WH memo: No mention of imminent threat

[Jredbaron96]

How in the hell do you do something accidentally in retaliation?

Iran Air Flight 655 - Wikipedia

 

[OpportunityCost]

See? You are completely sold on such a ridiculously biased notion it's not possible to pry your mind open to reality. Feel free to prove it was intentional to shoot down a passenger airline.

What's biased about Iran, the state sponsor of terror in the Middle East, using terrorism to accomplish their goals?

It doesn't matter whether it was intentional or accidental, the responsibility for the act of shooting down an aircraft is theirs, not anyone else.

 

[Lursa]

What's biased about Iran, the state sponsor of terror in the Middle East, using terrorism to accomplish their goals?

It doesn't matter whether it was intentional or accidental, the responsibility for the act of shooting down an aircraft is theirs, not anyone else.

No point in repeating myself...already refuted.

 

[OpportunityCost]

No point in repeating myself...already refuted.

Stating something that is a biased blame game to satisfy your confirmation bias isn't refuting, its an excuse. Iran did the shooting, no matter who the plane belonged to, they should not have shot down a civilian airliner. Blaming the US when they had nothing to do with the firing is not logical in the slightest.

 

[Lursa]

Stating something that is a biased blame game to satisfy your confirmation bias isn't refuting, its an excuse. Iran did the shooting, no matter who the plane belonged to, they should not have shot down a civilian airliner. Blaming the US when they had nothing to do with the firing is not logical in the slightest.

Er, there were plenty of articles on it, Iran's admission, and today an article once again reiterating that there was no evidence of the 'imminent threat.'

So my opinion has been supported on many fronts.

 

[braindrain]

LOL, Didnt take the hint I see.

The fact that you are trying to take one incident as if it happened a vacuum simply shows your real purpose behind this. I am sure you don’t realize this but it’s incredibly obvious.

 

[braindrain]

Right, Cheney and Rumsfield never would have given any kind of impression they would like to invade Iran. Ever. General Clarks is just talking out of his ass.



Oh please tell me what has actually been written. I'm dying to hear it.

Sorry but I really don’t care to much about your opinion of what other people were thinking.

Well let’s see. You claim I was denying that the US worked with Iran despite the fact that I never said any such thing. So yeah it’s pretty obvious you are simply making crap up.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Er, there were plenty of articles on it, Iran's admission, and today an article once again reiterating that there was no evidence of the 'imminent threat.'

So my opinion has been supported on many fronts.

Your position is Iran isn't responsible for shooting down the airliner they shot down. Which isn't a position so much as its blame shifting and playing the victim game on poor, poor Iran that sponsors terrorism all through the Middle East.

So how long have you hated America?

 

[Oozlefinch]

Sorry but I really don’t care to much about your opinion of what other people were thinking.

Well let’s see. You claim I was denying that the US worked with Iran despite the fact that I never said any such thing. So yeah it’s pretty obvious you are simply making crap up.

What I find most fascinating is that somebody would try to defend General Clark. The guy that almost got us into WWIII by trying to order NATO forces on a peacekeeping mission in Kosovo to fire on Russian forces also on a peacekeeping mission. He was subsequently relieved of command and forced to retire.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Er, there were plenty of articles on it, Iran's admission, and today an article once again reiterating that there was no evidence of the 'imminent threat.'

So my opinion has been supported on many fronts.

There was, of course, no "imminent threat" from Qasem Soleimani on January 3, 2020.

That description was just a convenient dodge that Trump immediately disseminated to avoid any "wag the dog" accusations.

As this thread OP clearly points out, no "imminent threat" rationale was offered in the released White House memorandum (2/14/2020) on the subject of the Soleimani strike.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Your position is Iran isn't responsible for shooting down the airliner they shot down.

On January 10, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani belatedly admitted to Iran shooting down Ukrainian International Airlines Flight PS752 on 3 January 2020.

Hassan Rouhani ✔
@HassanRouhani

Armed Forces’ internal investigation has concluded that regrettably missiles fired due to human error caused the horrific crash of the Ukrainian plane & death of 176 innocent people.
Investigations continue to identify & prosecute this great tragedy & unforgivable mistake. #PS752 https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/1215856039997984768 …
10:43 PM - Jan 10, 2020

An IRGC attempted a cover-up was abandoned when, after a number of days, it became obvious to Tehran that this explanation wasn't going to pass international muster.

BBC | Iran plane crash: Ukrainian jet was 'unintentionally' shot down

Tehran stated two days ago that Iran will not release the two recovered PS752 black boxes to Ukraine or to anyone else.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What you are saying is that the next democrat president should have the authority to kill anyone/everyone that he deems needs to die without congressional notice or approval.

Is that really what you think?

The last democrat didn’t seem to care that much. Neither did you

 

[EMNofSeattle]

To pretend like that has no bearing on what an Iranian general would be targeting Americans is a foolish hill to die on.

Oh so we should decide whether another country had a valid reason according to you to hate us and if so we should just let them do whatever they want with no pushback correct?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Braindrain:

Didn't the USA invade Iran's neighbour in 2003? So if America's infliction of mass casualties on the Highway of Hell in 1991 was a legitimate military act in response to an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, then why was Gen. Soleimani's and the Iranian backed militias not a legitimate military response to the US invasion of Iraq twelve years later? American exceptionalism perhaps?

The important point of this lack of imminent threat finding is that President Trump made war on both Iraq and Iran without Congressional authority in contravention to the US constitution and thus broke US law. When confronted with that fact, President Trump lied to cover his mistake up. That's why the finding is important.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

If General Solemani targetting our forces was a legitimate response to our invasion of Iraq then our offing him in a drone strike was a legitimate act of war. You can’t have it both ways.

No US law was broken since a declaration of war is not necessary for the president to order to military to take action against a foreign country.

 

[OpportunityCost]

On January 10, Iranian president Hassan Rouhani belatedly admitted to Iran shooting down Ukrainian International Airlines Flight PS752 on 3 January 2020.



An IRGC attempted a cover-up was abandoned when, after a number of days, it became obvious to Tehran that this explanation wasn't going to pass international muster.

BBC | Iran plane crash: Ukrainian jet was 'unintentionally' shot down

Tehran stated two days ago that Iran will not release the two recovered PS752 black boxes to Ukraine or to anyone else.

Tell Lursa, not me. I am well aware of who shot it down. Lursa is claiming the US is responsible, somehow.

 

[j brown's body]

There was, of course, no "imminent threat" from Qasem Soleimani on January 3, 2020.

That description was just a convenient dodge that Trump immediately disseminated to avoid any "wag the dog" accusations.

As this thread OP clearly points out, no "imminent threat" rationale was offered in the released White House memorandum (2/14/2020) on the subject of the Soleimani strike.

Its another example of Trump showing the world that he can lie, even to his own party members in the senate, and there is no accountability or consequences for his corruption.

You have to wonder what its like to be a Republican senator who has voted to give Trump the power to essentially strip you of your authority and so publicly mock your weakness.

 

[roughdraft274]

The last democrat didn’t seem to care that much. Neither did you

If you had a point you wouldn't have to resort to a snide comment that merely changes the subject.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If you had a point you wouldn't have to resort to a snide comment that merely changes the subject.

The point is your hypocrisy combined with TDS

 

[dave8383]

Oh so we should decide whether another country had a valid reason according to you to hate us and if so we should just let them do whatever they want with no pushback correct?

That's not what he said at all.

 

[dave8383]

He was still a U.S. citizen, who had the same civil rights as any other citizen of The United States.

Come on, if Trump had killed that guy you'd be running around naked wearing birthday hats and blowing into party horns.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That's not what he said at all.

That’s the logical conclusion of what he said.

Someone who is responsible for military attacks against your armed forces is a legitimate target of war.

The reason he is carrying out military attacks against your country is not relevant

 

[dave8383]

That’s the logical conclusion of what he said.

Someone who is responsible for military attacks against your armed forces is a legitimate target of war.

The reason he is carrying out military attacks against your country is not relevant

So then you think assassinating Cheney and/or Powell for the highway of death would have been legitimate. Fair enough.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So then you think assassinating Cheney and/or Powell for the highway of death would have been legitimate. Fair enough.

I mean they would’ve been a legitimate target of war if the Iraqis had that capability.

And it also would’ve been a massive mistake for Iraq to do that because assasinating an American official in the US would’ve meant regime change in 92 and not 2003.

Iran cannot realistically retaliate against us, so they can sit and spin.

 

[Evilroddy]

If General Solemani targetting our forces was a legitimate response to our invasion of Iraq then our offing him in a drone strike was a legitimate act of war. You can’t have it both ways.

No US law was broken since a declaration of war is not necessary for the president to order to military to take action against a foreign country.

EMNofSeattle:

Soleimani used proxies to do Iran's dirty work and thus no act of war was committed by The State of Iran. Mr. Trump used the US military to strike Soleimani and hundreds of Iraqi militia members in Iraq. Had Trump used CIA operators to pilot the drones or planes which made the strikes as used to be done by the US Government, then he like Iran would have had a legal fig-leaf to hide behind. But he didn't. He claimed there was an imminent threat but the memos prove other wise so President Trump lied.

Congress, not the President, has the power to de ale war according to the US constitution. By attacking both Iraq and Iran, two states which are not at war with America, and with no imminent threat to justify an emergency attack, President Trump broke US law and violated the US constitution. Read your constitution, please.

Cheers.
Evilroddy

 

[dave8383]

I mean they would’ve been a legitimate target of war if the Iraqis had that capability.

And it also would’ve been a massive mistake for Iraq to do that because assasinating an American official in the US would’ve meant regime change in 92 and not 2003.

Iran cannot realistically retaliate against us, so they can sit and spin.

Apparently Hussain tried to assassinate George H.W. Bush.