What Retaliation For Soleimani's Death Would Justify War With Iran?

[EvilEyeFleegle]

State sponsored (or state ordered) assassinations don't make the world a safer place. They do the opposite.

Ummmmm, he was a enemy general, in a theater of war.....the fact that obummer kissed his ass only shows what a useless piece of shit obummer was, this dude was a legit target, just like Yamomoto during WWII.
...

We haven't declared war on Iran.

They declared war on us long ago.

Really? When was that?

When they took over the US embassy and held the hostages for 444 days. Look up international law. Attacking an embassy is tantamount to a Declaration of war.

I see..so your contention is that we have been at war with Iran since 1979?? Not that I'm shedding a tear over our assassination..and that is what it was, despite your desire to play with the semantics....But..among other things..when the hostages were taken..it was not by the formal Govt. of Iran, at the time. Also, if it was a declaration of war..it was settled by the Algiers accords

Algiers Accords - Wikipedia

Iran hostage crisis - Wikipedia

I've no problem with taking out Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleiman---just a hunch that playing the shadow game tit for tat..is not our strong point---I would rather we followed by a massive Desert Shield attack..taking out every stationary Iraqi military target..including C&C functions

Just let me fill my tank first..LOL!

 

[dblack]

State sponsored (or state ordered) assassinations don't make the world a safer place. They do the opposite.

It wasn't an assassination. Please educate yourself.

Yes it was. Please use a dictionary.

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

Would you be ok with other nations taking up the same policy?

It wasn't an assassination. I've provided proof, yet you provide a red herring as a response. Typical logical fallacy.

You've offered weak rationalizations. You haven't answered the question. I doubt you'll summon the courage to do so honestly.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

State sponsored (or state ordered) assassinations don't make the world a safer place. They do the opposite.

It wasn't an assassination. Please educate yourself.

Yes it was. Please use a dictionary.

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

Semantics are fun..aren't they..LOL! Yes..Obama assassinated many...a legal assassination is still an assassination.

The curious thing..is why this difference..that makes no difference..is so important to some of you?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Oh yeah..and just became we declared some 'War on Terror'..does not mean that we have formally declared war on anyone...in the eyes of international law..not that that means shyte to us here in the US.

 

[Ken Mac]

It wasn't an assassination. Please educate yourself.

Yes it was. Please use a dictionary.

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

Would you be ok with other nations taking up the same policy?

It wasn't an assassination. I've provided proof, yet you provide a red herring as a response. Typical logical fallacy.

You've offered weak rationalizations. You haven't answered the question. I doubt you'll summon the courage to do so honestly.

I gave you evidence of US law that shows it was a legal act. And not an assassination (again by US law). They aren't weak rationalizations, they are actual evidence. You, on the other hand, provide a red herring which I will refuse to answer because it is irrelevant as to whether or not it was an assassination. Your question has no debate value at all. It's diversionary at best.

 

[dblack]

Yes it was. Please use a dictionary.

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

Would you be ok with other nations taking up the same policy?

It wasn't an assassination. I've provided proof, yet you provide a red herring as a response. Typical logical fallacy.

You've offered weak rationalizations. You haven't answered the question. I doubt you'll summon the courage to do so honestly.

I gave you evidence of US law that shows it was a legal act. And not an assassination (again by US law). They aren't weak rationalizations, they are actual evidence. You, on the other hand, provide a red herring which I will refuse to answer because it is irrelevant as to whether or not it was an assassination. Your question has no debate value at all. It's diversionary at best.

You'll refuse to answer the question because it exposes the utter, abject amorality of your position.

 

[Ken Mac]

State sponsored (or state ordered) assassinations don't make the world a safer place. They do the opposite.

It wasn't an assassination. Please educate yourself.

Yes it was. Please use a dictionary.

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

Semantics are fun..aren't they..LOL! Yes..Obama assassinated many...a legal assassination is still an assassination.

The curious thing..is why this difference..that makes no difference..is so important to some of you?

Why don't you read up on the links I provided and educate yourself. You're wrong.

It matters because we have laws against assassinations. You're directly indicting the action by labeling it as such. It does matter. There is no such thing as a "Legal" assassination. It's against the law.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The question now becomes..What next? Iraq just voted to rescind our permission to house troops in their country..so..do we leave..and de facto give the country to ISIS? do we 'double down' and reinstitute the occupation of Iraq?

Iraq's Parliament calls for expulsion of U.S. troops

Iraq's Parliament called for the expulsion of U.S. troops from the country Sunday in reaction to the American drone attack that killed a top Iranian general.
Lawmakers approved a resolution asking the Iraqi government to end the agreement under which Washington sent forces to Iraq more than four years ago to help in the fight against the Islamic State group.
A pullout of the estimated 5,200 U.S. troops could cripple the fight against ISIS and allow its resurgence.
The majority of about 180 legislators present in Parliament voted in favor of the resolution. It was backed by most Shiite members of parliament, who hold a majority of seats. Many Sunni and Kurdish legislators did not show up for the session, apparently because they oppose abolishing the deal.
The vote came two days after a U.S. airstrike killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani at the Baghdad airport, dramatically increasing regional tensions and raising fears of war. Iran has vowed revenge.
Meanwhile. amid Iran's threats of vengeance, the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq announced Sunday it is putting the fight against Islamic State militants on hold to focus on protecting its troops and bases. The coalition said it is suspending the training of Iraqi forces and other operations in support of the fight against ISIS.

 

[Ken Mac]

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

Would you be ok with other nations taking up the same policy?

It wasn't an assassination. I've provided proof, yet you provide a red herring as a response. Typical logical fallacy.

You've offered weak rationalizations. You haven't answered the question. I doubt you'll summon the courage to do so honestly.

I gave you evidence of US law that shows it was a legal act. And not an assassination (again by US law). They aren't weak rationalizations, they are actual evidence. You, on the other hand, provide a red herring which I will refuse to answer because it is irrelevant as to whether or not it was an assassination. Your question has no debate value at all. It's diversionary at best.

You'll refuse to answer the question because it exposes the utter, abject amorality of your position.

Now you've moved on to ad hominem attacks. You have logical fallacies down pat, don't you. If you're saying my position is amoral, then our US law is amoral. Why don't you advocate to change it. Write your congressman a letter.

 

[Ken Mac]

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

Would you be ok with other nations taking up the same policy?

It wasn't an assassination. I've provided proof, yet you provide a red herring as a response. Typical logical fallacy.

You've offered weak rationalizations. You haven't answered the question. I doubt you'll summon the courage to do so honestly.

I gave you evidence of US law that shows it was a legal act. And not an assassination (again by US law). They aren't weak rationalizations, they are actual evidence. You, on the other hand, provide a red herring which I will refuse to answer because it is irrelevant as to whether or not it was an assassination. Your question has no debate value at all. It's diversionary at best.

You'll refuse to answer the question because it exposes the utter, abject amorality of your position.

By the way, I never provided my position. I provided the governments position. Go argue with them.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

State sponsored (or state ordered) assassinations don't make the world a safer place. They do the opposite.

It wasn't an assassination. Please educate yourself.

Yes it was. Please use a dictionary.

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

Semantics are fun..aren't they..LOL! Yes..Obama assassinated many...a legal assassination is still an assassination.

The curious thing..is why this difference..that makes no difference..is so important to some of you?

Why don't you read up on the links I provided and educate yourself. You're wrong.

It matters because we have laws against assassinations. You're directly indicting the action by labeling it as such. It does matter. There is no such thing as a "Legal" assassination. It's against the law.

I see..so some twisty legal machinations somehow change what the act was? If it walk like a duck..and quacks like a duck..you can call it a swan..if that's the justification you need. I would point out the the late Gen. was a serving officer in a national army--and despite his acts..which were despicable and worthy of death..he was not..since you like definitions so much..not..a terrorist. He did,, on the orders of his govt.--enable terrorists..and had to be assassinated..err...pardon me...Killed with all due legality...LOL!

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Would you be ok with other nations taking up the same policy?

It wasn't an assassination. I've provided proof, yet you provide a red herring as a response. Typical logical fallacy.

You've offered weak rationalizations. You haven't answered the question. I doubt you'll summon the courage to do so honestly.

I gave you evidence of US law that shows it was a legal act. And not an assassination (again by US law). They aren't weak rationalizations, they are actual evidence. You, on the other hand, provide a red herring which I will refuse to answer because it is irrelevant as to whether or not it was an assassination. Your question has no debate value at all. It's diversionary at best.

You'll refuse to answer the question because it exposes the utter, abject amorality of your position.

Now you've moved on to ad hominem attacks. You have logical fallacies down pat, don't you. If you're saying my position is amoral, then our US law is amoral. Why don't you advocate to change it. Write your congressman a letter.

Of course our govt. is amoral....as are all govt.'s. We do what we must..to survive. If it means killing hundreds of thousand of innocents to protect 1 citizen..well..that's how we roll.

 

[Care4all]

State sponsored (or state ordered) assassinations don't make the world a safer place. They do the opposite.

It wasn't an assassination. Please educate yourself.

Yes it was. Please use a dictionary.

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

What does the word imminent mean, to you?

Did the assassination stop the imminent attack on us?

What proof do you have that the threat was imminent, and the threat was stopped in its tracks by the killing of him?

 

[Ken Mac]

It wasn't an assassination. Please educate yourself.

Yes it was. Please use a dictionary.

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

Semantics are fun..aren't they..LOL! Yes..Obama assassinated many...a legal assassination is still an assassination.

The curious thing..is why this difference..that makes no difference..is so important to some of you?

Why don't you read up on the links I provided and educate yourself. You're wrong.

It matters because we have laws against assassinations. You're directly indicting the action by labeling it as such. It does matter. There is no such thing as a "Legal" assassination. It's against the law.

I see..so some twisty legal machinations somehow change what the act was? If it walk like a duck..and quacks like a duck..you can call it a swan..if that's the justification you need. I would point out the the late Gen. was a serving officer in a national army--and despite his acts..which were despicable and worthy of death..he was not..since you like definitions so much..not..a terrorist. He did,, on the orders of his govt.--enable terrorists..and had to be assassinated..err...pardon me...Killed with all due legality...LOL!

Actually I never said I like definitions. Our laws use definitions to define illegal acts. I don't make the rules. You're post is mostly red herring shit and has no value.

"so some twisty legal machinations"

That's some good shit there. Our laws are twisty legal machinations. HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAH

 

[Ken Mac]

State sponsored (or state ordered) assassinations don't make the world a safer place. They do the opposite.

It wasn't an assassination. Please educate yourself.

Yes it was. Please use a dictionary.

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

What does the word imminent mean, to you?

Did the assassination stop the imminent attack on us?

What proof do you have that the threat was imminent, and the threat was stopped in its tracks by the killing if him?

I don't need any proof. I actually have some modicum of trust in our government in this type of situation. If we find out later that there wasn't, it should be dealt with at that time.

He just orchestrated an attack against our embassy. Good enough for me at this time.

 

[Ken Mac]

It wasn't an assassination. I've provided proof, yet you provide a red herring as a response. Typical logical fallacy.

You've offered weak rationalizations. You haven't answered the question. I doubt you'll summon the courage to do so honestly.

I gave you evidence of US law that shows it was a legal act. And not an assassination (again by US law). They aren't weak rationalizations, they are actual evidence. You, on the other hand, provide a red herring which I will refuse to answer because it is irrelevant as to whether or not it was an assassination. Your question has no debate value at all. It's diversionary at best.

You'll refuse to answer the question because it exposes the utter, abject amorality of your position.

Now you've moved on to ad hominem attacks. You have logical fallacies down pat, don't you. If you're saying my position is amoral, then our US law is amoral. Why don't you advocate to change it. Write your congressman a letter.

Of course our govt. is amoral....as are all govt.'s. We do what we must..to survive. If it means killing hundreds of thousand of innocents to protect 1 citizen..well..that's how we roll.

I only thought we killed two people to save the lives of many. Thanks for the information. That may change my mind.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Yes it was. Please use a dictionary.

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

Semantics are fun..aren't they..LOL! Yes..Obama assassinated many...a legal assassination is still an assassination.

The curious thing..is why this difference..that makes no difference..is so important to some of you?

Why don't you read up on the links I provided and educate yourself. You're wrong.

It matters because we have laws against assassinations. You're directly indicting the action by labeling it as such. It does matter. There is no such thing as a "Legal" assassination. It's against the law.

I see..so some twisty legal machinations somehow change what the act was? If it walk like a duck..and quacks like a duck..you can call it a swan..if that's the justification you need. I would point out the the late Gen. was a serving officer in a national army--and despite his acts..which were despicable and worthy of death..he was not..since you like definitions so much..not..a terrorist. He did,, on the orders of his govt.--enable terrorists..and had to be assassinated..err...pardon me...Killed with all due legality...LOL!

Actually I never said I like definitions. Our laws use definitions to define illegal acts. I don't make the rules. You're post is mostly red herring shit and has no value.

"so some twisty legal machinations"

That's some good shit there. Our laws are twisty legal machinations. HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAH

You thought they weren't?? Whatever let's you sleep at night...LOL! "I don't make the rules"...huh..but you sure are eager to defend them....

 

[Ken Mac]

A dictionary doesn't count in US law, Us law counts.

Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism

He was on the known terrorist list

We have a resolution that terrorists that are an immanent threat can be taken out.

We also have a resolution that details what an assassination is and isn't

Executive Order 11905 | United States history

We have been taking out terrorists targets for many many years. Obama used over 3,000 drone hits to accomplish the same thing - so I guess he assassinated people too?

Take your emotions out of it. This was a justified, legal threat elimination.

Semantics are fun..aren't they..LOL! Yes..Obama assassinated many...a legal assassination is still an assassination.

The curious thing..is why this difference..that makes no difference..is so important to some of you?

Why don't you read up on the links I provided and educate yourself. You're wrong.

It matters because we have laws against assassinations. You're directly indicting the action by labeling it as such. It does matter. There is no such thing as a "Legal" assassination. It's against the law.

I see..so some twisty legal machinations somehow change what the act was? If it walk like a duck..and quacks like a duck..you can call it a swan..if that's the justification you need. I would point out the the late Gen. was a serving officer in a national army--and despite his acts..which were despicable and worthy of death..he was not..since you like definitions so much..not..a terrorist. He did,, on the orders of his govt.--enable terrorists..and had to be assassinated..err...pardon me...Killed with all due legality...LOL!

Actually I never said I like definitions. Our laws use definitions to define illegal acts. I don't make the rules. You're post is mostly red herring shit and has no value.

"so some twisty legal machinations"

That's some good shit there. Our laws are twisty legal machinations. HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAH

You thought they weren't?? Whatever let's you sleep at night...LOL! "I don't make the rules"...huh..but you sure are eager to defend them....

I never defended them. I made a clarification on the use of the term "Assassination" as it's an incendiary term and is currently used to provide emotional support to your feelings. That's ok too. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

You've offered weak rationalizations. You haven't answered the question. I doubt you'll summon the courage to do so honestly.

I gave you evidence of US law that shows it was a legal act. And not an assassination (again by US law). They aren't weak rationalizations, they are actual evidence. You, on the other hand, provide a red herring which I will refuse to answer because it is irrelevant as to whether or not it was an assassination. Your question has no debate value at all. It's diversionary at best.

You'll refuse to answer the question because it exposes the utter, abject amorality of your position.

Now you've moved on to ad hominem attacks. You have logical fallacies down pat, don't you. If you're saying my position is amoral, then our US law is amoral. Why don't you advocate to change it. Write your congressman a letter.

Of course our govt. is amoral....as are all govt.'s. We do what we must..to survive. If it means killing hundreds of thousand of innocents to protect 1 citizen..well..that's how we roll.

I only thought we killed two people to save the lives of many. Thanks for the information. That may change my mind.

I don't give a shit about changing your mind ..sock.... only an idiot would take that post and the one I was responding to..and choose to reduce it down to the assassination of the Gen...of course...you are incapable of seeing the larger picture i was referring too..welcome to ignore....newbie.

 

[Ken Mac]

I gave you evidence of US law that shows it was a legal act. And not an assassination (again by US law). They aren't weak rationalizations, they are actual evidence. You, on the other hand, provide a red herring which I will refuse to answer because it is irrelevant as to whether or not it was an assassination. Your question has no debate value at all. It's diversionary at best.

You'll refuse to answer the question because it exposes the utter, abject amorality of your position.

Now you've moved on to ad hominem attacks. You have logical fallacies down pat, don't you. If you're saying my position is amoral, then our US law is amoral. Why don't you advocate to change it. Write your congressman a letter.

Of course our govt. is amoral....as are all govt.'s. We do what we must..to survive. If it means killing hundreds of thousand of innocents to protect 1 citizen..well..that's how we roll.

I only thought we killed two people to save the lives of many. Thanks for the information. That may change my mind.

I don't give a shit about changing your mind ..sock.... only an idiot would take that post and the one I was responding to..and choose to reduce it down to the assassination of the Gen...of course...you are incapable of seeing the larger picture i was referring too..welcome to ignore....newbie.

'assassination of the Gen.'

I prefer "elimination of a terrorst threat'. To each his own.

Thanks for ignoring me. Having a debate based on emotion not actual facts is worthless.