Reality, the assassination of Qassem Solemani is not like, as some commentators are insisting, someone had killed a US general in Iraq.
Qassem Solemani not only was declared a terrorist, he was in Iraq.
Can you not grasp that? Is it too much for you, that one letter? I see so many mistakes -- "Iran" going in for "Iraq" -- that maybe you're just too stupid for words, I don't know.
But Solemani was in Iraq.
And Solemani was leading a militia in Iraq.
Now the Sunday attack was an attack on the Iraqi military, an attack on Iraq. And we made that point when the rest of you had your heads up your asses as usual because -- whether you're Margaret Kimberley or Medea Benjamin -- you just don't give a f**k about Iraq or the Iraqi people.
But let an Iranain official die and you all come rushing out of the woodwork with your impassioned and never dying worship of the Iranian regime. Your love of totalitarian regimes is so cute -- in a desperately, f**ked up way. And don't pretend you're supporting the Iranian people because you're not and people who support the Iranian people don't reTweet garbage like this:
Margaret Kimberley Retweeted
We honor the memory of General Soleimani and the many sacrifices he made fighting US-led or fomented terrorism in the Middle East.
So Margaret, after that Tweet, I'm really not surprised that after calling out CodeStink, you're back on board with them.
Solemani was a terrorist. He wasn't a friend to peace. He terrorized Sunnis in Iraq. He also did not defeat ISIS in Iraq and to make that claim is not just to sport stupidity, it is to insult the Iraqi people.
F**k you all, I'm not in the mood for your stupidity in 2020.
He was in Iraq.
Do you get that, is it too damn hard for you? Does your stupidity also include not grasping geography?
He was in Iraq.
The attack on Sunday was an attack on the Iraqi military because the militias had been folded into the military -- we objected here in real time because of the documented abuses that the militias had carried out. These are the same documented abuses that are now ignored as Solemani is turned into a just and kind hero.
He's a terrorist.
And you can worship him all you want -- your stupidity allows you to make the decision to worship a terrorist.
Here's what your stupidity doesn't allow you to do -- make an argument that assassinating him was an act of war -- killing a general in a battlefield, some of you exclaim!
He wasn't a general. Not one commanding a battlefield.
We'll repeat it one more time for the thinking impaired: Iraq.
The Iraqi military was attacked by the US on Sunday. Killing Solemani was not attacking the Iraqi military.
'He's a commander!' so many idiots scream. He was in the Iranian military. But he wasn't in the Iraqi military. Is it really hard for you to grasp that? How dumb are you?
And here's the kicker, do the legal you stupid idiots, his being in Iraq to command a militia? That was a subversion of the militia which was folded into the Iraqi military. He, an Iranian citizen, was telling a section of the Iraqi military what to do. That's a countermand to the Iraqi military, that's ignoring the built in chain of command as well as Iraq's national sovereignty.
No, a general was not killed on the battlefield because there are not supposed to be Iranian troops in Iraq. (And that's long been the stated opinion of the Iraqi people and that's long been something Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani has rejected.)
Do you not grasp that or that the Iraqi people wouldn't stand for Iranian command over their military?
Oh, of course you don't grasp that because you don't give a s**t about the Iraqi people.
The protesters -- the ones you've ignored Margaret Kimberely for months, the ones BLACK AGENDA REPORT has failed to offer a single article on -- have protested the US and the Iranian governments interference in Iraq. And it wasn't US forces who have been killing the protesters -- it's been the Iranian-backed militia element of the Iraqi military.
Solemani was a designated terrorist. He frequently went into Iraq. He had no official role in Iraq and he certainly had no right to order or advise the Iraqi military.
Does the US? They have a Memo of Understanding that goes back to December of 2012.
I know that because we first covered it in real time and we've covered it very often since. To help the very ignorant, let's drop back to the April 30, 2013 Iraq snapshot for one example:
December 6, 2012, the Memorandum of Understanding For Defense Cooperation Between the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the Department Defense of the United States of America was signed. We covered it in the December 10th and December 11th snapshots -- lots of luck finding coverage elsewhere including in media outlets -- apparently there was some unstated agreement that everyone would look the other way. It was similar to the silence that greeted Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report which noted, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."
I've read it. I've written about. I understand it's legal meaning.
I know it's fresh news -- even though the first document is almost 8 years old -- for those who never give a damn about Iraq but that document does give the US military the right to be on the ground in Iraq. It does not confine them to bases. It does allow for them to train the Iraqi military and to go on various missions -- including raids.
Read the document if you ever decide you might want to actually learn something and not just be a knee-jerk ass who needs to turn a terrorist into a cute little woodland creature out of an animated DISNEY flick.
Did the US government attack Iraq?
On Sunday, I'd argue they did because they attacked the Iraqi military. I'd also argue that, legally, they're protected in that attack. They brought the outgoing prime minister in on that decision, Adil Abdul-Mahdi. That, legally, gives them wiggle room. (And, for the record, all legal interpretations are based upon US law and any treaty or understanding the US government entered into with the Iraqi government. International law does not trump US law. That's the system we live in, acknowledge it and, if you don't like it, work to change it but don't waste our time with jerk off fantasies -- Agnes Callamard, I'm looking at you, we both know you're grandstanding.)
Bringing the Iraqi prime minister in on the Sunday bombing ahead of the bombing was important in many ways and people might want to think about that because I'm getting damn tired of doing the logical walk throughs while everyone else traffics in desperate emotions and unbased reality.
Regardless of legality -- and, yes, I'll agree it was legal -- I call the attack on Sunday an attack on Iraq.
But the attack on Soleimani?
I believe Congress enacted a number of laws. I believe Barbara Lee wants credit not just for voting against one but also for 'trying' to repeal it. When Mike Gravel wanted the draft repealed, Babsie, he didn't 'try,' he did it.
Right or wrong, those laws give the president -- whomever it is -- the right to do what Donald Trump did.
Donald killed a foreigner in Iraq who had killed US troops and threatened US troops, a foreigner who was designated a terrorist (that designation goes back to the first administration of Barack Obama).
I don't like drone killings. But I've objected here.
What I object to, even more than Donald Trump's actions (which, again, I didn't sleep on Thursday night -- I learned the meaning of "tossed and turned" as Billie Holiday sang it), are the actions of so many pretending to be outraged on behalf of Iraq today.
The idiots that Kimberley reTweeted don't give a damn about Iraq. They're dedicated to enshrining a terrorist and we need to be honest about that. He is responsible for the deaths of so many Iraqis. He is and he was a terrorist.
If any of these useless people would have focused on Iraq, this wouldn't have happened.
You all accepted US troops on the ground in Iraq. And then you went about your useless lives. You put on pink hats and marched for . . . the right to be angry? You poured your energies into impeachment and other meaningless efforts.
And the Iraq War continued.
Wars that are allowed to drag on tend to spread. If you didn't know that? Well, I really can't be surprised anymore by the depth of your stupidity.
Except for ANTIWAR.COM (and this site), I don't believe anyone in the US has had any space dedicated to continued and daily coverage of the ongoing Iraq War.
You've gone about your lives being just as useless as you wanted to be and now you're peeing in your briefs and panties because WWIII might break out!!!!!!
There's are many reasons to demand an end to endless wars. This week, you saw one reason. Maybe it'll wake some people up.
Not the idiots enshrining a terrorist but the others might be able to wake up.
I'm noting this right now, people who continue to portray Soleimani as a DISNEY character will be ignored by this site (probably by all community sites). I'm not here to advance the image rehabilitation of terrorists and, unlike some, I'm not going to forget what has been done to the Sunni people of Iraq. They were long ago abandoned by the world press, I'm not going to act like they're invisible as well.
Those of you who are embracing a terrorist are making a choice and it's ethically wrong. It's also deeply stupid because you're known 'Trump haters' and this is an election year. You'll be on TV praising your terrorist and it's just going to push people closer to Donald -- in an election year.
"And look, it's the anti-Trump nuts, gathering to scream and yell and declare Soleimani a saint!"
That'll play well to the American people.
I would say, "Just focus on your opposition to drone killings," but, let's face it, they're really not even opposed to that. CodeStink staged no protest during any of the drone killings -- not even Barack used a drone to intentionally kill an American citizen.
Oh, and while we're dropping truth bombs, ISIS was never defeated and vanquished. It's still operating in Iraq. But if you ask the Iraqi people who was the big leader on pushing back against ISIS, they'd never name Soleimani. He's a foreigner. He's not part of the Iraqi military. Many would name Lt Gen Abdul Wahab al-Saadi.
Who?
Oh, that's right, you don't care about Iraq so you don't realize that he was fired by Mahdi at the end of September and that this led to huge objections and the start of the ongoing protests in Iraq.
Hold on to your stupidity, for many of you, I fear it's all that you have. Now I'm going to start pruning the links on the side of this site. I don't treat killers of civilians as cute and cuddly types nor do I embrace fools who do.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
