Iranian assassination ill-advised

[Scott Downey]

Taking him out so far has been to create a safer world, obvious to all the guy was a planner of death to them that oppose the Iranian Mullahs. It was a proper US government action sanctioned by God in the secular world. It is not though in our faith to individually be killing anyone as our fight is not against flesh and blood, that is the place of government approved of by God.

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

 

[Yeshua1]

Taking him out so far has been to create a safer world, obvious to all the guy was a planner of death to them that oppose the Iranian Mullahs. It was a proper US government action sanctioned by God in the secular world. It is not though in our faith to individually be killing anyone as our fight is not against flesh and blood, that is the place of government approved of by God.

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

he reaped what he sowed!

 

[asterisktom]

Taking him out so far has been to create a safer world, obvious to all the guy was a planner of death to them that oppose the Iranian Mullahs. It was a proper US government action sanctioned by God in the secular world. It is not though in our faith to individually be killing anyone as our fight is not against flesh and blood, that is the place of government approved of by God.

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

How ironic that you quoted the Apostle Paul right after a comment that is quite contrary to his message.

If we are truly in the right in violating international law in assassinating bad guys (and he was) then let's also put the crosshairs on Kim in NK, Putin, and ... hey, let's get a list started.

 

[church mouse guy]

I don't know what international law was violated. They attacked us many times, including an attack on our embassy (not the first time).

As for Kim, we should allow our allies to arm and ring him with deadly weapons. As for Putin, he likes to test us constantly but he has a better state department than we do and he is unlikely to attack an embassy. We have little interest in the Middle East at this time. We have several allies against Iran. Iran has a long history of terrorism in Latin America & Alberto Nisman of Argentina, who may have been murdered by Iranians, documented Iranian involvement in the attempt to blow up fuel lines in 2007 at JFK Airport in NYC.

 

[Yeshua1]

How ironic that you quoted the Apostle Paul right after a comment that is quite contrary to his message.

If we are truly in the right in violating international law in assassinating bad guys (and he was) then let's also put the crosshairs on Kim in NK, Putin, and ... hey, let's get a list started.

We are at war with Islamic terrorists, so have the national right to defend our nation by taking out their worst bad guy!

 

[Yeshua1]

I don't know what international law was violated. They attacked us many times, including an attack on our embassy (not the first time).

As for Kim, we should allow our allies to arm and ring him with deadly weapons. As for Putin, he likes to test us constantly but he has a better state department than we do and he is unlikely to attack an embassy. We have little interest in the Middle East at this time. We have several allies against Iran. Iran has a long history of terrorism in Latin America & Alberto Nisman of Argentina, who may have been murdered by Iranians, documented Iranian involvement in the attempt to blow up fuel lines in 2007 at JFK Airport in NYC.

Big difference between iran and those other nations and leaders is that we have been at war with them since 1979!

 

[asterisktom]

Big difference between iran and those other nations and leaders is that we have been at war with them since 1979!

Once again we have a reference to 1979 and no further. Research "Iran, BP, US 1953" on Google. (Take off the quotes first.)

Unless you just want to regurgitate FoxNews talking points.

 

[asterisktom]

I don't know what international law was violated. They attacked us many times, including an attack on our embassy (not the first time).

As for Kim, we should allow our allies to arm and ring him with deadly weapons. As for Putin, he likes to test us constantly but he has a better state department than we do and he is unlikely to attack an embassy. We have little interest in the Middle East at this time. We have several allies against Iran. Iran has a long history of terrorism in Latin America & Alberto Nisman of Argentina, who may have been murdered by Iranians, documented Iranian involvement in the attempt to blow up fuel lines in 2007 at JFK Airport in NYC.

Please see my comment to Yeshua 1. If you do that search you will discover another violation of international law and of our pretended democratic principles. What happened then is the antecedent to what happened in 1979 and is happening now.

I am not saying that Iran is totally without blame, but you cannot just ignore those earlier events.

 

[Rob_BW]

Once again we have a reference to 1979 and no further. Research "Iran, BP, US 1953" on Google. (Take off the quotes first.)

Unless you just want to regurgitate FoxNews talking points.

What's the statute of limitations for government interference? If we can still appeal back to 1953 in Iran, but not 136 in Israel, I just need to know the international cut off date.

 

[Reformed]

Please see my comment to Yeshua 1. If you do that search you will discover another violation of international law and of our pretended democratic principles. What happened then is the antecedent to what happened in 1979 and is happening now.

I am not saying that Iran is totally without blame, but you cannot just ignore those earlier events.

Tom, the issue with "international law" is that it is often a moving target. It is only as relevant as to who is supporting or rejecting it at any given time. In this case, the Trump administration is making the case that their attack against Qassam Solemani was lawful because it was in response to previous and impending acts of war by Iran against the United States and its allies. Because there were impending threats by Solemani, the Administration claims it acted in self-defense. Under the War Powers Act, the president has to inform Congress within 48 hours of committing United States forces into combat operations. It does not say that the President must first get congressional permission before taking military action.

Back to international law for a moment. What is international law and how binding is it? David Davenport writes, "The reality is that much of international law isn’t really “law” in the sense that most Americans understand the term. There is no world constitution to frame international law, no powerful supreme court or legal system to define and enforce it, and no global police force to arrest and detain those who violate the law. It would be more accurate to say that international law is a set of norms that countries agree to follow, at least when it’s in their interest to do so." International law is rooted in either United Nations resolutions or treaties such as the Geneva Convention. The rightness or wrongness of resolutions or treaties depends on who you are asking. The United States and Russia (nee The Soviet Union) often oppose resolutions by security committee vetos. If the modern state of Israel obeyed United Nations resolutions it would not exist.

My point is that using international law to equally support or defend an action by a sovereign nation is not always the definitive arbiter.

 

[asterisktom]

What's the statute of limitations for government interference? If we can still appeal back to 1953 in Iran, but not 136 in Israel, I just need to know the international cut off date.

Do you really think this is a valid comparison?

Many people alive in 1989 remember the decidedly thuggish way they were treated by the US and Great Britain in 1953. That is a key part of their resentment that was fueled by the mullahs in that latter year. If you read up on it you might find it was more resentment against the faux democracies than love for the mullahs that brought about the change. And all of this is part of the present situation, many Iranians either remembering or being reminded by what happened 67 years ago.

So - getting back to your point - how many Jewish followers of Bar Kochba are around today?

 

[asterisktom]

Many Americans have an ingrained wish to not see 1953 as part of the problem. Maybe it goes against there cherished belief that Uncle Sam never wears a black hat. Or has blood on his hands.

 

[church mouse guy]

Many Americans have an ingrained wish to not see 1953 as part of the problem. Maybe it goes against there cherished belief that Uncle Sam never wears a black hat. Or has blood on his hands.

Are you American or Albanian?

 

[Rob_BW]

Do you really think this is a valid comparison?

Many people alive in 1989 remember the decidedly thuggish way they were treated by the US and Great Britain in 1953. That is a key part of their resentment that was fueled by the mullahs in that latter year. If you read up on it you might find it was more resentment against the faux democracies than love for the mullahs that brought about the change. And all of this is part of the present situation, many Iranians either remembering or being reminded by what happened 67 years ago.

So - getting back to your point - how many Jewish followers of Bar Kochba are around today?

I just find it funny how you can conveniently factor in historical animosities when it suits your views. If events from 67 years ago can affect people, why not further?

(And your indictment that those of us who don't see eye to eye with you are not well read is tiring. Do you really need a copy of my transcripts or a catalog of my library? I got an A in "The Modern Middle East.")

 

[asterisktom]

I just find it funny how you can conveniently factor in historical animosities when it suits your views. If events from 67 years ago can affect people, why not further?

(And your indictment that those of us who don't see eye to eye with you are not well read is tiring. Do you really need a copy of my transcripts or a catalog of my library? I got an A in "The Modern Middle East.")

Your first statement makes no sense. Do you not agree that more recent events have a greater impact than ones centuries away? What is hard to understand about this? I think you are the one that is conveniently factoring out inconvenient historical injustices.

What indictment? Why are you getting so offensive? I didn't say you were not well read. If you bristle at someone else's mere suggestion (in this case that you might want to read more about the 1953 CIA coup) than you have thin skin. When someone suggests for me to read something I often do just that, especially if I can find it online.

But, fine, I won't suggest any more reading for you.

 

[Rob_BW]

Oh, no one's offended. By all means, tell us a detail about an event if you think we're lacking. You are an intelligent and articulate man, tland can offer a better post than "y'all just need to read more."

I enjoy this forum for the opposing views it offers, and you are a part of that appeal.

 

[asterisktom]

Are you American or Albanian?

I am as American as you are. Probably more, since I take seriously the freedom we have as Americans to praise or criticize my country wherever and whenever appropriate.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I am as American as you are. Probably more, since I take seriously the freedom we have as Americans to praise or criticize my country wherever and whenever appropriate.

Hmmm. This may be the clearest admission yet, that some can be more American than others.

Another way of looking at it is that Americans who use a double-standard in assessing these disputes are acting less American than those who apply a consistent, uniform standard.

 

[asterisktom]

Hmmm. This may be the clearest admission yet, that some can be more American than others.

Another way of looking at it is that Americans who use a double-standard in assessing these disputes are acting less American than those who apply a consistent, uniform standard.

I agree with everything you wrote

 

[asterisktom]

Oh, no one's offended. By all means, tell us a detail about an event if you think we're lacking. You are an intelligent and articulate man, tland can offer a better post than "y'all just need to read more."

I enjoy this forum for the opposing views it offers, and you are a part of that appeal.

Fair enough . Maybe I will get back to this tomorrow. Getting dark here in Elbonia.