The name itself is extremely telling. Quds is literally just the Islamic name for Jerusalem. I think its pretty clear from that alone what one of their major goals is, and from there its pretty easy to tell who they were involved with.
Sympathy for Soleimani from the West
- Thread starter Curved_Sw0rd
- Start date
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
I didn't know that being ignorant.
The man was a true believer with great ambitions. Too bad for him he's born in the wrong century to make that a reality.
prinCZess
Warrior, Writer, Performer, Perv
I'd hazard to guess lack of reporting on Soleimani, the IRGC-Quds, and any specifics of their sponsorship and cooperation with Shi'ite militias in Iraq, Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis in Yemen, and their broader terror activities and attempts outside the ME contributes. Soleimani's killing looks much less justifiable and shaky when there's a decade of context around the organization he led left out (or only tangential anti-ISIS activities the force and its hangers-on participated in are broadcast).
Of course, that might be influenced by a bizarre fixation the US and US media has on finding 'good guys' in the region that can be aligned with when...There's a dramatic shortage of such. The Saudis are assholes, the Syrian rebels a grab-bag of their own atrocity-committing messes, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey all have varying degrees of totalitarian domestic organizations of varying viewpoint, Iraq's government is incompetent and assholish...The Kurds and the Israelis are the closest, but the Kurds are fractured themselves and...limited in effectiveness, to say the least. And Israel is...Israel, with a whole mess of its own issues--real and imagined by ideological or ethnic opponents that get loud broadcast--that keeps the 'good guy' label from getting attached with any accuracy and requiring a mess of administrative and journalistic push to get it to stick--the playing-up of the 'Arab Spring' and the early incarnations of ISIS in Syria, or Libya's mess of rebel groups, or the Egyptian uprising, or [name your poison] really, as valiant freedom-fighters against a dictatorship when they also had significant degree of asshole to them (just like the dictatorships they rose against), for instance.
In such a shitshow where assholes are always rising and falling and 'allies' tending towards assholishness themselves, you get argument over which crop of guys are the 'goodest' or least bad and thus deserving of American largesse and favor--and Saudi Arabia has a lot of enmity built-up in that regard as a crop of shitty people, while Iran got a degree of rehabilitation over the previous administration and a running, sympathetic, Ron Paul ten-second history meme attached to it that creates a more sympathetic narrative (because people can easily ignore or just never find out Mossadegh was an asshole of his own flavor, and the '53 coup gets a good bit of air-time by ameteur analysts as explanation).
So...Long rant short, Soleimani gets sympathy because US policy in the region has been shifting, oftentimes pragmatic (or 'pragmatic', depending on perspective), and media nor government has been very good at uncovering or advertising the whole 'our friends sometimes do the war crime, massacre, etc. stuff themselves' in many instances, partially because proving such is difficult without significantly more firsthand 'on-ground' investigative and critical reporting than CNN and the like have wanted or done in recent years...as such journalists can end up in prison or dead (see: Egypt and the Al Jazeera reporters for a famous one).
Of course, that might be influenced by a bizarre fixation the US and US media has on finding 'good guys' in the region that can be aligned with when...There's a dramatic shortage of such. The Saudis are assholes, the Syrian rebels a grab-bag of their own atrocity-committing messes, Jordan, Egypt, and Turkey all have varying degrees of totalitarian domestic organizations of varying viewpoint, Iraq's government is incompetent and assholish...The Kurds and the Israelis are the closest, but the Kurds are fractured themselves and...limited in effectiveness, to say the least. And Israel is...Israel, with a whole mess of its own issues--real and imagined by ideological or ethnic opponents that get loud broadcast--that keeps the 'good guy' label from getting attached with any accuracy and requiring a mess of administrative and journalistic push to get it to stick--the playing-up of the 'Arab Spring' and the early incarnations of ISIS in Syria, or Libya's mess of rebel groups, or the Egyptian uprising, or [name your poison] really, as valiant freedom-fighters against a dictatorship when they also had significant degree of asshole to them (just like the dictatorships they rose against), for instance.
In such a shitshow where assholes are always rising and falling and 'allies' tending towards assholishness themselves, you get argument over which crop of guys are the 'goodest' or least bad and thus deserving of American largesse and favor--and Saudi Arabia has a lot of enmity built-up in that regard as a crop of shitty people, while Iran got a degree of rehabilitation over the previous administration and a running, sympathetic, Ron Paul ten-second history meme attached to it that creates a more sympathetic narrative (because people can easily ignore or just never find out Mossadegh was an asshole of his own flavor, and the '53 coup gets a good bit of air-time by ameteur analysts as explanation).
So...Long rant short, Soleimani gets sympathy because US policy in the region has been shifting, oftentimes pragmatic (or 'pragmatic', depending on perspective), and media nor government has been very good at uncovering or advertising the whole 'our friends sometimes do the war crime, massacre, etc. stuff themselves' in many instances, partially because proving such is difficult without significantly more firsthand 'on-ground' investigative and critical reporting than CNN and the like have wanted or done in recent years...as such journalists can end up in prison or dead (see: Egypt and the Al Jazeera reporters for a famous one).
From what I'm aware, though people more familiar with American football can correct me on this, at this point Kaepernick's entire brand is trying to be as controversial as possible so as to stay employed and in the limelight because otherwise he's a not very good footballer who'd likely get shoved into reserves before fading out of the job. He's not doing it out of principles, he's doing it because he knows it gets him attention and makes it harder for him to get fired without being a pr nightmare for the people firing him. Same goes for when he did that kneeling thing. It's also why he was completely silent on the whole Hong Kong thing because pissing off China would actually have negative consequences for him.
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?
A fifth column that supports America's enemies and wants to play nice with them because they hold a ridiculous ideology that elevates Islamic extremism as better than capitalism and western liberalism, while those same enemies are standing ready to stab the US in the face or back, whichever opportunity arises.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
A very successful grifter that one should he spend wisely.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
What don't you exactly believe?
Iranians that are victims of him from the suppressed protests hate him and would spit on his grave if they could get away with it.
Then let me put your mind to rest. He did have American blood on his hands. He supplied EFPs, financing, training and support to the Shiite Militias in Iraq. They killed quite a few troops and made a bad situation worse. His name came up more than a few times in our S2 briefings. So I'm totally onboard with him getting whacked.
Last edited:
If the left would have been as radical in the past as it has become today, they would have denounced the killings of Bin-Laden and Saddam.
The only reason they didn't denounce the killing of Al-Baghdadi is that ISIS has spent the last decade convincing the entire world it is the ultimate evil since the Nazis. And even then the left did its best to find (or invent) flaws in the assassination.
The only reason they didn't denounce the killing of Al-Baghdadi is that ISIS has spent the last decade convincing the entire world it is the ultimate evil since the Nazis. And even then the left did its best to find (or invent) flaws in the assassination.
ShadowsOfParadox
Well-known member
"austere religious scholar"...
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
Personally I don't have empathy for the man. That being said some of tye stuff I've read he did. Gives me quite a bit of respect for him guy was a warrior to his core. I can respect my enimies.
Imagine how depressing it would be to live your entire life on the battlefield, fighting from the front, to be killed by a fucking 18 year old in a air conditioned trailer half a world away, cheeto dust encrusted hands gripping an xbox controller on the orders of a man who gets more enraged at twitter than your military actions against his government.
Absolutely grim as fuck.
Last edited:
Lanmandragon
Well-known member
Wouldn't bother me dude died in battle even if unconventionally. Live by the sword die by the sword and all that. I take your meaning though.
Darmani
Well-known member
Evil and violence will always be impressive and that's attractive. Annoyance is what cannot be forgiven. And this man was too far away to be annoying we're at the men who killed him absolutely have been or more accurately the men in charge of the men who killed pep. Also a lot of people are still trying to make up for the fact that they were fans of 24 and let themselves be apathetic to getting us involved with the Middle Eastern War. Simply put just wanted to be over and killing that major head of state means that we're going to be even further committed to this conflict which we are f****** sick to death of. Simply put you know that we're willing to shake hands with people who are evil so using the fact that someone's evil is no longer justification. Also I'd be lying if I myself was in a little bit put out about the timing of the attack. Starting a new year with a state-sanctioned Annihilation a possible escalation of War does not help even if it was in reasonable response. But it's also a point of how people have always feared Trump's attitude would escalate the situation to the point where war was inevitable even if he wanted flagrantly start one against an innocentOne 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.
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?
ShieldWife
Marchioness
If only Soleimani and Mike Pompeo could fight a duel, with no others being killed or injured, but modern warfare has moved far beyond traditional notions of honor and was never like that.
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
You can kill people with an xbox controller now?
That's changed a lot ever since the machine gun that prevents mass wave attacks.
Darmani
Well-known member
Modern? no offense but long-range Weaponry as well as Ambush tactics were not something that were innovated in the modern era. I mean obviously it's fiction, but you think this idea of the noble righteous olden Warrior as a form of athletic dueling to prove who has the right-of-way died with the premiere of Game of Thrones
ShieldWife
Marchioness
Does this cheeto xbox meme have any origin? But honestly a drone operator tends to get to know their targets extremely intimately compared to guys in the infantry. They have pretty high PTSD and drop rates and have a hard time filling their numbers. Its not an easy job.
Last edited: