IRGC leader Soleimani has been killed in targeted assassination near Baghdad

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: PaddyInf

It is not the position it is the man in that position. Comparing Pence to Soleimani is ignorant.

The US declared this man as a terrorist. However this was not the view in many other countries. I do not doubt that this man is better off dead, nor do I suggest that Pence is a terrorist. I suggest that targeting the second most powerful person in a sovereign state without watertight reasoning, congressional oversight and international political backing is a bad idea.

Soleimani was the de facto deputy of Iran. He was a political as well as military leader, and he travelled under diplomatic credentials. Targeting him gives tacit approval for foreign forces to attack US and other Western diplomats and citizens. If Iran decided that the second in command of the US was a terrorist, and that by putting US troops in the Middle East they were committing an act of terrorism, would that make him a legitimate target? Because this is the logic being used to justify the killing of Soleimani.

From a political standpoint, assassination is broadly defined as the deliberate and unlawful killing of a political leader in peacetime. There is no official declared conflict with Iran. Attacks have been proxy in nature. Therefore the killing of Soleimani may be viewed as an assassination. This makes it potentially illegal under international law, and by a US executive order from 1976. The current version of this states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” It is not enough to say 'this was a very naughty man so we can kill him'. There are clear international laws around the killing if political figures. So yes, the position held is very important.

Under UN charter there is an explicit right to self defence. By stating that they killed him due to impending military attacks on US forces, POTUS attempts to give some legal backing to the strike as it may be argued that it was in self defence. However from a legal standpoint this relies completely on the imminence and nature of the threat, something the Whitehouse is being very obtuse about. They have made very little public about these threats, stating only that they have "overwhelming evidence" of impending attacks, but will not elaborate further on any details.

Trump placed a lot if stock in his election campaign around drawing down of US military forces in the Middle East. Soleimani has been the leader of the Iranian military for over 2 decades and has been on the radar for years. Opportunities to target him have presented many times, including in the last few years. There are many times that he has been a bigger threat to US forces than now.

So why now?

The President is in a sticky political situation at the minute. He is running for a second term and is dealing with impeachment. He needs something to refocus media and public attention away from the impeachment process, while at the same time demonstrating political strength. Taking decisive action following the recent attack on the US embassy in Iraq also gave him the opportunity to avoid looking stronger than Clinton did in Benghazi.

Essentially it seems that the President is willing to escalate tensions in the region, while simultaneously causing global economic instability for personnel political reasons, and is trying to give some spurious legal backing without giving details.

a reply to: PaddyInf

A couple of points.
An imminent threat is not required to exercise the right of self-defense as recorded in the Un Charta. This is only a sorta relevant criterion to justify preemptive self-defense.

The attack on Soleimani was anything but preemptive from a legal viewpoint. Soleimani has committed hundreds upon hundreds of hostile actions against the United State over the years. Whether you want to call him a terrorist or bemoan his status in the Iranian circles of power, the facts don’t change - he frequently orchestrated attacks on the US by military means. This makes him an enemy combatant in the broad sense of the term and the US is perfectly within its inherent and inalienable right of self-defense to act against him.

Whether he was busy orchestrated and imminent and decisive attack right the second he was droned is very much immaterial. The right of self-defense is very much retroactive in the sense that once you make a living out of attack a sovereign nation on a frequent basis, you are a legitimate target no matter what you’re doing at any give point in time. At least if the conflict you engaged in is still ongoing.

And yes, the US and Iran are very much in conflict based on the laws of armed conflict. Contrary to popular beliefs, there doesn’t have to be a declaration of war for this to be the case. An armed conflict between nation states exists as soon as one party uses forces against another party.
There’s lots of wiggle room with proxies and all that but Iran and the US have at multiple times crossed the threshold of a direct confrontation. That these confrontations don’t escalate further is a political decision by the warring parties and has no bearing on the legal status of the conflict between them.

Another point about national US law and executive orders pertaining the prohibition of political assassinations.
An executive order is just that. An order by the chief executive. It is not law and can be changed or deferred by the chief executive at any time.
Historically it’s also quite clear, that the US simply doesn’t apply these executive orders when any state of armed conflict exists with a third party. Reagan was going after Gadaffi. Clinton was happily gunning for Al Queida terrorists (at least until he was not) and Bush was perfectly fine with ordering an airstrike on Saddam even before the Iraq War officially began.
These days targeted killings are rampant and it’s quite clear that the US has long since evolved its political position on assassinations. We may or may not like this, but there’s nothing illegal about it.

originally posted by: carewemust
Maybe we can zap this terrorist, now that he's out in the open?

twitter.com...

Looks like a likely sick individual that think Jews are pigs and anybody not worshiping the right version of an evil religious practice. The evil is dripping with these people. Look at how brutal they always are to their own people.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

#BREAKING: Sources in #Iraq confirm IRGC leader Soleimani has been killed in targeted assassination near #Baghdad International Airport. If true this marks a MAJOR escalation between the US and #Iran.

Qasem Soleimani (Persian: قاسم سلیمانی‎) (11 March 1957 - 3 January 2020) was an Iranian Major general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and since 1998 commander of its Quds Force—a division primarily responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operations.[19]
According to Iraqi State TV, Soleimani was killed in an airstrike on January 3, 2020 while travelling in a convoy near Baghdad International Airport.

Must have been quite a sight..seeing the missile coming down and then Soleimani's vehicle explode, from less than 1/2 mile behind it. Took a lot of guts to follow that closely too.

BOOM and Photos: www.foxnews.com...

To quote General Patton: "God, I'm proud of our soldiers!"

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

#BREAKING: Sources in #Iraq confirm IRGC leader Soleimani has been killed in targeted assassination near #Baghdad International Airport. If true this marks a MAJOR escalation between the US and #Iran.

Qasem Soleimani (Persian: قاسم سلیمانی‎) (11 March 1957 - 3 January 2020) was an Iranian Major general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and since 1998 commander of its Quds Force—a division primarily responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operations.[19]
According to Iraqi State TV, Soleimani was killed in an airstrike on January 3, 2020 while travelling in a convoy near Baghdad International Airport.

Must have been quite a sight..seeing the missile coming down and then Soleimani's vehicle explode, from less than 1/2 mile behind it. Took a lot of guts to follow that closely too.

BOOM and Photos: www.foxnews.com...

To quote General Patton: "God, I'm proud of our soldiers!"

Amen, praise God. There is hope for this current level of evil that has taken power now against the will of the people is to be vanquished.

I think there's allways slight problem with these events where they claim person is killed , if no absolute evidence. They show a ring ....was there more evidense ?


Remember how many times Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was sayed to been killed, in various locations.


Of cource it is very possible that Soleimani was indeed killed, but what if whole Iran show has been a script for decades ? They could easely write anyone a exit script with a drone strike , without person having a scratch, as he would not even been in the car that drone hit.

Hitler was sayed to die in Berlin, yet not all agree with that. The winners write history books, then afterwards some question the history books .


Not saying it absolutely did not happen, i am just cautious to automatically believe the news .