US may have killed Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani

#3,601
#3,601
37L1 said:
Why not blame Boeing? They made the plane. If they hadn't, it wouldn't have been shot down.

Your logic is very convoluted, to say the least.
Click to expand...


The concept is "proximate causation." We know that an attack on an adversary is likely to lead to response, which may include mistakes and so-called collateral damage. It is foreseeable, and so therefore has to be part of the calculus of your action, and therefore carries some responsibility to be careful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#3,603
#3,603
n_huffhines said:
The best and brightest

View attachment 253044
Click to expand...

You do know that, if not the origin, the term was most used to describe the band of misfits that JFK pulled together and LBJ continued to use ... until his policies became so screwed up he couldn't even run for a second term. One bright shining example was nobody other than Robert Strange McNamara. I will agree that Trump made terrible choices in filling positions, but at least his seem not to last long.

See The Best and the Brightest by David Halberstam
 
#3,604
#3,604
lawgator1 said:
A convincing argument can certainly be made that this is at least partly Trump's fault. His unjustified and illegal attack caused a response by Iran, which led them to fire on the plane by accident. You can also also blame the civilian authorities for allowing a plane to take off as that situation remained uncertain. And of course the Iranians for firing it mistakenly. But morally and perhaps legally Trump bears some responsibility.
Click to expand...

Now his elimination of a designated terrorist is illegal?
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol, Rickyvol77, AM64 and 1 other person
#3,605
#3,605
lawgator1 said:
The concept is "proximate causation." We know that an attack on an adversary is likely to lead to response, which may include mistakes and so-called collateral damage. It is foreseeable, and so therefore has to be part of the calculus of your action, and therefore carries some responsibility to be careful.
Click to expand...
And if you can blame Trump, so much the better, eh? Quite the stretch LG, I bet you would love to argue in court that the Iranians shooting down the jet that took off from their airport, in their airspace, is Trump's fault. Bwahahahahahahaha. You're a joke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, FREAKIN ORANGE, Rickyvol77 and 1 other person
#3,607
#3,607
lawgator1 said:
The concept is "proximate causation." We know that an attack on an adversary is likely to lead to response, which may include mistakes and so-called collateral damage. It is foreseeable, and so therefore has to be part of the calculus of your action, and therefore carries some responsibility to be careful.
Click to expand...

So by "proximate causation" 9/11 is Clinton's fault?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 37L1
#3,608
#3,608
lawgator1 said:
The concept is "proximate causation." We know that an attack on an adversary is likely to lead to response, which may include mistakes and so-called collateral damage. It is foreseeable, and so therefore has to be part of the calculus of your action, and therefore carries some responsibility to be careful.
Click to expand...
It’s foreseeable that your enemy will emplace hot AA missiles near their own airport? Hundreds of miles inside their own airspace? Should we assume all enemies are functionally retarded?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, AM64 and NCFisher
#3,611
#3,611
hog88 said:
So by "proximate causation" 9/11 is Clinton's fault?
Click to expand...

Its all relative. Bush and his administration, for example, had specifically been warned about terrorists flying planes into buildings and just ignored it.

Trump assassinates the second in command in Iran, we know they will retaliate. There is some risk that it will kill civilians. Whether its an errant missile or unintended but completely foreseeable consequences, the point is this was very close in time and a natural sequence of events.
 
#3,614
#3,614
hog88 said:
Read the AUMF
Click to expand...
I think I'd rather read about Smith returning and Mays transferring in. (just saw those two tidbits)

Without reading the AUMF I'm sure that the president doesn't have unlimited leeway in taking out a "terrorist" in any way, at any time, and at any cost without having to provide justification to congress AFTER THE FACT.
 
#3,615
#3,615
lawgator1 said:
Its all relative. Bush and his administration, for example, had specifically been warned about terrorists flying planes into buildings and just ignored it.

Trump assassinates the second in command in Iran, we know they will retaliate. There is some risk that it will kill civilians. Whether its an errant missile or unintended but completely foreseeable consequences, the point is this was very close in time and a natural sequence of events.
Click to expand...

Nice dodge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol and AM64
#3,616
#3,616
lawgator1 said:
Its all relative. Bush and his administration, for example, had specifically been warned about terrorists flying planes into buildings and just ignored it.

Trump assassinates the second in command in Iran, we know they will retaliate. There is some risk that it will kill civilians. Whether its an errant missile or unintended but completely foreseeable consequences, the point is this was very close in time and a natural sequence of events.
Click to expand...
So here's some more natural sequence of events:
Soleimani directing and aiding in acts that killed Americans (amongst many others, civilians included) was the proximate cause for him being labeled a terrorist by Obama. So he was fair game since 2011. He directed the recent occupation of the US Embassy in Baghdad. Soleimani's terrorism was the proximate cause of his death and the Iranians are responsible for us having to kill him. Therefore the Iranians are responsible for all proximate acts including the downing of the airliner. And they owe us for the cost of the missile used to terminate him.

Is that how this works?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, StarRaider and kiddiedoc
#3,617
#3,617
Septic said:
Who cares? Dude was directly or indirectly responsible for lots of deaths and loathed 'murica, the world is better off without him. I hate trump as much as the next guy, but this is a net win for the U.S. - we killed Iran's #2 and they blew up a couple of storage sheds. On at least this, Trump gets a nod.
Click to expand...
The Redhats hacked Septic's account.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,618
#3,618
hog88 said:
Again you with the crap. I was refuting Luthers ignorance that the POTUS does not have the power to do what he did, WPA and AUMF gives him the power to do.

Do you want to argue that they do not give him the authority to do exactly what he did?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll go with the constitutional originalist argument. They don't have the authority to delegate their duties to another branch of government.
 
#3,619
#3,619
luthervol said:
I think I'd rather read about Smith returning and Mays transferring in. (just saw those two tidbits)

Without reading the AUMF I'm sure that the president doesn't have unlimited leeway in taking out a "terrorist" in any way, at any time, and at any cost without having to provide justification to congress AFTER THE FACT.
Click to expand...

Let me help you. He does and no where in the WPA or AUMF id "justification" required.

Public Law 107–40

War Powers Resolution
 
#3,620
#3,620
evillawyer said:
Click to expand...


Resolution is a bit poor, but if it really wasn't a manufactured video, and someone could enhance it to show aircraft navigation lights prior to the flash, it would seem pretty much proof positive. The missile exhaust trail was there, and a simple missile explosion wouldn't explain the sudden change in trajectory and continued flight since missiles don't have much in the way of wings. My question would be considering the view, etc, why would anyone be so Johnny on the spot with the phone/cam - the only other things moving seemed to be cats and or dogs.
 
#3,622
#3,622
AM64 said:
From the list of "Canadian" names published I can't see the Canadians really sticking their necks out. Apparently anybody can be Canadian because those sure weren't from the original British or French stock; the list of "Canadian" victims looked like they could have been pulled from any number of ME phone directories ... if the ME is organized enough to even have phone directories.
Click to expand...
They have phones?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,625
#3,625
AM64 said:
Resolution is a bit poor, but if it really wasn't a manufactured video, and someone could enhance it to show aircraft navigation lights prior to the flash, it would seem pretty much proof positive. The missile exhaust trail was there, and a simple missile explosion wouldn't explain the sudden change in trajectory and continued flight since missiles don't have much in the way of wings. My question would be considering the view, etc, why would anyone be so Johnny on the spot with the phone/cam - the only other things moving seemed to be cats and or dogs.
Click to expand...
What I read said the guy started filming after the first hit. So the video is showing the second hit. This is consistent with US intelligence saying two missiles were fired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top