Trump says it does not matter if it was an imminent threat...

Nah....you did not kill him, you assassinated him.

 

I don’t care what you call it.
I just hope he suffered before he died.

Instead of composing future attacks, thanks to president Trump, Soleimani will be decomposing.

 

600+ Americans?

I Hadn't heard that before.

600+ Americans?

Wow.

That is the FIRST Time that I had ever seen any mention of that "600+" thing at PF.

You learn something NEW every day.

Ain't the Internet Grand?

Btw--Here is the Thread Opening Post:

Trump says it does not matter if it was an imminent threat...

https://apple.news/AISSaTKU3TbKiAuVY_y2SfA

one wonders why there was so much effort proclaiming an imminent threat
And how many embassies were going to be attacked
When it turns out that it does not matter

like so often is the case... trump comes up with some cover story.
Ie... xyz did not happen
And then it turns out that even if xyz did happen, ..... it not matter if it did happen

like... he had absolutely no dealings with Russia
Well, no finalized agreements at least

^NO Mention of 600+ Americans.

Hmmmm...

Seems Off-Topic. Oh well.

Anyway, Thanks for mentioning that "600+" Thing (For the FIRST Time Ever).

I Hadn't Heard.

As far as the Actual OP Topic:

Obviously, Trump (as ALWAYS) is LYING and needs to backtrack his IMBECILIC Statements.

And, he may want to consider learning how to spell.

The Clueless MORON can't even spell the word correctly.

News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was ‘eminent’ or not, & was my team in agreement,” Trump tweeted Monday morning, incorrectly spelling imminent.

 

And this is unravelling for Trump. It seems the imminent threat stuff was 'fake news.' See what the Defence Secretary says here:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01...evidence-four-embassies-under-threat/11865866

 

Wow another Seinfeld response !
A response containing nothing !


As usual, you dress up your responses with your funny guys, but your reply has no facts or substance.

Yes 600+ Americans were killed by Soleimani and we killed him / assassinated him, whatever you want to call it.

You can make a big deal about why, but why does not matter.

Trump had the right to do it & he did it.

I love the fact that the loony left hate’s it.

Keep it up....

The lefts new love for Soleimani will pay dividends in November.

 

Such a rationed reply!

What part of my post was “dramatic”?
Where did I mention the legality of the issue?
What am I “getting over”?
Where did I act like I “lost my best friend”?
Where did I act like he was “coming back soon”?

Think you could pack anymore bullshit into your posts friend?


I noticed you were unable to answer the question though, I understand.

 

It's not clear it was legal know that we know when he was put on the kill list.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/06/middleeast/soleimani-strike-legality-doubts-us-iran-intl/index.html

Would you think it was legal if they killed Pompeo on his next boondoggle?

 

Refresh my memory... what question?

 

Press the little up arrow.

 

Well your first problem is quoting CNN

You know the same CNN that made Mr Magoo
Robert Mueller sounds like a super hero.

Try Time Magazine or the Wall Street Journal

https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5759007/trumps-gamble-killing-soleimani/?amp=true

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...he-strike-on-soleimani-was-lawful-11578261997

 

What part was most dramatic?
Those set of questions?
Is that your question?

Don’t make me backup & have to read the AJ nonsense again.

If you want me to answer your question, post it and I will respond, or if you don’t, just consider that I was too lazy to respond.

I am at work on my phone.

 

First, I do not think this is a power the framers of the constitution intended. Or for that matter that the congress intended

in any case, I would want the president to be straight forward about what he is doing and why

 

Dems object every time we kill our enemies.

Makes you wonder which side they’re on.

 

So......if Iran strikes back and takes out Trump does that mean America should just swallow it

 

Who knew killing people could be so complicated.

Deeks says the U.S. appears to be arguing that the strike was an act of anticipatory self-defense.

"The idea there is that you have a right of self-defense against armed attacks," Deeks says. "And many people think you have a right to act before the armed attack has actually hit you, if you have very good reason to think the attack is imminent."

Agnes Callamard, the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, questions whether this strike would meet the standard needed to justify its legality on those grounds. "The test for so-called anticipatory self-defense is very narrow: It must be a necessity that is 'instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation'. This test is unlikely to be met in these particular cases," she tweeted.

"I hope the U.S. has rock-solid, written evidence of a continuing or an ongoing or a planned attack on the United States or its interests," says Solis. "You've got to have more than an assertion that plans were underway."

Another complicated legal aspect of this attack is the fact that it occurred within Iraq.

"Generally speaking, international law says that states are not supposed to use military force on each other's territories without the consent of the host state," Anderson notes, though he says that the U.S. has argued previously that when a host government is unable or unwilling to address a threat, the state affected by the threat can take action without the host's consent. That's a controversial argument, he says.

Iraqi leaders are responding angrily at the attack, which also killed an Iraqi official. "The assassination of an Iraqi military commander who holds an official position is considered aggression on Iraq ... and the liquidation of leading Iraqi figures or those from a brotherly country on Iraqi soil is a massive breach of sovereignty," Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul-Mahdi said, as NPR reported.

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/04/7934...the-u-s-to-kill-a-top-iranian-military-leader

But the best argument is that now our officials cannot expect safety anywhere either.

 

Maybe your America would turn the other cheek, but not mine.

Iran is a terrorist nation & Soleimani was responsible for 600+ Americans deaths.

I am glad we have a president today that did what was necessary to prevent future attacks by Soleimani.

Yes, we could be attacked again, but we took out their top military leader who many consider a mastermind. With Soleimani gone, Iran does not have the same level of terrorist mastermind.

Obama had a soft spot for Soleimani.
He alerted Iran that Israel was going to kill him and in phase 2 of the Iran deal he was having UN sanctions removed against him.

Is that how you want our president to treat a terrorist responsible for hundreds of American lives?