"Collateral Damage": Trudeau Blames Trump For Iran Accidentally Shooting Down Passenger Plane

DTB2 said:
Really, how so?
More...

Kill who you want without law to back your action, that is vigilante.

I get the desire to just go for it, fuck the lawyers and bureaucracy, take out the bad bastards. I have hospitalized over ten men for slights against me personally however when I had a job where I took an oath and represented the rule of law I followed the law, both letter and spirit. This was heading an anti-poaching outfit on my 20s.

The reason I stuck to the law was when you take shortcuts like a mafia gangster, everyone starts to take them. Good guys, my guys and the bad guys just get worse. The 'rules', the difference between can and should go out the window.

Shit gets messy.
 
Last edited:
Bugenhagen said:
...

The reason I stuck to the law was when you take shortcuts like a mafia gangster, everyone starts to take them. Good guys, my guys and the bad guys just get worse. The 'rules', the difference between can and should go out the window.

Shit gets messy.
More...

Congress only has the authority to declare war on a sovereignty. They do not have the right to prevent a POTUS from taking out a strategic target.

Was anyone complaining when Bin Laden was taken out under Obama? Congress was not notified beforehand. All covert and shit.
 
Overnight said:
Congress only has the authority to declare war on a sovereignty. They do not have the right to prevent a POTUS from taking out a strategic target.

Was anyone complaining when Bin Laden was taken out under Obama? Congress was not notified beforehand. All covert and shit.
More...

Osama was a stateless terrorist, not the head of a standing army. Couldn't get more apples and oranges than that.
 
Bugenhagen said:
Kill who you want without law to back your action, that is vigilante.

I get the desire to just go for it, fuck the lawyers and bureaucracy, take out the bad bastards. I have hospitalized over ten men for slights against me personally however when I had a job where I took an oath and represented the rule of law I followed the law, both letter and spirit. This was heading an anti-poaching outfit on my 20s.

The reason I stuck to the law was when you take shortcuts like a mafia gangster, everyone starts to take them. Good guys, my guys and the bad guys just get worse. The 'rules', the difference between can and should go out the window.

Shit gets messy.
More...

Americans need to realize that if you run around killing people or dropping bombs just because you can may motivate others to decide to do the same on your land. The size of the military won't matter, there are always enough irrational people on the planet to do it anyways. In the ultimate "eye for an eye" endgame, nuclear bombs get dropped and millions die on both sides if not risking most of the planet. This alone should be the real deterrent for everyone. Unfortunately, real risks exist when irrational people like Trump get elected exposing the deep flaws in how countries even the US actually operate. Trump threatened nuclear war on North Korea and invading Iran a seriously difficult country to invade and occupy. That is not the guy anyone should want in power.
 
vanzandt said:
Except Suliemani was declared a terrorist by the US in 2007. Back to apples to apples.
More...

Soleimeni was under a UN decree/order whatever to remain in Iran. So the fact that he was both a terrorist and a government type was dealt with by the international community by ordering him to stay in Iran, with other countries sort of accepting that and not striking him in Iran as long as he accepted that restraint.

Was he in Iran and compliant with the UN order when he was killed or was he out and about and up to terrorist type behavior, regardless of whether imminent or not. "Imminent" is not a factor in justifying the taking out of a terrorist.
 
TreeFrogTrader said:
What point are you making?

My statement would be completely supported by 9/11 victims.
More...

So what you are saying is that since we knew of the imminent threat Bin Laden was to the USA, and that we did not act in time, the people who died in that attack would welcome the fact that we did not take him out in time to prevent the attack that killed them? Huh?

Soliemani could have been planning another 9/11-type attack. We took him out, so now another 9/11-type deal will not happen.

That is my point. Oi!

@vanzandt am I off my rocker here, or is someone else? You seem to be a mind of reason. If I am wrong about my thinking, then I will forever support letting terrorists live so they can plan more 9/11s against the USA. EVEN if they say on their FB page that they are going to do something terrible to the country.

I mean, if he says that he is going to bomb the Super Bowl, I suppose I should just wish to let him live? Because until he performs the act, it is not an imminent threat?

I am totally confused by TreeFrog's ideas here. I think I got it right, but I need verification from you, a clearer-minded thinker.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top