There is no reason why it had to escalate past Warren and Biden. I don't understand how you were compelled to argue about war crimes based on that starting point. And most of the conversation hasn't been about Warren and Biden because that wasn't really the stuff you were saying that people took issue with, it was the war crime stuff that upset people.
Because that comment was in reference to "the Dems justfifyng war crimes"
Here I am wondering exactly what kind of "hoodlum shit" you think Islamist terrorists are going to "get up to".
Wait till they find out what highway system in the United States was made for.
Clearly. "Moral argument" is being used in a different sense than in a theological debate...
Do you realize how simply saying this rings kind of hollow when you then spend a long time getting stuck on this?
Brown people aren't human to these lot I swear. The concern for a perceived blowback is actually more scary than continued war with the ME.
lmfao, right?I dumped missiles onto that airport, so it's technically now a post hoc warzone! I'm clean!
Yeah, they are that too.
I dumped missiles onto that airport, so it's technically now a post hoc warzone! I'm clean!
It's important. These people are vying for Trumps job and they're currently projecting a tough on terror attitude and that's dangerous as hell.
Do you know what the US did to Muslims after 9/11?
It isn't important. They're saying they wouldn't have done it, and the person being horrible doesn't justify that it was done. Open shut. Now let's get back to the actual issue here.
We're not talking about a random person here. Like, if John Bolton had gotten hit by an iranian drone, would someone saying "he's a horrible person, but that doesn't justify what was done?" piss you off?
Soleimani killed thousands of innocents in the region. Calling him out as such while still calling Trump a buffoon for what he really is, is ok.
Yes, and Iran should also leave the region alone instead of interfering in every country too. Both countries here are fault, Iran is even worse.
They're pretty clearly saying 'if you support these sorts of acts by the US in other countries, stop acting surprised when they start retaliating in kind.' Nowhere in their initial post did they say they support this.
that is literally the playbook of almost every modern racist that is practicing or participating in politics.
I've been trying not to say shit in this thread because I'm not going to even pretend to know everything about political things going on and I'd rather not say something absolutely wrong that'll embarrass me or something, but absolutely fuck this analogy in particular. These situations are not comparable.
I... declare... this airport a war zone!
Why do you think the caveat was made in the first place? What is the relevance?
Why did they open up their statement with that? Why mention it at all? They could have entirely focused on why what Trump did was stupid or horrific or illegal or whatever. Why mention Soleimani's record at all?
Are they? We can't exactly demand Iran stop funding its proxies when we supply Saudi Arabia and allow them to arm and fund their proxies in the region. If we want Iran to be a rational actor we have to change the board and give them a rational way forward. Because, in my opinion, in the current climate they are a rational actor, sanctioned by the West, abandoned by Europe on the nuclear treaty after we ripped it up, stuck in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia who started spreading their influence first, if I was them I'd be racing for nukes right now. They're definitely playing a dangerous game but they've been given no way to not play the game.
