If it's good or the goose ...

[Ken Mac]

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?

The same way I feel when terrorists kill any American or one of our Soldiers.

I feel pretty confident that our soldiers and the vast majority of American's aren't terrorists though. So that is probably the difference in the equation. He was a fucking terrorist. He also killed over 600 of our service members.

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

'chickenshits' -
Ad hominem attacks don't advance a debate.

'Might makes right.' - That's a great line to use in this case. You are stating that you think the terrorists action that he took previously are not to be accounted for and therefore justified.

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

BTW, I'd rather understand "might makes right" much more than being OK with terrorism, human rights violations, lack of human rights etc... Iran is being run by a bunch of assholes who want to kill us. So I guess you're alright with that. Good for you.

 

[Ken Mac]

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.

BTW, I'd rather understand "might makes right" much more than being OK with terrorism, human rights violations, lack of human rights etc... Iran is being run by a bunch of assholes who want to kill us. So I guess you're alright with that. Good for you.

Note: you would probably be executed for the things you are saying against our government if it were anything like Iraq. Good thing you have freedom of speech, huh?

 

[DBA]

Most retarded Drumpf supporters lack the simple ability to think and read for themselves.

Of course, which is why us Republicans tend to more financially successful than you Demtards. We can't read or think for ourselves, but we seem to be pretty good at getting higher paying jobs.

 

[Mac-7]

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

The general was a terrorist

we have been executing terrorists since 2001

 

[dblack]

You are stating that you think the terrorists action that he took previously are not to be accounted for and therefore justified.

Nope. That's a straight up lie.

 

[Ken Mac]

You are stating that you think the terrorists action that he took previously are not to be accounted for and therefore justified.

Nope. That's a straight up lie.

Might over Right says as much IMO.

 

[Ken Mac]

You are stating that you think the terrorists action that he took previously are not to be accounted for and therefore justified.

Nope. That's a straight up lie.

I answered your question. You have no response to that?

 

[dblack]

You are stating that you think the terrorists action that he took previously are not to be accounted for and therefore justified.

Nope. That's a straight up lie.

I answered your question. You have no response to that?

I responded. What you said wasn't true. It was a lie.

 

[Ken Mac]

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?

The same way I feel when terrorists kill any American or one of our Soldiers.

I feel pretty confident that our soldiers and the vast majority of American's aren't terrorists though. So that is probably the difference in the equation. He was a fucking terrorist. He also killed over 600 of our service members.

I'm talking about this part of the thread. I answered your question and you are mute on response.

 

[dblack]

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?

The same way I feel when terrorists kill any American or one of our Soldiers.

That's nice, I'd be pretty upset too. But what should US policy be? Because we've just validated the use of assassination as away of resolving disputes. Are you ok with other nations approaching problems the same way? Or are you saying that the US is special and should be allowed to do things other nations aren't?

 

[Ken Mac]

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?

The same way I feel when terrorists kill any American or one of our Soldiers.

That's nice, I'd be pretty upset too. But what should US policy be? Because we've just validated the use of assassination as away of resolving disputes. Are you ok with other nations approaching problems the same way? Or are you saying that the US is special and should be allowed to do things other nations aren't?

I've already addressed your use of the term "assassination" as being incorrect. I'm for any nation that wants to take out a terrorist. I'm against middle-east involvement because we have done nothing but screw it up for the last 60 years. We never make the right decision (excepting Kuwait). This termination of a terrorist is warranted though.

 

[dblack]

I'm for any nation that wants to take out a terrorist.

Seriously? And they can just make that determination for themselves, like we just did?? I could never support that. That's nuts.

 

[Ken Mac]

I'm for any nation that wants to take out a terrorist.

Seriously? And they can just make that determination for themselves, like we just did?? I could never support that. That's nuts.

He was on the list of known terrorists of many countries, not just ours. I would estimate that he has terrorized over a dozen countries. You seem to be missing some information.

 

[dblack]

I'm for any nation that wants to take out a terrorist.

Seriously? And they can just make that determination for themselves, like we just did?? I could never support that. That's nuts.

He was on the list of known terrorists of many countries, not just ours. I would estimate that he has terrorized over a dozen countries. You seem to be missing some information.

So, is this a "yes" - you're ok with other nations doing the same thing we just did? It sort of sounds like you're hedging, but I can't quite tell.

 

[Ken Mac]

I'm for any nation that wants to take out a terrorist.

Seriously? And they can just make that determination for themselves, like we just did?? I could never support that. That's nuts.

He was on the list of known terrorists of many countries, not just ours. I would estimate that he has terrorized over a dozen countries. You seem to be missing some information.

So, is this a "yes" - you're ok with other nations doing the same thing we just did? It sort of sounds like you're hedging, but I can't quite tell.

If a nation takes out a known terrorist that has killed many people and is planning for more attacks, I have no problem with it. If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception. Iran is a known terrorist nation to the US and is on the list of such. I happen to take the side of the US in the acton taken. You, seemingly, do not. *shrug*

 

[dblack]

I'm for any nation that wants to take out a terrorist.

Seriously? And they can just make that determination for themselves, like we just did?? I could never support that. That's nuts.

He was on the list of known terrorists of many countries, not just ours. I would estimate that he has terrorized over a dozen countries. You seem to be missing some information.

So, is this a "yes" - you're ok with other nations doing the same thing we just did? It sort of sounds like you're hedging, but I can't quite tell.

If a nation takes out a known terrorist that has killed many people and is planning for more attacks, I have no problem with it. If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception. Iran is a known terrorist nation to the US and is on the list of such. I happen to take the side of the US in the acton taken. You, seemingly, do not. *shrug*

You're right. I don't. I think it was a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Ken Mac]

I'm for any nation that wants to take out a terrorist.

Seriously? And they can just make that determination for themselves, like we just did?? I could never support that. That's nuts.

He was on the list of known terrorists of many countries, not just ours. I would estimate that he has terrorized over a dozen countries. You seem to be missing some information.

So, is this a "yes" - you're ok with other nations doing the same thing we just did? It sort of sounds like you're hedging, but I can't quite tell.

If a nation takes out a known terrorist that has killed many people and is planning for more attacks, I have no problem with it. If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception. Iran is a known terrorist nation to the US and is on the list of such. I happen to take the side of the US in the acton taken. You, seemingly, do not. *shrug*

You're right. I don't. I think it was a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly. I hope I'm wrong.

There is a cost to doing anything like this, but to continue to allow that asshole to keep killing people (many of which are our military hero's) is not OK either. They gain power in the region by doing these things and if we let them go unabated, then their power grows and everyone else gets fucked. It is about time we stood up to the bullshit terrorist tactics they take.

 

[Ken Mac]

I'm for any nation that wants to take out a terrorist.

Seriously? And they can just make that determination for themselves, like we just did?? I could never support that. That's nuts.

He was on the list of known terrorists of many countries, not just ours. I would estimate that he has terrorized over a dozen countries. You seem to be missing some information.

So, is this a "yes" - you're ok with other nations doing the same thing we just did? It sort of sounds like you're hedging, but I can't quite tell.

If a nation takes out a known terrorist that has killed many people and is planning for more attacks, I have no problem with it. If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception. Iran is a known terrorist nation to the US and is on the list of such. I happen to take the side of the US in the acton taken. You, seemingly, do not. *shrug*

You're right. I don't. I think it was a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly. I hope I'm wrong.

Since I answered your question how about answering one of mine?

Are you ok with that terrorist fuck killing civilians of other nations ON THEIR SOIL through terrorist actions?