Right, because there are no Americans in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, or the rest of the greater Middle East, actively serving or otherwise.Well, it's not Americans who will suffer because of this.
You do realize the hostage crisis occurred as a direct response to the U.S. admitting the former Shah, Mohammad Reza, into the country for medical treatment following the aftermath of the Iran Revolution, right?The Iran Hostage Crisis occurred under Jimmy Carter, over 30 years ago. Iran is not some innocent dove beset by imperialist American interests.
This is the weakest possible argument you could have made against the critics of the assassination. Denouncing the escalation of violence and trumped up demonization of a relatively unknown "theocratic militant terrorist" (when's the last time Trump tweeted about him being a clear and present danger to American sovereignty before the drone strike?) does not mean we "support the enemy" or hate America.It is fascinating that a site that loves its social liberalism is working overtime to "contextualize" a theocratic militant terrorist, but hey, death to America am I right?
So you ARE trying to be funny. No normal person wants a country to 'die', and by the definition of 'without irony' you are implying that you literally want death to America. DAE america death to america sux so funny and original xDthis and like this poster, without irony
Really quick to resort to calling someone who disagrees with you a name.Try harder, poser.
I find it interesting how you suddenly care about the quality of the thread when your first comment was "death to america but seriously".why dont u try responding to a post with actual content instead of concern trolling, obv none of the users itt "hate each other" (btw thats an ad hominem too, accusing others of hate, so do better abt not calling ppl names). it's clear that the sentiment of the post is a condemnation of american empire, so can we get back to having a discourse instead of these willful misinterpretations of others' posts designed to derail the discussion?
I doubt that anyone itt "hates" each other but it's not particularly reasonable to engage in civil discourse with someone whose argument hinges on the concept that political assassinations leading to war motivated by an impeached leader seeking to manipulate his upcoming election.Just to set the record I agree that Trump is a fucking idiot. But do all of you guys hate each other? Is that why you're incredibly quick to resort to spewing personal venom at your opponents rather than simply tearing their argument apart normally (which should be easy, Myzozoa was doing that before he/she diluted the integrity of her argument by wishing death to an entire group of people)? This shit is more toxic than voat.
Yes, I agree. But I just feel like if we resort to personal attacks we are sinking to their level. Its not like they have a strong argument, it should be easy to, for a lack of a better word, be the bigger man.I doubt that anyone itt "hates" each other but it's not particularly reasonable to engage in civil discourse with someone whose argument hinges on the concept that political assassinations leading to war motivated by an impeached leader seeking to manipulate his upcoming election.
It's a basic moral standing that "killing people is bad", "killing people for political gain is bad", and "starting wars that kill people for political gain is bad", and the rational response to someone arguing the contrary is to condemn that stance in the strongest terms possible.
We all can agree with this on paper but civility is not going to get us anywhere. Look at the current state of Congress as a perfect example. How many times are we supposed to peacefully disagree with people celebrating war crimes and harming the very people they're sworn to protect? How many times are we supposed to put up with the hypocrisy on display from some of the most powerful leaders in this country? We do not hate one another as people. We simply strongly disagree with each other's beliefs. There comes a point where you're fed up with giving others the benefit of the doubt and responding peacefully with facts while they retort with "hurr triggered sjw orange man bad lol!".Yes, I agree. But I just feel like if we resort to personal attacks we are sinking to their level. Its not like they have a strong argument, it should be easy to, for a lack of a better word, be the bigger man.
At the time he was in Iraq on request from the prime minister to mediate. The US was the one that asked Iraq to to mediate with Iran. The US then bombed the man acting in capacity of a diplomatic envoy. Stop trying to justify shitty war crimes.At the time he was meeting al-Muhandis, who had been coordinating attacks against US personnel and an Iranian sympathizer and traitor to to the Iraqi government from within.
Suleimani's idea of diplomatic engagement was to attack an American embassy using terrorist proxy forces. To attack an embassy is to attack the very notion of diplomacy itself. Iran isn't Iraq. Both are Shiite majority, but they are different countries. Suleimani would be safe, alive, and well if he had just stayed in Iran.At the time he was in Iraq on request from the prime minister to mediate. The US was the one that asked Iraq to to mediate with Iran. The US then bombed the man acting in capacity of a diplomatic envoy. Stop trying to justify shitty war crimes.