And I think it is the lies. Shooting down an airliner by accident- tragic. Lying about it for days and attempting to cover it up before finally fessing up? A betrayal. I wish we would view lies from the top the same way.
At least 1,000 times worse. We probably don't even begin to know how bad. Heck, they probably don't themselves, the poor bastards. The aftermath of the Revolution alone was Stalinesque.
The Iran Nuclear Deal specifically listed Soleimani as being a “protected interest”, meaning, the US couldn’t kill him, so long as it remained in place. It should be more obvious as to why it was such a disastrous piece of appeasement, and Trump was right to end it.
europarl.europa.eu is the official website for the EU parliament, so that link is basically like reading something hosted by state.gov For whatever reason, the guy in the tweet highlighted "Soleymani, Ghasem" (page 86) and not "Soleimani, Qasem" (page 95).
Wait, are you saying that the Iranian people have a higher moral character than Americans? I want to be certain to clearly understand what you’re saying, here.
That it’s legit is the first bit. That it’s utterly indefensible, even by our own battle-hardened libs, is just as telling. The praise that Obama got for this appeasement is utterly mind-boggling. I cannot wait until we have our second black President, so that it’ll be ok to call Obama the worst President in history without it being immediately branded as racist.
See, this is where the classic 'how-to-wage-information-warfare" handbook comes out: I can guarantee that would come up.
You know, it's borderline funny how obvious the bots are on Twitter now, and how people argue with them.
Uni what are your thoughts on Obama making a deal with our enemy while protecting a terrorist in the print?
It is simpler than that, Iran saw him as a representative of the state, which is why he is listed as part of "Iran," regardless of whether he was inside or outside of Iran. These are not uncommon.
Calling someone a terrorist does not make them a terrorist Under international law, he was a state actor.
This could snowball a bit, but the US State Department listed Iran as a "State Sponsor of Terror" in 1984 and never took it off of said list. The State Dept, DoD and all other government entities would have known about the listing as well as the countless times Quds Force, Hezbollah, etc under direct guidance of Soleimani have been linked to attacks on us military personnel and assets overseas. With that said, I do think the attack itself sets a pretty dangerous precedent. The US should have been smarter and have done what Russia/Iran/China have been doing to us and what we've done in the past that's to mastermind a proxy group to do our dirty deeds for us. A Sunni militia attacking Soleimani and killing him wouldn't have had the same repercussions but with the same outcome. I am curious about how audacious this is and what the intended end-game is? This would be the "big stick" diplomacy of Teddy's era. Or, perhaps I'm overthinking it and this is another "why can't we nuke a hurricane" move. FIIK.
Well, float isn't arguing on the side of his opinions (maybe he is, maybe he isn't) but instead how the International Laws view "terrorism". There is a reason I brought up Operation Paperclip. People acting as a member of a state are afforded significantly more breathing room and protections in international legislation than their rogue counterparts are.
