Why is it acceptable to kill Sgt Soleimani

[Correll]

A question to you folks supporting the assassination: Are you ok with other nations taking up the same kind of policy? By claiming it as a valid way for a nation to deal with international disputes, we're implicitly endorsing other nations doing the same, perhaps to us.

They have been killing us, outside the rules of war, for decades.


Targeted assassinations would be a major improvement over terror bombings.

I'm asking if you think this is an acceptable practice for resolving international disputes. Should nations that do so be condemned as rogue states, or is this the new normal?

I think that pretending we can unilaterally set the rules, and play by them while ignoring what the other side does,


is arrogance and foolishness.


The rules of this conflict, are not what we would choose.

 

[dblack]

I'm asking if you think this is an acceptable practice for resolving international disputes. Should nations that do so be condemned as rogue states, or is this the new normal?

I think that pretending we can unilaterally set the rules, and play by them while ignoring what the other side does,


is arrogance and foolishness.


The rules of this conflict, are not what we would choose.

I can't really parse that. Is that a yes, or a no?

 

[Rocko]

Why was it okay for Obama to kill Bin Laden but its not okay for Trump to kill this creep who murdered thousands including hundreds of his own Iranian people?

Why not assassinate Kim, or Putin or Xi for doing the same? Do you think that would be good American policy?

did u have a problem when Gaddafi was assassinated? Mind you he was a head of state. Democrats cheared

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Since the Iranian revolution, they have extended their power throughout the entire region because they were allowed to do so. Appeasing them only emboldens them. Negotiations with them are futile, since they are irrational religious zealots who see themselves as fulfilling a directive from their so-called prophet. They see us as inferior and weak, culturally depraved and unwilling to confront them.

Trump is finally confronting them.

People who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The world stood by and appeased Hitler as he gobbled up Europe. They did so out of fear, as they did not wish to go to war over the Czechs or the Poles because it would cost them lives in the short term. In the calculus of war, however, they failed to take into account how many additional lives it would cost if they DIDN'T confront him.

We should be asking ourselves the same question today -- do we stand by and allow Iran to extend its power to the point it is a REAL threat to our way of life or do we stand up to them and say enough is enough sooner rather than later?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This guy certainly deserved his fate but like most of the warhawks Trump has no plan for what comes next. This is what has everyone worried. It's not the act itself, it's the very real expectation that the whole thing will fly off the rails.

No. YOU have no plan was comes next.

Trump is playing 3-D chess and you are playing Jacks. That is why you don't understand.

Trump does not even know how to play actual chess much less predict the future of a situation where he clearly does not even understand the factions involved.

You don't know how to play Jacks, so why are you running off at the mouth, you know-nothing libtard?

Wow now there's a well considered response. I can guarantee similar reservations are being expressed at the pentagon and you have no answer.

No, because the Pentagon is not filled with know-nothing libtards like you.

 

[harmonica]

This guy certainly deserved his fate but like most of the warhawks Trump has no plan for what comes next. This is what has everyone worried. It's not the act itself, it's the very real expectation that the whole thing will fly off the rails.

If you tell us what comes next that'd be great.

Trump has far more options than your allies in the ME.

Quit doing the same shit all you numbskulls did in the run-up to the Iraq war. I am on the side of what's best for America. What's good for America is a leader who clearly demonstrates that they have a handle on things. What we need right now is the president to be the president. He is not doing that. This is a defining moment where the world will see exactly what Trump is made of. How much faith do you actually have in this man?

and Mr Trump is good for America
...I can say the same thing you did about ALL of the past POTUSs

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A question to you folks supporting the assassination: Are you ok with other nations taking up the same kind of policy? By claiming it as a valid way for a nation to deal with international disputes, we're implicitly endorsing other nations doing the same, perhaps to us.

Killing a terrorist kingpin is NOT an international dispute, dumbass!

 

[bodecea]

This guy certainly deserved his fate but like most of the warhawks Trump has no plan for what comes next. This is what has everyone worried. It's not the act itself, it's the very real expectation that the whole thing will fly off the rails.

If you tell us what comes next that'd be great.

Trump has far more options than your allies in the ME.

Quit doing the same shit all you numbskulls did in the run-up to the Iraq war. I am on the side of what's best for America. What's good for America is a leader who clearly demonstrates that they have a handle on things. What we need right now is the president to be the president. He is not doing that. This is a defining moment where the world will see exactly what Trump is made of. How much faith do you actually have in this man?

Trump should send Iran hundreds of millions of dollars like Obama did?

Whose money was it?

 

[Meathead]

This guy certainly deserved his fate but like most of the warhawks Trump has no plan for what comes next. This is what has everyone worried. It's not the act itself, it's the very real expectation that the whole thing will fly off the rails.

If you tell us what comes next that'd be great.

Trump has far more options than your allies in the ME.

Quit doing the same shit all you numbskulls did in the run-up to the Iraq war. I am on the side of what's best for America. What's good for America is a leader who clearly demonstrates that they have a handle on things. What we need right now is the president to be the president. He is not doing that. This is a defining moment where the world will see exactly what Trump is made of. How much faith do you actually have in this man?

Trump should send Iran hundreds of millions of dollars like Obama did?

Whose money was it?

You don't give or return money to a state sponsor of terror whosever it its.

Obama was an extremely weak president, perhaps even weaker than Carter.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If you tell us what comes next that'd be great.

Trump has far more options than your allies in the ME.

Quit doing the same shit all you numbskulls did in the run-up to the Iraq war. I am on the side of what's best for America. What's good for America is a leader who clearly demonstrates that they have a handle on things. What we need right now is the president to be the president. He is not doing that. This is a defining moment where the world will see exactly what Trump is made of. How much faith do you actually have in this man?

Trump should send Iran hundreds of millions of dollars like Obama did?

Why? They deserved their money so tramp doesn't owe them anything.

If you rob a bank, get caught in the act, serve your time in prison, do they let you keep the money you stole when they let you out?

Not in the US, but they didn't steal money. That was their money.

They held our territory and personnel hostage for 444 days in 1979-1980. That's worse than stealing!

 

[dblack]

A question to you folks supporting the assassination: Are you ok with other nations taking up the same kind of policy? By claiming it as a valid way for a nation to deal with international disputes, we're implicitly endorsing other nations doing the same, perhaps to us.

Killing a terrorist kingpin is NOT an international dispute, dumbass!

A lot of people today seem to be utterly oblivious to a fundamental aspect of morality and ethics - namely the universality of it all. If you claim that something is wrong, then it's wrong for everyone, not just people you don't like. Likewise, if you're saying it's not ok for you to do, then it's ok for others to do. That fact that so many people don't get this is deeply disturbing.

 

[dblack]

A question to you folks supporting the assassination: Are you ok with other nations taking up the same kind of policy? By claiming it as a valid way for a nation to deal with international disputes, we're implicitly endorsing other nations doing the same, perhaps to us.

Killing a terrorist kingpin is NOT an international dispute, dumbass!

So, if a nation claims that a foreign official is a terrorist, they can assassinate him (or her). You're ok with that?

 

[RodISHI]

A question to you folks supporting the assassination: Are you ok with other nations taking up the same kind of policy? By claiming it as a valid way for a nation to deal with international disputes, we're implicitly endorsing other nations doing the same, perhaps to us.

They have been killing us, outside the rules of war, for decades.


Targeted assassinations would be a major improvement over terror bombings.

I'm asking if you think this is an acceptable practice for resolving international disputes. Should nations that do so be condemned as rogue states, or is this the new normal?

I think that pretending we can unilaterally set the rules, and play by them while ignoring what the other side does,


is arrogance and foolishness.


The rules of this conflict, are not what we would choose.

We did not unilaterally set the rules. They were already set in this case;

Jeffrey Feltman, John C. Whitehead Visiting Fellow in International Diplomacy: While little noticed at the time, Soleimani had a cameo role in a controversial U.N. report in December — as he had in previous reports. On December 10, 2019, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres submitted to the Security Council his eighth report on implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), the codification into international law of the Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA) and related measures. Given great power divisions, the report tiptoed carefully around the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA, Iranian violations of Resolution 2231, and questions surrounding ballistic missiles. Also under 2231, which was adopted unanimously and passed under Chapter VII (i.e. with the powers of enforcement) of the U.N. Charter, the Council banned Soleimani from any travel outside of Iran.

With self-incriminating “selfies” taken on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq, and with glowing articles about his role in Iranian, Syrian, and Iraqi media, each 2231 report noted Soleimani’s blatant (but not surprising) disregard for the travel ban. In December, in the dry bureaucratic language characteristic of such reports, Guterres obliquely fingered Iraq for not enforcing that ban. In paragraph 14 of his December report, Guterres noted the following: “Information from Iraqi media outlets suggests that Major General Soleimani has undertaken travel inconsistent with the travel ban provisions of the resolution. I call upon all Member States to diligently implement the restrictive measures imposed on the individuals and entities on the list maintained pursuant to resolution 2231.” A more direct reference followed in paragraph 38: “During the reporting period, information surfaced regarding additional travel by Major General Soleimani. According to Iraqi media outlets, he traveled a number of times to Baghdad in October 2019. The Secretariat has sought clarification from the Permanent Mission of Iraq, and I will report to the Council in due course.”
Around the halls: Experts react to the killing of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani

 

[BluesLegend]

Why was it okay for Obama to kill Bin Laden but its not okay for Trump to kill this creep who murdered thousands including hundreds of his own Iranian people?

Why not assassinate Kim, or Putin or Xi for doing the same? Do you think that would be good American policy?

^^^ deflection, answer the question.

 

[BluesLegend]

This guy certainly deserved his fate but like most of the warhawks Trump has no plan for what comes next. This is what has everyone worried. It's not the act itself, it's the very real expectation that the whole thing will fly off the rails.

If you tell us what comes next that'd be great.

Trump has far more options than your allies in the ME.

Quit doing the same shit all you numbskulls did in the run-up to the Iraq war. I am on the side of what's best for America. What's good for America is a leader who clearly demonstrates that they have a handle on things. What we need right now is the president to be the president. He is not doing that. This is a defining moment where the world will see exactly what Trump is made of. How much faith do you actually have in this man?

Trump should send Iran hundreds of millions of dollars like Obama did?

Whose money was it?

We should have returned all the Nazi's money to the Nazi's? Your argument is retarded.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This guy certainly deserved his fate but like most of the warhawks Trump has no plan for what comes next. This is what has everyone worried. It's not the act itself, it's the very real expectation that the whole thing will fly off the rails.

You have clearance? You get your intel from CNN? You know what Trump has planned because you say you do?
“EVERYONE” is worried because some twisted loon on CNN told you to be...RIGHT?

We've all known this man for decades. Who are you trying to bullshit? We have watched things blow up in his face time after time after time. He's going to fuck this up, it's what he does.

Like what?

Why are so intentionally vague in your statements? We all know it is because you have nothing but lies about well-established facts, Otherwise, you could see that you are simply spouting bullshit!

You have not known Trump for decades. If blowing up in his face is how he amassed such a fortune, send some of that shit my way! Let things blow up in my face.

The only thing blowing up in your face is when you are the pivot man in your circle jerk!

 

[BluesLegend]

This guy certainly deserved his fate but like most of the warhawks Trump has no plan for what comes next. This is what has everyone worried. It's not the act itself, it's the very real expectation that the whole thing will fly off the rails.

If you tell us what comes next that'd be great.

Trump has far more options than your allies in the ME.

Quit doing the same shit all you numbskulls did in the run-up to the Iraq war. I am on the side of what's best for America. What's good for America is a leader who clearly demonstrates that they have a handle on things. What we need right now is the president to be the president. He is not doing that. This is a defining moment where the world will see exactly what Trump is made of. How much faith do you actually have in this man?

Trump should send Iran hundreds of millions of dollars like Obama did?

Whose money was it?

You don't give or return money to a state sponsor of terror whosever it its.

Obama was an extremely weak president, perhaps even weaker than Carter.

By Dem logic we should have returned the Nazi's money to the Nazi's.

 

[dblack]

Why was it okay for Obama to kill Bin Laden but its not okay for Trump to kill this creep who murdered thousands including hundreds of his own Iranian people?

Because OBL was a criminal, and we had the tacit permission of the country he was in to take him out.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

A question to you folks supporting the assassination: Are you ok with other nations taking up the same kind of policy? By claiming it as a valid way for a nation to deal with international disputes, we're implicitly endorsing other nations doing the same, perhaps to us.

Killing a terrorist kingpin is NOT an international dispute, dumbass!

A lot of people today seem to be utterly oblivious to a fundamental aspect of morality and ethics - namely the universality of it all. If you claim that something is wrong, then it's wrong for everyone, not just people you don't like. Likewise, if you're saying it's not ok for you to do, then it's ok for others to do. That fact that so many people don't get this is deeply disturbing.

Did you rend your garments, gnash your teeth and cry to the heavens when Osama's brains got splattered?

You probably did, you brainless twit!

 

[SmokeALib]

who is attacking American soldiers on orders from General Soleimani, but and outrage to kill the General?


Democrats warn of the dangers of war while Republicans fall in line after the killing of Iran’s Qassem Soleimani

Is this a trick question?