If it's good or the goose ...

[Olde Europe]

He killed Brits on British soil in a terror attack.

Link? And not some shitty rightarded clickbait catapult, if at all possible.

 

[Ken Mac]

He killed Brits on British soil in a terror attack.

Link? And not some shitty rightarded clickbait catapult, if at all possible.

That's a simple lookup, do it yourself.

 

[Olde Europe]

He killed Brits on British soil in a terror attack.

Link? And not some shitty rightarded clickbait catapult, if at all possible.

That's a simple lookup, do it yourself.

So you got nothing. Thought so.

 

[Circe]

Iran won't retaliate with military action. That can't match us militarily and they know it. That's why the resort to terrorism. They'll simply funnel more money to terrorist groups and let them make the attacks. And thanks to our overbearing show of force, there will be many new recruits volunteering.

Ooooops. I'm glad it was you, not me, for a change. Could have been me; impossible to predict the future and I won't get it right a second time! Thanks for your nice conversation. We have a situation now.

 

[Circe]

I wonder if any of you people remember how the first Great War (WWI) got started?

It was because Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo. That is what started the whole thing.

Wonder if WWIII will start with an assassination as well?

Whoa, good guess. Good heavens. I hope you're wrong there, but it has started hot and heavy.

 

[Circe]

Iran is part of the UN correct? why are they still doing the shit 79 years later if they are part of the UN? Does that seem logical to you? Where's the UN?

The UN is in New York City, unfortunately. It's totally useless, just like the League of Nations was. Forget the UN: it's just a talk shop.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
We were talking about state sponsored assassinations, not the welfare state.

We've already established that you support state sponsored assassination. just as long as it's conducted by Obama.

It's only bad when Republicans do it.

 

[dblack]

We were talking about state sponsored assassinations, not the welfare state.

We've already established that you support state sponsored assassination. just as long as it's conducted by Obama.

You miserable, lying piece of shit. I've said nothing like that. Fuck off.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What say you good folks? And you not-so-good folks can respond as well.

Not just acceptable, mandatory.

Don't start a war and murder thousands when what is needed is to take out one bad actor.

But that's not how it is.

Just for argument's sake lets imagine Iran were assassinate one of our top commanders. Does every single man under his command just go home? Shit no, they get a new commander with a deep wish to get some payback. It is generally disastrous to do things to harden the resolve of the enemy.

And yet Iran and the Hezbollah-democrats are in disarray after the loss of Obama's dear, dear friend Soleimani.

Remember, Soleimani killed MORE Americans than Osama Bin Laden.

He was a bad guy, no question, but it was a tactical error to kill him assuming we really want to avoid another endless Mid-East conflict. A lot of Americans WILL die if we needlessly go to war, what about them? Was killing this guy worth it if it starts a war?

democrats want a war as the only way to keep this from being a major victory for Trump. democrats don't care about Americans, they just fear a Trump win. Iran has launched rockets at US bases. INN has been repeating Iranian propaganda all afternoon, playing a video of GLORIOUS Iranian rockets in flight. INN host and demagogue Anderson Cooper has been breathlessly hoping for American deaths and casualties. But it looks like Cooper and all of the Iranian News Network are to be disappointed as no one appears to be injured.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Was taking out Bin Laden state sponsored assassination?

Nope. OBL was an international criminal. Any other stupid questions?

Fucking hypocrite.

Obama's dear, dear friend Soleimani was also an international criminal complicite in the deaths of over 4,000 Americans.

Only on our say so. So, again, I ask - is it ok for another nation to assassinate US officials merely on their declaration that said official is a criminal?

Listen, I have no doubt Soleimani was supporting terrorists. The question isn't whether he was a good guy. The question is whether assassinating him was a good idea or not. Have you given any consideration to the precedent that it sets? "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Wrong, Soleimani was proud of his attacks on Americans. Soleimani killed more Americans than Osama did. To support taking out Osama while condemning taking out a man far worse is utter hypocrisy based on who gave the order.

Period.

I never said I supported taking out Osama - I said it wasn't assassination.

If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Your hypocrisy has you spinning at an absurd rate.

"If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals"

You grasp that we entered Pakistan without permission to assassinate OBL, right? We did NOT enter Iraq to take out democrat hero Soliemani. We were already there.

Taking out OBL was a good call, so was taking out Soliemani.

The Buddha was asked if a man attacks with a stick, should one fight or run away? The Buddha said there is a third way, take the stick away.

That is what we have done, we took Iran's terrorist stick away.

 

[dblack]

Nope. OBL was an international criminal. Any other stupid questions?

Fucking hypocrite.

Obama's dear, dear friend Soleimani was also an international criminal complicite in the deaths of over 4,000 Americans.

Only on our say so. So, again, I ask - is it ok for another nation to assassinate US officials merely on their declaration that said official is a criminal?

Listen, I have no doubt Soleimani was supporting terrorists. The question isn't whether he was a good guy. The question is whether assassinating him was a good idea or not. Have you given any consideration to the precedent that it sets? "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Wrong, Soleimani was proud of his attacks on Americans. Soleimani killed more Americans than Osama did. To support taking out Osama while condemning taking out a man far worse is utter hypocrisy based on who gave the order.

Period.

I never said I supported taking out Osama - I said it wasn't assassination.

If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Your hypocrisy has you spinning at an absurd rate.

Again, you're lying. Lying is all you have left.

Taking out OBL was a good call, so was taking out Soliemani.

No, they were both wrong.

 

[Ken Mac]

Nope. OBL was an international criminal. Any other stupid questions?

Fucking hypocrite.

Obama's dear, dear friend Soleimani was also an international criminal complicite in the deaths of over 4,000 Americans.

Only on our say so. So, again, I ask - is it ok for another nation to assassinate US officials merely on their declaration that said official is a criminal?

Listen, I have no doubt Soleimani was supporting terrorists. The question isn't whether he was a good guy. The question is whether assassinating him was a good idea or not. Have you given any consideration to the precedent that it sets? "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Wrong, Soleimani was proud of his attacks on Americans. Soleimani killed more Americans than Osama did. To support taking out Osama while condemning taking out a man far worse is utter hypocrisy based on who gave the order.

Period.

I never said I supported taking out Osama - I said it wasn't assassination.

If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Your hypocrisy has you spinning at an absurd rate.

"If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals"

You grasp that we entered Pakistan without permission to assassinate OBL, right? We did NOT enter Iraq to take out democrat hero Soliemani. We were already there.

Taking out OBL was a good call, so was taking out Soliemani.

The Buddha was asked if a man attacks with a stick, should one fight or run away? The Buddha said there is a third way, take the stick away.

That is what we have done, we took Iran's terrorist stick away.

I don't think we took all the sticks away, but I do think we might shortly take out all of the weapons systems.

 

[dblack]

Fucking hypocrite.

Obama's dear, dear friend Soleimani was also an international criminal complicite in the deaths of over 4,000 Americans.

Only on our say so. So, again, I ask - is it ok for another nation to assassinate US officials merely on their declaration that said official is a criminal?

Listen, I have no doubt Soleimani was supporting terrorists. The question isn't whether he was a good guy. The question is whether assassinating him was a good idea or not. Have you given any consideration to the precedent that it sets? "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Wrong, Soleimani was proud of his attacks on Americans. Soleimani killed more Americans than Osama did. To support taking out Osama while condemning taking out a man far worse is utter hypocrisy based on who gave the order.

Period.

I never said I supported taking out Osama - I said it wasn't assassination.

If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Your hypocrisy has you spinning at an absurd rate.

"If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals"

You grasp that we entered Pakistan without permission to assassinate OBL, right? We did NOT enter Iraq to take out democrat hero Soliemani. We were already there.

Taking out OBL was a good call, so was taking out Soliemani.

The Buddha was asked if a man attacks with a stick, should one fight or run away? The Buddha said there is a third way, take the stick away.

That is what we have done, we took Iran's terrorist stick away.

I don't think we took all the sticks away, but I do think we might shortly take out all of the weapons systems.

Their primary "weapons systems" are suicide bombers. I think we just radically increased supply.

 

[FA_Q2]

It wasn't an assassination. That is illegal. Look it up. I've posted links for this many times.

It was termination of a terrorist threat. This has all been defined by congress and approved after 911.

I believe assassination isn't right and additionally it's illegal.

I'm not really interested in legal pronouncements, or attempts to redefine words to win an argument. I'm asking if you people can actually imagine the shoe on the other foot. I'm pretty sure you can't. How would the US react if another country did this to one of our generals?

I'll answer for you, since it's clear none of you chickenshits will cop to the truth. Here's what would happen if another nation, that we weren't at war with, declared one of our leaders to be a criminal and unilaterally assassinated them. Regardless of whether said person was guilty, we'd condemn the attack as the desperate act of a rogue nation. We'd call on the rest of the world to condemn the act as a war crime. We'd, quite rightly, refuse to acknowledge such a nation as a legitimate state.

The most honest answer to this question came from BluesLegend in another thread. It really gets to the heart of the - let's call it what it is - evil world view embraced by Trump and his followers:

Depends, are they the worlds sole superpower with enough nukes to obliterate an entire country?

Might makes right. It's all you sick fuckers understand.

That is a rather nice black and white blanket statement dblack but you are actively ignoring any nuance here.

If one of our generals was operating clandestine terrorist operations against another nation, walked into a country that they are militarily occupying and have active military operations there then yes, I would EXPECT them to kill that general. To think otherwise is rather silly.

Does that make it wrong? That question is immensely complex if you are honest. Is it a better option to ignore those terrorist actions and allow them to continue? What are the goals of those operations? Are they to establish peace or to destroy a people or nation?

To be totally honest, several people here are avoiding the question because it is centered on a blatant fallacy.

 

[dblack]

It wasn't an assassination. That is illegal. Look it up. I've posted links for this many times.

It was termination of a terrorist threat. This has all been defined by congress and approved after 911.

I believe assassination isn't right and additionally it's illegal.

I'm not really interested in legal pronouncements, or attempts to redefine words to win an argument. I'm asking if you people can actually imagine the shoe on the other foot. I'm pretty sure you can't. How would the US react if another country did this to one of our generals?

I'll answer for you, since it's clear none of you chickenshits will cop to the truth. Here's what would happen if another nation, that we weren't at war with, declared one of our leaders to be a criminal and unilaterally assassinated them. Regardless of whether said person was guilty, we'd condemn the attack as the desperate act of a rogue nation. We'd call on the rest of the world to condemn the act as a war crime. We'd, quite rightly, refuse to acknowledge such a nation as a legitimate state.

The most honest answer to this question came from BluesLegend in another thread. It really gets to the heart of the - let's call it what it is - evil world view embraced by Trump and his followers:

Depends, are they the worlds sole superpower with enough nukes to obliterate an entire country?

Might makes right. It's all you sick fuckers understand.

That is a rather nice black and white blanket statement dblack but you are actively ignoring any nuance here.

If one of our generals was operating clandestine terrorist operations against another nation, walked into a country that they are militarily occupying and have active military operations there then yes, I would EXPECT them to kill that general. To think otherwise is rather silly.

Does that make it wrong? That question is immensely complex if you are honest. Is it a better option to ignore those terrorist actions and allow them to continue? What are the goals of those operations? Are they to establish peace or to destroy a people or nation?

To be totally honest, several people here are avoiding the question because it is centered on a blatant fallacy.

You're rationalizing FA - I expected better from you.

 

[Ken Mac]

Only on our say so. So, again, I ask - is it ok for another nation to assassinate US officials merely on their declaration that said official is a criminal?

Listen, I have no doubt Soleimani was supporting terrorists. The question isn't whether he was a good guy. The question is whether assassinating him was a good idea or not. Have you given any consideration to the precedent that it sets? "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Wrong, Soleimani was proud of his attacks on Americans. Soleimani killed more Americans than Osama did. To support taking out Osama while condemning taking out a man far worse is utter hypocrisy based on who gave the order.

Period.

I never said I supported taking out Osama - I said it wasn't assassination.

If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Your hypocrisy has you spinning at an absurd rate.

"If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals"

You grasp that we entered Pakistan without permission to assassinate OBL, right? We did NOT enter Iraq to take out democrat hero Soliemani. We were already there.

Taking out OBL was a good call, so was taking out Soliemani.

The Buddha was asked if a man attacks with a stick, should one fight or run away? The Buddha said there is a third way, take the stick away.

That is what we have done, we took Iran's terrorist stick away.

I don't think we took all the sticks away, but I do think we might shortly take out all of the weapons systems.

Their primary "weapons systems" are suicide bombers. I think we just radically increased supply.

Those ballistic missiles used tonight came from Iran This was the first attack that wasn't using a whipping boy for delivery. It was directly from them. Ballistic missiles don't look anything like a bomb strapped to an idiot. I a little bit of a difference.

 

[FA_Q2]

Was taking out Bin Laden state sponsored assassination?

Nope. OBL was an international criminal. Any other stupid questions?

Are you and your LefTarded buddies appointed to decide who is and who isn’t an “international criminal”?
Do you have clearance and intel?

No, I'm basing my assessment on worldwide consensus. No country claimed him. He was a wanted criminal in Pakistan.

That said, I didn't support the way OBL was taken out. When we discovered his location, we should have insisted that Pakistan apprehend him - and then declared war on them if they refused.

That is crazy.

That would have resulted in OBL escaping and the US entering into an obligatory war with Pakistan killing tens of thousands. Prudence in matters like this is essential. That is where Trump actually fucked up - it was not in taking out a terrorist but rather in the rank disregard for the fallout from the action.

 

[dblack]

Wrong, Soleimani was proud of his attacks on Americans. Soleimani killed more Americans than Osama did. To support taking out Osama while condemning taking out a man far worse is utter hypocrisy based on who gave the order.

Period.

I never said I supported taking out Osama - I said it wasn't assassination.

If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Your hypocrisy has you spinning at an absurd rate.

"If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals"

You grasp that we entered Pakistan without permission to assassinate OBL, right? We did NOT enter Iraq to take out democrat hero Soliemani. We were already there.

Taking out OBL was a good call, so was taking out Soliemani.

The Buddha was asked if a man attacks with a stick, should one fight or run away? The Buddha said there is a third way, take the stick away.

That is what we have done, we took Iran's terrorist stick away.

I don't think we took all the sticks away, but I do think we might shortly take out all of the weapons systems.

Their primary "weapons systems" are suicide bombers. I think we just radically increased supply.

Those ballistic missiles used tonight came from Iran This was the first attack that wasn't using a whipping boy for delivery. It was directly from them. Ballistic missiles don't look anything like a bomb strapped to an idiot. I a little bit of a difference.

Yeah. Whatever. These token attacks are merely a face-saving exercise. The wave of terrorism comes later. Blowback. But go on pretending it won't happen.

 

[FA_Q2]

It wasn't an assassination. That is illegal. Look it up. I've posted links for this many times.

It was termination of a terrorist threat. This has all been defined by congress and approved after 911.

I believe assassination isn't right and additionally it's illegal.

I'm not really interested in legal pronouncements, or attempts to redefine words to win an argument. I'm asking if you people can actually imagine the shoe on the other foot. I'm pretty sure you can't. How would the US react if another country did this to one of our generals?

I'll answer for you, since it's clear none of you chickenshits will cop to the truth. Here's what would happen if another nation, that we weren't at war with, declared one of our leaders to be a criminal and unilaterally assassinated them. Regardless of whether said person was guilty, we'd condemn the attack as the desperate act of a rogue nation. We'd call on the rest of the world to condemn the act as a war crime. We'd, quite rightly, refuse to acknowledge such a nation as a legitimate state.

The most honest answer to this question came from BluesLegend in another thread. It really gets to the heart of the - let's call it what it is - evil world view embraced by Trump and his followers:

Depends, are they the worlds sole superpower with enough nukes to obliterate an entire country?

Might makes right. It's all you sick fuckers understand.

That is a rather nice black and white blanket statement dblack but you are actively ignoring any nuance here.

If one of our generals was operating clandestine terrorist operations against another nation, walked into a country that they are militarily occupying and have active military operations there then yes, I would EXPECT them to kill that general. To think otherwise is rather silly.

Does that make it wrong? That question is immensely complex if you are honest. Is it a better option to ignore those terrorist actions and allow them to continue? What are the goals of those operations? Are they to establish peace or to destroy a people or nation?

To be totally honest, several people here are avoiding the question because it is centered on a blatant fallacy.

You're rationalizing FA - I expected better from you.

I am not rationalizing, I am dealing with reality dblack.

You are still relying on a logical fallacy and I truly expected better from you as well Your question is no different than the demand that you must be either republican or democrat. It is a false black and white issue. Iran is and has been actively engaged in war with the US even if we have not declared war with them.

 

[BrokeLoser]

I never said I supported taking out Osama - I said it wasn't assassination.

If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

Your hypocrisy has you spinning at an absurd rate.

"If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals"

You grasp that we entered Pakistan without permission to assassinate OBL, right? We did NOT enter Iraq to take out democrat hero Soliemani. We were already there.

Taking out OBL was a good call, so was taking out Soliemani.

The Buddha was asked if a man attacks with a stick, should one fight or run away? The Buddha said there is a third way, take the stick away.

That is what we have done, we took Iran's terrorist stick away.

I don't think we took all the sticks away, but I do think we might shortly take out all of the weapons systems.

Their primary "weapons systems" are suicide bombers. I think we just radically increased supply.

Those ballistic missiles used tonight came from Iran This was the first attack that wasn't using a whipping boy for delivery. It was directly from them. Ballistic missiles don't look anything like a bomb strapped to an idiot. I a little bit of a difference.

Yeah. Whatever. These token attacks are merely a face-saving exercise. The wave of terrorism comes later. Blowback. But go on pretending it won't happen.

Another post that proves just how pussified that Kenyan dude programmed his followers to be.