• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A question about violence against public officials of enemy nations

Status
Not open for further replies.

Felis Leo

Moral clarity is needed
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
14,067
Reaction score
20,980
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This is a question for clarification of who a "public official" is. I admit I may have missed where it is written down.

So, I am on record for previously calling for violence (or at least death) of public officials of Iran by revolution and our military, most notably the Iranian Ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard Corps and hailing the death of Qassem Soleimani as an unadulterated good. This was before Helix stated the prohibition on calling for violence against public officials. Would it be inappropriate of me to continue making comments wishing untimely ends upon them, or other nations which are tyrannical rivals or enemies of the United States, such as Russia, North Korea, China or Saudi Arabia? Or is this just for public officials of open democracies? I do not want to make a mis-step that gets me suspended or banned, or somehow encourage other forum members to do so either.
 
Last edited:
This is a question for clarification of who a "public official" is.

So, I am on record for calling for violence (or at least death) of public officials of Iran, most notably the Iranian Ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard Corps and hailing the death of Qassem Soleimani as an unadulterated good. This was before Helix stated the prohibition on calling for violence against public officials. Would it be inappropriate to continue making comments wishing untimely ends upon them, or other nations which are tyrannical rivals or enemies of the United States, such as Russia, China or Saudi Arabia? Or is this just for public officials of open democracies? I do not want to make a mis-step that gets me suspended or banned, or somehow encourage other forum members to do so either.

Don't blame Helix. He was the messenger, regardless of whether he participated in the decision.

Frankly, I want to personally kill Darth Vader, but he has already met his end.

Don't expect an answer from any mods. This is too "pompous" a topic.
 
Don't blame Helix. He was the messenger, regardless of whether he participated in the decision.

Frankly, I want to personally kill Darth Vader, but he has already met his end.

Don't expect an answer from any mods. This is too "pompous" a topic.



Right up OFG’s rice bowl, what?...............:mrgreen:
 
This is a question for clarification of who a "public official" is. I admit I may have missed where it is written down.

So, I am on record for previously calling for violence (or at least death) of public officials of Iran by revolution and our military, most notably the Iranian Ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard Corps and hailing the death of Qassem Soleimani as an unadulterated good. This was before Helix stated the prohibition on calling for violence against public officials. Would it be inappropriate of me to continue making comments wishing untimely ends upon them, or other nations which are tyrannical rivals or enemies of the United States, such as Russia, North Korea, China or Saudi Arabia? Or is this just for public officials of open democracies? I do not want to make a mis-step that gets me suspended or banned, or somehow encourage other forum members to do so either.

My take was more about open democracies and such.

Wishing the Putin would choke to death on a giant **** is still OK, I think.
 
This is a question for clarification of who a "public official" is. I admit I may have missed where it is written down.

So, I am on record for previously calling for violence (or at least death) of public officials of Iran by revolution and our military, most notably the Iranian Ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard Corps and hailing the death of Qassem Soleimani as an unadulterated good. This was before Helix stated the prohibition on calling for violence against public officials. Would it be inappropriate of me to continue making comments wishing untimely ends upon them, or other nations which are tyrannical rivals or enemies of the United States, such as Russia, North Korea, China or Saudi Arabia? Or is this just for public officials of open democracies? I do not want to make a mis-step that gets me suspended or banned, or somehow encourage other forum members to do so either.



How about we don't wish death on political figures who have term limits or can be voted out of office?
 
This is a question for clarification of who a "public official" is. I admit I may have missed where it is written down.

So, I am on record for previously calling for violence (or at least death) of public officials of Iran by revolution and our military, most notably the Iranian Ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard Corps and hailing the death of Qassem Soleimani as an unadulterated good. This was before Helix stated the prohibition on calling for violence against public officials. Would it be inappropriate of me to continue making comments wishing untimely ends upon them, or other nations which are tyrannical rivals or enemies of the United States, such as Russia, North Korea, China or Saudi Arabia? Or is this just for public officials of open democracies? I do not want to make a mis-step that gets me suspended or banned, or somehow encourage other forum members to do so either.

And here I was assuming this rule was someone advocated for killing a US official and DP got a visit from the Secret Service.
 
This is a question for clarification of who a "public official" is. I admit I may have missed where it is written down.

So, I am on record for previously calling for violence (or at least death) of public officials of Iran by revolution and our military, most notably the Iranian Ayatollahs and the Revolutionary Guard Corps and hailing the death of Qassem Soleimani as an unadulterated good. This was before Helix stated the prohibition on calling for violence against public officials. Would it be inappropriate of me to continue making comments wishing untimely ends upon them, or other nations which are tyrannical rivals or enemies of the United States, such as Russia, North Korea, China or Saudi Arabia? Or is this just for public officials of open democracies? I do not want to make a mis-step that gets me suspended or banned, or somehow encourage other forum members to do so either.


Before you start calling for the assassinations of people:

Who, precisely, determines who the "tyrannical rivals or enemies of the United States" are? That is an honest and serious question.

Our current administration is openly distrustful of our three letter intel agencies. It believes and listens to Vlad Putin instead. The current administration is methodically forcing out seasoned career professionals and replacing them with less qualified and less experienced political appointees. Our allies and would-be allies are reportedly less enthusiastic about sharing highly sensitive intelligence. Under these circumstances, how in the devil can whoever makes the final determination be confident in having all the current and correct information possible?

One thing that should greatly concern everyone is blowback. Every current or future administration considering assassination and/or armed action MUST have projected outcomes, consequences and unintended consequences, determined by the best and brightest and most qualified before any assassination or armed action decision is made.

In fact, what IS the current US foreign policy? Is the current foreign policy reliable? Damned if I know the answer to either of those questions.

Finally, there must be Congressional approval prior to action taken. Relevant federal law must be clear and the People must be able to rely on Congress to enforce relevant laws.

The War Powers Act should be rendered null and void. That would be a start.
 
Before you start calling for the assassinations of people:

Who, precisely, determines who the "tyrannical rivals or enemies of the United States" are? That is an honest and serious question.

Do you have any doubts about China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or Iran?
 
Do you have any doubts about China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or Iran?

In terms of international enemies of the US, I have less doubt than Trump does.

In terms of assassinations and armed action, it depends on the nation, the leader, the situation at hand, viable options, projected consequences, and Congressional approval.
 
In terms of international enemies of the US, I have less doubt than Trump does.

You asked who determines who the "tyrannical rivals or enemies of the United States" are, saying it was a serious question.

The OP listed or mentioned those countries. He didn't mention Trump. In answering your question, can we not at least agree that those countries are on the list?

In terms of assassinations and armed action, it depends on the nation, the leader, the situation at hand, viable options, projected consequences, and Congressional approval.

OK, but that wasn't what I was asking you. It was about which countries are tyrannical and enemies of the United States.
 
Before you start calling for the assassinations of people:

Who, precisely, determines who the "tyrannical rivals or enemies of the United States" are? That is an honest and serious question.

In answer to your question, Risky Thicket, and in no particular order:

1. The People's Republic of China
2. The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea
3. The Islamic Republic of Iran
4. The Russian Federation
 
You asked who determines who the "tyrannical rivals or enemies of the United States" are, saying it was a serious question.

The OP listed or mentioned those countries. He didn't mention Trump. In answering your question, can we not at least agree that those countries are on the list?

I mentioned Trump as Trump is the current POTUS. The president is a variable. Foreign policy is a variable in that it depends on the president and his/her administration. What is the current administration's foreign policy? Do you know?

The Constitution and federal laws are not variables. They must be followed and the People must be able to rely on Congress to ensure that they are.

OK, but that wasn't what I was asking you. It was about which countries are tyrannical and enemies of the United States.

One size does not fit all. I would certainly agree that all of the countries listed are enemies of the US. Threats are fluid as well. At present, I'd rank Russia as presenting the greatest threat to the US with Saudi Arabia not far behind them. I'd rank Iran as the least threatening at the present.

How about you?
 
I mentioned Trump as Trump is the current POTUS. The president is a variable. Foreign policy is a variable in that it depends on the president and his/her administration. What is the current administration's foreign policy? Do you know?

The Constitution and federal laws are not variables. They must be followed and the People must be able to rely on Congress to ensure that they are.



One size does not fit all. I would certainly agree that all of the countries listed are enemies of the US. Threats are fluid as well. At present, I'd rank Russia as presenting the greatest threat to the US with Saudi Arabia not far behind them. I'd rank Iran as the least threatening at the present.

How about you?

You are simply evading the question, which was a simple one.

Why are you evading it?

I think these countries are 1) tyrannical, and 2) enemies or at least rivals of the United States, as stated in the OP:

Russia.
China.
North Korea.
Saudi Arabia.
Iran.

Why do you go out of your way to avoid answering if you agree?
 
You are simply evading the question, which was a simple one.

Why are you evading it?

I think these countries are 1) tyrannical, and 2) enemies or at least rivals of the United States, as stated in the OP:

Russia.
China.
North Korea.
Saudi Arabia.
Iran.

Why do you go out of your way to avoid answering if you agree?

Evading? No.

Do I support assassination of the leaders of America’s enemies? That depends on many things. What is our foreign policy? Who determines who our enemies are? What is the level of threat at any given time?

If you want a binary response from me you won’t get one.
 
Evading? No.

Do I support assassination of the leaders of America’s enemies? That depends on many things. What is our foreign policy? Who determines who our enemies are? What is the level of threat at any given time?

If you want a binary response from me you won’t get one.

I didn't ask you if you supported the assassination of anyone or are down with any particular foreign policy.

I asked if you if these five countries:

Russia
China
Iran
Saudi Arabia
North Korea

Are tyrannical enemies or rivals of the United States.

And for some reason, you'll do anything but answer that very simple question.
 
I think these countries are 1) tyrannical, and 2) enemies or at least rivals of the United States, as stated in the OP:

Russia.
China.
North Korea.
Saudi Arabia.
Iran.

And Trump is enthralled with four out of the five murderous dictators ruling the above countries.

You're clearly not on the same page with Trump here. That can be dangerous /s
 
And Trump is enthralled with four out of the five murderous dictators ruling the above countries.

You're clearly not on the same page with Trump here. That can be dangerous /s

I'm not saying anything new here. It's only your vapid assumptions which lead you to think I'm on "the same page as Trump" on much of anything.

Not that Trump had anything to do with the OP or anything I said, but you guys can't seem to look at anything at all without filtering it through Trump. It's baffling to those of us who don't have that impediment.
 
I'm not saying anything new here. It's only your vapid assumptions which lead you to think I'm on "the same page as Trump" on much of anything.

Right. Your a bleeding heart Liberal.

:rofl
 
Right. Your a bleeding heart Liberal.

:rofl

Right. Because the only two options are Trumpkin and "bleeding heart liberal."

This kind of limited thinking does not at all surprise me from you.

dilbert.jpg
 
Right. Because the only two options are Trumpkin and "bleeding heart liberal."

This kind of limited thinking does not at all surprise me from you.

At least I think. You throw darts.
 
Sorry for the topic diversion. My bad.
 
I think too many of you are trying to overthink this and play lawyer here so let me try to make this as simple as possible.

What brought the mod team to the point of needing to post such a warning was the ratcheting up of the threats of violence against politicians with which one disagrees. We've seen threats of violence against Trump, Pelosi, McConnell and others in particular. A threat of violence against Trump is something that the FBI and/or the Secret Service might want to look into. This is a problem that we don't want here at DP and as a US-based forum, the majority of the problems we've witnessed are threats of violence of calling for the death of US political figures. We've seen similar threats against foreign leaders (Putin, Iranian government officials and others), however the majority of what we've seen are against US political figures.

We try our best to provide a platform for people to freely discuss ideas, politics, current events and other topic without an egregious set of rules. The overwhelming majority of our users have never broken a rule and have remained civil for the most part. There are a handful of users that routinely break the rules and are anything but civil far too often. There are some, myself included, that occasionally stray over the line of decency and civility and get our hand smacked for doing so. There are however lines that we simply can't allow to be crossed and threats of violence or calling for the death of public officials simply isn't something we can allow here.

This isn't a "black and white" issue as some have tried to make it out to be. As with any discussion related to nearly any issue, there is always a grey area. The mod team isn't trying to come up with some way to "get people" here, or anywhere for that matter. We simply want our membership to not cross this line, both for legal reasons as well as civility reasons.

In summation, there is a way to voice your opinion of a certain individual without calling for their death or for calling for violence against them. The mod staff would prefer if everyone could adhere to this because we'd rather spend our time interacting and debating rather than deal with violations of the rules and those who like to push the limits of what is acceptable. We will look at instances of violent rhetoric and death threats on a case-by-case basis - there is a grey area. I'm not going to provide an example because I've seen it too many times where 'poster z' will complain that only one "side" was listed (and it wasn't the "other side"). All we're asking is to use some common sense before anyone stoops to the violent route in a debate. The mod team doesn't think this is too much to ask.

Moderator's Warning:
/thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom