Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Edge-]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/13/polit...ded/index.html

State Department officials involved in US embassy security were not made aware of imminent threats to four specific US embassies, two State Department officials tell CNN, further undermining President Donald Trump's claims that the top Iranian general he ordered killed earlier this month posed an imminent threat to the diplomatic outposts.

Without knowledge of any alleged threats, the State Department didn't issue warnings about specific dangers to any US embassy before the administration targeted Qasem Soleimani, Iran's second most powerful official, according to the sources.

The State Department sent a global warning to all US embassies before the strike occurred, a senior State Department official said and the department spokesperson confirmed, but it was not directed at specific embassies and did not warn of an imminent attack.

One senior State Department official described being "blindsided" when the administration justified the deadly Reaper drone strike on Soleimani by saying Iran's "shadow commander" was behind an imminent threat to blow up US embassies. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment on claims that the State Department officials were taken by surprise.

Again, this administration lied to everyone. This alone should be grounds for impeachment, as there was no actual imminent threat to justify the strike (which they'd need if they wanted to strike without Congressional approval) and they've lied to Congress and the American public since the start.

Remove. These. People. They're all complicit, including Mike Pence who has also told the lie about there being evidence of an "imminent threat" - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9276881.html

[TexasRules]

So his administration has been lying to Congress and the public about this? No. Way.

- - - Updated - - -

https://twitter.com/justinamash/stat...01075248541699

2. There was never any evidence presented of imminent attacks, which would be required for Trump to take action without Congressional approval.

You do not need congressional approval to kill a terrorist. This is flat out wrong. He was designated a terrorist, and like Bin Laden, he may be killed at anytime. Where was the congressional approval to kill Bin Laden, let's see your whining about that? Please show us where you got mad about it. I do not doubt that you did, I do not want to unfairly label you a hypocrite. Bin Laden was not even connected to the world and had hand delivered messages to him, but he was an imminent threat? Please explain how the killing of 2 terrorists is so different?

Also anyone, please explain why democrats are not supporting the people of Iran who are demonstrating and risking their lives against a brutal regime? I know Obama gave them their money, which they use to support terrorism around the world, but why do they keep supporting a regime that murders it's own people and turns off the internet to control everything?

[Shadowferal]

Why the hell would anyone bother convincing you of anything that you won't believe since it destroys your simpleminded beliefs?

[Noxx79]

You do not need congressional approval to kill a terrorist. This is flat out wrong. He was designated a terrorist, and like Bin Laden, he may be killed at anytime. Where was the congressional approval to kill Bin Laden, let's see your whining about that? Please show us where you got mad about it. I do not doubt that you did, I do not want to unfairly label you a hypocrite. Bin Laden was not even connected to the world and had hand delivered messages to him, but he was an imminent threat? Please explain how the killing of 2 terrorists is so different?

Also anyone, please explain why democrats are not supporting the people of Iran who are demonstrating and risking their lives against a brutal regime? I know Obama gave them their money, which they use to support terrorism around the world, but why do they keep supporting a regime that murders it's own people and turns off the internet to control everything?

Nope. Lying as usual.

The use of force was allowed for the perpetrators of 9/11 - the people specifically killed by Obama. The Iranian has nothing to do with 9/11.

Democrats are supporting the protestors. Trump wants them dead and their historical sites bombed.

[Edge-]

You do not need congressional approval to kill a terrorist. This is flat out wrong. He was designated a terrorist, and like Bin Laden, he may be killed at anytime.

Actually, you do. The AUMF was specific to fighting terror linked to Al Queda, and it has been strained under both Obama and Trump, this is brazenly out of bounds. Without an imminent threat, he has no links to Al Queda and would likely not be covered by the AUMF.

And again, none of that changes the fact that the Trump administration has been lying to Congress and the American people/press since they assassination took place. Yes, now I'm calling it an assassination. Between Trump approving a strike like this much earlier in the year and the fact that there was no "imminent threat", it's an assassination.

Where was the congressional approval to kill Bin Laden, let's see your whining about that?

Didn't need it, the AUMF specifically gave presidents authority to carry out limited strikes to capture/kill Bin Laden.

Sluemain is not Bin Laden, nor a member of Al Queda.

Please show us where you got mad about it.

Nobody was mad about it, because it was universally a good thing and Bin Laden was not a high ranking government official.

in Laden was not even connected to the world and had hand delivered messages to him, but he was an imminent threat? Please explain how the killing of 2 terrorists is so different?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author...nst_Terrorists

The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. In December 2016, the Office of the President published a brief interpreting the AUMF as providing Congressional authorization for the use of force against al-Qaeda and other militant groups.

You don't seem to understand what the AUMF actually authorized, because it specifically authorized the attack against Bin Laden. Even with the expanded interpretation published in December 2016, it still would not likely cover Sulemain even with Quds being labeled a terrorist group, given his status in the Iranian government. It's also why he wasn't taken out previously.

Don't get me wrong, I want the AUMF rescinded wholesale and for Congress to take the responsibility back. But until then, it still has limitations on what a president can/cannot authorize.

Also anyone, please explain why democrats are not supporting the people of Iran who are demonstrating and risking their lives against a brutal regime?

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4...-taking-action

Because these protests aren't exclusively about the downing of the plane and lies, though that's gotten folks infuriated right now. The protests began well over a year ago and have grown over time, with this latest incident kicking things into a higher gear.

Democrats and Republicans have already expressed support for the protesters. And let's not pretend like Trump's tweet was remotely meaningful given that he was just coming off of a few days of threatening to destroy non-military cultural sites that would kill/impact Iranian citizens.

I know Obama gave them their money,

It was their money to begin with, and that was part of the nuclear deal that was working. Until Trump withdrew from it.

which they use to support terrorism around the world

Potentially, but you'll have to provide evidence to support this allegation.

why do they keep supporting a regime that murders it's own people and turns off the internet to control everything?

Which Democrats support the current regime, specifically?

[TexasRules]

Nope. Lying as usual.

The use of force was allowed for the perpetrators of 9/11 - the people specifically killed by Obama. The Iranian has nothing to do with 9/11.

Democrats are supporting the protestors. Trump wants them dead and their historical sites bombed.

Nancy Pelosi is not supporting them They did support the brutal regime though. Trump has been supporting them all day. Please also link me where it is wrong that Terrorists can not be killed without congressional approval. If I am wrong about terrtorists I will admit it, feel free to prove me wrong about terrorists. Show me where I am lying.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, you do. The AUMF was specific to fighting terror linked to Al Queda, and it has been strained under both Obama and Trump, this is brazenly out of bounds. Without an imminent threat, he has no links to Al Queda and would likely not be covered by the AUMF.

And again, none of that changes the fact that the Trump administration has been lying to Congress and the American people/press since they assassination took place. Yes, now I'm calling it an assassination. Between Trump approving a strike like this much earlier in the year and the fact that there was no "imminent threat", it's an assassination.

Please show me where Obama got congressional approval to use drones to kill people including American citizens, and then link your selective outrage at him doing.

[Edge-]

Please show me where Obama got congressional approval to use drones to kill people including American citizens, and then link your selective outrage at him doing.

1. I've repeatedly linked criticism of Obama's drone strike program. Not going to do it for the 289374923874287th time, but a simple google search will turn up plenty for you.

2. Those were all targets connected to Al Queda/Taliban, meaning they're covered by the AUMF, even if there were questions about strikes against US citizens (which were highly criticized and much argued over)

You still don't seem to understand what the AUMF actually is or what it covers. I'd suggest reading the Wiki.

[TexasRules]

Actually, you do. The AUMF was specific to fighting terror linked to Al Queda, and it has been strained under both Obama and Trump, this is brazenly out of bounds. Without an imminent threat, he has no links to Al Queda and would likely not be covered by the AUMF.

And again, none of that changes the fact that the Trump administration has been lying to Congress and the American people/press since they assassination took place. Yes, now I'm calling it an assassination. Between Trump approving a strike like this much earlier in the year and the fact that there was no "imminent threat", it's an assassination.



Didn't need it, the AUMF specifically gave presidents authority to carry out limited strikes to capture/kill Bin Laden.

Sluemain is not Bin Laden, nor a member of Al Queda.



Nobody was mad about it, because it was universally a good thing and Bin Laden was not a high ranking government official.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Author...nst_Terrorists



You don't seem to understand what the AUMF actually authorized, because it specifically authorized the attack against Bin Laden. Even with the expanded interpretation published in December 2016, it still would not likely cover Sulemain even with Quds being labeled a terrorist group, given his status in the Iranian government. It's also why he wasn't taken out previously.

Don't get me wrong, I want the AUMF rescinded wholesale and for Congress to take the responsibility back. But until then, it still has limitations on what a president can/cannot authorize.

Since he is designated as a terrorist by the US government and had ties to alqaeda, doesn't that mean we can kill him according to the AUMF?

- - - Updated - - -

1. I've repeatedly linked criticism of Obama's drone strike program. Not going to do it for the 289374923874287th time, but a simple google search will turn up plenty for you.

2. Those were all targets connected to Al Queda/Taliban, meaning they're covered by the AUMF, even if there were questions about strikes against US citizens (which were highly criticized and much argued over)

You still don't seem to understand what the AUMF actually is or what it covers. I'd suggest reading the Wiki.

Well he had ties to alqaeda which means you can kill him according to the aumf, right? Because I obviously do not know what it covers, according to you.

[Elegiac]

Since he is designated as a terrorist by the US government and had ties to alqaeda, doesn't that mean we can kill him according to the AUMF?

Yeah yeah, you accuse Goody Sulemain of being a witch. We get it, Abigail.

[TexasRules]

Yeah yeah, you accuse Goody Sulemain of being a witch. We get it, Abigail.

Yes, make fun of me and provide no critical response. Very intelligent response that gives nothing to the conversation or provides anything in the means of critical arguments. You forgot to throw Trump in.

[Edge-]

Since he is designated as a terrorist by the US government and had ties to alqaeda, doesn't that mean we can kill him according to the AUMF?

Citation needed*

Mike Pence doesn't count, he lied - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/u...factcheck.html

Just being designated a terrorist isn't enough, as the AUMF isn't that broad. Again, read the AUMF. It's broad, but not a blank check.

Well he had ties to alqaeda which means you can kill him according to the aumf, right?

Again, citation needed*

If you're thinking of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, that's a different Solemani - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulaiman_Abu_Ghaith

[beanman12345]

Our leaderships can't even get their reasons straight why we killed him, innocents died, like i called it tens of pages ago, didn't expect it in a plane crash but still. Ugh what a complete cluster fuck.

[Elegiac]

Yes, make fun of me and provide no critical response. Very intelligent response that gives nothing to the conversation or provides anything in the means of critical arguments. You forgot to throw Trump in.

Why do I need to provide a critical argument, lol? There's no facts present in your post to discuss.

It's a stretch to say a 2001 AUMF that targets Al Qaeda applies equally to Sulemain as it did to Bin Laden.

Pst: Why didn't he get a specific AUMF when he had a House majority?

[TexasRules]

Citation needed*

Mike Pence doesn't count, he lied - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/u...factcheck.html

Just being designated a terrorist isn't enough, as the AUMF isn't that broad. Again, read the AUMF. It's broad, but not a blank check.



Again, citation needed*

If you're thinking of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, that's a different Solemani - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulaiman_Abu_Ghaith

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-sin...ni-11578681560

In their book “The Exile,” investigative journalists Cathy Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy describe the journey of many al Qaeda members who spent months and even years as “guests” of Iran. Soleimani broke bread with bin Laden’s sons, who affectionately called him Hajji Qassem, Ms. Scott-Clark and Mr. Levy write. He appointed two senior Quds Force officers to “provide the guests with whatever they needed,” including refrigerators, widescreen TVs and an “unlimited budget” to furnish a religious library. Saif al-Adel, a notorious al Qaeda explosives expert, had access to a sports complex in a posh Tehran neighborhood, where he swam laps alongside Western diplomats.

I guess you would not consider him to have ties with alqaeda because he gave aid and shelter to Bin Laden's sons and Saif al-Adel. You may have a different definition of being associated with someone.

[Orange Joe]

Scumbag?... For killing people that directly attack your fellow countrymen's right to choose their own leader?

Did they harm anyone physically? I don't think people should be killed because other people are dumb/ignorant.

[PACOX]

So please tell me again why it was appropriate to flirt with a war that would have dwarfed Iraq?

- - - Updated - - -

Our leaderships can't even get their reasons straight why we killed him, innocents died, like i called it tens of pages ago, didn't expect it in a plane crash but still. Ugh what a complete cluster fuck.

Right? At least make sure everyone is in on the lie. Stupidgate continues.

[TexasRules]

So please tell me again why it was appropriate to flirt with a war that would have dwarfed Iraq?

Iran does not want war. The US does not want war. That is why Trump did not make fun of the "retaliation". Look how batshit Trump gets and he was semi respectful. There will be no war..... With the caveat that the US may help if these demonstrations/protests turn in to full scale revolution. Then there may be a war of some sort.

[Shadowferal]

Yes, make fun of me and provide no critical response. Very intelligent response that gives nothing to the conversation or provides anything in the means of critical arguments. You forgot to throw Trump in.

You aren't posting because you want to debate.
You certainly aren't interested in the least of hearing or reading any evidence, transcripts, eyewitness testimony.
So, lucky to get any response.

- - - Updated - - -

Did they harm anyone physically? I don't think people should be killed because other people are dumb/ignorant.

....some days...maybe hurt, or maim...?
okay okay...

[Blade Wolf]

Iran does not want war. The US does not want war. That is why Trump did not make fun of the "retaliation". Look how batshit Trump gets and he was semi respectful. There will be no war..... With the caveat that the US may help if these demonstrations/protests turn in to full scale revolution. Then there may be a war of some sort.

The current administration has a GIGANTIC hard on for war with Iran.

[beanman12345]

The current administration has a GIGANTIC hard on for war with Iran.

Apparently, killing sulemaine was on the table for 7 months. Guess it just took Pompeo that long to convince him.