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

Your comments on this issue follow the pattern of using "labels" in place of reasoned argument. Iran has classified the entire US military as a "terrorist organization". The issue isn't about labels. General Soleimani was not the leader of an 'independent' group, but a branch of Iran's revolutionary guards. He was a general in the Iranian revolutionary guards and, ultimately, was carrying out the policies of Iran. If the US has a problem with what the Quds force has done or is doing, and wants to use violence to register its opposition to it, it can declare war on Iran and engage in such a war. But to take out someone who on official business in Iraq, with knowledge of the Iraqi government, is not how any nation which wants to pretend to uphold the rule of law acts.

Anyway, below is a rare, one-on-one debate between a US general who was once the spokesman for the coalition forces in Iraq and a former official who served in Iran's national security council on this issue. The good thing about these 'face-to-face' debates, if nothing else, is that you can't just repeat and use labels in lieu of 'justification'.

 

The US regards the government of Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism, so yes the Revolutionary Guards is fullfilling the aims of a terrorist state. However the Revolutionary Guards carry out the policies that we view as terrorist.

 

Well, I am frankly interested in labels that can be thrown around. But listen to the video I posted. The latter sections of the debate include frank admissions by a high ranking US general who was the chief spokesman for the coalition forces in Iraq about General Soleimani and his role in fighting ISIS as well as his key role in helping the US defeat the Taleban in 2002.

 

Its like we have not been having this conversation for 20 posts back and forth. Do you have a history of memory lapse ? This whole conversation has been about assassinating a leader/General/Diplomat from another nation.

In this argument there I am the one that has been arguing against killing leaders in other nations .. You have been arguing the opposite.

I agreed that there might be extreme circumstances - where taking out such a leader is justified - and asked you where that bar was.

You justification was that Soleimani was a bad guy .. I agree that Soli is a bad guy - simply for being in the high ranks of a totalitarian dictatorship/theocracy if nothing else -

The question is whether or not he meets the "extreme circumstances" bar -

You set this bar at Soleimani - citing numerous acts - some of which involved terrorism - others were acts of war - another was targeted assassination.

My simple retort was that your bar is low ... and that many of our leaders - and leaders in other nations - would easily be above that bar.

I talked about the millennia old covenant against targeting the leaders of other nations - stating that this covenant has stood the test of time for a reason.

You are the one that set a low bar - to justify assassination of world leaders. I have been arguing against where you set the bar.

Where you set the bar - Iran is justified in assassinating a whole lot - which is why I have been arguing against where you set the bar.

 

My "bar" includes Soleimani, as the leader of a terrorist group. It also includes other leaders of other terrorist groups, most recently Qassim al-Rimi. But again you avoid who you think it's OK for the Iranians to kill. You say we are a terrorist state, so that means we have actual leaders of actual terrorist organizations, so who do you think the Iranians could assassinate justifiably on the US side?

 

I know where your bar is - you don't get to pick and chose who meets the bar once that bar is set.

You then blubber nonsensical gibberish about me claiming we have leaders of actual terrorist organizations.

1) Your bar is much lower than being the leader of some terrorist organization - and you don't get to define what acts of terror are - what war crimes are, and crimes against humanity. Your preferred definition being "anything we do does not fit that definition"

2) It is your bar that turns our leaders into terrorists .. so quit projecting your perspective on to me.

 

So you are backtracking on your claim that the United States is a terrorist nation?

 

Not at all .. the US has been regularly engaging in acts of terror - but that has nothing to do with the conversation from which you are trying to deflect.

Whether the US is a terrorist nation depends on the definition of "Terrorist Nation" - a new term you introduced on the fly .. in a lame attempt to build a strawman.

By the definition you gave ... the US is a terrorist nation. I do not agree with your definition - and you know this - so stop projecting your beliefs onto others.

You are welcome to believe the US is a "Terrorist Nation" if you wish ... I simply do not share your perspective.


.

 

Well the technical term is "state sponsor of terror" which is what Iran is. So you are claiming the US is a "state sponsor of terror?"

 

You are projecting - in a funny way - You have claimed that the US is a state sponsor of terror - as per your definition. I clarified this 5 or 6 for you now - yet you keep coming back to your own vomit - in this mindless circle of you asking a question - me answering - very specifically - and you then repeating the same question in a slightly different way - in this case changing the terminology slightly..

There is a difference between "state sponsor of terror" - and "Terrorist Nation"

Regardless - by your definition the US is both.... but I do agree with you in some respects - you are just mixed up with respect to your definitions. .Obviously the US has a history of being a State Sponsor of terror - That's History 101 .. most certainly by your definition

 

I wonder if you spot my posts, quickly go drink a lot, then post your reply? That would at least explain the incoherence of your posts. So for the record, it's YOU who has been claiming the USA is a terrorist nation. That's the argument you've been making this entire thread!

Ahh.. go back to drinking. It would be more productive.

 

I have claimed that the US is a state sponsor of terror -a historical fact - not a "Terrorist Nation".

What is also true is that by the definitions you gave - the US is both.

You have been having problems with this disconnect in your perception of reality - and so you have been engaging in all kinds of "thought avoidance" tactics - and trying desperately to demonize the messenger - because you can't deal with the message.

 

I'm not trying to demonize you, but when you go round and round changing your argument it becomes a little tiring realizing that you never intended to have a discussion or answer questions. Frankly I don't know what you're doing, hence the guess on drinking.

 

Now you are projecting again - you claim - I'm not trying to demonize - followed by accusing me of things I did not do -attempting to project your failings on to me.

It is you who is avoiding questions and being disingenuous and changing your argument- because you have no coherent defense of your position

It is not my fault that by your own definition - the US is a state sponsor of terror.

 

Well if the US, is as you say a "a state sponsor of terror," then why are you avoiding my question about who the terrorists actually are that Iran (or any country I guess) take their revenge on? Who do you think it's open season on to be assassinated?

 

By your definition - the US is a state sponsor of terror - and I have answered your question a number of times .. the head of the CIA would be an example of one potential target .. other heads of state .. and so on.

I do not think it is open season on anyone. I am the one arguing against nations targeting the diplomats of other nations. You are the one arguing for violation of this millennia old covenant.

 

"millennia old covenant"

I don't think I made that definition, you did. You are the one arguing that the the US is a state sponsor of terror. However at least you finally answered the question. You have the head of the CIA on your target list. Good to know.

 

The covenant against assassinating diplomats of other nations - is old. That however is not the definition we are discussing.

By your definition of State Sponsor of Terrorism - the US is a State Sponsor of Terrorism.

By the standard you proposed - targeted assassinations of diplomats from other nations were justified - on the basis of being a state sponsor of terror.

Since I do not agree with the standard you proposed for target assassination - it is you - and not me who has the CIA on your target list.

boooooooiiiiiiinnnnngggg !! I am against targeted assassination - remember .. you are on one side "Pro Target Assassination" .. I am arguing the other side "Against Targeted Assassination of Diplomats"

Textbook projection - accusing me of what you are guilty of

 

I never defined the US as a state sponsor of terrorism, you did.

I never identified the CIA director as a legitimate target of assassination, you did.

You must have realized how stupid your positions sound if you have have to take your entire argument and give me your positions, and then argue against the positions you originally made.

Sheesh.

 

Yes you did - You defined the actions of a State Sponsor of terrorism was - and the US fits within the criteria you set.

Never once did I do such a thing Mr. Falsehood. You are the one that is for Targeted Assassination - based on criteria that fits within what the CIA does.

Then once again you try to project your flaws onto me. Deep in the pit of denial you are.

 

Hitting the reset button - The targeted assassination of Soleimani - is much more complicated than you were crediting to the issue.