US take out Suleimani - mod warning in OP

X111111111111

charlie14 wrote: »

The same question applies to Bin Laden, but if you do not know the answer no problem.

So killing the guy who organised the murder of thousands of innocent Americans was wrong, in your view?

charlie14

car_radio19834 wrote: »

Interests of national security, I would guess.

You guessing that something related to national security trumps the constitution or you simply do not know ?

X111111111111

alastair wrote: »

You should never stop learning.

Oh yeah thanks to you guys im off to Tehran to organise a gay rights parade. That's after i go take pictures of the death to america murals because you know it's such a top tourist spot.

charlie14

X111111111111 wrote: »

So killing the guy who organised the murder of thousands of innocent Americans was wrong, in your view?

I told you already, if you do not know the answer to the question that is not a problem for me.
There really is no reason as far as I`m concerned for you reiterating that you do not know.

X111111111111

charlie14 wrote: »

I told you already, if you do not know the answer to the question that is not a problem for me.
There really is no reason as far as I`m concerned for you reiterating that you do not know.

It's a discussion forum but if you can't answer or discuss i understand. Thanks

alastair

X111111111111 wrote: »

Oh yeah thanks to you guys im off to Tehran to organise a gay rights parade. That's after i go take pictures of the death to america murals because you know it's such a top tourist spot.

Do you typically organise gay rights marches as part of your holiday?

dresden8

car_radio19834 wrote: »

I know...poor ol' Iran!

I mean it's only law where they force women to wear headscarves and trousers/floor length skirt.

I mean it's only law where if a woman has a relationship with a non muslim, she'll be whipped.

I mean it's only law where if you are gay, you will get the death penalty.

We're all a bit harsh on Iran!

I appreciate your concern for women and gay people in Iran but I find your solution to their problems, I.e. bomb the fnck out of them, to be highly counterproductive.

charlie14

X111111111111 wrote: »

It's a discussion forum but if you can't answer or discuss i understand. Thanks

No you are just rambling.
I asked the question not you. and it`s obvious that not knowing the answer you still jumped in attempting to deflect.


It`s a well know tactic here and fools no one.

TeaBagMania

charlie14 wrote: »

The Supreme court ruled that on the "No person" aspect of the constitution that " an alien is surely a person"

Interesting, i guess someone in the Supreme court issued the psychopathic Iranian murderer a green card

banie01

X111111111111 wrote: »

So killing the guy who organised the murder of thousands of innocent Americans was wrong, in your view?

What "thousands of innocent americans"?

Where? When? How did this man indeed the Iranian regime organise the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans without ever being fingered for it previously?

How did Iran hide those crimes?

Clarence Boddiker

X111111111111 wrote: »

So killing the guy who organised the murder of thousands of innocent Americans was wrong, in your view?

Is there any actual concrete evidence for this?

ArchXStanton

banie01 wrote: »

What "thousands of innocent americans"?

Where? When? How did this man indeed the Iranian regime organise the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans without ever being fingered for it previously?

How did Iran hide those crimes?

As always the US are a bit short on evidence, we just have to take their word like iraqs WMDs

pearcider

pearcider wrote: »

What’s ironic is that where we to live in an Islamic state like Iran all the benefits that’s these progressives take for granted such as women’s rights, gay marriage and abortion would disappear.

These lefties are that incoherent. It’s like do they not realize under an Islamic state their so called friends in the lgbt community would literally be stoned to death.

But logic doesn’t matter when orange man bad.

Your language is toxic and deliberately loaded to provoke the maximum outrage and emotive response. Take a step back and think about your choice of words. What do you mean by "so called" in this instance? Are you implying that anyone who isn't right wing is championing gay rights and inclusiveness just for the sake of it and really they're just as hate-filled and vitriolic as those on the right?

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Is there any actual concrete evidence for this?

Only if you drink the kool-aid and worship at the altar of Bush/cheney/Rumsfeld/Trump/Pompeo/Pence

alastair

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Interesting, i guess someone in the Supreme court issued the psychopathic Iranian murderer a green card

For anyone who’s actually interested in the actual legal issues around US targetted killings. For those who can’t be bothered - it’s illegal unless there’s an actual immediate self-defence element at play. Hence all the guff about an immediate threat posed by Soleimani.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/legality-targeted-killing-program-under-international-law

Padraig Mor

X111111111111 wrote: »

So killing the guy who organised the murder of thousands of innocent Americans was wrong, in your view?

He didn't - it's covered in the piece I linked earlier which you, predictably, have not read. It's an easily demonstrable lie, believed by useful idiots.

Rezident

They killed 40 of their own people at a funeral!? Hundreds more injured. What is the MATTER with this belief system?

Why does a funeral resemble a riot?

Whatever happened to RIP?

TeaBagMania

alastair wrote: »

For anyone who’s actually interested in the actual legal issues around US targetted killings. For those who can’t be bothered - it’s illegal unless there’s an actual immediate self-defence element at play. Hence all the guff about an immediate threat posed by Soleimani.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/legality-targeted-killing-program-under-international-law

nothing in that article states the psychopathic Iranian murderer has constitutional rights, however, it does speak quite a bit about using "self defense" as a reason, and as it should be

SaintLeibowitz

Rezident wrote: »

They killed 40 of their own people at a funeral!? Hundreds more injured. What is the MATTER with this belief system?

Why does a funeral resemble a riot?

Whatever happened to RIP?

They didn't kill 40 people. People where sadly crushed due to massive numbers.

alastair

TeaBagMania wrote: »

nothing in that article states the psychopathic Iranian murderer has constitutional rights, however, it does speak quite a bit about using "self defense" as a reason, and as it should be

If you’re interested in the constitutional rights issues:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/legality-us-governments-targeted-killing-program-under-do

Self defence is a valid legal defence of targetted killing alright, but it doesn’t support the killing of Soleimani, as was made clear by the NYT. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/soleimani-strike-law/604417/

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213421769777909761?s=21

charlie14

TeaBagMania wrote: »

Interesting, i guess someone in the Supreme court issued the psychopathic Iranian murderer a green card

Not really. They were just asked to rule who was a person as mentioned in the context of the wording in the US constitution and they did.


I fail to see how they could have ruled otherwise but if you can see how the could possibly give a different ruling on the wording then fire away.

X111111111111

Rezident wrote: »

They killed 40 of their own people at a funeral!? Hundreds more injured. What is the MATTER with this belief system?

Why does a funeral resemble a riot?

Whatever happened to RIP?

The regime would have put huge pressure on people to turn out for the funeral for propaganda reasons, it's basically akin to North Korea in that aspect as the regime control everything. They've just killed scores of their own for protesting recently and now they've got more blood on their hands.

Top tourist destination mind you.

X111111111111

alastair wrote: »

If you’re interested in the constitutional rights issues:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/legality-us-governments-targeted-killing-program-under-do

Self defence is a valid legal defence of targetted killing alright, but it doesn’t support the killing of Soleimani, as was made clear by the NYT. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/soleimani-strike-law/604417/

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213421769777909761?s=21

Two sources what, no names imagine my shock.

Well that's that then if some no mark on Twitter is saying that it's case closed so.

alastair

X111111111111 wrote: »

The regime would have put huge pressure on people to turn out for the funeral for propaganda reasons, it's basically akin to North Korea in that aspect as the regime control everything. They've just killed scores of their own for protesting recently and now they've got more blood on their hands.

Top tourist destination mind you.

Once again - it’s nothing like North Korea. Cast your memory back all of two weeks ago to see thousands of Iranians out protesting against government policy on the streets. There are literally millions of people out on the streets because the guy was highly regarded by most of the Iranians. He had approval ratings higher than any politician. It’s no more complicated than that.

TeaBagMania

alastair wrote: »

If you’re interested in the constitutional rights issues:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/legality-us-governments-targeted-killing-program-under-do

Self defence is a valid legal defence of targetted killing alright, but it doesn’t support the killing of Soleimani, as was made clear by the NYT. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/soleimani-strike-law/604417/

https://twitter.com/rcallimachi/status/1213421769777909761?s=21

so were taking legal advice from the NYTimes and twitter, LOL

charlie14 wrote: »

Not really. They were just asked to rule who was a person as mentioned in the context of the wording in the US constitution and they did.


I fail to see how they could have ruled otherwise but if you can see how the could possibly give a different ruling on the wording then fire away.

well how do we know his alien status without a green card?
just proves how inept the supreme court really is when they consider an psychopathic Iranian murderer a "person"

alastair

X111111111111 wrote: »

Two sources what, no names imagine my shock.

Well that's that then if some no mark on Twitter is saying that it's case closed so.

That ‘no mark’ is a highly regarded NYT correspondent, who was in direct contact with US officials in the loop.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/us/politics/trump-suleimani.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

And Oona A. Hathaway is, as the byline says, a Professor of international law at Yale Law School.

charlie14

X111111111111 wrote: »

The regime would have put huge pressure on people to turn out for the funeral for propaganda reasons, it's basically akin to North Korea in that aspect as the regime control everything. They've just killed scores of their own for protesting recently and now they've got more blood on their hands.

Top tourist destination mind you.

Is there some kind of prize here for the most inane posts in a thread that you are attempting to win or are you now just spouting the first rubbish that comes into your head!

pearcider

dresden8 wrote: »

I appreciate your concern for women and gay people in Iran but I find your solution to their problems, I.e. bomb the fnck out of them, to be highly counterproductive.

Sorry they bombed one guy who was a military leader responsible for murder and mayhem for years in Iraq, Syria and other countries.

If the yanks wanted to actually lay waste to Iran they could do easily. The fact that they are so restrained is because they are a decent civilized country.

X111111111111

Apparently Bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 now.

Just an innocent sheep farmer im hearing.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Osama-bin-Laden

Run on foil hats in aisle 4....

X111111111111

charlie14 wrote: »

Is there some kind of prize here for the most inane posts in a thread that you are attempting to win or are you now just spouting the first rubbish that comes into your head!

Iv'e no chance of getting the prize as it's obvious you've already run away into the distance with it, far far away.

alastair

TeaBagMania wrote: »

so were taking legal advice from the NYTimes and twitter, LOL

It’s a journalist quoting the people in the loop of rationalising a self-defence argument. Horse’s mouth and all that.