It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump’s Unprecedented Attack on Iran and the Rule of Law

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Everyone with a functioning brain cell stopped reading at "unprecedented". LOL




posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: VictorVonDoom




I've said it before, I'll say it again. If you have a problem with Trump drone striking people, repeal and don't renew the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act is the problem, not Trump. As bad as you think Trump is as President, I can just about guarantee you that there will be someone worse down the road. Someone you definitely don't want having Patriot Act powers.


Could you expand on that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't see why the Patriot Act would be the problem. It certainly plays a role in this forever war of yours but I'm not sure your point sticks here as well.


Get informed on the freedom the patriot act gives the American government...
Snowden exposed it and they pumped the water full of fluoride and flooded America with opiates. It's still going on.. All the spying on Americans and others etc..

Trump is being an American patriot by remote bombing foreign officials with little to no explanations to the American people ; we voted for this.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flesh699

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Saw this in my newsfeed and thought I should share. It's a rather detailed piece on the recent hashashination from the President of a certain hashashin nation. You can keep the pun, and annoy us with your justifications to make it square. This would be the proper topic for that, and I'm looking forward to the loads of spin already.

[...]


Where the # where these idiots when Obama was droning people?

The president has to run any drone strikes through lawyers first. The people that write crap like that are grossly uneducated.
edit on Thu Jan 16 2020 by DontTreadOnMe because: trimmed quote Trim Those Quotes


No one wants to talk about the 500+ drone strikes and civilian deaths caused by the previous administration. Nor the malicious treatment of whistleblowers and journalists



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Help me understand what your argument is.

We have an American civilian contractor who was killed and several U.S. military personnel who were injured (on New Years Eve) by a militia group that is paid for and trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and it's against the law to kill the leader of the training squad? So, your argument is that we should have killed militia members only and not the one or ones who trained them? For real?


edit on 16-1-2020 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Obama dropped 2800+ drone strikes on individuals and we never heard a word from literally anyone on the matter.

Politics and wars didn't start with Trump in 2016.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

We haven't had any real pride in our legal system in decades and you know it. The real deal Holyfield is and has almost always been:

Got nada? -- public defender -- no trial -- plea deal (and sentence).

Got Warbucks? -- a paid lawyer -- trial -- acquittal (no sentence).

There is some crossover occasionally, glitches in the matrix and what not. It's the law of exceptionally large numbers. And let's be honest. There's a reason for those numbers. We are and have always been the most authoritarian system we can manage to be. That's what we're most proud of.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Help me understand what your argument is.

We have an American civilian contractor who was killed and several U.S. military personnel who were injured (on New Years Eve) by a militia group that is paid for and trained by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and it's against the law to kill the leader of the training squad? So, your argument is that we should have killed militia members only and not the one or ones who trained them? For real?


Unprecedented drone strike! The first ever drone strike in Iraq! We can't just go around drone striking everyone that trains and sponsors terrorists!



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Tekner

We're not just talking about using drones to kill everyone who's a terrorist anywhere in the world. We're talking about terrorists that KILLED an American in Iraq. It's not like we only killed Soleimani because he was planning another one. One American is already dead and other U.S. military personnel were injured.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Any moderately intelligent person remember Libya and all the droning. This is just some blowhard pandering to inbeciles



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined



Help me understand what your argument is.


In short: there was no imminent threat and Salami wasn't a non-state actor. This is a new level of state-terror, setting the stage for the next attack on sovereign nations and their officials.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Deetermined



Help me understand what your argument is.


In short: there was no imminent threat and Salami wasn't a non-state actor. This is a new level of state-terror, setting the stage for the next attack on sovereign nations and their officials.



I mean, its an opinion i'd suppose. One that only uses assumption and incomplete facts fueled by outrage from media that seems to be outraged with everything Trump does.

Meanwhile, the people of Iran seem to be warming up to Trump a bit. Most recently, they risked death just to protest their own government as a result of the actions that resulted from Trumps drone strike.

And after that bravery resulted in some of them being murdered by the Iranian government, our Congress would not even bring a vote to the floor to condemn Iran. Honestly, i cannot fathom why they would do that, other than they didn't want to actually be on record refusing to condemn the murder of Iranian citizens for simply protesting being lied to by their government.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


In short: there was no imminent threat and Salami wasn't a non-state actor. This is a new level of state-terror, setting the stage for the next attack on sovereign nations and their officials.


That ship already sailed when the first American was killed on New Years Eve.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 01:11 PM
link   
It was West who installed the Islamic folks in to power 1979 .


disquietreservations.blogspot.com...


hormozgan96.wordpress.com...


But of cource the official version , the one that has been on the "news" is completely different . I see a lot similarities with the shah and Gaddafi . West wanted to remove both, and they did .

I think Iran has been in the "smells fishy" files long time, at least for me. CIA regime change here we go again...


Good ol BBC kindly helping Ayatollah Khomeini spread the messages.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




I mean, its an opinion i'd suppose.


That's your opinion, I can see another legal case growing.


[...]
Absent proof of an imminent threat, the killing of Soleimani should be considered an assassination, which is illegal under a series of executive orders dating back to the administration of President Gerald Ford.

International law, although complex, also weighs against the strike on Soleimani. While Article 51 of the U.N. Charter recognizes the right of nations to engage in acts of self-defense, neither it nor other international agreements, such as the 1907 Hague and 1949 Geneva Conventions, permit the premeditated killing of specific individual commanders for past acts.

In compliance with its responsibilities as a U.N. member, the U.S. reported to the world body on Jan. 8 that it had “undertaken certain actions [including the Soleimani killing] in the exercise of its inherent right of self-defense” under Article 51. But as Rutgers University Law professor Adil Ahmad Haque noted in a Jan. 10 article published by the Just Security website, international law prohibits the use of armed force except upon “clear evidence of an ongoing or imminent attack.”

It is also unconvincing to justify Soleimani’s killing as an act of deterrence against future aggression, as both Attorney General William Barr and Secretary Pompeo claimed on Monday. Deterrence, as Professor Haque explains, “is not a legal defense. [It] is a confession.”


He literally confessed already. You can see that, right?



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Ksihkehe

You have a reason to ignore his arguments, that's the adhominem fallacy I called you out on.

Feel free to ignore all of that in your own thread, it's your choice to act like an ignorant idiot. And don't ask me why you would need to alert mods for that, it's the pit and I'm attacking your rationale. Not the person.


Another pearl of wisdom. Let this ignorant idiot break it down for you. It's so much more fun to ignore it in your thread.

I read the article. After reading the article I checked out others he's written and, surprise, it's filled with similar garbage. It's got nothing to do with ad hominem fallacy. I read it and it has no merit. It needs no elaborate rebuttal from me, but I did note the overall context of his body of work.

Oh, and FYI, I didn't report it. I'd rather it stayed there and everybody get to see it.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 01:22 PM
link   
I would agree a US Congress that has actively side stepped its obligations for at least my entire adult life time (and likely longer) by abdicating its power to the other two branches of government as a means to ensure continual reelection is inefficient, corrupt and even dangerous.

Unfortunately I do not see the current pushback on President Trump as a acknowledgement by our failed Congress to correct their mistakes and I fully expect them to go back to their inefficient, corrupt and even dangerous ways of side stepping their responsibilities once Trump leaves office.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I know Trump did not get a Nobel Peace Prize like Obama....



US drone strikes condemned as illegal by Pakistan's highest court
www.theverge.com...




UN condemns US drone strikes in Pakistan
m.dw.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 01:34 PM
link   
The previous administration put him on a kill list. This administration used it. Applying the word "assassination" to this is highly intellectual dishonest.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Tekner

Chris hedges was one of the first journalists to really dig into the democrats, he is even suing obama for exactly what you're pointing out.



posted on Jan, 16 2020 @ 01:40 PM
link   
It is when he wasnt even in iraq for anything miltary related and was expected by the Iraqi PM for talks between the Saudis and iran.

A leader of another nation called a hit on a man in another nation, so who owns iraq? Is it a sovereign nation or just a free for all? Soleimani is guilty of meddling in iraq, but when you have isis cheering about his death, the rabbit hole starts to go deeper.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join