Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
i didn’t say they were the same. i said both were targeted for, I guess, assassination.
You have a point about Bin Laden being catch or kill, that’s a fair point.
So can we assume
your problem is using drones to kill people without giving them
a chance to surrender? Because Obama did that a lot, a whole
lot, including one strike
targeting an american citizen who had joined the jihad.
so i’ll ask again, is it only problematic for you when trump fires missiles at people? i don’t think you complained when obama did it.
Either it’s ok or it’s not. But the answer of whether or not it’s ok, shouldn’t depend on whether or not you happen to like the current potus. Right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
Again you clearly refuse to see that targeting military targets Taliban commander or ISIS commanders who are stateless . And whom the international community see as rogue actors and legitimate targets .
And those who are part of a state an official. And 1 who was an elected in Iraqs parliament.. aka assasination
Terrorist is the new catch all ,, I am sorry actions conducted against foreign military targets by militants who wish us forces out of their countries, is not Terrorism, kill civilians shopping in a market or blow up a mosque or church that's Terrorism
Americans has been doing the proxy thing for decades but thas ok
TRUMPs pull out the international nuke deal. ( the right leaves that out all the time )
Backs iran in a corner, then people act surprised when they push back
And the current talking point from the White House
And this Lee guy took exception
It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government -- I don't care whether they are with the CIA, with the Department of Defense, or otherwise -- to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran," said Lee.
Hes right only authoritarian government see such debate as wrong