3 ms·
As (insert expletive here) that was, it was more of an Act of War than just an assasination. So totally different, though I think it was immoral, strategically
by jacobush 6y ago
As (insert expletive here) that was, it was more of an Act of War than just an assasination. So totally different, though I think it was immoral, strategically unsound, and stupid. Also loathable and with no regard for innocent lives.
- tsimionescu 6y agoAn act of war implies the existence of a war. The USA is not at war with either Iran or Irak, so not sure how this could qualify (except that, had the roles been reversed, it would have definitely been seen as an act that can START a war).
- somesortofsystm 6y agoYou seem to have hit on a very important point: American's don't realize that, while their country is the #1 cause of terror and war around the world, its not 'legally at war', and therefore - laws of war that traditionally the public would understand, are simply not applicable. This is another atrocity being committed on the general public by the military industrial criminal state. Doublethink and newspeak have been very skillfully applied to ensure a lack of culpability - however, to those of us who have had to dig innocent loved ones out from under America's piles of burning rubble, it is very, very clear that the American people are responsible for this mess, whether they understand their own laws or not.