5 ms·

>It was doing it last year after the US unilaterally pulled out of the agreement And who are we should thank for it? Iran clearly sees the difference between N

by fuoqi 6y ago

>It was doing it last year after the US unilaterally pulled out of the agreement And who are we should thank for it? Iran clearly sees the difference between North Korea and Libya, and it clearly does not want to be the latter. The US stupid move was just the last droplet. Hopefully with the new administration the situation can be salvaged. >Note that Qasem Soleimeini was killed in Iraq. The point being the Iran meddles in their neighbors affairs. Oh, wow. According to the Iraqi prime minister he was on a diplomatic mission to ease tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. He was unlawfully (under both US and international law) assassinated in a clear and blatant violation of the Iraq sovereignty. And compare the Iran "meddling" with the US openly creating military bases in Syria without any authorization from the Syrian government (you think anything you like about it, but it's still an internationally recognized government) and open military support of rebel forces, often closely related to jihadists. Also we have the rejection of the Iraqi parliament′s call to withdraw US troops.

yyyk 6y ago
>>Note that Qasem Soleimeini was killed in Iraq. The point being the Iran meddles in their neighbors affairs. >Oh, wow. According to the Iraqi prime minister he was on a diplomatic mission to ease tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia... He was on both the US and EU anti-terrorism list, and there was a Security Council resolution banning him from traveling outside Iran. >And compare the Iran "meddling" with the US openly creating military bases in Syria without any authorization from the Syrian government Iran has military bases and militias on Syria predating the US ones, these took direct part in the mass civilian deaths there. >Also we have the rejection of the Iraqi parliament′s call to withdraw US troops. Their call was non binding since the agreement was with the Iraqi government (imagine the GOP Senate calling for something ignoring President Biden's wishes). The US army does not wish to withdraw since ISIS still exists, we saw what happened last time Iraq tried to deal with them alone.
- fuoqi 6y ago
  >He was on both the US and EU anti-terrorism list No, only the US designated him as a terrorist and IIRC on a really flimsy grounds (as in CIA operatives could be designated terrorists using similar criteria). EU only personally sanctioned him. >there was a Security Council resolution banning him from traveling outside Iran These restrictions were lifted in 2015 as part of the Iran nuclear deal framework. US unilateral withdrawal didn't change the fact that UN sanctions have been lifted. >Their call was non binding since the agreement was with the Iraqi government The call was aimed at the government, which due to the US pressure ignored will of the Iraqi people represented by the democratically elected parliament. >since ISIS still exists ISIS got chance to exist mostly due to the US chaotic meddling in the region. Not only it weakened Iraq by direct invasion, but it also fueled the Syrian civil war. Syria is perfectly able to not let ISIS reappearance with the Russian help and negotiated relationship with the Kurds, but I don't see the US leaving Syria any time soon.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    >on a really flimsy grounds (as in CIA operatives could be designated terrorists using similar criteria) Yet nobody did that. Maybe the criteria aren't so 'similar'. >These restrictions were lifted in 2015 as part of the Iran nuclear deal framework. US unilateral withdrawal didn't change the fact that UN sanctions have been lifted. These restrictions were not to be lifted immediately. That particular limit was due to expire only this October. >ISIS got chance to exist mostly due to the US chaotic meddling in the region. Maybe al-Qaeda + Assad and Iran's support for insurgents during the Iraq war played a huge part. They encouraged fanaticism which shockingly turned against everyone.
    - fuoqi 6y ago
      >Yet nobody did that. Maybe the criteria aren't so 'similar'. For the same reason no one designated GRU or Mossad operatives. The weight of the state behind them and absurdity of the act. But the US government has decided to stretch definition of terrorism (and frankly deflating its value even further in the process) to somehow limit actions of IRGC, which were clearly outplaying the US in the ME region, not in the last because of the Soleimeini's masterful leadership. >These restrictions were not to be lifted immediately. That particular limit was due to expire only this October. Sigh... Read the sources, ok? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/122460/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/122460/full-text-of-t... >The UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA will terminate all provisions of previous UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue -1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) –simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran and will establish specific restrictions, as specified in Annex V. In October expired the UN arms embargo, which is irrelevant to the 1747 resolution affecting Soleimeini. If you read news just a little at the time, you may recall that economic sanctions against Iran have been lifted long before this October. >Maybe al-Qaeda + Assad and Iran's support for insurgents during the Iraq war played a huge part. They encouraged fanaticism which shockingly turned against everyone. Wow. Are you even aware that Iran is a Shia state and mostly supports Shia militia groups in other countries, while ISIS was predominantly Sunni? And that Assad is from the Alawite minority, who is also Shia? If anyone has supported al-Qaeda in the Syrian civil war it's the US and Turkey. The former has acknowledged indirect "accidental" support of the al-Qaeda branch via "moderate" rebels. To conclude: you demonstrate utter lack of knowledge in this area.

by fuoqi 6y ago

yyyk 6y ago

>>Note that Qasem Soleimeini was killed in Iraq. The point being the Iran meddles in their neighbors affairs. >Oh, wow. According to the Iraqi prime minister he was on a diplomatic mission to ease tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia... He was on both the US and EU anti-terrorism list, and there was a Security Council resolution banning him from traveling outside Iran. >And compare the Iran "meddling" with the US openly creating military bases in Syria without any authorization from the Syrian government Iran has military bases and militias on Syria predating the US ones, these took direct part in the mass civilian deaths there. >Also we have the rejection of the Iraqi parliament′s call to withdraw US troops. Their call was non binding since the agreement was with the Iraqi government (imagine the GOP Senate calling for something ignoring President Biden's wishes). The US army does not wish to withdraw since ISIS still exists, we saw what happened last time Iraq tried to deal with them alone.

fuoqi 6y ago
>He was on both the US and EU anti-terrorism list No, only the US designated him as a terrorist and IIRC on a really flimsy grounds (as in CIA operatives could be designated terrorists using similar criteria). EU only personally sanctioned him. >there was a Security Council resolution banning him from traveling outside Iran These restrictions were lifted in 2015 as part of the Iran nuclear deal framework. US unilateral withdrawal didn't change the fact that UN sanctions have been lifted. >Their call was non binding since the agreement was with the Iraqi government The call was aimed at the government, which due to the US pressure ignored will of the Iraqi people represented by the democratically elected parliament. >since ISIS still exists ISIS got chance to exist mostly due to the US chaotic meddling in the region. Not only it weakened Iraq by direct invasion, but it also fueled the Syrian civil war. Syria is perfectly able to not let ISIS reappearance with the Russian help and negotiated relationship with the Kurds, but I don't see the US leaving Syria any time soon.
- yyyk 6y ago
  >on a really flimsy grounds (as in CIA operatives could be designated terrorists using similar criteria) Yet nobody did that. Maybe the criteria aren't so 'similar'. >These restrictions were lifted in 2015 as part of the Iran nuclear deal framework. US unilateral withdrawal didn't change the fact that UN sanctions have been lifted. These restrictions were not to be lifted immediately. That particular limit was due to expire only this October. >ISIS got chance to exist mostly due to the US chaotic meddling in the region. Maybe al-Qaeda + Assad and Iran's support for insurgents during the Iraq war played a huge part. They encouraged fanaticism which shockingly turned against everyone.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    >Yet nobody did that. Maybe the criteria aren't so 'similar'. For the same reason no one designated GRU or Mossad operatives. The weight of the state behind them and absurdity of the act. But the US government has decided to stretch definition of terrorism (and frankly deflating its value even further in the process) to somehow limit actions of IRGC, which were clearly outplaying the US in the ME region, not in the last because of the Soleimeini's masterful leadership. >These restrictions were not to be lifted immediately. That particular limit was due to expire only this October. Sigh... Read the sources, ok? https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/122460/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/122460/full-text-of-t... >The UN Security Council resolution endorsing this JCPOA will terminate all provisions of previous UN Security Council resolutions on the Iranian nuclear issue -1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008), 1929 (2010) and 2224 (2015) –simultaneously with the IAEA-verified implementation of agreed nuclear-related measures by Iran and will establish specific restrictions, as specified in Annex V. In October expired the UN arms embargo, which is irrelevant to the 1747 resolution affecting Soleimeini. If you read news just a little at the time, you may recall that economic sanctions against Iran have been lifted long before this October. >Maybe al-Qaeda + Assad and Iran's support for insurgents during the Iraq war played a huge part. They encouraged fanaticism which shockingly turned against everyone. Wow. Are you even aware that Iran is a Shia state and mostly supports Shia militia groups in other countries, while ISIS was predominantly Sunni? And that Assad is from the Alawite minority, who is also Shia? If anyone has supported al-Qaeda in the Syrian civil war it's the US and Turkey. The former has acknowledged indirect "accidental" support of the al-Qaeda branch via "moderate" rebels. To conclude: you demonstrate utter lack of knowledge in this area.