parts and for an endless supply of missiles.
Israel
took this position because it judged it had much more to fear from
Saddam than it did from the nascent Islamic Republic of Iran. But part
of its deal with Supreme Leader Khomeini was that any Iranian Jew who
wished to emigrate to Israel could do so without hindrance. Around
50,000 of the estimated 75,000 Jews in Iran left in this way. One
consequence of this influx has been to give the Israelis an unrivalled
capacity for intelligence on Iran.
Soleimani
was the second-best protected person in Iran after the Supreme Leader
(who has not set foot outside Iran since he assumed that role in 1989).
The Iranians did not advertise Soleimani’s movements since they knew he
was a potential target. It is almost certain that the intelligence on
him came from the Israelis.
But “intelligence” has two meanings.
One is secret information; the other is the wise application of
knowledge and skills. The Israelis have both in their dealings with
Iran. Soleimani had been in their sights for many years. They, and
presidents Bush and Obama, refused to kill him, not out of misplaced
sentimentality but because they judged that the costs of doing so far
outweighed any benefits.
They were right. Aside from any deaths
of American, Israeli, or other westerners in reprisal for Soleimani’s
killing, there will be wider consequences adverse to the United States’ and Israel’s interests, and beneficial to Iran, in two linked ways.
Trump’s actions
over the past two years, from pulling out of the nuclear deal to today,
have played into the hands of the hardliners in Iran, weakening the
power of reformists. The regime is using Soleimani’s death further to
strengthen its hold on an otherwise alienated population. Beyond Iran’s
borders, it is highly probable that US and other western forces may have
to leave Iraq. Hezbollah in Lebanon, itself facing a loss of popular
legitimacy, is also using this opportunity to shore up its support. The
net result will be an increase in Iranian (and Russian) influence in
this benighted part of the Middle East, and a loss of traction for the
US and the West. Whether it all helps President Trump’s re-election
remains to be seen. But if so, what a price to pay.
Jack Straw was foreign secretary 2001-6. He is the author of ‘The English Job – Understanding Iran’ published by Biteback.
Most of this is baseless speculation and pushing of his agenda. "Don't do anything except let Iranian regime walk all over you, or else you will strengthen the hardliners and weaken reformers!" Yeah ok, what did the reformers accomplish? He also completely omits mention of the Iran Contra Affair. Curious, isn't it?
ReplyDeletethat is not a serious source
ReplyDeleteso just blowup the situation and then we will decide what we want to do - that is obviously stupid!
ReplyDelete"so just blowup the situation and then we will decide what we want to do - that is obviously stupid!"
ReplyDeleteAnd obviously not what was done. The idea that this was done as you describe it here is believable only to someone committed to seeing it in the worst possible light and committed to seeing the current American President as a bumbling fool. (Or believable by someone extremely naive) What a fairytale. As if the Americnan military apparatus doesn't plan for repercussions to its decisions. Obviously, as the Iraq regime change debacle shows, you can't control or anticipate everything and Rumsfeld arguably botched the strategy, but the idea that they just willy nilly throw molotov cocktails into situations without planning or strategy is a Democrat Party driven narrative to diminish an American military accomplishment under the Trump presidency. It's a narrative they would never push had this exact same action been taken by a Democrat president.
What makes this "not a serious source?"
ReplyDeletehttps://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/u-s-gives-israel-green-light-to-assassinate-iran-s-general-soleimani-1.5630156
think about it
ReplyDeletethe only source for the claim is an Arab news source
if you have observed Trump - there is no evidence of deep thought for the future or honesty
ReplyDeletejust observe trump contradicting his own secretary of state about bombing cultural targets
or NY times report that Pentagon was shocked by his decision
Once they have nuclear weapons, then your whole scenario falls to pieces.
ReplyDeleteAre all Arab news sources not serious by default? It can't possibly be that they lie about every single thing they ever write, could it? That doesn't seem like a sane or rational or fair approach to things, but I grant you that they may be less trustworthy and less professional than western media (which itself is not "trustworthy" in a universal sense).
ReplyDeleteHowever, here is another source
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/obituaries/qassem-soleimani-dead.html
"At least once, though, Israeli officials ran the possibility of attacking him up their command structure. That was in February 2008, while Israeli and American intelligence operatives were tracking Mr. Mugniyah, the Hezbollah commander, in the hopes of killing him, according to senior American and Israeli intelligence officials. Operatives spotted the Hezbollah commander talking with another man, who they quickly determined was Mr. Suleimani.
Excited by the possibility of killing two archenemies at once, the Israelis phoned senior government officials. But Prime Minister Ehud Olmert denied the request, as he had promised the Americans that only Mr. Mugniyah would be targeted in the operation."
Now, it could be the NY Times is making this tale up out of thin air too. So maybe we should consider them "not serious" as well.
But surely, this is a SOURCE, which is what you asked me for. I cannot provide you with absolute proof of news reports and what journalists claim from their own sources in their articles. I can provide you a citation and a SOURCE to what I'm saying.
The source merely indicates I'm not making up stories wholecloth in my imagination which is what a suggestion that there is no source does imply. So providing the source refutes the idea that I dreamed this up in my bathroom, whether the source is strong or weak or from an Arab news agency you believe doesn't have credibility. It does not provide proof of absolute certainty of these events, no. As cannot be expected of me or anyone here.
NO!
ReplyDeleteBUT IT IS THE ONLY SOURCE AND PLAYS INTO THE HANDS OF THOSE WHO WANT TO FIND JUSTIFICATION TO ATTACK ISRAEL