8 January 2020


British ministers have put on the public record that they would have preferred  to have had warning  of the Assassination, in view of the dangers posed to our own service personel in the area.

Rumour has it that Trump did warn Israel and the Saudis of what was coming.

Pro-American politicians seem mostly to have adopted a policy of saying what a better place the world is without that Persian general, but to be delicately tiptoing round questions involving the legality of the killing.


ccc said...

I am not a supporter of this killing, though I believe its easily legally justifiable under the Laws of Land Warfare.

An ununiformed combatant planning attacks in a third party country against forces legally there under a SOFA? Yeah. They could have pulled him over, interrogated him and then executed him as a spy.

MaryP said...

He was a terrorist warrior in a war zone, and one who maimed thousands of Americans.

John Patrick said...

That would assume that the British Government could be trusted with the information. Given that British intelligence was involved in the failed attempt to bring down Trump via the "Russian Collusion" hoax, one may not be surprised if Trump is wary of trusting them.

I wonder at what point (if ever) it becomes OK to assassinate someone. For example if the allies had had a chance to assassinate Hitler in 1940 would that have been all right given that much bloodshed might have been averted? I realize that the end does not justify the means.

Tom Broughton said...

Ok, come on, Father! Give me a break. The Irianian general was not in Baghdad changing planes to go to Paris. He was directing the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad. Two days of attacks.

We all know that Iran has a revolutionary government based on Islam. They have been a problem for the USA since the Carter administration in the late 70s. The history of it is pretty interesting. Iran hates Israel, has sworn to kill all the Jews it can, doesn't like the United States of its supporting Israel and basically being infidels.

So in the Iraq war after 9/11, the Iranians supported a lot of anti American actions and the Quds Force led by General Soleimani was at the forefront of that. After Iraq was pacified, if you want to use that word, the Iranians continued to dominate the Shia forces within Iraq and caused trouble. In recent months, they've shot down an American drone. They have attacked a Saudi oil field and they have killed, assassinated a U.S. contractor inside Iraq. President Trump had threatened to hit them with military strikes months ago and did not do it, saying he didn't want a lot of civilian casualties. But then after the two attacks on the American embassy in Baghdad and after the U.S. Intel isolated general Soleimani on Iraqi soil, the drone hit him and he is dead.

Now, got to be careful here, if you're the USA, Iranians have a lot of assets that are dangerous and can cause destruction everywhere in the Middle East and beyond. The unintended consequences of an action like that are vast, so that the American government obviously has to be careful. We don't fear Iran militarily, but they can cause a whole lot of trouble.

Now, once President Trump made the decision, those who hate President Trump disagreed with it almost immediately and it just goes down the line. You know, Nancy Pelosi, Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, the usual suspects. Oh this is terrible, terrible, terrible, but I don't see a coherent policy toward Iran from any of them. Then, of course, the hate-Trump media launches what they launch.

But I do agree that he should follow along the footsteps of Teddy Roosevelt and "speak softly, but carry a big stick."

Aqua said...

He was the “general” of terror, targeting Western civilization in general and Christians in specific. His rank means little or nothing to me. He was killed plotting more American deaths and media-centric terror attacks against our sovereign property and armies with his buds in Iraq. He was constrained by the U.S. and U.N. to remain in Iran. He killed and tortured Iranian civilians and was likely the genesis of all war crimes in that violent region. It was a just and righteous killing.

He is an evil man, now enjoying his just rewards (whatever Jesus Christ our sovereign Lord deems those to be).

We should never forget Lepanto, (for example), the battle won that replaced Islam with Christendom as the civilizational force for the past 500 years. It’s not always pretty, combat, but fighting in defense of good over evil is necessary for Catholic men.

Aqua said...

This woman’s talk on the reality of Soleimani and the evil regime he represented is powerful; helpful as a reminder what Soleimani did and what he represented. He was unspeakably evil; product of an equally evil regime. Her name is Erica, an Iranian activist who grew up inside this evil murderous regime, so she knows.


God help the Iranian people to overthrow their oppressors and regain their freedom; to live again without fear of torture and death. May her tribe increase. May Soleimani’s decrease.

Banshee said...

Apparently Iran has never rescinded their war declaration against the US, from 1979. Not at any time, including after President Obama's deal. It has been so long that I had forgotten.

So Iran says they mean to kill our military folks; and therefore we can kill their military folks whenever we want to, as long as they are not in a neutral country.

Dad29 said...

delicately tiptoing round questions involving the legality of the killing.

Yes, well, Brit ministers are ignorant of US law.

Under an act of 2001, the President is allowed to annihilate terrorists and their facilitators who were directly or indirectly involved in the 9/11 attack which did NOT happen in England, as you recall.

So happens the (now-technicolor smear on a runway) Iranian terrorist did, in fact, "facilitate" the appearance of the 9/11 conspirators in the US, by moving them through Afghanistan.

Perhaps the Brit diplomats (or the UN's) do not approve. US law does approve.

Hope that helps you understand.

John H. Graney said...

The increase in presidential power has come about in large part because Congress is founded upon liberal legalism and liberal faith in deliberation and simply does not function. While this increase in power has absolutely been arbitrary and excessive, and has often (but not always) been badly used, people questioning the legality of the presidency's actions have to recognize this fact.

Fr John Hunwicke said...

I'm concluding this thread now, with the observation that the Ayatollahs have been a bit more prompt about 'fessing up' to this nasty mishap about the airliner than the US of A was in 1988 when some Yankie captain shot down an airliner in the Gulf.

My recollectiom is that they gave him a medal ... I bet the Ayatollahs won't give any medals to the unfortunates who've handed them this problem They're just mot civilised, are they ... no idea of good manners ... no realisation of the need to soft-talk 'vets'...