The US just assassinated...

...arguably the second most powerful figure in Iran.

Aaaaand, there is always a tweet.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENUw4CKUEAI ... name=small

Now I'm going to wait for the people who claimed they supported Trump because he wouldn't get us into wars to tell us how this was a bad guy (duh) so it was somehow a good move.

gcomeau wrote:...arguably the second most powerful figure in Iran.

Ah, the Tom Clancy method.

To me it's a decent response, so I wonder if Trump had anything to do with it.

I'm probably being somewhat literal, but for me there is a big difference between assassinating Bin Laden or al-Baghdadi, and this guy.
The first two were leaders of terrorist groups that had effectively declared war on all civilized nations and people, whereas here we have a military leader of a sovereign country murdered on his own soil. He may have been not a nice person, but without any declarations killing him is legally no different to taking out any other general or politician in any independent nation.
The arrogance of the US is breathtaking. What gives you the right to do this?

Daryl wrote:I'm probably being somewhat literal, but for me there is a big difference between assassinating Bin Laden or al-Baghdadi, and this guy.
The first two were leaders of terrorist groups that had effectively declared war on all civilized nations and people, whereas here we have a military leader of a sovereign country murdered on his own soil. He may have been not a nice person, but without any declarations killing him is legally no different to taking out any other general or politician in any independent nation.
The arrogance of the US is breathtaking. What gives you the right to do this?

Seems that it's calculated attempt to provoke Iran for some drastic actions - that may be used as a cause for full-scale campaign against Iran.

Daryl wrote:I'm probably being somewhat literal, but for me there is a big difference between assassinating Bin Laden or al-Baghdadi, and this guy.
The first two were leaders of terrorist groups that had effectively declared war on all civilized nations and people, whereas here we have a military leader of a sovereign country murdered on his own soil. He may have been not a nice person, but without any declarations killing him is legally no different to taking out any other general or politician in any independent nation.
The arrogance of the US is breathtaking. What gives you the right to do this?

One correction... not on his own soil.

He was in Iraq. With the approval of the Iraqi government. Which is quite possibly worse since it appears at least that nobody cleared this attack with the Iraqis.

Dilandu wrote:

Daryl wrote:I'm probably being somewhat literal, but for me there is a big difference between assassinating Bin Laden or al-Baghdadi, and this guy.
The first two were leaders of terrorist groups that had effectively declared war on all civilized nations and people, whereas here we have a military leader of a sovereign country murdered on his own soil. He may have been not a nice person, but without any declarations killing him is legally no different to taking out any other general or politician in any independent nation.
The arrogance of the US is breathtaking. What gives you the right to do this?

Seems that it's calculated attempt to provoke Iran for some drastic actions - that may be used as a cause for full-scale campaign against Iran.

Trump has been trying to provoke something with Iran from day one when he torpedoed the nuke deal...

For me this one is a bit ambigiuous. The ambigiouity has to do with how state sponsored violence blends in with unoffical violence conducted by bad actors whose activities are either overtly or covertly sponsored by the state.

Make no mistake about it. This man was waging war. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people, including many Americans. This was going on in spite of the "official" peace that presumably exists between America and Iran. That he became a casualty of the war he was waging should surprise no one.

As for the right of America to act, that falls within the longstanding policy of the government to protect the lives and property of Americans going all the way back to Jefferson's tilt with the pirates acting out of North Africa in the early 1800s. As far as I can see, his official connections with the government grants him no immunity. There is no significant difference between him and bin Laden.

That being said, I'm not sure that it was a smart thing to do. There is going to be a reaction, more than likely deadly. I'm just not sure what a good alternative for the US would be. I would like to see us out of the region altogether. But the results of that would also probably be suboptimal.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:For me this one is a bit ambigiuous. The ambigiouity has to do with how state sponsored violence blends in with unoffical violence conducted by bad actors whose activities are either overtly or covertly sponsored by the state.

Make no mistake about it. This man was waging war. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people, including many Americans. This was going on in spite of the "official" peace that presumably exists between America and Iran. That he became a casualty of the war he was waging should surprise no one.

As for the right of America to act, that falls within the longstanding policy of the government to protect the lives and property of Americans going all the way back to Jefferson's tilt with the pirates acting out of North Africa in the early 1800s. As far as I can see, his official connections with the government grants him no immunity. There is no significant difference between him and bin Laden.

That being said, I'm not sure that it was a smart thing to do. There is going to be a reaction, more than likely deadly. I'm just not sure what a good alternative for the US would be. I would like to see us out of the region altogether. But the results of that would also probably be suboptimal.

Don

-

There is a massive difference between him and Bin Laden. Not morally perhaps, but politically and legally this is entirely different universes.

Bin Laden was a globally wanted criminal terrorist. The end. Nothing more to it.

The US just effectively assassinated the very rough Iranian equivalent of their Secretary of Defense while he was visiting another country with that country's permission. Then bragged that they did it. There is no formal state of war between the US and Iran. The Iraqis were, apparently, not consulted before the second most powerful member of the government of the much more militarily powerful country which is their next door neighbor was assassinated at their airport during his visit. This is a massive escalation of the existing state of affairs and the dangers of completely destabilizing the region as a result are immense.

gcomeau wrote:

n7axw wrote:For me this one is a bit ambigiuous. The ambigiouity has to do with how state sponsored violence blends in with unoffical violence conducted by bad actors whose activities are either overtly or covertly sponsored by the state.

Make no mistake about it. This man was waging war. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people, including many Americans. This was going on in spite of the "official" peace that presumably exists between America and Iran. That he became a casualty of the war he was waging should surprise no one.

As for the right of America to act, that falls within the longstanding policy of the government to protect the lives and property of Americans going all the way back to Jefferson's tilt with the pirates acting out of North Africa in the early 1800s. As far as I can see, his official connections with the government grants him no immunity. There is no significant difference between him and bin Laden.

That being said, I'm not sure that it was a smart thing to do. There is going to be a reaction, more than likely deadly. I'm just not sure what a good alternative for the US would be. I would like to see us out of the region altogether. But the results of that would also probably be suboptimal.

Don

-

There is a massive difference between him and Bin Laden. Not morally perhaps, but politically and legally this is entirely different universes.

Bin Laden was a globally wanted criminal terrorist. The end. Nothing more to it.

The US just effectively assassinated the very rough Iranian equivalent of their Secretary of Defense while he was visiting another country with that country's permission. Then bragged that they did it. There is no formal state of war between the US and Iran. The Iraqis were, apparently, not consulted before the second most powerful member of the government of the much more militarily powerful country which is their next door neighbor was assassinated at their airport during his visit. This is a massive escalation of the existing state of affairs and the dangers of completely destabilizing the region as a result are immense.

You are certainly right about the potential consequences. No argument there. As for the region being destabilized, I'm afraid it already is. Partly,I fear, due to unwise choices we've made in the aftermath of 9/11...although we don't bear sole responsibility for the situation. I know it never occurred to me that Saddam Hussein might have been performing a useful service by sitting on the powder keg.

As for the "formal declaration of war" I'm afraid that horse fled the stable a long time ago. As for Iran not declaring war, that doesn't mean it's not waging one. It's simply under the radar, and not less deadly for all of that. And for America, our last declaration of war was December of 1941. But count the number of wars and skirmishes we've been in since. Not declaring them hasn't made the wars less costly and real. Congress needs to resume its role in this and force accountability that would hopefully result in better decision making.

As for the difference between Iran's henchman and bin Laden, I think that is pretty artificial ...unless you want to assert that state sponsored actors should be able to get away with murder without consequences. Both are the "enemy of civilized nations" unless we want to consider Iran's sponsorship of terrorism civilized.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:

gcomeau wrote:There is a massive difference between him and Bin Laden. Not morally perhaps, but politically and legally this is entirely different universes.

Bin Laden was a globally wanted criminal terrorist. The end. Nothing more to it.

The US just effectively assassinated the very rough Iranian equivalent of their Secretary of Defense while he was visiting another country with that country's permission. Then bragged that they did it. There is no formal state of war between the US and Iran. The Iraqis were, apparently, not consulted before the second most powerful member of the government of the much more militarily powerful country which is their next door neighbor was assassinated at their airport during his visit. This is a massive escalation of the existing state of affairs and the dangers of completely destabilizing the region as a result are immense.

You are certainly right about the potential consequences. No argument there. As for the region being destabilized, I'm afraid it already is. Partly,I fear, due to unwise choices we've made in the aftermath of 9/11...although we don't bear sole responsibility for the situation. I know it never occurred to me that Saddam Hussein might have been performing a useful service by sitting on the powder keg.

As for the "formal declaration of war" I'm afraid that horse fled the stable a long time ago. As for Iran not declaring war, that doesn't mean it's not waging one. It's simply under the radar, and not less deadly for all of that. And for America, our last declaration of war was December of 1941. But count the number of wars and skirmishes we've been in since. Not declaring them hasn't made the wars less costly and real. Congress needs to resume its role in this and force accountability that would hopefully result in better decision making.

As for the difference between Iran's henchman and bin Laden, I think that is pretty artificial ...unless you want to assert that state sponsored actors should be able to get away with murder without consequences. Both are the "enemy of civilized nations" unless we want to consider Iran's sponsorship of terrorism civilized.

Don

-

We can quibble the precise terminology, but for Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc... there were if not "formal declarations of war" then congressionally authorized military engagements against those countries which amount to the exact same thing in practical terms.

There is *nothing* here that is equivalent.

As for under the radar conflicts, yes those happen too. The Cold War being a prime example.

There's a reason that nobody thought very publicly assassinating the Soviet Minister of Defense while he was on some foreign state tour and then bragging about it on international TV during that conflict was something that was appropriate or useful to do.