Forum: Author Hangout

Since when did SOL become news central for political garbage?

Since when did SOL become news central for political garbage?

Noooooo! Don't mention the 'p' word or the hammer will fall!

AJ

You are probably correct. I am waiting for the "72 Hour Rule" to be a bit more certain. Although, If Iran, or any other foreign nation, was involved with an assassination attempt, it might not come out for weeks, or even years.

I believe I was clear that I did not expect it to be an Iranian who was the attempted assassin. I postulated that there could be Iranian involvement behind the assassination attempt.

I am also asking others on this site their opinions of the government of the USA "blaming" Iran for "involvement" and taking action(s) to "respond" to the assassination attempt.

As far as I can determine, this is the first time a shot has been taken at a POTUS since POTUS Reagan was shot in 1981.

It is the first time that the Secret Service has killed a suspected assassin "in the act" ever.

Among other conspiracy theories, I am sure that Putin/Russia, Communist China, and other foreign forces, as well as numerous domestic "Bugaboos" will be blamed for this attempt.

The OP was because "Mainstream Media" mentioned an alleged assassination attempt by Iran against Trump back when he was POTUS, and "linking it" to the US armed forces targeted killing of the senior General of the IRQ Quods forces, as mentioned in the OP. Concurrent with the announcement by the government of "enhanced security measures" in NYC, among other locations not obviously connected to the presence of either Trump or Biden. Those seemingly unconnected facts sparked my interest.

We have many writers (and others) from across the globe in our forum. I wonder about their perspective. In particular if such rhetoric, and an escalation in USA vs. Iran international conflict appears to them.

Multiple nations, from the UK, to the Netherlands, India, and Communist China have warships off the coast of Yemen. I don't think there is serious doubt that Iran is backing the Houthi in Yemen, and providing them the weapons to attack international shipping in the region.

Perhaps I should have titled this thread: "What May Be International Reaction If the USA Acts Upon a Suspected/Supposed Iranian "Connection" to an Assassination Attempt?

I probably shouldn't have disregarded the "72 Hour Rule" about drawing conclusions after a major event.

I am more focused upon what may happen in the next few weeks, with various domestic pressures, in particular upon POTUS Biden. Attacks upon Iran in similar situations in the past (and some allege upon Iraq); among other nations have occurred. There have been numerous attacks by Iran upon the USA and vice-versa over the last couple of years. "Turning against a foreign threat" to distract from domestic issues is not unique to the USA.

I did choose the title of the OP to avoid domestic political matters, and instead focus on international implications of a potentially major political event. At the time I started the OP, it was not clear how seriously candidate T had been wounded (fortunately, not much, it seems). At the time it didn't seem that POTUS Reagan had been wounded, but that his ribs might have been cracked by a Secret Service agent tackling him into the armored limousine. Many international and domestic ripples continue to this day from that event.

It is possible that Trump was shot at, one bystander killed, and two others seriously injured, Perhaps because of restrictive ROE upon various LEA, including the Secret Service. Events of today will be dissected, and twisted, and have repercussions. Potentially international repercussions.

I wonder about their perspective

Going by MSM and general youtube content by UK denizens, general consensus seems to be more that it's a home grown problem rather than outside influence. When it first happened, no one here was looking at foreign nations, but all attention was on the shooter being a fervent democrat supporter.

The beeb reported that he's a white male republican supporter, and even had a picture of him on the rooftop.

Which Trump was it - the Republican ex-president or The one Biden thinks is his running mate :-)

AJ

Thank you. I did not know that. I don't have a TV, and was listening to a local ABC affiliate, broadcasting ABC national without commercials for several hours. ABC played a snippit of Fox 29 Philadelphia, and mentioned "local" I failed to verify that.

I've seen pics on social media claiming to be from the day after the shooting and showing Trump with a supposedly intact ear.

I attribute a vanishingly low probability that they're genuine.

AJ

Excellent information Lupus Dei!

Anyone know what was the rifle used in the attack? Surprisingly, I haven't yet come along it mentioned.

Early on it was reported to be an "AR-15 style" rifle, but due to typical ignorance of firearms, that can be a vast range of firearms (and in at least one TV report about another crime, a Crossbow was "identified" as an "AR-15 type" weapon).

The reported range was 135-150 meters (by various sources, I suppose the larger number is either rough rounding or someone translated yards to meters directly). There is a photograph where bullet appears to just passed DT head on the left, and then his right ear was hit in passing. Getting 8 shots out from a quite ordinary combat distance for modern times and spreading them around someone's head...

As to the counter sniper who got him, the sniper was watching a comparably far weak point and had to turn like, 30° left and 15° down and adjust his sights before engaging. Since he was on a roof right behind the stage, there's a very viral video.

Would you please post a link to the video? I have seen the still shot of what appears to be a bullet passing near candidate (and former POTUS) Trump's head.

The "current administration" in Iran is a religious dictatorship with some posts - including the president - being freely elected, although the Ayatollah's office gets to decide who is permitted to stand. The administration has little popular legitimacy, but it has the army and can't be voted out.

The Iranian Army is compelled to obey the Ayatollah, and the sham government; the Iranian Army if focused upon defending the borders of Iran. However, the Iranian Army is not trusted by the Ayatollahs, nor the other cronies of the ruling regime.

The IRG (Iranian Revolutionary Guard) {having significant similarities to the German SS of Germany c.1938-45} is a very well equipped "para-military" force. It is estimated that the IRG controls from 33% to 60%+ of the Wealth in Iran. The IRG is responsible for protecting the regime {in particular from the Army and the People}, and furthering the (Shia) Islamic Revolution of 1979! The IRGC: Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is the conventional military force; among other elements is the Quods force (also spelled Quds / Qods) a special operations element, that focuses in covert or semi-covert assistance and "mentoring" of various irregular forces, such as Hezbollah (in and around Lebanon/Syria) or the Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The Basij "militia" (and "morality police"); originally an "independent" force under the "guidance" of the Ayatollah Khomeini; now it is under the IRG. Most volunteers are ideologically/religiously motivated; however, volunteers enjoy numerous benefits, and are permitted vast indiscretions, from Thuggish violence, to extortion, rape, and other excesses. They were a major reason for the failure of the 2009 "Green Revolution" in Iran.

The IRG (it various elements) in particular the Basij are far more influential to propping up the regime than the Iranian Army. The conventional Iranian Army, and to a lesser degree the Air Force and Navy, are considered as much a threat to the regime, as they are a defense against foreign aggression. Iranian conventional forces should be expected to fight well against forces of Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Pakistan, and the domestic Baluchi minority, and probably Turkey or the USA too.

Depending upon circumstances, it is possible that Turkey could be seen as co-combatants against Iraq Arabs, or possibly the Kurds, or Armenians, or even Azerbaijani...
the USA too, in certain limited circumstances, might be viewed as "liberators" because it is "certain" that the USA would not long remain (as long as there were no Arab, in particular Saudi forces alongside the USA forces. Such a circumstance, guardedly accepting assistance from the USA would presuppose an ongoing conflict between the Iranian Army vs. the IRG/Regime.

There are some gross similarities between Iran today, and N@zi Germany of 1933-45 and/or the Soviet Union c.1933 to 1992; with a three (uneven) "legs" the Ayatollahs, the IRG (Basij), and by far the weakest the Army/conventional forces.

You miss the essential part of that post.

In Germany c.1938 to 45 the N@ party apparatus was not part of the Reichstag, or any other element of the official German government, yet it was a power-base; the SS was separate from the German Army, and was intended to protect the Party from the armed forces.

The Soviet Union is a better comparison, in that the Party was (supposedly) independent of the Government. The power structure had three-legs. Party / KGB / Army/armed forces. Each supposedly kept the other in check. Mostly, the Party used the KGB to purge the Army (and "dissidents" in the Party); but the massive brute size of the armed forces could, and were used to keep the KGB (and previously the NKVD) in check.

in (or a bit before) 1999 the KGB (now called the FSB) in the person of Putin and his cronies "ate" the Party. Putin has used Wagner mercenaries as a counterbalance to the Russian Army.

Thus, my comparison is that the "elected" Iranian government has no effective independent power. The Ayatollahs (are similar to the Party in NG or the USSR), the IRG are similar to the SS/KGB; the Army in Iran, N Germany, or the USSR/Russia has a degree of power, but there extra-governmental measures (IRG/Basij; KGB; SS) to deter "counterrevolutionary" by the conventional forces of all three nations.

As a comparison, Communist China, North Korea, and Cuba don't seem to have a concern that the conventional armed forces would turn against the Party, at least not en masse. If a General, or a cabal of Generals were to turn against the Party in those nations, the majority of the armed forces would likely remain loyal to the Party.

In the USA, UK, France, Japan, etc. there is no serious concern about a coup. The vast majority of the armed forces are presumed to be Loyal to the Constitution/Nation.

the US, that doesn't apply to the other countries you mentioned, is that some citizens have very high patriotism towards their state rather than the country overall and there's a lot more local military groups that are only loosely aligned to the federal government, if at all.

The National Guard and Army Reserves are officially federal, but members are posted in the state they come from. Militias, of course, are entirely localized with limited to no federal allegiance.

I cannot imagine a scenario where the US National Guard, nor the Reserves would participate in a rebellion.

The National Guard of the USA was created due to a failure of the State Militias during the Spanish American War. It was created by transferring some of the Militia formations to the NG. In both World Wars NG units were supplemented with Draftees.

During the war in Vietnam War there were some individuals who finagled a way into the NG to avoid service in VN. Most people don't know that during the conflict in Vietnam a few units of National Guard troops served in Vietnam (or elsewhere in Southeast Asia) consisting of Volunteers; a few Reserve units did too.

In the 1980's the National Guard of the USA changed substantially. Previously the entirety of the NG was composed of local men; few of whom had ever served in the Regular Army. But in the 80's there started to be a substantial number of men who enjoyed their service, but didn't want to reenlist for Active Duty (mostly in the Army or Marines, but other branches too), and instead re-enlisted in a National Guard unit. Partially this was due to the downsizing of the armed forces after Vietnam, and other related matters. Also, the economy meant that NG pay was paltry. The NG was a major component of (decreasing US Army Divisions in Europe) the USA commitment to NATO. In the 1980's they had NG/R Recruiters as part of the Out-Processing from Active Duty in the US Army.

Since then, a sizeable portion of NG units are people from across the USA who have gotten off active duty and decided to stay in the state where they last served. Georgia, Texas, California, New York, Washington, Kentucky/Tennessee, Colorado, and North Carolina, are among the states where this is more common. But, for nearly all of the states, this has become common, that people from out of state, join local NG (or Reserve) units. There is the connection to the increasing mobility of the workforce in the USA. So, men or women who get a job with a defense contractor in Alabama, or work in the Bakken Oilfields of South Dakota, also join the NG (R) for various reasons.

Into the 1950's recruits for the NG were trained in their home states, by members of their "Regiment" or at least from their State NG. Now everyone must go to Active Duty training facilities, and train with everyone else. It is more and more common that Technical Schools, NCO schools, and such are also active duty at centralized locations. (Officers have long had to attend active duty schools for professional development.)

This has made the National Guard (not to mention the Reserves) less parochial.

Furthermore, the Tanks, Artillery, Warplanes, and other such weapons systems Don't belong to the States, but to the Federal Govt. and are kept at Federal facilities. Most often those facilities are on an Active Duty base, such as the MATES (Mobilization Assembly Training Equipment Site) on JBLM (Joint Base Lewis-McChord; formerly Fort Lewis) or UTES (Unit Training Equipment Site) on the Yakima Training Center, a geographically separate part of JBLM.

This is done primarily for Logistics reasons, but also for security reasons too. Some armories might have an AFV (Armored Fighting Vehicle) or six, for training; but no ammunition. They have several dozen, to perhaps a couple of hundred bullets for pistols and rifles for security during movements between an armory and a training location; but nothing more.

So, even if members of the National Guard or Reserves had an inclination to revolt, they would have to bring personal firearms and ammo...

Even when tank crews engage in annual gunnery qualification, they are issued "blue" training rounds, not live ammo. Infantry and other soldiers are only issued enough ammo for qualification, or other training. Typically, about 100 rounds per soldier.

If there were serious concerns about any units, Active Duty, National Guard, or Reserves, being unreliable, the Federal Government would take measures to secure weapons, ammo, and AFVs.

The armed forces of the USA are completely subservient to the political conventions of the USA. The only exception I could imagine would be If elements of the government were to attempt to use the armed forces in an Unconstitutional manner. I have difficulty imagining that, because I believe that any such administration would be arrested by LEO (Law Enforcement Officers) before such orders would be transmitted by the senior officers of the armed forces.

For example: in the 1990's the LA Riots in the wake of the trial finding Not Guilty the officers who beat Rodney King; elements of the Marines, and also National Guard troops were called out to support LEA (Law Enforcement Agencies). Many of those personnel had seen the riots on their TVs. They understood their orders, and did not fire, Unless fired upon! They would not have followed orders to "Raise Compton to the ground!"

They stipulated that the assassination attempt on 13 July was probably not an Iranian scheme.

Has anyone else heard anything? In particular from International media.

You are coming over as a little obsessive about this issue. Would you care to explain why you are so desperate for an answer?

Obviously I can't speak for other Nations, but right from the word go, UK press was saying that it was a misguided home-grown individual and no other 'agencies' were involved. That hasn't changed.

As for your un-named source stipulating that it "was probably not an Iranian scheme", that's just standard lawyer arsecoverium.

As to Indian news, I have seen some and it's amusing. It's what we call 'Tabloid Journalism' in the UK, with content along the lines of 'Freddy Star ate my hamster' and the Nazi's have a base on the moon, accessed via their star port in antarctica. So yeah, take Indian news with a pinch of salt.

I suggest you start linking these MSM articles that you say are pushing the Iran narrative, so we can all have a look and independently check their veracity.

A lot of US mainstream media cannot be accessed from Europe, or is paywalled. Or both.

I didn't know that. I can easily access Canadian, Mexican, UK (Sky News, BBC, and other), French, German, Netherlands, India, Japanese, and other nations news sources, video and print. Three blocks from me are two bookstores where I can by current newspapers and periodicals from more than a dozen nations.

You are coming over as a little obsessive about this issue. Would you care to explain why you are so desperate for an answer?

I have kept aware of international events for decades. For nearly three decades there was a significant probability I would be deployed to regions where there were "situations" not necessarily direct combat, but to provide training or other support to friendly armed forces.

I still track those sources, at least the "open" sources. I also have friends and associates who are still deploying to those locales.

But that is just a general concern about global events.

Domestically in the USA we are having serious problems. The current administration (D Executive and Senate; GOP in House of Representatives of Congress) is having worse problems than "normal" for the last some 25 years. The USA is not the only nation that has gotten into "foreign entanglements" to distract the voters from domestic issues!

I am concerned that some 30 minutes after an attempted assassination of a candidate for POTUS center-left mainstream media was broadcasting that there were rumors of the Iranian "government" (IRG and/or Ayatollahs) was plotting to assassinate former POTUS and current candidate DJ Trump.

{This has been known since the US armed forces targeted and eliminated the General commanding the IRG back in 2020; likely POTUS T was a target even before that.}

Again today the mainstream media, not Right Wing, nor merely extremist websites, were reporting that the government of the USA, not candidate Trump, was reporting a "Plot by Iran to assassinate candidate Trump. Furthermore, it has been specified that the US government "knew about the assassination plot a couple of weeks before 13 July 2024."

If the Trumpster was ranting about it, or Right-Wing radio, that would be one thing.

I am concerned that politicians, from either or Both parties might decide to "retaliate" against Iran before the scheduled November election.

If there are serious news reports in the media of France, or Brazil, or India, or Japan, or the UK, that would provide another perspective.

I am reasonably certain that the attempted assassination on 13 July 2024 was not directed by Iran. (It may turn out that the nut did have "communications" with some foreign entities. But that is Not an Iranian / IRG "plot.")

I am certain that the government of the USA could produce evidence of Iranian plot(s) to target former POTUS Trump, and other current or former members of the US government. There is open source information that several current or former members of the government of the USA have Secret Service protective details due to such threats. That is reasonable.

Launching missiles, or other military adventurism is a distinct, and to me frightening possibility!

Personally, I believe that it may be beneficial to use the armed forces of the USA to achieve our interests. Such as maintaining naval forces in the Red Sea to counter attacks by Houthi Rebels in Yemen. Unless there is Definitive Proof AND a Plan with reasonable chances for success; then I am NOT in favor of the USA engaging in military/naval attacks upon Iran (at this time, and for the immediate future).

Is this a new trend in the US?

There seems to be an uptick in the use of 'OTUS' acronyms by American posters. SCOTUS is another one.

I wonder whether texting might be the underlying reason.

AJ

According to Merriam Webster, FLOTUS (First Lady of the United States) is believed to have started with the Secret Service back in the Regan administration.

If Harris is elected, will there be a FMOTUS? :-)

AJ

According to Merriam Webster, FLOTUS (First Lady of the United States) is believed to have started with the Secret Service back in the Regan administration.

The first time I saw the term FLOTUS was during the Reagan administration; but it was in a book about Lady Bird Johnson, and referred to her as FLOTUS. It was in writing about her activities, in particular "Highway Beatification" and other activities she was engaged in while she was First Lady of the USA.

Not surprisingly, she was much more liked by the Secret Service than LBJ (and more the Jackie-O).

Highway Beatification

This highway has performed two miracles so I pronounce it Saint Highway :-)

Or 'Saint Highway of the United States' aka SHOTUS.

AJ