3 ms·

How many anti-Soleimani messages have been posted from within the US? Are those all going to be investigated as propaganda assets too? Any rational person know

How many anti-Soleimani messages have been posted from within the US? Are those all going to be investigated as propaganda assets too? Any rational person knows Soleimani was a dangerous person whose orders caused significant instability and death throughout a large swath of Asia (minor and major). Any rational person also knows that that alone does not make his assassination legal. (It also does not make that assassination prudent or effective, but that's a different discussion.) When a senior leader within a nation is murdered by agents of a foreign government without even the decency of declaring war first, of course there will be calls for revenge. I'd expect no different from my fellow Americans if Pence or Esper or Milley had been targeted in a similar way. Heck, I'd expect worse. One cannot conclude that there's an organized propaganda effort until the "natural" level of such sentiment is accounted for.

defertoreptar 7y ago
> When a senior leader within a nation is murdered by agents of a foreign government without even the decency of declaring war first, of course there will be calls for revenge. I don't see why whether there was a declaration of war or not should matter if people want revenge. However, since you brought it up, Trump did tweet this all-caps tirade: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1021234525626609666?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/10212345256266096... . I remember being very concerned that a president would post something like that. Anyhow, you have to admit that it shows how Trump wasn't keeping retaliatory plans hidden from Iran.
- notacoward 7y ago
  You're right that it might not affect people's impulsive desire for revenge, but a declaration does affect whether the US or Iran can claim any moral high ground that would sustain such an impulse. Targeting foreign leaders is only permissible in war. The legal term is "jus in bello" but it's not applicable without a declaration. Trump's tweet, belligerent as it was, wasn't even structured as a declaration and wouldn't have counted if it was. By violating both international law and our own law (congress's sole prerogative to declare war plus EO12333 explicitly forbidding assassination), we have magnified the threat to the people of Iran and bolstered any claim they might make that their response is justified as self-defense (which international law allows even outside of formal war).
  - defertoreptar 7y ago
    From what I'm reading, the Pentagon is saying that there was clear intelligence that he was planning an imminent threat to American lives (again), giving the president Article II authority to use force to act in self-defence. Unsurprisingly, the intelligence is classified.

defertoreptar 7y ago

> When a senior leader within a nation is murdered by agents of a foreign government without even the decency of declaring war first, of course there will be calls for revenge. I don't see why whether there was a declaration of war or not should matter if people want revenge. However, since you brought it up, Trump did tweet this all-caps tirade: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1021234525626609666?lang=en https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/10212345256266096... . I remember being very concerned that a president would post something like that. Anyhow, you have to admit that it shows how Trump wasn't keeping retaliatory plans hidden from Iran.

notacoward 7y ago
You're right that it might not affect people's impulsive desire for revenge, but a declaration does affect whether the US or Iran can claim any moral high ground that would sustain such an impulse. Targeting foreign leaders is only permissible in war. The legal term is "jus in bello" but it's not applicable without a declaration. Trump's tweet, belligerent as it was, wasn't even structured as a declaration and wouldn't have counted if it was. By violating both international law and our own law (congress's sole prerogative to declare war plus EO12333 explicitly forbidding assassination), we have magnified the threat to the people of Iran and bolstered any claim they might make that their response is justified as self-defense (which international law allows even outside of formal war).
- defertoreptar 7y ago
  From what I'm reading, the Pentagon is saying that there was clear intelligence that he was planning an imminent threat to American lives (again), giving the president Article II authority to use force to act in self-defence. Unsurprisingly, the intelligence is classified.