Is this the sort of standards he sets for other leaders and actors of state sponsored terrorism or dictators, like North Korea, Turkey, Russia, etc.?
The definition of "murder" would fit. The legal definition of "convicted murderer" would not. Again, nuance. To me, murder is murder. However, to a lawyer, murder is only murder if they are convicted... aka labeled.
1. Whose law? International? (Because then that means that certain people aren't terrorists....) 2. MS-13 is not after political aim, they are after money. Inside this country, at least. And inside this country, they aren't terrorists. They are murders, rapists, drug dealers, smugglers, and a whole bunch of other things. 3. Mexico is free to label MS-13 and cartels as terrorist organizations. I wouldn't disagree.
How do you now that it was murder? Under no scenario can you envision someone executing another in the street and it not be murder?
I had to coax a bit of a devils argument out of you, but this basically dragged out something you and I have both been yammering about: International Laws matter. Domestic Laws matter. Extrajudicial killings, regardless of target, are a bad precedent. I didn't like them under Obama and I didn't like them under Trump. In order to be a "terrorist" you can't just commit "terror". You have to commit "terror", not be connected enough to avoid the label and be singularly labeled as a terrorist before you can then be called a terrorist. That's why I used Hezbollah, because a lot of European nations don't recognize them as terrorists and allow them to raise funds and interact politically. Germany and France are such examples. I order to have a better world to live in than the aforementioned BRICS-contingent world, we have to be better (or at least smarter) than them.
To follow-up: We haven't learned our lesson, it would seem. We played "extremist whack-a-mole" in the Middle East for the last 15+ years. We "kill the snake by cutting off the head" only to realize it's a hydra with regenerating heads. This is why the killing of Soleimani is really stupid. It makes us out to be the "DGAF about laws as they're for [ussies pay]" bully, and Iran will just... find another Soleimani in all ways except for name. You never beat Soleimanis. You beat the ideology that allows Soleimani's to thrive. I don't want to say "kill them with kindness" so much as "kill them with economic mobility and the unique blend of individualistic rights that western liberalism affords combined with not having to worry about being executed for being a political dissident".
We don't learn from either our previous mistakes or the countless other empires that have made them. Having Soleimani on the list is unsavory, but it's how the Iran Nuclear Deal got signed. Argue for or against it, but that deal was the right play. Obama also started the right play and that's driving a wedge between India and China. Pakistan was the dumbest friend the US has had in the Middle-East and East-Asia. They literally were harboring OBL for years, [uck fay] em. The world changed a lot in 2013. We have to have our sights set a lot higher than playing rub-n-tug with Iran.
I interpreted it as: "Iranians are fed up with a dumb regime/administration leading them and are starting their 4th failed revolution to overthrow them but since they have no means of communication or weapons for which to conduct the overthrow, they will fail. We could learn something from their failures and institute a system of ham radio/off-grid communications techniques and view any attempt at mass disarmament as a warning of the incoming totalitarian regime that would follow" Is that not a correct interpretation?
Armed is the only chance they have. But that generally doesn’t work out too well for us either long term
Right now he’s doing what he does very well - keep attention on it. You can love him or not, but when the POTUS’ attention gets put on it, it’s a bright light. They need encouragement, for now.
A bevy of great topics / insightful comments from a former spook: 1:25 - Sulumani’s death, terroristic acts 6:30 - Baghdadi’s death, WaPo calling him “religious scholar” 8:22 - Far Left finding something to criticize in his being killed 11:30 - The deferent effect on Iran after Sulumani killed 11:50 - Military conflict with Iran 13:28 - Iran shooting down passenger jet 16:55 - China & Russia intervening for Iran
