5 ms·

>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

by 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.
  - yyyk 6y ago
    >For the same reason no one designated GRU or Mossad operatives. Most countries don't support terrorist (sorry, 'resistance') organizations and don't officially announce it on every corner. It turns out Iran not even bothering with cover makes designation very easy. >Read the sources, ok? You're mixing JCPOA (not a UN text) and several different types of sanctions. >Are you even aware that Iran is a Shia state and mostly supports Shia militia groups in other countries, while ISIS was predominantly Sunni? ISIS started from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that Iran and Syria were happy to support so long as they bothered Americans more.
    - fuoqi 6y ago
      >Most countries don't support terrorist (sorry, 'resistance') organizations and don't officially announce it on every corner. Yeap, and the US is not included into this list of the "most countries" as well. Simply instead of "resistance" they call them "pro-democratic rebels" and they have a long tradition in this area (e.g. search for a humble "freedom-fighter" Osama). So we got back to the starting point. >You're mixing JCPOA and several different types of sanctions. Again, I've linked the document, which clearly lists the 1747 resolution as to be terminated. AFAIK it is the only UN resolution affecting Soleimeini. So do please clarify what exactly I am "mixing"? >ISIS started from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that Iran and Syria were happy to support so long as they bothered Americans more. LOL what? When ISIS has started making territorial claims Syria was already for two years in the midst of the hot civil war, Asad was losing territories to the Sunni rebels supported by the US, Iran at the time tried to help Assad by supporting Shia militia, but its supply lines got disrupted by ISIS, which motivated them to persuade Russians to help Assad. If anything, it's American support of Sunni rebels in the hope that they will overthrow the Assad government resulted in the creation of ISIS as a quasi-state. One of the big American goals in Iraq is to prevent creation of so-called Shia Crescent and the Suni rebellion was a great way to achieve it. This is why you haven't seen much US action against it until they started to threaten Bagdad, and even after ISIS lost all its territories the US supported "moderates" which are close to the Syrian Al-Qaeda branch. Though in the end it spiraled out of control. As usual... Controlled chaos rarely stays controlled for long. If your next message will be as ignorant as the last two, I no longer see the need to continue this discussion.

by fuoqi 6y ago

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.
- yyyk 6y ago
  >For the same reason no one designated GRU or Mossad operatives. Most countries don't support terrorist (sorry, 'resistance') organizations and don't officially announce it on every corner. It turns out Iran not even bothering with cover makes designation very easy. >Read the sources, ok? You're mixing JCPOA (not a UN text) and several different types of sanctions. >Are you even aware that Iran is a Shia state and mostly supports Shia militia groups in other countries, while ISIS was predominantly Sunni? ISIS started from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that Iran and Syria were happy to support so long as they bothered Americans more.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    >Most countries don't support terrorist (sorry, 'resistance') organizations and don't officially announce it on every corner. Yeap, and the US is not included into this list of the "most countries" as well. Simply instead of "resistance" they call them "pro-democratic rebels" and they have a long tradition in this area (e.g. search for a humble "freedom-fighter" Osama). So we got back to the starting point. >You're mixing JCPOA and several different types of sanctions. Again, I've linked the document, which clearly lists the 1747 resolution as to be terminated. AFAIK it is the only UN resolution affecting Soleimeini. So do please clarify what exactly I am "mixing"? >ISIS started from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni group that Iran and Syria were happy to support so long as they bothered Americans more. LOL what? When ISIS has started making territorial claims Syria was already for two years in the midst of the hot civil war, Asad was losing territories to the Sunni rebels supported by the US, Iran at the time tried to help Assad by supporting Shia militia, but its supply lines got disrupted by ISIS, which motivated them to persuade Russians to help Assad. If anything, it's American support of Sunni rebels in the hope that they will overthrow the Assad government resulted in the creation of ISIS as a quasi-state. One of the big American goals in Iraq is to prevent creation of so-called Shia Crescent and the Suni rebellion was a great way to achieve it. This is why you haven't seen much US action against it until they started to threaten Bagdad, and even after ISIS lost all its territories the US supported "moderates" which are close to the Syrian Al-Qaeda branch. Though in the end it spiraled out of control. As usual... Controlled chaos rarely stays controlled for long. If your next message will be as ignorant as the last two, I no longer see the need to continue this discussion.