ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, January 06, 2020

The Deep State stunned

Remember, the narrative is not synonymous with the truth. Read this article published by the Washington Post twice, first with a mainstream perspective, then with your Q filter turned on:
In the chaotic days leading to the death of Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, Iran’s most powerful commander, top American military officials put the option of killing him — which they viewed as the most extreme response to recent Iranian-led violence in Iraq — on the menu they presented to President Trump.

They didn’t think he would take it. In the wars waged since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Pentagon officials have often offered improbable options to presidents to make other possibilities appear more palatable.

After initially rejecting the Suleimani option on Dec. 28 and authorizing airstrikes on an Iranian-backed Shiite militia group instead, a few days later Mr. Trump watched, fuming, as television reports showed Iranian-backed attacks on the American Embassy in Baghdad, according to Defense Department and administration officials.

By late Thursday, the president had gone for the extreme option. Top Pentagon officials were stunned.
Who, one wonders, are these "top" American military officials and Pentagon officials? To whom, or what, are they loyal? And how tactically capable are they if they are foolish enough to engage in this sort of transparent managing-up with a personality like the god-emperor?

Labels: , ,

114 Comments:

Blogger Akulkis January 06, 2020 7:30 AM  

What kind of 4-star is "stunned" that the raiding and burning of an American diplomatic compound is replied to with violence against any of the perpatrators?

Blogger basementhomebrewer January 06, 2020 7:33 AM  

In my early career I reported to people like these "top officials". Tactics like this always result in mountains of wasted effort. Putting together plans for an "extreme option" still takes as much effort as putting together plans that they think will actually be executed. Further, the person they are reporting to almost always is aware of what they are trying to do. To mess with them the "I don't like any of these options, get me new options by the end of the day" card is played occasionally, just to make them and their staff squirm.

The other tactic is what Trump did here and pick the extreme option to teach them a lesson. They tend to not learn from it though.

Blogger JACIII January 06, 2020 7:34 AM  

Archive link https://archive.md/xV7T8

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( according to the 13th Amendment, Slavery is neither Cruel nor Unusual: MSAGA ) January 06, 2020 7:37 AM  

"which they viewed as the most extreme response"

he was nominally purported to be in control of many groups in Iraq operating against US military forces.

he was purported to have organized the attack on our Iraq embassy.

therefore, he is an enemy combatant, IN COUNTRY within the nation which we were "invited" to help defend.

what kind of a treasonous piece of shit would characterize targeting enemy generals as "extreme"? was it "extreme" when we shot down Yamamoto?

who are these idiots? and why do they hold any rank at all?

Blogger Trump Ally January 06, 2020 7:39 AM  

Through this action Trump struck fear into everyone including our own weakling leaders.

In on action he planted serious doubt into the minds of everyone including China, North Korea, Russia and the democrats.

This move was bold and a stroke of genius.

Like having a pet cobra. You just never know if this is the time it decides to kill me.

This action also reduced impeachment to foolishness.

Blogger Avalanche January 06, 2020 7:46 AM  

The Pentagon also tacked on the choice of targeting General Suleimani, mainly to make other options seem reasonable. ... the Iranians viewed the strikes as out of proportion to their attack on the Iraqi base ....

And the NYT knows this how?! They asked a bunch of men-on-the-street IN Iran and Iraq? Somehow? I doubt that.

And I wonder who asked these generals and advisors why they put the general-take-out on the list -- or did the "reporters" (i.e., fantastists) make it up out of whole cloth? WHY would we think these senior military folks would NOT want to take a leading general out?

And, oh look: one of the authors of the article: “Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent. She joined The Times in 2015 as a campaign correspondent and was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald Trump’s advisers and their connections to Russia.”

Now THERE is a reliable source for "news." Not.


"On Capitol Hill, Democrats voiced growing suspicions about the intelligence that led to the killing."

No, really?! The DEMS are becoming suspicious?! Say it ain't so! Those would be the "Russia-collusion," fire Adm. Rogers, destroy Gen Flynn, SWAT Roger Stone, "Ukrainian collusion," etc. etc. Dems?!

Blogger MaskettaMan January 06, 2020 7:50 AM  

They're supposedly offering Trump options THAT WILL KILL PERSONS as if they were different cars on a lot. "Let's show him the nuclear war option first so the diplomatic incident one will seem more within his price range."

There should be only one best option, no? Ridiculous.

Blogger Gettimothy January 06, 2020 7:53 AM  


“Let your plans be dark and as impenetratable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.”

The top! pentagon officials just got Trump tzu'd . That they are stuned is a great thing. Be a shame if a bunch of low trust top! officials got real fearful and started behaving irrationally .

Politicos should rest easy tho. they are tiptop!! officials and there is only one thunderbolt in a storm.

Blogger mh01701@gmail.com January 06, 2020 7:55 AM  

The MSM is covering Iran's 'prep for war' twice and half of Iran is celebrating which they are covering nonce. I guess the truth is whatever they can make people believe.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( according to the 13th Amendment, Slavery is neither Cruel nor Unusual: MSAGA ) January 06, 2020 7:56 AM  

"Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and General Milley declined to comment for this article, but General Milley’s spokeswoman, Col. DeDe Halfhill, said, without elaborating, that “some of the characterizations being asserted by other sources are false” and that she would not discuss conversations between General Milley and the president."

i note with amusement that Dede's response IS THE ONLY REMOTELY ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE to declining to comment at all.

ANY OTHER comment to the national media is a violation of the most elementary OpSec and is likely a National Security violation.

Blogger The Cooler January 06, 2020 7:59 AM  

Trump embodies many things that strike some as superficially contradictory:

Poor orator but effective communicator
Egotistical yet humble
Honest, but not a fool.

So on and so forth.

These enable him to run strategic circles around his opponents and detractors, especially when he gets rent-free space as their neurotic object. It has been a joy to watch and decipher; and let us hope an object lesson.

Blogger CM January 06, 2020 8:01 AM  

The same people who got Goddess Katherine elected Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church some years ago.

Sounds like the same stupid manipulative game.

Blogger D E K January 06, 2020 8:05 AM  

Thanks for the lesson.
The hybris with witch they openly speak about their managing skills of their perceived puppet is astounding. But I must admit I would overread this caveat. Interesting that they always have to admit their wrongdoing and take credit...

Blogger Lazarus January 06, 2020 8:06 AM  

They are self-serving BS merchants like General Petraeus.

As the recently released Afghanistan Papers have revealed the entire premise of the Petraeus’ strategy was based on lies; fundamental falsehoods; and an upper-tier military devoid of anyone willing to say the emperor was naked. It was all BS.

Blogger NegrosBear January 06, 2020 8:07 AM  

Patrick Cockburn the journalist has an interesting article stating that Suleimani royally messed up the last 3 months by having he's militia guys snipe at anti-government/Iran protesters. This was leading the Iraqi nationalist parties side with the US and have them stay in Iraq longer

And much like how the 2nd invasion of Iraq was such a gift to Iran.

This has given Iran leverage now to unite with the Iraqi nationalist parties to kick out the US forces


If this is GE's plan all along to get the boys back home it's brilliant

Blogger Hylean January 06, 2020 8:08 AM  

Is our national strategy really based on a Simpsons movie joke?

I hope they dome chicago.

Blogger Wraith January 06, 2020 8:14 AM  

"Top men, Dr. Jones. TOP. Men."

Blogger LiveForever January 06, 2020 8:17 AM  

If Trump uses this situation to withdraw American troops from the region, it's quite possibly his greatest strategic achievement since taking office.

It's certainly shocked and angered many of the right people.

Blogger Jeff Weimer January 06, 2020 8:17 AM  

That's almost completely horse-puckey. No one, NO ONE gives their commander an option that is "too extreme" expecting him to reject it. Granted, I understand that's how Obama was managed politically, but the Pentagon doesn't operate like that. There's been an intelligence team on Soeilimani (sic) for *months*, and everyone involved understood it was a viable option. This was preparation meeting opportunity - If he was in Iran it would likely be off the table. But he was in our combat zone and thus fair game.

Blogger cecilhenry January 06, 2020 8:34 AM  

We'll just have to hope Trump sees some video of Tim Wise, Barbara Spectre or hundred of anti-Whites in major positions pushing their hostility.


Meanwhile, 400,000 anchor babies were born in the United States in 2019, exceeding the births in 48 states.

Blogger Ingot9455 January 06, 2020 8:35 AM  

This is also worth reading with a 'The Simpsons Movie' filter as a very similar scene appears in that movie.

Blogger Salt January 06, 2020 8:36 AM  

An off the wall thought -

Is Iran truly the problem? What were those other options laid before the President he opted not to use? Perhaps they were more inflammatory towards continued conflict, a benefit to deep state (and the neocons), than the message delivered.

Looking at this as a Deep State convoluted Hail Mary, what would be needed other than enough neocon Senate impeachment votes to get rid of Trump? Where does Pence stand on foreign interventions? Why is Pelosi holding on to the articles but hoping for some deliverance from the predicament she got herself into? From deep state's perspective, it's Trump who is the enemy. He won't play their game.

Blogger Silent Draco January 06, 2020 8:38 AM  

After four years, it's still funny that officials don't have some idea of the god-emperor's personality.

Thought: these "top officials" are second tier, many hangers-on or promoters from previous administration. Some are third tier planners and staffers. SOP for any decision brief like that is to manage your desired options for what you want (not decision maker's choices) above a " we can't do that" line. Boss picks one from your list, send the order, then a long lunch. SOP for the GE is ... not bureaucrat. They leaked to the press, but at least not on the carpet in the briefing room.

Blogger Johnny January 06, 2020 8:45 AM  

The only inside info in that article is the contention that Trump was offered taking out Suleimani on Dec. 28. Interesting I suppose but not really remarkable or highly revealing. The ideology content: the idea that taking him out was stupendously extreme. Maybe they should start capitalizing the word EXTREME.

Well, you know, you are a writer, you want to make a living, so you turn out what you can.

It is surely starting to look like the want the violence and turmoil in the Middle East. And on the assumption that we should be doing what they don't like, taking out the leadership when we can is the smartest thing we can do.

Blogger Stilicho January 06, 2020 8:49 AM  

Media lens: "extreme response", "improbable options"... why, this guy is unhinged and me must impeach now!

Q lens: Deep state unable to protect Persian ally. Iranian connections to DS? Obama? Jarrett? Kerry? Storm imminent? Deep state just got played. These people aren't very bright. It's TGE's chess board and you're just drooling on it, fake news!

Now do Afghanistan!

Blogger patlalrique January 06, 2020 8:52 AM  

Agreed, that's the first thing that came to my mind: did Trump get appropriate counsel? He likes to surround himself with dubious characters to please Washington's establishment, it was inevitable that this tactic would come back to bite him someday. Did his people tell him who exactly were the targets on the list presented to him?

Vox mentioned yesterday that Trump could have taken credit for a hit carried out by Israel and I find this option credible. It is likely though that we will never get a confirmation of what exactly happened.

I'm saying this because this hit seems so far from how Trump has been conducting himself since he became president that I have the impression something is very fishy here. Not that this is something new with American politics.

For Fox News, the ludicrous theory brought forward by the White House that Soleimani was preparing an imminent attack on American nationals is now acted.

It is more that the highly respected Iranian General was preventing more chaos to occur in the region, if anything.

You should see Kellyanne Conway right now on TV talking about the ''weakness'' of the democrats. So launching a missile from a flying far away drone is courage, bravery and strength?

Nobody's want a world war now. Well, almost nobody I mean.

Blogger tublecane January 06, 2020 8:56 AM  

This story is told in the MSM, which professes to believe neither in Deep State nor "conspiracy theories," and it's supposed to make Trump look bad. But where do they get off admitting they try to manipulate presidents like that? You might lose your job if you tried that with your boss over buying extra cake for a birthday party.

What do we call this ploy? The false mean? "Well, Trumpy, we can nuke Moscow or do nothing, but I'd prefer to ride the middle and merely start a conventional WWIII."

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother January 06, 2020 9:06 AM  

Which move surprised them more, Trump taking out Soleimani, or Indy shooting the swordsman?

Blogger Guy Incognito January 06, 2020 9:06 AM  

Can you imagine being the staff who put that hit together?

They FINALLY get some satisfaction.

Blogger Linden Arden January 06, 2020 9:10 AM  

High risk move on the part of Trump. Why he would take this action knowing the far right hates neocons and are overwhelmingly anti-war is surprising, considering he ran hard against the Bush legacy. When he removed the sanctions on Iran so boisterously, I realized this was to appease the JIGNATS, so how is this strike not an Israel First move?

Blogger Uncle John's Band January 06, 2020 9:11 AM  

"It is more that the highly respected Iranian General was preventing more chaos to occur in the region, if anything."

Austere shill is to be a few day late with talking point.

Blogger Johnny January 06, 2020 9:13 AM  

I think often it is best not to overthink things. In this case distilling down to the simplest; is taking out the leadership on the other side a good plan? Looks like it is.

That our top guys don't like it is understandable because the next thing is apt to be be retaliation in kind. Better to lose a few generals than thousands of troops.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( according to the 13th Amendment, Slavery is neither Cruel nor Unusual: MSAGA ) January 06, 2020 9:13 AM  

26. patlalrique January 06, 2020 8:52 AM
Nobody's want a world war now. Well, almost nobody I mean.



aw, go on. i've never seen this one before.

Ronnie Raygun is gonna start a war with the Soviets, it's nukular armageddon!

Richard Nixon is a fascist war monger! which is why he got the US out of Vietnam ... and signed a treaty with the People's Liberation Army.

you realize that Iraq was a Russian ally when Bubba bombed that pill factory, right?

you realize that Qaddafi was a Russian ally when Hillary and Obama had him murdered, right?

funny how you're never concerned when Demonrats are trying to start WW3, you faggot.

Blogger Johnny January 06, 2020 9:21 AM  

One of my fundamental assumptions is that it is better to not take in too much information. Better to think about what you do take in than to take in a lot. Otherwise you got too many people blowing smoke up you rear. This article is an example of it. They were stunned? Yeah, sure. A new propaganda line? The generals are the peace-nicks now? I suppose from now on any military action by us will be condemned. Back we go, back to what it was like after Walter Cronkite turned against the Vietnam War.

Blogger bodenlose Schweinerei January 06, 2020 9:23 AM  

And what sort of clueless bubble-dwelling dunderhead is "stunned" that Trump chose the most "extreme" option, especially nearly for years on from his first appearance on the presidential scene?

@10 - Colonel DeDe. Is five star general Neveah far behind? The world wonders.

Blogger KBuff January 06, 2020 9:23 AM  

Given the number and magnitude of the lies pushed by these people over the last few years, I doubt there is any truth to it at all. It reads like a polished version of the Steele dossier.

Blogger Lazarus January 06, 2020 9:28 AM  

Stilicho wrote:Q lens: Deep state unable to protect Persian ally. Iranian connections to DS? Obama? Jarrett? Kerry? Storm imminent? Deep state just got played. These people aren't very bright. It's TGE's chess board and you're just drooling on it, fake news!



Here are some connections for you

OBAMA'S BENGHAZI IN BAGHDAD

...in both Benghazi and Baghdad, the Obama administration's policy of cultivating Islamic terrorists had come home to roost.

The Islamists who attacked the embassy were not Trump's allies, but Obama's allies.

Blogger Gettimothy January 06, 2020 9:36 AM  

Observe how the "First Rule Of Trump" has worked again. Three days ago, myself included, doubt reigned; today, we are on the offense.

Feels good, man.

Blogger CF Neal January 06, 2020 9:37 AM  

I've seen & heard CELEBRATIONS in both Iraq AND Iran over the death of Gen. Soliemaini.

Blogger John Rockwell January 06, 2020 9:42 AM  

Medicaid funding the invasion.

Blogger Balkan Yankee January 06, 2020 9:46 AM  

Even by today's journalistic standards, the NYT article was thinly sourced.

" . . . according to Defense Department and administration officials."

". . . those officials said."

"But some officials voiced. . . "

"According to one United States official . . ."

"That official described the intelligence as thin a . . ."

Bupkis.

Blogger IamDevo January 06, 2020 10:10 AM  

I hear Trump has started taking advice from the Russians (no,not live ones, silly). “Death solves all problems — no man, no problem."

Anatoly Rybakov

Blogger Crush Limbraw January 06, 2020 10:16 AM  

"The president is leaving Iran, Iraq, and Syria to their own self-destructive devices while he empowers U.S. allies in the region and focuses on defending actual American interests." - Barandon Weichert @ American Greatness

Blogger qualitycontrol January 06, 2020 10:16 AM  

What exactly has Iran done to the United States that makes killing their highest general justified? I'm sure Suleimani was a major pain in the region for ZOG, but that doesn't make it right to murder him. I don't see any Q narrative. Trump just did something stupid to make Sheldon Adelson happy after his ego got triggered.

Blogger xevious2030 January 06, 2020 10:17 AM  

The reposting by Salt, of the Trump Tweet (notification, “these Media Posts”), in the “Wheels Within Wheels” blog post tidies it up in so many ways. Tweets by the President are not just Tweets, they’re out of the mouth of the President. Assassination is not cowardly, but acting like there is a dying class of people and a class of people so far above it, because position (protection) and title (protection), is. And after he has a leader killed for attacking a US base, and has sent notice to Congress as to striking back and with disproportion, he starts to Tweet about impeachment.

To put it another way, the last time Iran attacked an US embassy, it was Deep State (hostage release when Bush elected VP, Reagan shot shortly thereafter). The Embassy was set to be Trumps Carter moment, and it flopped like a dead horse back onto the Deep State. And Trump set about beating the dead horse while it was on the rider. The bottom of the Left is being directed to think Trump is starting a war in the Middle East. Trump says he’ll hit targets. The Left knows he’s not playing “Contractor Get Rich” games, but are only beginning to realize he’s taking pieces off the board if pushed. Chess for this game, and he just took Iran’s Queen in his first move. New rules to the game, his.

Blogger Dos Voltz January 06, 2020 10:23 AM  

With my Q lens activated, I enjoyed seeing some Iranian officials threaten to release names of American politicians who took bribes to pass Obama's nuclear deal.

I have readied the popcorn.
I don't even like popcorn.

Blogger borsabil January 06, 2020 10:29 AM  

There's only two interesting points that arise from this article, and neither has anything to do with the subject line.

First where it's published. The Washington Post is the go to outlet when the CIA wants to get it's message out, which is why Bezos owns it. Second how did US intelligence, have a lock on Suleimani's movements? If the CIA was giving Trump an assassination option on the 28th they must have they must have been tracking him for days if not weeks. This is a guy constantly moving between Iran, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. One of the state players, Russia, Iraq or even Iran itself, wanted rid of him.

Wheels within wheels indeed.

Blogger Akulkis January 06, 2020 10:39 AM  

"WHY would we think these senior military folks would NOT want to take a leading general out?"

For the same reason why, during the age of the Redcoat as a combat uniform, the British army had a tradition against targeting enemy officers: Cowardice.

They didn't want to be deliberately targeted themselves in return while walking around behind the lines.

Didn't work in the American War for Independence. Ended in WW1.

Blogger xevious2030 January 06, 2020 10:43 AM  

"Q lens: Deep state unable to protect Persian ally."

Deep State not able to fulfill obligations to Persia. Trump is the deal maker now.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 06, 2020 10:45 AM  

Trump: "Don't test me, don't f*** with me."

Blogger Ledford Ledford January 06, 2020 10:47 AM  

cecilhenry wrote:We'll just have to hope Trump sees some video of Tim Wise, Barbara Spectre or hundred of anti-Whites in major positions pushing their hostility.

Meanwhile, 400,000 anchor babies were born in the United States in 2019, exceeding the births in 48 states.


Also meanwhile: "Net International Migration Projected to Fall to Lowest Levels this Decade." The US Census Bureau reports "Migration patterns measured since 2015 primarily reflect three major trends: declining immigration of the foreign born, increasing foreign-born emigration, and changes in Puerto Rican migration following Hurricane Maria in September 2017." Go to the bureau website and celebrate a little.

Don't ignore the good news. One hell of an achievement, in my view.

Blogger CCP January 06, 2020 10:57 AM  

No need to publish my comment. FYI - The hyperlink says Washington Post, but links to NYT.

Blogger Akulkis January 06, 2020 11:07 AM  

"Now do Afghanistan!"

There's nothing in Afghanistan other than way too many poppy fields, and undeveloped mineral fields.

Minerology reports say there's some gold fields. But people can get ridiculously violent when it comes to gold...and that's just civilized societies.

Blogger MNW January 06, 2020 11:10 AM  

8 years of O and that might now be SOP.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 06, 2020 11:23 AM  

qualitycontrol wrote:What exactly has Iran done to the United States that makes killing their highest general justified? I'm sure Suleimani was a major pain in the region for ZOG, but that doesn't make it right to murder him.
Attacked the sovereign territory of the United States and killed a US soldier.
Any other stupid questions?
qualitycontrol wrote:Trump just did something stupid to make Sheldon Adelson happy after his ego got triggered.
You really are a moron. Does your caretaker know you're on the internet?

Blogger Akulkis January 06, 2020 11:27 AM  

"For Fox News, the ludicrous theory brought forward by the White House that Soleimani was preparing an imminent attack on American nationals is now acted."

Ludicrous? He was attacking American nationals for years.

Example: My company in Iraq faced some of his foot soldiers. They stood out because they performed very well-practiced fire & movement techniques. However, .30 cal AK's plus .30 RPK and PPSh machine guns and RPG's don't stand a chance against a .50 cal and a Mk-19 40mm belt-fed grenade machine gun with an effective range of 1.5 km against point targets, both sitting in armored turrets. when the terrain is nothing but irrigated agricultural fields.

Good training wasted by picking really poor locations to attempt an ambush.

Blogger Cataline Sergius January 06, 2020 11:30 AM  

You don't become an O-7 unless you are Swamp Creature. It just doesn't happen.

I suspect this was put out on the table as a genuine option and the Generals now regret it because of political backlash on the Beltway Cocktail Party circuit.

So they just put out a leak blaming that stupid wildman Trump for drawing the wrong card from a stacked deck. Now they are absolved by their friends.

The truth is that if the Generals were actually upset by Trump's choice at the time, I guarantee that Soleimani would have been "mysteriously warned" about his upcoming assassination.

It has happened before.

Blogger Jack Amok January 06, 2020 11:44 AM  

I'm saying this because this hit seems so far from how Trump has been conducting himself since he became president...

Doesn't strike me as out of character at all for Trump. He's never been shy about demonstrating what he can do as a means of convincing people to get their butts back to the bargaining table and knock off the theatrics.

the ludicrous theory brought forward by the White House that Soleimani was preparing an imminent attack on American nationals is now acted.

It is more that the highly respected Iranian General was preventing more chaos to occur in the region, if anything.


So those are today's talking points? That Soleimani was a respected general holding the region together? Yeah, right.

Look, we shouldn't be over there, we should get our troops home as soon as possible, and tell the Arabs, Kurds, Israelis and Persians to do what they want with each other. Make peace, make war, whatever, just stay away from us.

But the fact we shouldn't be there doesn't change the fact that the Iranian regime is evil and staffed with evil men, Soleimani included.

Like Stg58 said the other day - we shouldn't be there, but until we're out, we shouldn't play nice with people attacking us.

Blogger Dwayne Thundergrit January 06, 2020 11:48 AM  

@14
@53

Afghanistan is all about opium. The "old money" families who built the Universities, major banks, and insurance companies that were the cornerstone of their wealth on the China opium trade are fed up with the punks in Silicon Valley or other Internet connected business getting filthy rich while they trudge along merely getting richer a little at a time so they're returning to their roots. The only difference is that now they're planning on destroying US society with opium derived drugs to get into the filthy rich league instead of trying to do it all again in China.

JMHo

Blogger Noah B. January 06, 2020 11:56 AM  

Yet another story the journos have shamelessly pulled out of their backsides. Is anyone keeping count of the number of anonymously sourced news pieces that have later proven to have been outright fabricated?

Blogger James Dixon January 06, 2020 11:59 AM  

> What exactly has Iran done to the United States that makes killing their highest general justified?

November 4, 1979. 52 Americans were taken hostage by the current Iranian government and held hostage for 444 days. Trump has a long memory. Or do you think the 52 targets he mentioned in Iran were some magical number he just picked out of a hat?

Blogger Angantyr January 06, 2020 12:09 PM  

Looks like "qualitycontrol" is doing a bang up job of putting the "K" in "quality"!

Blogger Geir Balderson January 06, 2020 12:17 PM  

Where is Patton when you need him?

Blogger Balkan Yankee January 06, 2020 12:31 PM  

@19: "No one, NO ONE gives their commander an option that is 'too extreme' expecting him to reject it."

You know it. I know it. But do the Ayatollahs?

If they take the NYT lede at face value, they will conclude TGE is a major maniac with more than sufficient military capability to back up his threats.

TGE works in mysterious ways!

Blogger Doktor Jeep January 06, 2020 1:12 PM  

Democrats, globalist pedos, and neocons got a taste of why there is no escape for them.

Blogger Primus Pilus January 06, 2020 1:52 PM  

James Dixon wrote:November 4, 1979. 52 Americans were taken hostage by the current Iranian government and held hostage for 444 days.

Which itself was a response to what the US did to Iran in 1954. It's classic Ashkenazi Empire modus operandi to initiate aggression then cry foul whenever the victim strikes back.

Not only are our embassies not considered US soil (that's essentially an old wives' tale), it's the worst kept secret on the planet that US embassies are CIA operation centers, very loosely disguised as diplomatic outposts. Countries under the thumb of globohomo are better off razing our embassies than worrying about our actual military bases.

I continue to pray Trump is using this situation to finally pull us out of the region.

Blogger OneWingedShark January 06, 2020 2:01 PM  

furor kek tonicus ( ve haff vays uf makink du laff, in accordance with all ordnung ) wrote:who are these idiots? and why do they hold any rank at all?
There's a class of officers, usually of General rank, who Col. Hackworth referred to in his books as "Perfumed Princes" — these are the sort who put the political above the operational, who would cover something up rather than see justice done, and who would rather send thousands of "their men" to die rather than "get egg on their face"… I would be unsurprised to learn that such rot has spread even to lower rungs (MAJ., LTC., & COL.), and I am reminded of the "guest column"/letter from the person within OCS that Vox hosted some months ago.

Cataline Sergius wrote:You don't become an O-7 unless you are Swamp Creature. It just doesn't happen.

I suspect this was put out on the table as a genuine option and the Generals now regret it because of political backlash on the Beltway Cocktail Party circuit.

So they just put out a leak blaming that stupid wildman Trump for drawing the wrong card from a stacked deck. Now they are absolved by their friends.

The truth is that if the Generals were actually upset by Trump's choice at the time, I guarantee that Soleimani would have been "mysteriously warned" about his upcoming assassination.

It has happened before.

Excellent points.

Dwayne Thundergrit wrote:@14

@53

Afghanistan is all about opium. The "old money" families who built the Universities, major banks, and insurance companies that were the cornerstone of their wealth on the China opium trade are fed up with the punks in Silicon Valley or other Internet connected business getting filthy rich while they trudge along merely getting richer a little at a time so they're returning to their roots. The only difference is that now they're planning on destroying US society with opium derived drugs to get into the filthy rich league instead of trying to do it all again in China.

They probably see it as a multi-benefit attack: they get money while destroying the native citizens of the US while strengthening the cartels, while further entrenching the corruption of "law enforcement", while getting the doctors in on it, too.

Blogger qualitycontrol January 06, 2020 2:13 PM  

@61. James Dixon
So it's revenge? And that is a good way to do geopolitics in a place you shouldn't be while the people from there want you gone?

Not to mention the USA shot down a plane in 1988 with Iranian civilians and killed plenty of Iranians in Iraq and Syria over the last decade.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 06, 2020 2:24 PM  

qualitycontrol wrote:So it's revenge? And that is a good way to do geopolitics in a place you shouldn't be while the people from there want you gone?
Stop while we still attribute you with room temperature IQ.
OF COURSE retaliation (not revenge) is how you do geopolitics. There is no other option. You either retaliate massively or you die.
As Caligula was fond of saying "Oderint dum metuant". Let them hate, so long as they fear.

Blogger horsewithnonick January 06, 2020 2:24 PM  

"Trump goes for craziest option" is yesterday's narrative; today the story is
"Pompeo drags Trump kicking and screaming to Soleimani decision"


The diversion of sole responsibility from Trump indicates, in my opinion, that the left is already preparing to accept the Soleimani strike as a legitimate military decision.

Blogger qualitycontrol January 06, 2020 2:41 PM  

@69. Snidely Whiplash
Making it about my IQ doesn't make it right for the US-Empire to poke at everyone they don't like in a place they have no right to be. Retaliation and showing you are the biggest alpha doesn't bring the troops home.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 06, 2020 3:16 PM  

qualitycontrol wrote:Making it about my IQ doesn't make it right for the US-Empire to poke at everyone they don't like in a place they have no right to be.
Do you think international politics and the Great Game are some genteel debating society? If you play at that level, (and at the size of the US we have no choice, we must play at that level), there are no rules except legitimacy, fear and power. Whether we should be there or not doesn't matter, attacks must be responded to, whether you want to or not.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd January 06, 2020 3:22 PM  

@71, We aren't saying that you're wrong because you're an intransigent idiot.
We're saying that because you are intransigently wrong we know you're an idiot.

Blogger 351wsl January 06, 2020 3:24 PM  

Lots of theories floating around about why Trump chose to do this.

I think it's quite simple. Trump saw a setup for an embassy tragedy event, similar to 1979 Iran or 2012 Benghazi that would have been a nightmare for him in the 2020 election, and changed the rules of the game to avoid the trap (Kobayashi Maru).

Bonus points if Iraq wants us to leave.

Besides, you can always tell good moves from bad moves, based upon how the neocons and socialists react. When in doubt, I follow Vox's advice and wait 72 hours, while listening for the cries.

Blogger Unknown January 06, 2020 3:26 PM  

lot of jews and zionists here :-D i like it

Blogger Andy in San Diego and Elsewhere January 06, 2020 3:30 PM  

@38:
"Observe how the "First Rule Of Trump" has worked again"
Yes, now the US has the cover it needs to pull out of Iraq, which it is now doing. https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-army-tells-iraq-it-preparing-move-out?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29

Blogger JohnofAustria January 06, 2020 3:38 PM  

I can tell you that it is a practice in staffs at all levels to do exactly that. Good leaders call them on it when they see it. If Kushner is meddling too much in the NSC, he would lack the experience to see what it is.

Blogger JohnofAustria January 06, 2020 3:38 PM  

Welcome to institutional military planning.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 06, 2020 3:40 PM  

"Which itself was a response to what the US did to Iran in 1954."

So they waited 25 years for that response? Doubt. I don't mind the direction of your line of thought, but it's still poorly composed.

Blogger JohnofAustria January 06, 2020 3:44 PM  

Uh, in that instance we can't claim to have been attacked, after the whole invasion thing.

Blogger Andy in San Diego and Elsewhere January 06, 2020 4:43 PM  

Now the DOD is walking back the letter that says we're pulling out of Iraq. Fascinating.

Blogger Paul M January 06, 2020 4:43 PM  

furor kek tonicus ( ve haff vays uf makink du laff, in accordance with all ordnung ) wrote:therefore, he is an enemy combatant, IN COUNTRY within the nation which we were "invited" to help defend.

The USA is not at war with Iraq. This is not some warlord or pirate, this is a general who is part of the regular army of - incidentally - a democracy. He isn't an "enemy" until congress formally declares war, or at the very least until Iraq does. Otherwise, you are saying that it's legit for heads of state to just assassinate foreign nationals whenever they feel its in their country's interest to do so.

If it's legit for President Trump to declare this government official an "enemy" and vaporize the dude; why isn't it likewise legit for the duly-elected president of Iran to declare that the government officials in that embassy were all enemies of Iran? (Which they most certainly were, btw).

Lawless fuckery which at every turn increases the power, influence, and wealth of the MIC and kills thousands of people. If Vox is right, Trump deliberately called their bluff. It's still murder, but in a very good cause.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 06, 2020 4:58 PM  

Paul M wrote:The USA is not at war with Iraq.
So what?
Paul M wrote:This is not some warlord or pirate, this is a general who is part of the regular army of - incidentally - a democracy. He isn't an "enemy" until congress formally declares war, or at the very least until Iraq does.
HE'S NOT AN IRAQI, YOU NITWIT.
Iran declared war on us in 1978. We have been in a state of war with them since. The Iranian general was a legitimate target.
Paul M wrote:Lawless fuckery which at every turn increases the power, influence, and wealth of the MIC and kills thousands of people.
Do you think there's law involved? This is nature, red in tooth and claw.

Blogger James Dixon January 06, 2020 5:19 PM  

> Like Stg58 said the other day - we shouldn't be there, but until we're out, we shouldn't play nice with people attacking us.

I see Andy has already posted the news that we've informed Iraq we'll be pulling out. Who knows for sure at this point though.

> Which itself was a response to what the US did to Iran in 1954.

And? You can trace most conflicts back hundreds of years if you want to. He asked what, I told him what.

> So it's revenge? And that is a good way to do geopolitics in a place you shouldn't be while the people from there want you gone?

It's as good a way as any. But with any luck it doesn't look like we're going to be there much longer.

> Not to mention the USA shot down a plane in 1988 with Iranian civilians and killed plenty of Iranians in Iraq and Syria over the last decade.

1979 is before 1988. And what exactly are Iranians doing in Iraq and Syria?

> Retaliation and showing you are the biggest alpha doesn't bring the troops home.

In this case, it looks like that's exactly what they may do.

> The USA is not at war with Iraq.

But they've been at war with us since 1979.

> This is not some warlord or pirate, this is a general who is part of the regular army...

So what was he doing in Iraq?

> of - incidentally - a democracy.

Tell that to the people of Iraq and record the result. Seeing them laugh in your face would be hilarious. Assuming they were that polite.

> If it's legit for President Trump to declare this government official an "enemy" and vaporize the dude; why isn't it likewise legit for the duly-elected president of Iran to declare that the government officials in that embassy were all enemies of Iran?

What do you think they've been doing for 40 years? All Americans are they're enemies. We're the "Great Satan", remember.

Blogger patlalrique January 06, 2020 5:41 PM  

furor kek tonicus ( ve haff vays uf makink du laff, in accordance with all ordnung ) wrote:funny how you're never concerned about Dems()

oh I'm very concerned... I just look where the power is. I'm not concerned anyway, it is most likely the President will not start a war.

I'm wondering what WW3 could mean. What would qualitfy as WW3?



Blogger VFM #7634 January 06, 2020 5:42 PM  

Doesn't strike me as out of character at all for Trump.

There's the SSH aspect too. If smartalecks taunt Alphas, the Alphas tend to wind up and sock them in the face. This killing of Soleymani was Trump punching Iran in the face.

This behavior would appear to be alien to neocons, cucks with twisted bowties, and leftoids. Gammas prefer to bluster and threaten without actually doing anything. Deltas, which the holier-than-thou set do understand to an extent, try to be diplomatic.

Blogger xevious2030 January 06, 2020 5:47 PM  

"Retaliation and showing you are the biggest alpha doesn't bring the troops home."

No. It is human nature though. SSH. You pick on the Alpha, and you don't have the balls, he lifts you up by the jock and hangs you on the coat hook for the world to see. The globohomos are the only ones who don't, because they are being secretking with each other under the covers.

Blogger patlalrique January 06, 2020 6:15 PM  

Jack Amok (comment #58)

Yeah I just thought about how it was like the time in 2017 when he bombarded the Syrian base from a Navy ship... I think it could be that type of move, but clearly with a new line being crossed.

And for your ''talking points'', sorry, but I don't find acceptable for a second to call him a terrorist. Not credible.

That's Fox talking points, and the guy wasn't a terrorist. He helped the Syrian government to win against ISIS. Hahaha, the face Golden Graham does on Fox!

You would rather see Syria being a shithole like Irak, one of the most dangerous place in the world?

The U.S. keeps messing in the middle-East and is surprised of retaliation?

People's moral calculations are not very credible either. As far as I'm concerned, it is mainly not our business.

Trump got elected saying he would stop to mess with other countries.

Iran with the nuclear bomb? oh... so people think nukes are real...

Blogger White Knight Leo #0368 January 06, 2020 6:35 PM  

The story is complete horseshit fake news - there's no way anyone would get to the level of advising the WH while still including "bullshit options" in their briefings.

Blogger Primus Pilus January 06, 2020 6:53 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:So they waited 25 years for that response? Doubt. I don't mind the direction of your line of thought, but it's still poorly composed.

It's composed just fine, you just didn't understand it. Nobody implied that Khomeini hatched a plan immediately in 1954 to attack CIA headquarters in Iran 25 years later.

1979 wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't installed a puppet regime in 1954, that used the SAVAK, the secret police backed and trained by the CIA, to brutally repress the Persian people, while siphoning off 40% of the country's oil profits to the US.

1954 was the initiation of aggression that set into motion the events that culminated in the events of 1979, and that we are still dealing with the fallout from.

It's yet another example of why why we need to get the fuck out of the region and stay out. If killing this Iranian general provides the impetus to withdraw, finally, then it's the best thing Trump's done to date with foreign policy.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 06, 2020 6:55 PM  

The globohomos are the only ones who don't, because they are being secretking with each other under the covers.

Along those lines, the whole Muller investigation and impeachment charade strikes me as a whole lotta secretkinging. Ambition without the goods. Trump remains the president.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 06, 2020 7:22 PM  

Primus Pilus wrote:1979 wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't installed a puppet regime in 1954, that used the SAVAK, the secret police backed and trained by the CIA, to brutally repress the Persian people, while siphoning off 40% of the country's oil profits to the US.
Is your point that it was Kermit Roosevelt gave us Solemeini?

Blogger Damelon Brinn January 06, 2020 8:06 PM  

Top officials: "Donald Trump is a crazy person! We can't let him have the nuclear codes!!"
Also top officials: "Send him this just-kill-the-guy option; he won't take it."

Blogger Damelon Brinn January 06, 2020 8:23 PM  

therefore, he is an enemy combatant, IN COUNTRY within the nation which we were "invited" to help defend.

Yeah, I don't get this at all. According to the neocons themselves, this was a genuinely bad guy, part of what they call the Axis of Evil, which they've been itching to go to war with. Aren't these the same people who made up a deck of playing cards featuring all Saddam's henchmen, and then celebrated each time they killed one? When did they become squeamish about targeted kills?

I realize it comes down to "It's bad because Trump did it," but they're so blatant about it.

Blogger John Rockwell January 06, 2020 8:30 PM  

Tactical failure.

Blogger John Rockwell January 06, 2020 8:35 PM  

Nature Red in Tooth and claw and Divine Law is what truly counts at the geopolitical stage.

Whilst individuals have much more leeway. God definitely holds Nations accountable.

And have annihilated many nations in his wrath.

Blogger John Rockwell January 06, 2020 8:38 PM  

The globohomo is more likely to poison the Alpha afterward in retaliation.

Or some other sneaky methods of aggression.

Many great men of ancient rome fell by those methods.

Blogger Akulkis January 06, 2020 9:02 PM  

@34

"They were stunned? Yeah, sure. A new propaganda line? The generals are the peace-nicks now? I suppose from now on any military action by us will be condemned."

Read Schwartzkopf's autobiography. Specifically, the chapter where he discusses a course that all officers have to go to when they make their first star, and all diplomats, referred to as "Charm School" the same way the CIA types refer to their training reservation as "The Farm."

Schwatzkopf noted that in nearly every problem discussed in class, the military officers tended to suggest negotiations, economic moves, and other non-military methods; in contrast, the diplomats wanted to solve everything by having the generals and admirals solve the problem with cannon fire.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd January 06, 2020 10:09 PM  

Dos Voltz wrote:With my Q lens activated, I enjoyed seeing some Iranian officials threaten to release names of American politicians who took bribes to pass Obama's nuclear deal.
We could forgive Iran quite a bit if they did us that favor.

Blogger Akulkis January 06, 2020 10:41 PM  

@66
"Not only are our embassies not considered US soil (that's essentially an old wives' tale), it's the worst kept secret on the planet that US embassies are CIA operation centers, very loosely disguised as diplomatic outposts. "

Newsflash. You just described EVERY embassy on the planet. Not just US, British, French, Russian, Chinese, Japanese.... EVERY country uses their embassies as spy operations centers. That's one of the reasons for diplomatic immunity and declarations of persona-non-grata as opposed to arresting members of the embassy staff -- To keep ACTUAL diplomats from getting jailed or harmed in a mix-up or a flat out retaliation for other spying activities, or for other spies being arrested (ones who don't have "diplomatic cover").

And yes, embassies are considered sovereign territory of the visiting nation. Otherwise, host nation police would have the right to barge in and go through, seize, etc. whatever paperwork they want and return the seized stack of approved visa applications with their own spies inserted into the pile, and likewise, seize embassy code books.
EVERY embassy around the world communicates to the homeland with encrypted messages. It's vital to the whole system working, so as not to return to the "envoy scene" at the palace in "300"

You know... the one where all of Xerxes' envoys are thrown into the pit -- to their death.

Blogger Akulkis January 06, 2020 10:47 PM  

@68
"Not to mention the USA shot down a plane in 1988 with Iranian civilians and killed plenty of Iranians in Iraq and Syria over the last decade."

An aircraft which was flying in an area with an active war going on, flying DIRECTLY for a us air-defense destroyer running escort for oil tankers... and with NO TRANSPONDER.

You do know that there is absolutely ZERO ability for a radar set to tell the difference between a large bomber and a large passenger plane. Especially since many passenger aircraft were derived from long range bombers. ESPECIALLY Soviet-made equipment (which is what the Iranians were flying).

And don't forget, IRAN started that war.

So, take your ignorance-based objections and do the appropriate thing.

Blogger Akulkis January 06, 2020 10:52 PM  

@71

"Making it about my IQ doesn't make it right for the US-Empire to poke at everyone they don't like in a place they have no right to be."

But in this case, your IQ is an issue, as you are demonstrating that you can't even comprehend the argument opposing yours.



"Retaliation and showing you are the biggest alpha doesn't bring the troops home."

Retaliation has nothing to do with "alpha" status.

A small band of who knows what faction filled up a truck with explosives and drove it into a marine barracks in Beirut during the Lebanese civil war.

Reagan pulled the marines out quite quickly.

So, by your argument, a bunch of Lebanese renegades were stronger than the U.S. military.

Bzzzt! Wrong.

Retaliation is no different than any schoolyard fight. It's not about whether you win or lose -- it's about whether you can hurt the other guy badly enough that he refrains from even thinking about harming you again for a long, long time.

Blogger Akulkis January 06, 2020 11:10 PM  

@90

"1979 wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't installed a puppet regime in 1954, that used the SAVAK, the secret police backed and trained by the CIA, to brutally repress the Persian people, "

As opposed to up until a couple days ago, when Soleimani and his Al Kuds forces brutally oppress the Persian people.

Primus Pilot, are you, like, running for village idiot someplace?

If so, you can stop. Your campaign most surely puts you ahead of all the other people trying to be the Democratic Party's candidate.

Hell, when even Vermin Supreme, the man who campaigns for president while wearing an upside down rainboot on his head can see the sheer genius of the mood, and YOU CAN'T... you need help man. Real help.

Blogger xevious2030 January 06, 2020 11:15 PM  

“Along those lines, the whole Muller investigation and impeachment charade”

Hadn’t thought of it at that scale, but yep, same thing.

Blogger Kiwi January 06, 2020 11:18 PM  

This article was a good crack at installing a bias in the mass. Bias can be impossible to shift in some cases. It makes me literally worry sick in the stomach to read the words and look at the pictures used, they're nothing but bad.

Although they look like they're written by idiots, with pathetically obvious attempts to manipulate, they are not. I don't think Q glasses can mitigate these articles. My advice would be don't read or look at the pictures on mainstream following a big incident. I have a background in behavioural science so I recognise the mechanisms deployed. The bigger the event the more reason not to look.

Science can help or hurt you, but it never cares.

Blogger namegoeshere January 07, 2020 12:39 AM  

Since when is the WaPo to believed about the reactions of Pentagon officials?

Blogger Silly but True January 07, 2020 2:40 AM  

The “whole invasion thing” was the US invading Iraq, not the US invading Iran; Iran remained the aggressor in that instance.

If Iran was angry about “the whole invasion thing (of Iraq)” and wished to do something then let it petition the UN Security Council for military intervention in Iraq by Iran to stop the illegal invasion by US. Good luck with that.

Or it could wage special operations warfare against the third-party state within the sovereign territory of a second party.

And, of course, run the risk of having its generals blow up.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 07, 2020 7:02 AM  

"It's composed just fine, you just didn't understand it. Nobody implied that Khomeini hatched a plan immediately in 1954 to attack CIA headquarters in Iran 25 years later.

1979 wouldn't have happened if the US hadn't installed a puppet regime in 1954"


Can't understand you to mean what you didn't write.

You called it a "response" to what the US did to Iran at that time. What you described is not an A therefore B response. It's not even a suddenly recall that A happened, so it's time to B now response. What you're describing is a chain of unplanned consequences. You might call that a response from God, however "God's response" isn't what you said or implied, and it isn't a response by man to that specific action.

Beyond that, "because A happened therefore some sort of response B is valid" is the same logic interventionist warmongers used to rationalize imposition of puppet in the first place. There's always something that happened before, some attack or slight or the evil eye. The question is whether the response is justified or not, proportional or necessary? If it's not even a directed response in the first place... good luck arguing that it's justified and proportional or necessary as one.

Blogger Primus Pilus January 07, 2020 10:28 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Can't understand you to mean what you didn't write. [etc]

That's a lot of word salad nonsense trying to rationalize why you didn't understand something that was actually very easy to understand, followed by some completely illogical and historically baseless attempt to paint my very simple statement pointing out the repercussions of the US' evil interventions in the ME as "the real warmongering".

I've read here long enough to not be surprised by this, but maybe you should let it drop.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 07, 2020 1:35 PM  

"That's a lot of word salad nonsense trying to rationalize why you didn't understand something that was actually very easy to understand"

Learn English.

And no, I'm not saying that the results were the real warmongering. Both sides were. Not sure whether this is a problem with your English again, or just binary thinking.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 07, 2020 1:44 PM  

"We're the real bad guys" isn't a new or interesting thought, Primus. It's also wrong. Everyone's the real bad guys. We can point to the greater of two perceived weevils, playing the blame game from here to forever.

Getting out of there and establishing separation as a standard is certainly the right answer though. That's how you de-escalate these things. Chafing at the scabs isn't helping anyone except the bloodsucking parasites.

Blogger xevious2030 January 07, 2020 2:07 PM  

"my very simple statement pointing out the repercussions of the US' evil interventions in the ME"

That's the race to be the first victim, to prop up a current action. There is just as much validity to say 1979 wouldn't have happened if the CIA didn't want their Bush to be VP just before Reagan was shot. Or that 1979 would not have happened if the CIA didn't want to remove their old player to put in a new one, so there would be a good-cop bad-cop routine for their black projects. After all, what was one of the names in the very term "Iran-Contra?" The Persians were onboard in 1954 with the CIA, and the Persians were onboard in 1979 with the CIA. Which means, if Persia is busy in Babylon (Arab Spring being the narrative), who is once again onboard with whom?

Blogger Boaty Bear January 07, 2020 6:12 PM  

Current "President/CEO" of the NYT happens to have also been the director general of the BBC.

Trustworthy?

Blogger Clay January 08, 2020 3:17 AM  


Which move surprised them more, Trump taking out Soleimani, or Indy shooting the swordsman?


BTW. I liked that.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts