US may have killed Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani

#1,952
#1,952
hog88 said:
For killing the leader of a designated terrorist organization during an election year?
Click to expand...

Like it or not, he was an official in a foreign government. If the claim is that he acted outside of that authority and position, then the proper way to handle it would be to seek prosecution of him, not to assassinate him. To do so for political reasons, as would be the case here if there was no imminent threat, would be a violation of US and international law, and make Trump a war criminal, pure and simple.
 
#1,953
#1,953
lawgator1 said:
Like it or not, he was an official in a foreign government. If the claim is that he acted outside of that authority and position, then the proper way to handle it would be to seek prosecution of him, not to assassinate him. To do so for political reasons, as would be the case here if there was no imminent threat, would be a violation of US and international law, and make Trump a war criminal, pure and simple.
Click to expand...
LMAO
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, InVOLuntary, CagleMtnVol and 2 others
#1,955
#1,955
lawgator1 said:
Like it or not, he was an official in a foreign government. If the claim is that he acted outside of that authority and position, then the proper way to handle it would be to seek prosecution of him, not to assassinate him. To do so for political reasons, as would be the case here if there was no imminent threat, would be a violation of US and international law, and make Trump a war criminal, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Mullah Akhtar Mansour ring a bell? How About Mohammed Omar, we tried like hell to kill him also. Muammar Qaddafi what about him, did we try to capture and prosecute?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, InVOLuntary and CagleMtnVol
#1,962
#1,962
hog88 said:
Mullah Akhtar Mansour ring a bell? How About Mohammed Omar, we tried like hell to kill him also. Muammar Qaddafi what about him, did we try to capture and prosecute?
Click to expand...

These things are apparently okay as long as it's a Dem POTUS giving the orders. Just not a Pub, and certainly not Trump. One more thing to impeach over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and InVOLuntary
#1,965
#1,965
hog88 said:
Mullah Akhtar Mansour ring a bell? How About Mohammed Omar, we tried like hell to kill him also. Muammar Qaddafi what about him, did we try to capture and prosecute?
Click to expand...

Mansour was leader of the Taliban, not an official in a recognized government. Omar was associated with the Afghan government for a time, but left that position and later headed the Taliban insurgency. It was then that he became a target, in association with bin Laden.

Qaddafi was killed by Libyan forces. You make the point that we tried to prosecute him, have him arrested, etc. I think that is correct, which is what you do when you believe a foreign official has acted unlawfully.

But, the US does not drone strike government officials for the political convenience of current US officials, evne bad ones.

That is a bridge way too far. And if you cannot see that due to partisan blinders, well, there isn't much more to discuss.
 
#1,968
#1,968
lawgator1 said:
Mansour was leader of the Taliban, not an official in a recognized government. Omar was associated with the Afghan government for a time, but left that position and later headed the Taliban insurgency. It was then that he became a target, in association with bin Laden.

Qaddafi was killed by Libyan forces. You make the point that we tried to prosecute him, have him arrested, etc. I think that is correct, which is what you do when you believe a foreign official has acted unlawfully.

But, the US does not drone strike government officials for the political convenience of current US officials, evne bad ones.

That is a bridge way too far. And if you cannot see that due to partisan blinders, well, there isn't much more to discuss.
Click to expand...

The Taliban was the recognized government of Afghanistan for over a decade. So any drone strike targeting a Taliban official was a drone strike on a legitimate government official.

Regan tried to kill Qaddafi in retaliation for a terrorist attack he sponsored, then Obama involved US forces in his overthrow which led to his assassination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,969
#1,969
hog88 said:
The Taliban was the recognized government of Afghanistan for over a decade. So any drone strike targeting a Taliban official was a drone strike on a legitimate government official.

Regan tried to kill Qaddafi in retaliation for a terrorist attack he sponsored, then Obama involved US forces in his overthrow which led to his assassination.
Click to expand...
Get out of here with your inconvenient facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,970
#1,970
hog88 said:
The Taliban was the recognized government of Afghanistan for over a decade. So any drone strike targeting a Taliban official was a drone strike on a legitimate government official.

Regan tried to kill Qaddafi in retaliation for a terrorist attack he sponsored, then Obama involved US forces in his overthrow which led to his assassination.
Click to expand...


All of those are a bit of a stretch to compare to this.

But take a step back. I think the discussion illustrates why this is so dangerous. In this case, we have Trump facing impeachment, and he has shown a willingness to, at a bare minimum, bend the rules when it comes to foreign policy and military matters when he thinks it benefits him politically.

Can you see why, given our discussion, those of us who might be a bit skeptical of Trump don't think it wise to have Trump be the arbiter of whether Soleimani more fit the definition of terrorist versus government official? Its just a little too convenient to have Trump make that call.
 
#1,971
#1,971
lawgator1 said:
All of those are a bit of a stretch to compare to this.

But take a step back. I think the discussion illustrates why this is so dangerous. In this case, we have Trump facing impeachment, and he has shown a willingness to, at a bare minimum, bend the rules when it comes to foreign policy and military matters when he thinks it benefits him politically.

Can you see why, given our discussion, those of us who might be a bit skeptical of Trump don't think it wise to have Trump be the arbiter of whether Soleimani more fit the definition of terrorist versus government official? Its just a little too convenient to have Trump make that call.
Click to expand...
Gaddafi was the head of his government when Reagan bombed his home.

1986 United States bombing of Libya - Wikipedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#1,972
#1,972
hog88 said:
The Taliban was the recognized government of Afghanistan for over a decade. So any drone strike targeting a Taliban official was a drone strike on a legitimate government official.

Regan tried to kill Qaddafi in retaliation for a terrorist attack he sponsored, then Obama involved US forces in his overthrow which led to his assassination.
Click to expand...
They were recognized by 3 countries.
 
#1,975
#1,975
lawgator1 said:
All of those are a bit of a stretch to compare to this.

But take a step back. I think the discussion illustrates why this is so dangerous. In this case, we have Trump facing impeachment, and he has shown a willingness to, at a bare minimum, bend the rules when it comes to foreign policy and military matters when he thinks it benefits him politically.

Can you see why, given our discussion, those of us who might be a bit skeptical of Trump don't think it wise to have Trump be the arbiter of whether Soleimani more fit the definition of terrorist versus government official? Its just a little too convenient to have Trump make that call.
Click to expand...
Stop LG. Do not mention "bend the rules" after what has went on the last 3 years on your side.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top