POLITICS Iran

Discussion in 'Politicants' started by kptvol, Jan 7, 2020.

  1. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    State sponsor of terrorism and being straight labeled as a terrorist are two vastly different things. The US may believe that that designation is sufficient to wage war... and did. But ultimately, nobody is big enough to slap our hand on it.

    We also didn't strike him in Iran. We could have. We chose our time and place. Which is odd, if he is a "terrorist," yea? Borders have never stopped a strike on a known terrorist.
     
    Unimane likes this.
  2. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Correct. He was an Iranian operative.

    His killing is an act of war.

    But we're [ussies pay], so we just call him a terrorist, so we don't have to say we executed an enemy state actor, what ya gonna do?
     
  3. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    I know what hes doing. Semantics. Always is.
     
  4. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    You at least take his ass out, vs protecting him in an agreement. I mean I know I'm a dumbass as you guys tell me often, but If that info is accurate and you or anybody else thinks what obama did was fine, I cant think of an insult which would fit properly.
     
  5. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    If every leader is a representative of the state, then there’s no need to list any representatives of the state, right?

    Do you agree with Obama allowing him to be listed with such a protected status?
     
  6. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    No, law.

    I get that murder and manslaughter are semantics to you, after all, both left someone dead. But they aren't the same. Terrorism and state actions against the US aren't the same. Terrorism and state actions against civilians aren't the same.

    When a gang beats the ever living shit out of every person that isn't in their gang, they aren't terrorists. Even though you might think their actions terrorizing.
     
  7. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Of course the info is accurate. What was done here was COMMON.

    I would be shocked that if we have similar agreements in place, that he isn't listed in those as well.
     
  8. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    Donald J Trump, acting in his capacity as President of the United States of America, personally and directly ordered the attack, and which he was certain would lead to Solimani’s immediate physical death.

    And he wants you - and the rest of the living world - to be absolutely certain in knowing that he did so.

    This not only represents a marked change from previous Administrations, but sets a notably high and personal standard for all POTUS’ who follow.
     
  9. DC Vol

    DC Vol Contributor

    Eh, depends on if you view MS-13 and the Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations. They're a little different than a standard street gang.
     
  10. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Every leader is not a representative in a state where there is no concept of public government. Only those listed are representatives.

    Hell, even in our country, random clerks (who are representatives of government) can't go out and represent the US in foreign matters.

    If the only way to get the agreement was to list him, and the agreement was good, then listing him was right. Do you not agree?

    But that isn't what we are talking about. Ultimately you're asking whether the agreement was a good one. And that I cannot say. But I can say that if it was... and it was necessary to be listed, then it was right.
     
  11. Tenacious D

    Tenacious D The law is of supreme importance, or no importance

    They attacked an American embassy, threatening both it and the Americans inside of it.

    So, he killed Somimani to hammer them for doing so.

    He’ll similarly respond, for as many rounds as they’d like to go.
     
  12. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Yes. Labels. If you label them different than a standard street gang, they are so labeled. They are not, and thus are not. That is not semantics. That is labeling.
     
  13. DC Vol

    DC Vol Contributor

    He also pointed the bloody Big Stick of Diplomacy to The Hague and said "we're not playing by the rules that brought (relative, especially in terms of mankind's last several millenia) global order and peace over the last 70 years". Perhaps he's right, I've had this long discussion with a friend that things changed a lot when China/Russia/Brazil/India/South Africa formed BRICS and how that would bring about a plethora of implications in places like Iran/etc.

    The world would be a better place under the hegemonic soft diplomacy of the post-WW2 landscape, but BRICS nations, especially China and Russia, just dont' give 2 shits about that world and mankind has a nasty history of falling in line with malevolence over benevolence.
     
  14. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    It's an interesting thing to consider chunking precedent out the window because ... an embassy's reception area burned, and nobody was hurt? Let's do Saudi Arabia next!

    Iran gets a different stroke just because of nuclear power. But they're far from the last nation that will seek such.
     
  15. DC Vol

    DC Vol Contributor

    Street gang: Behead enemy and leave mutilated corpse on street corner as way of terrorizing people into compliance. Not a terrorist because they don't have correct label.

    Hezbollah: Behead enemy and leave mutilated corpse on street corner as way of terrorizing people into compliance. A terrorist organization in [list of nations that view them as terrorists], but not in [list of nations that interact with them politically]

    ISIS: Behead enemy and leave mutilated corpse on street corner as way of terrorizing people into compliance. Terrorist organization.

    Definition of terrorism is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." MS-13 and Mexican cartels absolutely use terrorism as ways to pursue political gains, but since they're not correctly labeled, they're not terrorists... even though they are by the textbook definition.

    If I see someone pull out a 9mm and execute someone in the street, should I call 911 and say "there is an unlabeled maybe murderer on the loose, I think. I'm not sure, as he hasn't been correctly labeled in a legal sense what to call him and I don't want to muddy the waters of future legal proceedings?"
     
  16. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    DC it sounds like it depends on who signs his check. If he works for iran, hes not. Hes a state agent. If hes 1099, then he probably is a terrorist.
     
    warhammer likes this.
  17. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    If you see someone pull out a 9mm and execute someone in the street, you should call 911 and say that you just witnessed an individual shoot another. The person looked like blah blah blah blah, and was last seen heading blah.

    In other words, you should be a good witness, and nothing more.
     
  18. DC Vol

    DC Vol Contributor

    Don't want to go around mislabeling people and such.
     
  19. DC Vol

    DC Vol Contributor

    Well, from a purely devils advocate perspective:

    Isn't Henry Kissinger basically a terrorist that skated around because he was a state agent of the most powerful nation in the world?

    Nuance is the difference to what Kissinger was, what China currently is, what Iran is and what ISIS is.

    EDIT: Changed to past tense because that's a derailin'
     
  20. Unimane

    Unimane Kill "The Caucasian"

    Talk about a loaded question. I wonder if I can parse your angle here?

    Anyway, diplomacy is rarely as clean cut as we'd like. Having an agreement for Souleimani was not ideal (Was he the "deadliest terrorist" at the time?). However, he was a state actor for Iran and the objective was to have Iran agree to cease and desist from their nuclear program, which was probably viewed as a greater good.
     
    Ssmiff likes this.

Share This Page