Sympathy for Soleimani from the West

[Curved_Sw0rd]

One would think that the death of Qassem Soleimani would be a cause for near universal celebration in the US, as the man has played a significant contribution to US deaths in the Middle East. Yet... Not so much. The picture of apologism for Iran and Soleimani is painted rather well, by Quillette's Kaveh Shahrooz:

Iran’s Fawning Western Apologists

Many Western leftists repeated the Ayatollahs’ talking points.

quillette.com

The Tweets Shahrooz brings up speak for themselves. The opening quotation of the Shah, on the "Red and Black" also speaks volumes. Rather than admit the death of a butcher like Soleimani is a good thing, if not a mixed bag depending on how isolationist you are, people like Rose McGowan and Colin Kaepernick use the incident to vilify the US.

So what causes this sympathy for murderous extremists in the Middle East by the Far Left? Is it simply a rejection of nuance, as Soleimani faught ISIS and therefore must be good now? Is it to spite Orange Man? Is it diehard support for the "Underdog" ignoring morals?

Maybe all of the above?

 

[Cherico]

They want power.

It really is that simple.

 

[Terthna]

They want power.

It really is that simple.

Honestly, while I'm sure that's the overarching goal for those at the top, I'm fairly certain most are not self-aware enough to understand that. They just want an excuse to indulge in their deep-seated hatred for their fellow man, in a way that also lets them feel morally justified in doing so.

“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.” -Aldous Huxley

 

[LifeisTiresome]

Easy. They hate the US and Western civilization in general.

 

[Harlock]

He killed people they didn't like and attacked institutions they want destroyed. He can no longer do that so boo hoo.

I'd put money on none of them ever even hearing his name before this

 

[Realm]

So what causes this sympathy for murderous extremists in the Middle East by the Far Left? Is it simply a rejection of nuance, as Soleimani faught ISIS and therefore must be good now? Is it to spite Orange Man? Is it diehard support for the "Underdog" ignoring morals?

I don't get turning him into a hero, but Americans have turned American war criminals into heroes so it's probably that same sort of /ourguy/ impulse that justifies murdering innocents, as long as they're on the right side

 

[FriedCFour]

I don't get turning him into a hero, but Americans have turned American war criminals into heroes so it's probably that same sort of /ourguy/ impulse that justifies murdering innocents, as long as they're on the right side

But he isnt on their side in any way shape or form, thats the weird thing. Why would the left who decry Chic-fil-a and the salvation army for their supposed bigotry get all teary eyed for Iran when they execute thousands of gays?

 

[Realm]

But he isnt on their side in any way shape or form, thats the weird thing. Why would the left who decry Chic-fil-a and the salvation army for their supposed bigotry get all teary eyed for an Iran when they execute thousands of gays?

Yeah, don't really get praising him when saying "if we drone strike terrorists, Kissinger next" works just as well

 

[Bear Ribs]

Some people see the world in an extremely black and white manner with no shades of gray. For such people, you are with them or against them, and the enemy of their enemy is their friend. This attitude tends to be more common in the youth who don't have enough life experience to know better but it plagues plenty of adults as well and I can't say I've never succumbed to it myself.

In this specific case, Trump is their enemy. Trump killed Soleimani, so he's an enemy of Trump. Therefore Soleimani was their friend. Further they themselves are self-evidently good persons and a good person can't be friends with a bad person, therefore Soleimani must logically have been a good person.

It's basically an overlap of Trump Derangement Syndrome coupled with an extremely simplistic worldview.

 

[DarthOne]

But he isnt on their side in any way shape or form, thats the weird thing. Why would the left who decry Chic-fil-a and the salvation army for their supposed bigotry get all teary eyed for an Iran when they execute thousands of gays?

Because of the Oppression stack (he's Arabic aka brown aka not white) and Orange Man Bad. That and I think a lot of these people are genuinely ignorant of what Iran and Islam in the Middle East gets up to or thinks its just propaganda or something.

Remember, these are the same sort of people who still don't believe that the rise in crime and rape throughout Europe have anything to do with the millions of economic migrants that where imported from the third world shit hole that is the Middle East.

 

[ShieldWife]

I do have some sympathy for Soleimani and I’m not anti-American, anti-white, left wing, or pro-Islam. I would in fact consider myself a nationalist. I honestly don’t believe the bad things that are said about him. I’m not saying that he is a saint, in fact the bad things said about him might be true, but I don’t trust the government and what they say is particularly suspect when it comes to justifying military aggression. They lied to us about Saddam and WMD’s, they lied about why 9/11 happened, they lied about Assad and poison gas, they lied about the chances of victory in Afghanistan. They have lied to us about ISIS. They’ve even told lies about Trump and Russia. They’ve lied about so much, I personally consider anything I hear from the high ups of the intelligence or defense establishment to be a lie until proven otherwise. So they say that Soleimani is a terrorist, that probably means that he isn’t one.

Though even assuming he is responsible for some American deaths, that is what happens in war. We did invade a country, kill at least hundreds of thousands of their civilians, and occupy them all on false pretenses. I don’t blame US soldiers for this, they believed that they were doing right. But I also can’t blame those who fought against us and killed Americans, that is what war is and it’s a war we started.

So I’m am on America’s side 100% but that doesn’t mean that I can’t feel sympathy for people we may be at war with and it absolutely doesn’t mean that I have to approve of military actions that our government engages in.

 

[Arch Dornan]

They're opposed to the US so they lionise him.

Bin Laden too was once lauded fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Same with Stalin as Uncle Joe for fighting the Nazis.

 

[FriedCFour]

I honestly don’t believe the bad things that are said about him.

His past is very well documented well before he was executed. Why, exactly, is it okay for Iran to intervene in Iraq but not us? And for him not to be a terrorist, Iran would have to be lying too. His entire job is to train shiite militias to carry out unconventional warfare. Said warfare includes a lot of terrorism.

 

[Hlaalu Agent]

His past is very well documented well before he was executed. Why, exactly, is it okay for Iran to intervene in Iraq but not us?

Well, it is in Iran's neighbourhood for one and quite far away from the USA's heartland for another. Also it has been historically part of Iran/Persia or related states at varying times, and was part of the Selecuid Empire which is really part of the former. But that is taking the devil's advocate approach. Really, it shouldn't be okay for either of you to keep mucking about there.

 

[DarthOne]

His past is very well documented well before he was executed. Why, exactly, is it okay for Iran to intervene in Iraq but not us? And for him not to be a terrorist, Iran would have to be lying too. His entire job is to train shiite militias to carry out unconventional warfare. Said warfare includes a lot of terrorism.

Because the West is evil, Imperialistic and colonial in these people’s eyes.

 

[ShieldWife]

Why, exactly, is it okay for Iran to intervene in Iraq but not us? And for him not to be a terrorist, Iran would have to be lying too. His entire job is to train shiite militias to carry out unconventional warfare. Said warfare includes a lot of terrorism.

Soleimani was in Iraq at the invitation of the government helping them fight ISIS. When we invaded Iraq, it certainly wasn’t with the permission of Iraq. Soleimani did indeed direct unconventional warfare, which would include guerrilla activity, not necessarily terrorism. We also train and arm militias and guerrillas.

 

[FriedCFour]

Soleimani was in Iraq at the invitation of the government helping them fight ISIS. When we invaded Iraq, it certainly wasn’t with the permission of Iraq. Soleimani did indeed direct unconventional warfare, which would include guerrilla activity, not necessarily terrorism. We also train and arm militias and guerrillas.

Hes been head of the Quds force for a long time, he was there without permission of Iraq prior to Isis training and leading Shiite militias to fight the coalition forces shortly after invasion, we were also participating fighting ISIS which had permission. He has been doing this far longer than ISIS has existed. So he is a member of a foreign military who participated in his own invasion of Iraq in order to shape it to the benefit of his own country, was later asked along with the US to help fight ISIS. The entire purpose of the Quds is to go to foreign countries and train and shape militias to enact Shiite Islamic revolutions to advance Islamic Theocracy. We killed him while we had permission to be in Iraq after Iran attacked the US embassy and base while we had permission to be in Iraq. This is basically indisputable. Even taking everything into account, how can you say that they are more justified than us? At best I think you can only come to the conclusion that we are equally meddling in the affairs of a foreign country for our own gain.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Hes been head of the Quds force for a long time, he was there without permission of Iraq prior to Isis training and leading Shiite militias to fight the coalition forces shortly after invasion, we were also participating fighting ISIS which had permission. He has been doing this far longer than ISIS has existed. So he is a member of a foreign military who participated in his own invasion of Iraq in order to shape it to the benefit of his own country, was later asked along with the US to help fight ISIS. The entire purpose of the Quds is to go to foreign countries and train and shape militias to enact Shiite Islamic revolutions to advance Islamic Theocracy. We killed him while we had permission to be in Iraq after Iran attacked the US embassy and base while we had permission to be in Iraq. This is basically indisputable. Even taking everything into account, how can you say that they are more justified than us? At best I think you can only come to the conclusion that we are equally meddling in the affairs of a foreign country for our own gain.

He's also a late Cold War relic with all that goes with it as part of the mentality package.

 

[Doomsought]

I honestly don’t believe the bad things that are said about him.

He was the head of the Iranian Black ops. It was litterally his job to foster terrorist groups to attack the enemies of Iran.

 

[Arch Dornan]

He was the head of the Iranian Black ops. It was litterally his job to foster terrorist groups to attack the enemies of Iran.

Which is why I can believe the nasty shit he could do. He's no different from what nasty shit you hear about Cold War black ops from the CIA or KGB.

It's his job to do nasty shit.