WH memo: No mention of imminent threat

[Jredbaron96]

You blame the store clerk that sold the ammo after a shooting don't you?

The Iranians and no one else were responsible for downing that plane. Your pathetic attempt to blame Trump for that is weak beyond measure.

I mean it's nothing new. When Iraq fired upon one of our ships in the Persian Gulf we flat out stated Iran was to really to blame.

And when we shot down an Iranian airliner a few years, guess who we blamed?

 

[Lursa]

You blame the store clerk that sold the ammo after a shooting don't you?

The Iranians and no one else were responsible for downing that plane. Your pathetic attempt to blame Trump for that is weak beyond measure.

Wow, more unfounded speculative garbage.

And many blamed Trump...with total justification. Sorry if your demi-God once more forces his followers to look stupid attempting to justify his actions.

 

[Oozlefinch]

You blame the store clerk that sold the ammo after a shooting don't you?

The Iranians and no one else were responsible for downing that plane. Your pathetic attempt to blame Trump for that is weak beyond measure.

Hell, we did not even sell the ammo. It was shot down with an old Soviet era system.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Oozlefinch:

So you're going Godwin?!? I'm not playing the Nazi game.

Godwin fail.

Godwin's Law refers to somebody pulling up Hitler and making a comparison of any current figure to Hitler, therefore loosing the argument and the thread.

I did not mention der Wall Painter, nor did I mention Fascists, or Nazis, or anything else. I spoke specifically about 2 historical organizations, in a non-accusational or derogatory light, as a historical reference. Even trying to imply Godwin applies in this situation is a fail.

For those that do not know, Godwin's Law is a 30 year old adage, which basically goes that the longer a discussion goes on, the chance of somebody making a comparison to Nazis or Hitler approaches 1 (in other words is inevitable). And by doing so the person who makes the reference looses the discussion and the debate ends.

However, he is talking about a political thread, where somebody just compares a modern politician or party to be the same as those of Fascist Germany. So yes, whenever somebody is say talking about President Trump and they have to say he is Hitler or a Nazi, then yes. That person looses under Godwin's Law.

It does not apply however when discussing organizations in a neutral manner as I have.

Oh, and BTW< many have even considered Mike Godwin's law to be "Godwinized" itself. Since many times in the last few years he has said that it is fair to call the current President "Hitler", and any Right Wing person or group a "Nazi". And that the Trump detention centers are "Concentration Camps". His moving over the years from moderate to far-left has really made many think he himself automatically looses by his own law.

The distinction between the Quds Force and the Regular Iranian forces is about the same as the differences between US Special Forces seconded to CIA operations or working with American Red Teams or working in US embassy staffs or covert military operations conducted by the military alone compared to overt US regular military force's operations. It's the same difference between Russian Special Forces waging deniable hybrid warfare or British Special Boat or Air Services operating covertly in Africa.

And if somebody dies in a conflict zone, then so be it. But they have to realize now, they are playing with the "big boys". We took somebody out, they made a massive retaliation strike in return. So they should not be surprised the next time they decide to fire at one of our warships, or take some of our sailors hostage that we might respond in the exact same way in return. And at that point, they can't say a damn thing about it.

But this is a guy that was on International terrorist watch lists (not just the UN). NATO, the EU, all had prohibitions on his traveling. Hell, he was even listed by name in a United Nations Security Council Sanction. How many people are specifically named in a UNSCR resolution that are not the leader of a nation?

 

[Oozlefinch]

You keep 'putting words in my mouth' based on your own biases. I wrote no such things.

No, that is based upon your own actions and reactions. Myself and others have brought up many other incidents and atrocities, and you always respond the same way. "Off-Topic", "moving the goalpost", "does not matter", etc, etc, etc.

In other words, we are just calling you as we see you. A biased political hack, that only wants to discuss things that ultimately show how you believe in things politically. You are the one that reacts and behaves that way, so why not just admit it.

You see, that is the difference between people that really care, and those that are only political hacks. To us that care, any loss is a tragedy. To people who behave as you are, they are nothing more than talking points. And points to be used against another in a rather sick version of darts.

Now you can call "BS" all you want, feel free to do so. However, realize that I have a long history here in the Military section of talking about such things. Some of my earliest threads in here were about Neda. And about Darfur, and the mass slaughters and atrocities of the Taliban and most recently ISIS. So you can say that all you want, but the thing is you will find it will not stick. Because I do have a history in here of standing up in defense of anybody, regardless of their race, religion, or politics.

I am also a well known "militant moderate", that does not take sides in political crapfests. Can you say this as well? I hated those with ODS, I hate those with TDS. TO me it is all the same thing, people who can not discuss a subject rationally so instead resort to throwing crap. I do not participate in such nonsense, and look at those who do as covered in crap.

But yea, make any accusation you want. It just shows you are just a thrower, and yet another I should never take seriously because you are so biased you are blind to anything that is not biased with you.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Wow, more unfounded speculative garbage.

And many blamed Trump...with total justification. Sorry if your demi-God once more forces his followers to look stupid attempting to justify his actions.

Many blame Trump because they are as stupid as a box of hammers. The Iranians shot down the plane, the Iranians are to blame---full stop. Scapegoating is an excuse, not a reason.

 

[Lursa]

Many blame Trump because they are as stupid as a box of hammers. The Iranians shot down the plane, the Iranians are to blame---full stop. Scapegoating is an excuse, not a reason.

Most follow Trump blindly for the same reason.

The Iranians shot down a plane (accidentally) in retaliation for our thus-far unsupported, unnecessary attack...connecting the dots shouldnt be that hard if someone is capable of basic reading. The Iranians are guilty but would not have acted except for the provocation of the narcissistic orange moron.

See? You cant actually argue the topic so you resort to insults...and end up looking ineffective, mindlessly assimilated, and petty.

I just held up a mirror for you, to help you connect "these" dots.

 

[Lursa]

No, that is based upon your own actions and reactions. Myself and others have brought up many other incidents and atrocities, and you always respond the same way. "Off-Topic", "moving the goalpost", "does not matter", etc, etc, etc.

In other words, we are just calling you as we see you. A biased political hack, that only wants to discuss things that ultimately show how you believe in things politically. You are the one that reacts and behaves that way, so why not just admit it.

You see, that is the difference between people that really care, and those that are only political hacks. To us that care, any loss is a tragedy. To people who behave as you are, they are nothing more than talking points. And points to be used against another in a rather sick version of darts.

Now you can call "BS" all you want, feel free to do so. However, realize that I have a long history here in the Military section of talking about such things. Some of my earliest threads in here were about Neda. And about Darfur, and the mass slaughters and atrocities of the Taliban and most recently ISIS. So you can say that all you want, but the thing is you will find it will not stick. Because I do have a history in here of standing up in defense of anybody, regardless of their race, religion, or politics.

I am also a well known "militant moderate", that does not take sides in political crapfests. Can you say this as well? I hated those with ODS, I hate those with TDS. TO me it is all the same thing, people who can not discuss a subject rationally so instead resort to throwing crap. I do not participate in such nonsense, and look at those who do as covered in crap.

But yea, make any accusation you want. It just shows you are just a thrower, and yet another I should never take seriously because you are so biased you are blind to anything that is not biased with you.

TL;dr

 

[OpportunityCost]

Most follow Trump blindly for the same reason.

The Iranians shot down a plane (accidentally) in retaliation for our thus-far unsupported, unnecessary attack...connecting the dots shouldnt be that hard if someone is capable of basic reading. The Iranians are guilty but would not have acted except for the provocation of the narcissistic orange moron.

See? You cant actually argue the topic so you resort to insults...and end up looking ineffective, mindlessly assimilated, and petty.

I just held up a mirror for you, to help you connect "these" dots.

How do you get from killing a military target to shooting down civilians?

The Iranians decided to shoot down a plane full of innocent people because they buy into terrorism. They believe violence against soft targets to inflict harm is a viable strategy.

It's barbaric to do that act and it's idiotic to shift the blame for that act.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

 

[Jredbaron96]

How do you get from killing a military target to shooting down civilians?

The Iranians decided to shoot down a plane full of innocent people because they buy into terrorism. They believe violence against soft targets to inflict harm is a viable strategy.

It's barbaric to do that act and it's idiotic to shift the blame for that act.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

Yeah, do you have proof for that?

Far more likely (given that it's happened several times in history) is that the aircraft was misidentified by an air defense crew and shot down under the mistaken assumption it was a hostile aircraft. Wouldn't be the first time.

 

[Lursa]

How do you get from killing a military target to shooting down civilians?

The Iranians decided to shoot down a plane full of innocent people because they buy into terrorism. They believe violence against soft targets to inflict harm is a viable strategy.

It's barbaric to do that act and it's idiotic to shift the blame for that act.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk

See? You are completely sold on such a ridiculously biased notion it's not possible to pry your mind open to reality. Feel free to prove it was intentional to shoot down a passenger airline.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Most follow Trump blindly for the same reason.

The Iranians shot down a plane (accidentally) in retaliation

How in the hell do you do something accidentally in retaliation?

Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

 

[Lursa]

How in the hell do you do something accidentally in retaliation?

Is that like being a little bit pregnant?

They made a mistake when targeting? A mistake in identifying the target? Mistakes happen, "friendly fire," etc.

You've learned at least a little bit about war and fighting, in history class, at least? :roll:

 

[Oozlefinch]

They made a mistake when targeting? A mistake in identifying the target? Mistakes happen, "friendly fire," etc.

You've learned at least a little bit about war and fighting, in history class, at least? :roll:

*laughs*

OK, here is clue one. Feel free to google my name. Or here, let me do it for you:

The Oozlefinch is the unofficial historic mascot of the Air Defense Artillery – and formerly of the U.S. Army Coast Artillery Corps. The Oozlefinch is portrayed as a featherless bird that flies backwards (at supersonic speeds) and carries weapons of the Air Defense and Coast Artillery, most often a Nike-Hercules Missile. Oozlefinch has been portrayed in many different forms and artistic interpretations through its history.

And today, it is the mascot of PATRIOT missiles. Which was my actual job in the military for over 5 years.

So mistake in targeting? Mistake in identifying the target? Those are not "mistakes"! This is complete and utter retardation, where I am surprised the person who gave the OK and the person next to him who also pushed the button even had enough functioning brain cells to remember to breathe.

I have gone over this in detail before, but here is a brief rundown. This was a huge airliner, there is no way that anybody should have made a mistake if it was a missile or not. Wrong size, wrong speed, wrong altitude, it was taking off from the airport it was shot down at for goodness sakes! And it would have been pinging CIVILIAN in the IFF discriminator, a clear sign it was not a missile. And unless they have done something really stupid to this system, it would require 2 people to activate the fire command, that means 2 people were both in agreement for some reason this was a missile. That suddenly popped up from nowhere and was TAKING OFF FROM THEIR OWN AIRPORT!

And the Officer in charge of that battery who gave the order to fire was just as retarded.

Now "Friendly Fire" and the rest I might actually start to accept, IF THE JET HAD NOT BEEN TAKING OFF FROM THE SAME AIRPORT IT WAS SHOT DOWN AT! That is not a mistake, that is not "friendly fire", that is criminal negligence at the least. And the fact it was shot not once but twice, 30 seconds apart shows even more problems. In that entire situation, not one person in the fire chain thought to check their target.

Then add on top of that the fact that they tried to deny it for days. At least when the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988, they admitted it immediately, and the circumstances were very different. But they did not deny it for days until enough evidence was released to the International press that they could not deny it anymore.

Yea, I get you are trying to mock and insult me. To bad for you, we are actually talking about what my job was. And yea, I am actually a major history as well as military buff. Of course, over 22 years in the military tends to do that.

 

[Rogue Valley]

They made a mistake when targeting? A mistake in identifying the target? Mistakes happen, "friendly fire," etc.

You've learned at least a little bit about war and fighting, in history class, at least? :roll:

Not too unlike the sort of mistake that happened near Torez eastern Ukraine with Malaysian Flight MH17 and the Buk missile crew.

The Russians thought it to be another Ukraine military Il-76 transport aircraft like they shot down the previous month with a MANPAD killing all 49.

 

[Lursa]

*laughs*

OK, here is clue one. Feel free to google my name. Or here, let me do it for you:



And today, it is the mascot of PATRIOT missiles. Which was my actual job in the military for over 5 years.

So mistake in targeting? Mistake in identifying the target? Those are not "mistakes"! This is complete and utter retardation, where I am surprised the person who gave the OK and the person next to him who also pushed the button even had enough functioning brain cells to remember to breathe.

I have gone over this in detail before, but here is a brief rundown. This was a huge airliner, there is no way that anybody should have made a mistake if it was a missile or not. Wrong size, wrong speed, wrong altitude, it was taking off from the airport it was shot down at for goodness sakes! And it would have been pinging CIVILIAN in the IFF discriminator, a clear sign it was not a missile. And unless they have done something really stupid to this system, it would require 2 people to activate the fire command, that means 2 people were both in agreement for some reason this was a missile. That suddenly popped up from nowhere and was TAKING OFF FROM THEIR OWN AIRPORT!

And the Officer in charge of that battery who gave the order to fire was just as retarded.

Now "Friendly Fire" and the rest I might actually start to accept, IF THE JET HAD NOT BEEN TAKING OFF FROM THE SAME AIRPORT IT WAS SHOT DOWN AT! That is not a mistake, that is not "friendly fire", that is criminal negligence at the least. And the fact it was shot not once but twice, 30 seconds apart shows even more problems. In that entire situation, not one person in the fire chain thought to check their target.

Then add on top of that the fact that they tried to deny it for days. At least when the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988, they admitted it immediately, and the circumstances were very different. But they did not deny it for days until enough evidence was released to the International press that they could not deny it anymore.

Yea, I get you are trying to mock and insult me. To bad for you, we are actually talking about what my job was. And yea, I am actually a major history as well as military buff. Of course, over 22 years in the military tends to do that.

TL;dr

I think you have mistaken me for someone that is still interested in the discussion.

 

[Oozlefinch]

TL;dr

I think you have mistaken me for someone that is still interested in the discussion.

You are a troll then, got it.

 

[Lursa]

You are a troll then, got it.

DIdnt start that way, your nonsense was to overwhelming to keep bothering with.

Yeah, Iran intentionally shot down their own airliner. (Knowing they couldnt hide the fact that they did...which they couldnt.) :doh

 

[braindrain]

Thanks for the marching orders. I dont need to respond to that. Maybe you can try again and figure it out for yourself. (Here's a hint: I responded to a topic on a specific incident...not your hyperbolic drama 'all over the world.')

Just like I thought. You can’t do it but are going to keep pretending. How unsurprisingly dishonest.

 

[braindrain]

Do you really want to argue that senior Bush administration officials did not want to invade Iran?



You seem to ignore the idea that it happened in favor of a narrative that Iran has always hated us and always wanted to kill Americans.

I have seen zero evidence that it was ever considered in any meaningful way way. And really no real evidence that it was ever even considered at all. And I doubt you have either it you would have posted it. But feel free to believe as you wish.

No that’s just you reading what you want to not what is actually written.

 

[Lursa]

Thanks for the marching orders. I dont need to respond to that. Maybe you can try again and figure it out for yourself. (Here's a hint: I responded to a topic on a specific incident...not your hyperbolic drama 'all over the world.')

Just like I thought. You can’t do it but are going to keep pretending. How unsurprisingly dishonest.

LOL, Didnt take the hint I see.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I have seen zero evidence that it was ever considered in any meaningful way way. And really no real evidence that it was ever even considered at all. And I doubt you have either it you would have posted it. But feel free to believe as you wish.

Right, Cheney and Rumsfield never would have given any kind of impression they would like to invade Iran. Ever. General Clarks is just talking out of his ass.

No that’s just you reading what you want to not what is actually written.

Oh please tell me what has actually been written. I'm dying to hear it.

 

[Jredbaron96]

How in the hell do you do something accidentally in retaliation?

Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia

 

[Tigerace117]

Braindrain:

The US POTUS broke American law. Attacking Iranian military officers directly using American military assets is an act of war. So is attacking Iraqi militias in their barracks and Iraqi officers in the motorcade from the Baghdad Airport in which Maj. Gen. Soleimani was killed. These were acts of war and the memo clearly illustrates there was no imminent threat. This President Trump had no right to launch these attacks without Congressional authority beforehand. Therefore the US president clearly broke US law in ordering the attacks on Iraqi militias (which have been legally incorporated into the Iraqi armed forces) and the two Iranian officers in Iraq and Yemen. The fact that the US Government has branded a part of the Iranian military a terrorist organisation does not get Mr. Trump off the hook for breaking American law and lying about it. The Government of Iran has declared the US military a terrorist organisation. Following your logic then all American military personnel are fair game for Iran because of this declaration. But clearly they are not. Nor are Iranian military officers unless you are in a state of declared war with Iran, which the USA is not.

Iran has been using proxies to kill and wound US military personnel, it has not done the killing and wounding directly like the US Government has done (except for the missile strikes in retaliation for the US assassinations). So Iran has done what it has done with second-hand distance unlike Mr. Trump's direct strikes. This plausible deniability, while a fig-leaf, is at least a small barrier making Iranian special operations slightly less illegal than Mr. Trump's direct attacks.

Finally US troops have no legitimate business being openly in Iraq and Syria and covertly in Yemen, so attacks by local populations, supported by Iranian special forces and intelligence assets are a legal act of military resistance to an illegally occupying military force. Get the heck out of Syria, Yemen and Iraq and the killing and maiming will decrease. You can dominate the region from your legal bases in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Turkey. Just get out, you're not wanted there and your military presence in these three countries is destabilising the whole region.

Finally your insulting tone is of no consequence as I have very tough skin. So whine and complain all you want about my posts, but they will not stop. In this case (and in many others) the American military and the American POTUS were in the wrong and were in violation of US law. No amount of crying or recrimination on your part will change that, so please grow up and conduct yourself like a reasonable adult rather than a petulant child in a tantrum.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

.....We are in Iraq and Syria to fight groups such as ISIS and affiliates of Al Qaeda. Are you seriously trying to argue those entities’ efforts to kill US soldiers are justified?

What a crock of ****. There is absolutely no evidence to think groups like ISIS would stop conducting attacks if the US suddenly decided “screw it, we are going to go hide behind the oceans”. In fact, it seems rather likely that there would be an all out scramble to fill the void left by US departure....and that would cause exponentially more deaths.

The rest of your post is equally nonsensical, but that part especially stood out.

 

[j brown's body]

Who cares? The dude needed to die.

Nothing summarizes his life better than this.

It should be his epitaph.