Israel: US Asks Iran to Not Sink an American Carrier, “Just Kill Some Troops Instead”

We did a coup - taking out a democratically elected Gov't - and installed a dictator in 54. 79 can be traced back to that.

Neither have much nothing to Soleimani issue. Iran violating "the rules" in the past ... or the US violating "the rules" in the past - does not justify violating those rules now.

So far - you have come up with no terrorist actions by Soleimani - but, even if you had - they would pale in comparison to the terrorist actions of our guys.

So then - if targeted assassination among nation states is permissible - how many of our leaders should be taken out ?

You live in world of hypocrisy.

 

[/QUOTE]

Either you are very clueless with respect to our UN commitments or being disingenuous.

Take the war in Iraq for example - we are part of the UN security council - there are rules that all member nations agreed to abide by - one of which is that security council approval is required for one nation to make war on another.

did you not know this ? Because we did not have have security council approval - but invaded Iraq anyway - the war was illegal under international law - something we are signatories to and have agreed to abide by.

That you are unaware of the millennia old convention against targeted assassination of diplomat's of another nation - is again either too cool for school - or disingenuously feigning ignorance.

You have yet to provide any facts or valid arguments to back up your claim that killing Soleimani was justified - just gibberish and nonsense platitudes such as "might makes right" - we can do what we want.

Obviously we can do what we want - but that is not valid justification for anything.

 

- A diplomatic mission according to whom? Iran says it was a diplomatic mission. We say it was not. You believe the Iranians more than the United States? In a lot of ways, that speaks volumes aas to where you are coming from.

-Yes. If you have a specific covenant to which we are a signatory that you feel we broke that covenant, please provide a link to that specific language. LKets discuss. Why is this so difficult if it is as obvious as you seem to imply?

-Yamamoto did not hold the dual title of General and Terrorist, so its not exactly a valid analogy. You do realize that differing situations call for differing tactics...do you not. With your mindset, I guess we would have to forever do nothing because we do not want a full fledged war with Iran, yet they are openly funding and providing terrorists that are specifically killing Americans. In light of the first stanza where you believe Iran and do not believe our government, then I guess that it makes sense that you would want their evil deeds to go unpunished.

-Yes timing.

-Warring does not necessarily mean at war. It is an ambiguous term that can also mean conflict.

 

I asked you for a specific link to specific language. Your platitudes are not moving this conversation forward. Try again. My goodness, you are acting as if I am asking you to give up your right arm. Is a simple link pointing to specific text within that link that backs up your assertions REALLY too much to ask?

-I am ESPECIALLY excited to see your link to this "millenia old covenant" of which you speak. That must be an amazing trick seeing that we are under 300 years old as a nation. Who was the signatore? Since millenia means thousands, this must mean that this covenant was in place during and long before the dark ages? Was Attila the Hun also a signatore? The Vikings? My goodness....so many questions, so little time.

 

What laughable thought avoidance - I gave you a specific examples. which one would you like a link for - and what language are you talking about ?

It is not some secret that ware are signatories to agreements with respect to the UN security council.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council

A United Nations Security Council resolution is a UN resolution adopted by the fifteen members of the Security Council; the UN body charged with "primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".

"The UN Charter is a multilateral treaty. It is the constitutional document that distributes powers and functions among the various UN organs. The UN Charter specifies (in Article 27) that a draft resolution on non-procedural matters is adopted if nine or more of the fifteen Council members vote for the resolution, and if it is not vetoed by any of the five permanent members."

"Article 25 of the Charter says that "The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter".

I hope this remedies some of your confusion.

 

...and the text that you feel we have violated is what and it is located where in that document specifically? Do you honestly not know what I am asking for? Or are you simply trying to slither away and PRETEND like you gave a valid response?

You arent fooling anyone. Other than perhaps yourself, but somehow I doubt that is even the case. I think you know as well as I that you are not providing it because you were bluffing and dont have the slightest clue where to find what you are claiming.

Additinally, what about the "millenia old covenant"? I tried helping you out and seeking it for myself, but my google must not be working because it is nowhere to be found, much less is their specific text that shows we are a signatory, OR text that shows we have violated the supposed agreement.

 

I don't care what you are asking for - you keep moving the goalposts - desperately trying to avoid the reality- that we are signatories to UN Security council Charter.

You can not deal with this reality - and so you try to slither away and avoid this reality - followed by projecting what you are doing onto others - and we see you doing this with other posters.

Help can be found here
Projection is a psychological defense mechanism in which individuals attribute characteristics they find unacceptable in themselves to another personhttps://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/projection

 

I keep moving the goalpost by asking you to provide a link and text that proves what you are claiming? Yeah how unreasonable of me ( sarcasm) LOL....You arent fooling ANYONE.

Where is the link to this "millenia old covenant" of which you speak and that we are apprently a signatory? That's the one that I am especially excited to see! Millenia is such a powerful word, please tell me that you didnt make this covenant up whole cloth?

 

So you know for a fact that we are deliberately targeting wedding parties and large groups of civilians to get one guy?

 

I mentioned several, and you challenged one.

And interestingly you seem to be saying that a state of war has been in effect between the US and Iran since 1954, so if we are already at war, why are you so upset? He's a terrorist, but even on your terms, as a freedom fighting general, he's a legitimate military target.

 

I said we were a signatory to the agreements linked to - I said we were in violation of the millennia old covenant against assassinating diplomats - how that we had signed agreements .. although it is likely we have those two - diplomat's have "diplomatic immunity" for example.

As stated previously - if you are in favor of violating that covenant - and the agreements given that we are signatories to - you are welcome to your opinion.

What you have completely failed to do is justify that opinion. Twirling around crying "You arn't fooling anyone" and failing to respond to information presented - or misrepresenting the other - is not an argument for much.

And no - you are not fooling anyone. Denial of the existence of a millennia old covenant against assassinating foreign diplomats - is like denying that water is wet ... such is your desperation.

 

But yet you cannot provide text to what you are claiming that we have violated? How is anyone supposed to respond when nothing is provided to respond to? You condescendingly threw around this language, and then when called on it, you have failed to deliver. It looks like you got your hand caught in the cookie jar and are now trying to obfuscate.

At any rate, if you do get around to finding something that could even kind of sort of support what you were claiming, go ahead and provide it, and we can discuss. I am open minded, and ready to be convinced otherwise. . Until you do provide something specific however, I think you would be well advised to quietly slink away.

GO ON.....GIT!

 

I challenged more than one - and I have not said that there is a state of war since 54. Quit making stuff up and attributing it to me because you have no leg to stand on.

I never stated he was not a terrorist - only that you seem to be having trouble coming up with acts of terrorism committed by this guy - that come anywhere close to the acts of terrorism committed by our side.

Your are then arguing that our leaders and generals are legitimate military targets - and you are welcome to your opinion - I simply do not share it. I think we should abide by the millennia old covenant that ya don't assassinate the leaders of other nations - sans some highly exceptional circumstance - which this is not.

I do claim that at least on some occasions - Soleimani was in the role of freedom fighter.... are you not aware of this well known and well reported fact ? - or is it that you think that the Islamist Jihadist proxy army led by Al Qaeda and ISIS were the "freedom fighters" in Syria..

 

We violated many things - some of which I have provided text for. You asked for actual agreements - as per the UN Security council - and these were provided.

Then you tried avoid this reality by misrepresenting my general claim of about a general covenant. Lame tactics on your part.

Now you are trying to rest your whole case - on the one comment I made - completely ignoring all the other evidence that has refuted your nonsensical gibberish .. claims that we signed no agreements - claims which have been proven false.

Since I have never claimed we have agreements with respect to targeted assassination - you are wandering down a rabbit hole of your own creation.

That you don't understand the general covenant among nations that we don't target each others leaders - matters not.

If you think such actions should be the norm - then don't complain when our leaders get targeted .. and that is the justification for this convention globally recognized convention.

 

You have not provided the requested text that purportedly was going to back up your claims either prior to this post, or in this post. This is both boring, and a colossal waste of time. It is obvious that your mouth was writing checks that your intellect was not prepared to cash.

GO ON......GIT

 

You have not provided text on why the moon is not made of green cheese - that does not mean the moon is made of green cheese

Any idiot can request something stupid - and claim "you did not provide what was requested". The fact of the matter is that I provided links - and text - which you requested - that back up my claim that we have signed agreements with respect to the Security council - and so once again you spew falsehood - because you have not a leg to stand on.

Your "Might makes Right" justification is laughable nonsense -- sorry but - reality is what reality is - regardless of this big display of thought avoidance.

That you pretend not to realize that throughout history - there has been a general covenant and expectation - written or unwritten - of with respect to diplomatic immunity and/or assassination of foreign leaders and diplomat's - is like someone claiming to not realize that the moon is not made of green cheese ...

You are hopelessly lose - dazed - and confused.

 

You made a claim. I called you out on that claim, and challenged you to name that tune. You failed miserably.

Now GO ON.....GIT!

 

US sources have stated that the general had meetings with top Iranian government officials on his schedule.

And, the comments by our top officials, including Trump, were preposterous. They flip flopped. They countered each other. They were by Trump who hasn't told the truth on foreign relations on numerous occasions.

Are you serious? You need a cite to understand that assassinating a top government officials on diplomatic missions is not acceptable?

It's not about how much various individuals want war with Iran. It's that we aren't at war.

No, you haven't pointed out any case of me believing statements by Iran.

No, there is absolutely nothing ambiguous about it.

We are not at war with Iran.

 

Ad hom?

Really? That's all you have?

 

What US sources? Between you and this other guy, is it really that difficult to provide a link so I and any reader can see what it is that you are talking about and give a proper response?

Yes I am serious. Provide a link to the exact language and we can discuss this. Undoubtedly, this is an argument that involves legalese and that legalese is going to need to be parsed. Is it really that difficult for you to provide a link to your claims?.....yeesh. The two of you are like two peas in a pod. It is as if you are allergic to validating your position.

There are some claims that require a link, and some that do not. This is ABSOLUTELY one of those times that a link (and citation to the specific text) is required

I made a perfectly valid reference to you believing statements by Iran when I referred specifically to your first stanza that says..."We assassinated a high government official from a country with which we are not at war and who was on a diplomatic mission to Iraq....."

I suppose after this reply you can cling to the flimsy notion that "US Sources" have said, although in the same sentence you went on to complain about your perceived dishonesty of US officials. While without a doubt the Iranian government has been claiming that he was there on a "diplomatic mission", you are now claiming that some US Sources (albeit hand picked ones) have apparently made the same claim. I actually look forward to your link so that we can perhaps compare whom are the sources that you believe versus whom are the ones that you do not believe. I suspect that will be highly enlightening as to your ultimate belief system. I will however wait for the actual links so that we both can see what it is that you are talking about. (UNless of course you cop out by again replying "you dont really want a link do you?"(Insert whiny voice)

Hmmm...I said that it is ambiguous and that it can mean conflict. You are saying it only means war and that it is clearly not ambiguous.

Dictionary
war·ring
/ˈwôriNG/
Learn to pronounce
adjective

1. (of two or more people or groups) in conflict with each other.
   "warring factions"
   https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/warring

....By golly it looks like I AM RIGHT AGAIN!......Lookey there!!!!

 

Well....an ad hom is an attack on a person RATHER than the position they are maintaining. I think that it is pretty clear that I am attacking the position they are maintaining and then I threw in a mild joking insult. Not all insults are ad homs, and this one is definitely not an ad hom. You seem confused.

....as a side note....why do you keep replying to me for posts to the other poster? Are you maintaining two accounts and are the same person? You two do oddly have the same bizarre stance (not an ad hom) on providing links to back up claims. I can understand jumping into another's conversation when something is worth refuting, but this is just unabashed bickering with no underlying purpose.

 

If The Iranians had a clear shot at any of our military leaders, they would have taken it. Do you think they care? But if you are no longer arguing that Soleimani isn't a terrorist, than maybe you can understand why he was a target.

Or maybe not. You seem pretty obtuse on this.

 

This is well known and easy to find. Do your own search. I'm not going to cite some source and then have you toss hate on the source.

Treatment of diplomats has a long history. I'm not going to bother to find some statement of something that has been honored for so long.

I didn't believe ANY statement by Iran

It's well known that the administration argument was a total hash.

As I've stated repeatedly, that's not even my largest concern, by the way. The more fundamental problem is that we have no strategy or plan concerning what the heck we're doing.

So, instead of having a strategy, we do this kind of one-off action that does have more extended ramifications, such as we see in Iraq.

No. When we claim we're at war it has a real definition.

We are NOT in a state of war with Iran, thus using "warring" as an excuse has no validity.

 

We believe in the rule of law.

Whether they do or not is not the question.

 

You made up a claim - and then asked for specific wording with respect to that claim - nice try Still waiting for material from you showing that the moon is not made of green cheese .

What claim is it that you would like verified - make sure to quote from me - rather than use your own words in some mischaracterization.

and explain - for once - how this relates to the overall discussion por favor.