Is bombing a military general at an airport an act of war?

[Renew Deal]

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Depends on which general and which airport.

[Blue Owl]

2. An old Revolutionary War tactic revived by Trump

n/t

[Renew Deal]

4. There were airports during the US revolution?

[Blue Owl]

6. Why yes, according to Donny

https://time.com/5620936/donald-trump-revolutionary-war-airports/

[Renew Deal]

8. LOL

[onecaliberal]

3. When it's the #2 guy in the country, you better believe they're thinking it is.

[BigmanPigman]

5. This is an act of war. Period.

[UniteFightBack]

11. +1000

[ripcord]

47. Can we flip that around?

Was the attack by an Iranian sponsored terrorist group on a US military base an act of war? Iran needs to be held responsible for the actions of the terrorist groups they sponsor. Iran carries out their violent actions through proxy, should they be allowed to get away with that?

[Bucky]

55. No, and that's an act of proxy war.

What Trump has done is escalated matters from a proxy war to a provocation for actual war.

This is, of course, Trump's belated birthday present to King Salman of Saudi Arabia, who just turned 85 on Tuesday

[braddy]

7. When he is an Iranian terrorist on the terrorist list for killing 100s of Americans

and caught in Iraq, then no.

[Renew Deal]

12. Does "he deserved it" matter?

[braddy]

14. You posted to the wrong person, that isn't my quote.

[Renew Deal]

15. I didn't quote you.

In your opinion, did he deserve it?

[braddy]

16. You put it in quotes and I have no idea what your "deserve" interest means here.

[Renew Deal]

17. Do you believe that the iranian terrorist you referenced deserved to be killed?

[braddy]

18. I don't understand what you are trying to say, deserve? What does that mean when taking out the

terrorist leader that is killing our people and in the process of leading another terror mission against us?

[Renew Deal]

19. Let me simplify

Was killing the terrorist you mentioned in your earlier post the correct action?

[braddy]

20. I think that has been made clear, and we may have captured some more bad guys according to some

early claims from the Arab sources.

[Renew Deal]

21. What has been made clear?

[pbmus]

33. That some bad dudes got smoked because they thought they were invisible...

[herding cats]

31. Good dance around the question asked.

I'm posting to check back and see if you ever respond with an actual answer.

Geopolitics are vastly more complicated than you seem to realize.

[Thomas Hurt]

52. You are wasting your time...

braddy thinks the killing of this terrorist outweighs any long term costs in lives, suffering or displacement. He won't admit it.

He is correct in so far as that goes, since we don't know what the long term costs will be yet.

Retribution and vengeance above all else. Short term violence and justice that will hopefully do something to make it better in the ME?

Naw, it just looks good to the average joe in the US.

Donnie is a badass, Donnie is a real leader, blah, blah, blah.

The reason we are still in Iraq and at this point is because of the same conservative cowboy attitude of Bush.

[choie]

28. When were hundreds of Americans killed?

N/t

[Bettie]

43. I'm trying to figure this out too

because it wasn't recently.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

35. Perhaps you're missing the context of the OP.

The OP in my understanding was asking "if the U.S. bombs a target in Iraq and the target is a high-level friend of Iraq, then is that an act of war against Iraq by America?"

By standard conventions, I think the answer is yes, although we will need to wait to hear Iraq's response since it happened on their land.

And, by the way, you have no internationally accepted proof that this man himself killed or directed the killing of 100s of Americans. Allegations in conflict zones fly around like sand in a sand storm. To my knowledge, we're still a nation of due process.

[Hoyt]

9. Not good, but trump will likely get away with it because Iranian was in Iraq

during a supposed protest on embassy.

[roamer65]

10. Assassinating Archduke Frank Ferdinand was an act of war.

So is this.

[Generic Brad]

13. Why was an Iranian general in Iraq?

Was he connected with the recent attack on our embassy in Iraq? If so, then didn’t he initiate hostilities?

[BigmanPigman]

22. I have been hearing on the news tonight that he

Last edited Fri Jan 3, 2020, 03:21 PM - Edit history (1)

probably was involved in the embassy violence just as he has been known to order various violent actions over the years. The big questions are...

1. Why now? They had a lot of opportunities in the past if they wanted to get rid of him. Is this a distraction from impeachment issue?

2. Why wasn't Congress told? Congresswoman Barbara Lee has been working on this for 18 years. Congress needs to approve these acts or we will have perpetual wars.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/30/how-barbara-lee-became-an-army-of-one-215434

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/19/18691936/house-democrats-vote-repeal-9-11-aumf-war-iran

[ripcord]

48. Under the War Powers Act Congress doesn't have to be told or approve nt

[uponit7771]

24. Because he can be in Iraq and no one believes SHIT coming out of the Trump admin so them

... saying the embassy attacks had anything to do with Iran is not credible.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

25. Yes. Possibly "Instigate" as opposed to "Initiate"

[KY_EnviroGuy]

36. He's free to be anywhere he's welcomed and he was welcome.

This man has been known to be in and out of areas of both Iraq and Syria for many years and was welcomed in both lands. His work was primarily coordinating the efforts of local militias that are friendly to Iran and Shia Muslim oriented.

Just because we don't like this SOB does not mean he didn't have the right to be there.

Everyone seems to forget that both Iraq and Iran are majority Shia Muslim nations and their bonds go far deeper than any borders. Iraqi Muslim clerics mostly defer to Iran's clerical authority. Many have also forgotten that Iran-assisted Shia militias helped to bring down Saddam Hussein and fight the remnants of his army.

[ripcord]

49. Do you think it couold be possible he coordinated the attack on the US base?

Remember the terrorist group Hezbollah is sponsored and takes some of its orders from Iran, considering his position I wonder if Soleimani ordered the attack on the US base?

[KY_EnviroGuy]

53. From my meager perch, it's equally possible that you or the pope coordinated it.

I also don't know for a fact that anyone coordinated it.

Do you really think an everyday person posting on an internet blog has the faintest legal proof of anything this man or any of the hundreds of militant groups have done? About all I'm certain of is that he was known to frequent a number of locations in Syria and Iraq where he had operatives believed to have Iranian connections, and he's been doing that for years. There's photographic proof of those visits, but neither you or I or anyone else on this blog have the resources to prove exactly what he said or did there or anywhere.

I seriously question why we waste our time speculating on such "possibles" happening half-way around the globe in an extremely complex zone where tribal, secular and militant group loyalties rule, deception is a way of life, and solid intel is iffy at best.

Do we even really know exactly what persons attacked the base via photos or videos of actual people? Every time there's an evil, murderous event of terrorism in the world, numerous groups proudly lay claim for responsibility.

My point is the internet and media sources are awash with information that has no firm foundation that would be admissible in a court of law. Donald Trump is one of those sources on a frequent basis. A huge number of people around the globe are in the business of spreading lies, innuendos, rumors and conspiracy theories and outright bullshit, and they exist on both sides of any fence. Our last presidential election is solid proof. I refuse to add to that problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. His former advisor is now the Iranian ambassador to Iraq

Iraj Masjedi (Persian: ایرج مسجدی‎ is the current Iranian ambassador to Iraq, having previously served in the Revolutionary Guards for 35 years.[4] A veteran of Iran–Iraq War, Masjedi was a senior Quds Force commander and served as a top advisor to Qassem Soleimani.[4] He was designated as the ambassador to Iraq in January 2017[5] and assumed office in April 2017.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraj_Masjedi

He was a major force in the fight against ISIS in Iraq:

Hadi al-Amiri, the former Iraqi minister of transportation and the head of the Badr Organization [an official Iraqi political party whose military wing is one of the largest armed forces in the country] highlighted the pivotal role of General Qasem Soleimani in defending Iraq's Kurdistan Region against the ISIL terrorist group, maintaining that if it were not for Iran, Heidar al-Ebadi's government would have been a government-in-exile right now.[55] and he added there would be no Iraq if Gen. Soleimani hadn't helped us.[56]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasem_Soleimani#War_on_ISIS_in_Iraq

The Iraqi government regarded him as a friend:

“The assassination of an Iraqi military commander who holds an official position is considered aggression on Iraq ... and the liquidation of leading Iraqi figures or those from a brotherly country on Iraqi soil is a massive breach of sovereignty,” Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said.

Abdul Mahdi, whose government has the backing of Iran, said in a statement the U.S. air strike was “a dangerous escalation that will light the fuse of a destructive war in Iraq, the region, and the world.”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iraq-security-blast-primeminister/iraqi-pm-says-u-s-killing-of-iranian-commander-will-light-the-fuse-of-war-idUKKBN1Z20R7

[melm00se]

54. My question is:

Did the Iranian leadership put him there hoping that the US would whack him?

If so, why was their motivation to do that?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

23. Arguably, the General's presence in an Iraqi airport could be an act of war against us and/or Iraq

If, in fact, the General was there to attempt to foment an embassy storming, which appears to be the case.

While I take everyone's points and wish that anyone were in the WH aside from Trump, my guess is that the surgical targeting of these two Iranians was probably a recommendation from NSC or CIA. We obviously had intelligence on where they were, and the entire chain of events suggested that we knew /suspected in advance that the Iraqi embassy was going to be a target (source in Iran? Israeli intelligence? Russia?). The US does not want a repeat of Benghazi or a repeat of the Teheran hostage crisis. We sent Marines to secure the embassy and targeted those believed to be responsible. I realize nobody wants to hear this, but it was a pretty measured response. Again, somebody recommended this to the President. The idea did not originate with him.

We have contingency plans for Iran. The questions become unintended consequences and what don't we know. Do we piss off China in this process? How good are Iran's cyber capabilities? What is Russia's stake in all of this?

Somebody in another thread asked about air raid sirens going off in the night. I'd worry a lot more about that if I lived in Teheran than here. Even if Iran had a nuclear weapon and an ICBM to carry it, they'd have to get it here without us taking it out. Unlikely. And if they did lob a nuke toward us, Israel, Europe, or Saudi Arabia, the consequences for them would be horrific and quick. They know this. They are zealots, not morons. The more likely responses by Iran have also been mentioned here: terror attack (with or without plausible deniability of involvement), cyber attack, an attack against tankers or other oil infrastructure

[Lexee]

26. I have been trying to catch up and this is about where I sit with this.

Thanks for your post.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. No, no-one can argue his presence there was "an act of war"

See #37 for the Iraqi government view of this - they call Iran a "brotherly country", and the US attack "aggression on Iraq".

[Algernon Moncrieff]

41. If I were Iraq, I'd likely say the same thing for public consumption

They have to live there.

I can't think they are thrilled privately at the concept of two Iranian officials being present to stir up trouble with the Americans. I get why they wouldn't be thrilled at what we did - the consequences are likely to blow back on them. However, I stick to what I said earlier: 1) I dislike pretty much everything about this administration but 2) I strongly suspect the response was an option offered to the President by the Defense establishment (most likely NSC) and 3) we do have the right to defend out embassies against attack (and we have suffered more than our share on that front).

[sinkingfeeling]

39. So, a military commander from country A can be legally

assassinated at an airport in country B by country C because they think his presence is an act of war?
Would that apply if country A was the USA and B was South Korea and C was N. Korea?
What would the US do? Retaliate?
Who the hell gave 'us' the right to rule the world and make all decisions?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

40. In your scenario:

If country A has an embassy in country B, and country C is determined to be fomenting/inciting (pick a word) an attack against country A's embassy, country A would be regarded as justified. That assumes that all of the information is genuine and the attack wasn't a creation of country A.

You have the right to defend your embassy (it's considered sovereign soil); in the real scenario, country C has a history of terrorism and a history of doing things involving embassies, and we have been a target of too many embassy attacks.

So to answer your last question: assuming these two were behind the attempt to storm the embassy (and I really have no reason to not believe that at this point), any nation would have that right under self defense doctrine.

[muriel_volestrangler]

45. It's not 'self defense' you describe; it's "I suspect him, so I shot him"

If done by people, you'd be arrested for murder, as a vigilante. That Soleimani was in Iraq was not evidence (or "an act of war" ); it was the opportunity to do the assassination.

[Hekate]

27. I think we are about to find out, aren't we?

[Pachamama]

29. It would be especially if he was on his way to a negotiation

[applegrove]

30. Not when the general is responsible for terrorist attacks. Don't weep

for him. Just pray the Iranians don't need a war as much as Trump does.

[mahina]

34. This is the smartest thing I've heard all night

And I will pray they don’t.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

42. This

This exactly.

[tirebiter]

32. They get to choose time and place, now

Leaves us very vulnerable. Mattie would've put a stop to this

[MineralMan]

44. Yes, it is. Iran does not have the capability of attacking

the United States on our own territory, though. It will have to resort to attacking Americans in places where it is capable of attacking.

Whether or not a nation considers something an "act of war" is up to that nation. I would assume that Iran considers it to be such.

I'd advise all US citizens who can to leave the Middle East immediately, and on the first flight they can book, preferably not on a US airline. Those might well be targets.

[dawg day]

46. And in another country--

The Iraqi PM doesn't sound like he approved.

[Kaleva]

50. The Pakistani govt. was really pissed when we took out bin Laden.

[Renew Deal]

51. They can remain pissed

They harbored him for years.

[Cosmocat]

56. Yes

Raiders fan, puppy beater or terrorist, he was a HIGHLY placed official of the Iranian government.

We may see him as a terrorist, but given the countless number of innocent people we have killed just since the IW, and certainly with all the drone strikes, damn sure that folks in those countries consider Mike Pence a terrorist ...

People want to be cute about this, default to republican thinking.

But, he exists because WE CREATED HIM AS A THREAT TO OUR TROOPS by invading Iraq for no good damn reason.

AND, outcome wise, what does this do for us? They have someone else who will step into the role and the attacks will continue unabated.

MEANWHILE we just broke a rule that even Iran has not broken in taking out duly elected/appointed leaders of our countries like this. This makes everyone we send abroad a target now.

These people have been doing this since before we were a country, we have YET to beat them at this game.

[brooklynite]

57. There's no legal definition that applies

Sulemani was not on land controlled by Iran.

[lsewpershad]

58. Only if it happens to America.

If this crime was perpetrated in America and to an American general would there be any question?
Remember 9/11? America attacked 2 countries afterwards.