Ill-advised or not, killing terrorists outside of their country is hardly a war crime.
This war crime by the United States is the stupidest act since the Iraq war. The consequences may demonstrate that it is far worse. We can only wait and see how Iran and its loyalists in Iraq respond.
I think he’s basing that on the frequently repeated myth that embassies are considered the soil of the country they represent.
They are not.
So reading a bit more we basically assassinated the most broadly popular person in the Iranian regime. This is really going to work out in our favor.
Classifying people who are members of another country's government who do stuff you don't like as terrorists seems like a rabbit hole we don't really want to go down. Under that definition, the US could arguably be one of the biggest terrorists in the world.Ill-advised or not, killing terrorists outside of their country is hardly a war crime.
Ill-advised or not, killing terrorists outside of their country is hardly a war crime.
Ill-advised or not, killing terrorists outside of their country is hardly a war crime.
Classifying people who are members of another country's government who do stuff you don't like as terrorists seems like a rabbit hole we don't really want to go down. Under that definition, the US could arguably be one of the biggest terrorists in the world.
Ill-advised or not, killing terrorists outside of their country is hardly a war crime.
Do you think Bin Laden was a part of a recognized, sovereign government?Do you think we should've spared Bin Laden by this rationale?
Do you think we should've spared Bin Laden by this rationale?
I doubt you will hold the same opinion if or when they attempt to assassinate one of the American leaders.
Do you think Bin Laden was a part of a recognized, sovereign government?
By your rationale, we would have an obligation to execute the current President and all living former Presidents. They are all terrorists, every last one of them, even Carter.Do you think we should've spared Bin Laden by this rationale?
Of course I would, because the United States' leaders are not terrorists.
Of course they are; they just have shinier weapons.Of course I would, because the United States' leaders are not terrorists.
There are probably a good dozen governments who would disagree with that assessment.
There are probably a good dozen governments who would disagree with that assessment.
You can't possibly be serious.No. What difference does it make?
Who gets to decide that? Iran is certainly calling this a terrorist attack. I'm willing to bet a number of other countries would agree. What America did looks exactly like a terrorist attack to me, and I'm American.Of course I would, because the United States' leaders are not terrorists.
It's kind of amazing that he doesn't see this incredibly obvious hole in what he's saying.
I thought like one of a thousand movies in the 2000's covered this topic - one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter/justified military leader/whatever. If the US decides it can start assassinating members of foreign governments by labeling them terrorists then anyone with common sense can see why other governments will soon follow suit.
And you would agree with them?
Does this apply to countries we've invaded? Because we invaded Iraq in order to establish said embassy.
I am not being snarky, I am genuinely curious.
It was interesting to see him mention earlier how some countries set aside their differences to defeat the Nazis in WW2, but fails to see how the US might fall into a similar trap of its own making where other countries band together because they get tired of our constant bullshit.My opinion on that is irrelevant. You celebrate opening a policy box that will see our own officials made legitimate targets in the eyes of people who can act. I think you are going to be profoundly disappointed to find out this isn't a one way street.