US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

Outlaw Pete

MadYaker wrote: »

I'm not saying it was trumpy's fault it wasn't. But there's no denying he shares a small portion of the blame.

You're not suggesting it was Trump's fault, just that he should share the blame is all? lol, that's some doublespeak

Fyi he only authorised that strike because he was under pressure from GOP senators to do so. GOP senators he needs to keep onside for his impeachment trial in the senate.

Find me an article on that which doesn't use the word "reportedly". Any senators or members of congress on record saying he told them this? Or will there be a "whistleblower" along any second.

Trump has had GOP support all throughout this pathetic impeachment. The notion that his mindset would be: "Hey, I better assassinate someone over this Iran stuff or I'll be done for in the Senate" is about as ridiculous as it gets.

s7ryf3925pivug

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump is doing what Obama should have done but instead Obama protected Suleimani.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1216114167108849665

"To the courageous and violent people of Iran: I am standing with you from the beginning of the جمهوریم presidency and my Government will still stand with you. We will follow your protests closely. Your courage is inspiring"

--same text translated by bing.

Does that mean they have the same word for suffering and violent? Probably not but I find that idea interesting.

s7ryf3925pivug

Of course Trump and the USA have some responsibility for the destroyed airplane. If they hadn't escalated things then Iran wouldn't have been expecting attack and firing in fear.

Carter lost the presidency because he was seen as weak for aborting an operation to rescue hostages in an embassy. Trump wanted to look tough and has Pompeo in his ear. Impeachment is yesterday's news now, and the articles haven't even been submitted yet.

MadYaker

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You're not suggesting it was Trump's fault, just that he should share the blame is all? lol, that's some doublespeak



Find me an article on that which doesn't use the word "reportedly". Any senators or members of congress on record saying he told them this? Or will there be a "whistleblower" along any second.

Trump has had GOP support all throughout this pathetic impeachment. The notion that his mindset would be: "Hey, I better assassinate someone over this Iran stuff or I'll be done for in the Senate" is about as ridiculous as it gets.

But if they asked him to do it he'd do it. I'm not saying salami was a good guy he wasn't, and it's in line with US interests in the region. But to try and say that Trump did it out of some desire to help the ordinary people of Iran is nonsense. People say Trump is a white supremacist but he isn't, he's a Trump supremacist. Everything he does can be traced to securing his own interests.

SaintLeibowitz

DubInMeath wrote: »

If anyone believes that bs, I've a bridge that you might be interested in.

Remember... Its all Obamas fault Trump is horrible human being.

It's Obamas fault that Trumps son in law is Bessie mates with MBS in Saudi Arabia.

It's the lefts fault a drone not a couple of months ago blew up aload of afghani farmers.

Am I doing it right Pete?

drunkmonkey

Maybe he done it to help this pair...Reza had told the people prepare for the imminent downfall of the state a few weeks ago and said he'll step in to hold things together while the country transactions. I don't see who else could take over. He may have even helped Trump come up with a cunning plan https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/13/trumps-anti-iran-push-boosts-a-royal-outcast-1063441

s7ryf3925pivug

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Maybe he done it to help this pair...Reza had told the people prepare for the imminent downfall of the state a few weeks ago and said he'll step in to hold things together while the country transactions. I don't see who else could take over. He may have even helped Trump come up with a cunning plan https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/13/trumps-anti-iran-push-boosts-a-royal-outcast-1063441

2018
Shah shah a go go

drunkmonkey

Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »

2018

That article yes, it's only to show that this has been long discussed, he lives in Washington DC.

Here's the one from December where he says prepare https://en.radiofarda.com/a/exiled-crown-prince-calls-on-iranians-to-prepare-for-downfall-of-islamic-republic/30300752.html

s7ryf3925pivug

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That article yes, it's only to show that this has been long discussed, he lives in Washington DC.

Here's the one from December where he says prepare https://en.radiofarda.com/a/exiled-crown-prince-calls-on-iranians-to-prepare-for-downfall-of-islamic-republic/30300752.html

Trump strikes me as a fan of the 1950s so who knows. Hindsight is 2020 though. Nobody still thinks it was a good move then, and it would be a worse one now.

drunkmonkey

Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »

Trump strikes me as a fan of the 1950s so who knows. Hindsight is 2020 though. Nobody still thinks it was a good move then, and it would be a worse one now.

What are you on about fan of the 50's, what's a bad move. The game has already begun. The leader is weak the people just need to over power the mullahs.
Tomorrow night in Iran will tell a lot.

s7ryf3925pivug

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What are you on about fan of the 50's, what's a bad move. The game has already begun. The leader is weak the people just need to over power the mullahs.
Tomorrow night in Iran will tell a lot.

In 1953 the CIA and the UK instigated a coup to put that guy's dad in power. It was explicitly about oil and Iran had been a republic at the time. That was what led to the current regime taking power in 1979. As such the consensus is that the 1953 coup was a bad idea.

drunkmonkey

Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »

In 1953 the CIA and the UK instigated a coup to put that guy's dad in power. It was explicitly about oil and Iran had been a republic at the time. That was what led to the current regime taking power in 1979. As such the consensus is that the 1953 coup was a bad idea.

Well there chanting juniors name down south where the oil is in Iran.
It would suit the Americans to install him. They do need a caretaker. Iran is ready to catch back up with us he looks like the man.

tuxy

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Maybe he done it

What do you mean by "he done"?

drunkmonkey

tuxy wrote: »

What do you mean by "he done"?

Trump weakened the regieme. The rest depends on the people.

tuxy

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Trump weakened the regieme. The rest depends on the people.

Is that the same as "he seen" where the grammar is changed to emphasise what you are saying?
I just haven't seen it used in that context before.

Billy Mays

Donnie standing with the Iranians from the begining of his presidency by banning them from entering America as soon as he was sworn in

Amazing that people still lap up his bullsh!t

suicide_circus

Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »

Of course Trump and the USA have some responsibility for the destroyed airplane. If they hadn't escalated things then Iran wouldn't have been expecting attack and firing in fear.

Carter lost the presidency because he was seen as weak for aborting an operation to rescue hostages in an embassy. Trump wanted to look tough and has Pompeo in his ear. Impeachment is yesterday's news now, and the articles haven't even been submitted yet.

In that case can we blame Democrats for the shot down plane as well?

Had they not gone after Trump with an impeachment that was never going to happen, then he wouldn't have needed to look tough and wouldn't have gone after Iran causing them to get jumpy and shoot down the plane.

drunkmonkey

tuxy wrote: »

Is that the same as "he seen" where the grammar is changed to emphasise what you are saying?
I just haven't seen it used in that context before.

I was speaking passively, us millionaires don't need to follow public and state encouraged active sentences as part of our daily life. Us can do what we like with language, no cares about it.

s7ryf3925pivug

suicide_circus wrote: »

In that case can we blame Democrats for the shot down plane as well?

Had they not gone after Trump with an impeachment that was never going to happen, then he wouldn't have needed to look tough and wouldn't have gone after Iran causing them to get jumpy and shoot down the plane.

No of course not. The assassination was ordered deliberately and appears to have been a crime. It was done to distract from previous crimes that were being exposed. That is not a mitigating factor.

drunkmonkey

Nickolas Nutty Dunce wrote: »

No of course not. The assassination was ordered deliberately and appears to have been a crime. It was done to distract from previous crimes that were being exposed. That is not a mitigating factor.

Let's forget about Trump for a moment.

What crime was committed taking out this killer? Should we prosecute the people who actually killed him?, in a criminal court we don't ignore the shooter.
Where are you thinking this should go from here paying heed to the greater good.

Timberrrrrrrr

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Let's forget about Trump for a moment.

What crime was committed taking out this killer? Should we prosecute the people who actually killed him?, in a criminal court we don't ignore the shooter.
Where are you thinking this should go from here paying heed to the greater good.

This is just a snippet of why it was illegal

ILLEGAL EXTRAJUDICIAL, TARGETED KILLINGS

The killing of Soleimani and others, Muhandis, and others by drone is not justified under any notion of international humanitarian law or human rights law. Targeted killing is the intentional premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force by states or their agents acting under color of law, who is not in the physical custody of the perpetrator. If the person against whom lethal force is directed has not been convicted of a crime for which a death sentence is permissible in the state where the killing occurs, the targeted killing is also an extrajudicial killing outside of any legal process. Targeted extrajudicial killing is, by its very nature illegal. It is an arbitrary deprivation of the right to life guaranteed by Articles 6 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

VIOLATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER

The U.S. killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani and others by drone strike in Baghdad is an illegal act of aggression violating U.S. and international law, including the United Nations (U.N.) Charter which all members of the U.N. including the United States are legally bound to adhere to. The Charter was ratified by the United States and by virtue of Article VI, section 2, of the U.S. Constitution it has the force of domestic law.

s7ryf3925pivug

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Let's forget about Trump for a moment.

What crime was committed taking out this killer? Should we prosecute the people who actually killed him?, in a criminal court we don't ignore the shooter.
Where are you thinking this should go from here paying heed to the greater good.

The assassination appears to have been a crime based on what I've read about it, as lots of mentions of it being illegal or of questionable legality. I'm not a lawyer and you can Google as easily as I can as to the specifics of that.

Should we prosecute to drone operator? I doubt they would be expected to know they were being ordered to perform an illegal act. But it you're right that there is in fact a legal precedent for that then yes. I'm not a lawyer.

Where should it go from here? It should be established whether the assassination was legal or not. If it was not then appropriate judicial action should be taken. Again the specifics of this stuff are outside my knowledge.

drunkmonkey

So Trump should go to jail for this crime and possibly even get the death penalty. It's what usually follows a murder conviction.

Timberrrrrrrr

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So Trump should go to jail for this crime and possibly even get the death penalty. It's what usually follows a murder conviction.

Here's a scenario for you and others who say this wasnt illegal.

Gerry Adam's gets into a car outside the Dail, himself, Mary Lou and a few others are heading for a conference. As they approach Dunlin airport their car is obliterated in a massive fireball killing all inside.

Britain admits to the killing of Adam's using a missile from a drone. They claim it's because all of the deaths he has caused over the years as leader of the IRA and also to stop (vaugue) future attacks.

Would you and others just shrug your shoulders and say ok? Technically speaking, following the precedent that the US has now set this is a viable option for Britain to wipe out the SF leadership.

Would you be ok with this happening and if not why not?

drunkmonkey

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Here's a scenario for you and others who say this wasnt illegal.

It's only the left discussing the legality of it, everyone else knows it was the correct thing to do.

As for am I ok with the British killing the Irish, of course not.

Timberrrrrrrr

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's only the left discussing the legality of it, everyone else knows it was the correct thing to do.

It's not just the "left", it's people who are correctly questioning the legality. As I posted in my scenario above would you think the killing of Adam's would be legal?

As for am I ok with the British killing the Irish, of course not.

Why not? They could just say he is a terrorist who is planning imminent attacks on the British people, he has done it before, thousands of British people dead because of his actions so why would you not be ok with the British government bombing his car?

volchitsa

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It's not just the "left", it's people who are correctly questioning the legality. As I posted in my scenario above would you think the killing of Adam's would be legal?



Why not? They could just say he is a terrorist who is planning imminent attacks on the British people, he has done it before, thousands of British people dead because of his actions so why would you not be ok with the British government bombing his car?

Clearly that would be different because that's us. D'uh.

Ironicname

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

Why not? They could just say he is a terrorist who is planning imminent attacks on the British people, he has done it before, thousands of British people dead because of his actions so why would you not be ok with the British government bombing his car?

If Gerry Adams or anyone else was actively planning on killing or orchestrating campaigns of bombings or attacks which would kill British citizens, I would be ok with their assassination.

Timberrrrrrrr

Ironicname wrote: »

If Gerry Adams or anyone else was actively planning on killing or orchestrating campaigns of bombings or attacks which would kill British citizens, I would be ok with their assassination.

For all we know he could be, if they did kill him and say that then I'm sure everyone (including myself) would wish to see the evidence for it. Yet we are supposed to take Trumps word that he had Intel (from agencies he has said he doesn't trust) that soleimani was planning attacks.

I have no issue with terrorists being killed, I do have an issue where someone can decide to kill someone (especially someone high up in another countries government) just because. As I said before, this sets a terrible new precedent for the future.

drunkmonkey

Get out of that garden, it's a warning to others, the world is a safer place now. Trump could cure cancer and they'd still be moaning. Get over it. A bad guy is gone, be happy it happened.
Would't surprise me if you were looking for Conan to be court marshalled.