Democrats supported Obama killing American Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki

and Osama Bin Laden, but go nuts when Trump kills Iranian Terrorist Qassim Solemani. This seems to be a big ol pile of Liberal Hypocrisy here. I don't think Republicans had any issue when Obama gave the order for Seal Team 6 to fly into Pakistan and kill Osama Bin Laden or order a Drone strike on an American Citizen named Anwar Al Awlaki in Yemen, but when Trump kills this murderous Iranian Terrorist Qassim Solemani in Iraq, Liberals go nuts and start apologizing to Iraq. Where in the Hell has the the United States gone, where Liberals Hate our duly Elected President Donald Trump more than the Iranian Government that executes Gay people and shoots down Airliners and then blatantly lies about it.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/06/kassam-obama-drone-trump/

 

You're talking about two commanders of Al-Qaeda, which is a terrorist group that congress authorized military strikes against. However, congress did not authorize any military strikes against Iran. It is imperative to know this in order to understand the legality and constitutionality of these military actions

 

The hypocrisy is too damn high!

 

Iran has been identified by the USA as a State Sponsor of Terrorism and Qassim Solemani was their #2 in Power who is responsible for the deaths of many American Soldiers. We haven't been at War with Iran, but when their # 2 leader is responsible for Death of Americans, I say he's a legitimate Target, especially when he's in Iraq planning more American murders. Trump has executive privilege to kill Terrorists and considering the current climate in the Congress full of Democrats who CLEARLY hate Donald Trump, I wouldn't trust them with any information, especially the SQUAD pertaining to killing Qassim Solemani. Barack Obama has the Blood of a lot of Innocent Civilians and Children killed in Drone attacks he ordered during his Presidency, but Democrats were singing his accolades in their support

 

Obama also ordered the murder of.....

WOW! A 16 year old terrorist mastermind? Really? Enough to murder a 16 year old American citizen?

 

Al-Qaeda was also responsible for the death of many Americans, but that didn't mean we did not need congressional authorization to take military action against Al-Qaeda. The same is true for when Japan attacked us and killed many Americans, in both instances we got congressional authorization to take military action against the people who attacked us, because that is what the constitution requires. In the case of Iran, they haven't conducted direct military attacks against us that have killed Americans, but have engaged in proxy warfare (which you described as "sponsoring" terrorism). While this is a very serious matter, it is important to note that Iran is not the only country engaging in said proxy warfare. Russia has in fact been shown to be providing weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan which are used to kill American troops. However, all that being said, if we were to take military actions against Russia for engaging in proxy warfare against the US, we would need to get an authorization from congress, just was we did when Japan and Al-Qaeda engaged in direct warfare against us.

 

Who has gone nuts?

People don't hate Dirty Donny. They expect better of a president than what he represents. They don't like his childish behaviour or his corruption. They are right to want a better president.

I venture to say that most Americans who would like to see Trump out of the WH would also like to see a democracy in Iran.

Criticizing or questioning Trump for what he did to Soleimani is not the same as defending Soleimani or Iran.

 

Come On! you know the Democratic Party has become the Contrarian Party and are opposite of EVERYTHING! President Trump does. The Impeachment was Bogus, because there was ABSOLUTELY no Bi Partisan support.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...hment-vote-is-exactly-what-the-framers-feared

As soon as this Impeachment was discovered to be completely Partisan, it should have been deemed illegitimate and stopped, because the Framers worst fear was that Impeachment was going to be used as a Political Weapon.

 

The muslim brotherhood made hime do it.......

 

It won't matter how logical you are.

Democrats - good
Orange man - bad.

 

Yup, who knew - that the US Constitution says if the president does not fully submit to all subpoenas, by the opposition party controlled House during the impeachment inquiry, the president can be impeached.

 

Even the UN recognized Soleimani as a terrorist.

Are you seriously suggesting that any terrorist who puts on a uniform and calls himself "general" is untouchable?

 

If you believe that due process is killing a suspected terrorist with a drone strike, how does killing his 16 year son in a restaurant 2 weeks later? You consider wreckless killing Suleimani on an isolated road around the outskirts of an airport while his fellow terrorists had a US diplomatic outpost under siege ,,,, but killing a US citizen eating lunch at a restaurant in Yemen is OK.

 

Yup, because....

Democrats - good
Orange man - bad

 

Castro is untouchable now.

 

Only Americans didn't know who Suleimani was because if they did in the aftermath of Benghazi, Obama could never have sold the Iran deal to his partisans. We knew in 2013 that Suleimani led the attack on Benghazi.

 

I think there were several significantly different issues

firet what is common... all these guys were bad guys who in all likelihood deserved to be killed. I will be very interested if you can find anyone debating that point

Osama bin laden and the other guy were not state officials. As such, killing these guys did not have the potential to start a war.

further, in neither case did Obama create false excuses for what had been done and why

As a general proposition.... a democracy requires the capability to see and debate the appropriateness what the government is doing. ... and let’s agre that almost always there WILL BE A DEBATE. ... that is a part of our system of government, is it not?
But how can you have a debate about anything where your leadership is not clear about the fundamental basis for the decision.

if trump had simply said... this guy has a history of fomenting terrorism against the USA.... then much of the debate would have gone away

Why is it necessary to say there was an imminent threat and that he was planning attacks agains 4 embassies? Why is it necessary to lie? Is this deception something that you support from our president?

 

Did the al-quada Congress-approved hits get off a plane in a country allied to us?

Did Congress approve the hit?

 

This isn't the brightest argument someone has put forth on these forums

1. Soleimani is a uniformed general of the Iranian military, this isn't theoretical, he worked for the state of Iran as one of their generals
2. The claim that UN designated him a terrorist is not accurate
3. Neither of these things are relevant to conducting an act of war without the authorization from congress.

Unlike Soleimani, Osama Bin Laden actually was designated a terrorist by the UN, and he was not a general of a foreign country. However, we still got authorization from congress before going to war with his armies, because that is what is legally required under the US constitution. Whether or not he is a general, or deemed a terrorist by the UN is irrelevant

No it is not okay, and if you want you can read my thread on the issue that I made back when Obama was still president ->http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ens-in-a-drone-strike.428689/#post-1065459381

However, that being said, these are two different issues in terms of legality. The justification that the US government gave on the killing of US citizens is that these were individuals who were leaders of an organization which congress had authorized military actions against. Which is true, congress did authorize to go to war with Al-Qaeda, however I do not agree with the killing of US citizens under the Obama administration for different legal reasons. If you would like, you can read the federal government's memo on their justification for killing US citizens in military strikes here-> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/23/obama-drone-memo-aclu/11265183/

As for the killing of Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki, the answer we were finally given from the federal government on his death is that he was not the intended target of the drone strike that took his life.

 

Sorry it was against Solemani not Iran. Solemani was Iran's top liason for all its terror proxies abroad. And their supplier and organizing principle. Not killing this dude would have been an act of extreme morale cowardice.

 

It was an accident that Obama launched a wreckless attack on a restaurant full of unintended targets. Who in Congress called for his ability to protect the US be abridged?

Why do you suppose that Suleimani's name, the name of the terrorist who led the attack on Benghazi, and was the master of the roadside bombs that killed and maimed thousands of Americans was stuffed by Obama and his propagandists?

 

Obama again, mitchscove?

That is a fallacy of false equivalency as you well know.

 

Much, perhaps most of the country supports murder, torture, military aggression and much more. Moral turpitude rules in Washington DC and much of the country. We are a Judeo-Christian country. What do you expect?

 

They both continued a failed foreign policy that will eventually be the downfall of America. Get out of the middle east. Stop assassinating people.