once the fever does its work.

We the people are the problem, a severely flawed species

It's virtually unprecedented for the US to assassinate a foreign government official. When Yamamoto's plane was targeted we were at war with Japan.

Other killings have been of non-state actors: Al Bagdhadi, Bin Laden.

We didn't even kill Saddam Hussein!

What if other countries start using drones to assassinate "bad" foreign officials on diplomatic missions abroad? I'll bet a lot of Americans would be on somebody's hit list.

....the world is better.

Ayatollah Khamenei?
MBS?

I don't know who MBS is.

Suleimani was under Khamenei, so yes, he's killed "100s of Americans", via proxies.

MBS is Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, the de-facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. He ordered the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, a US resident.

Just want to know where you draw the line at assassinating officials of foreign governments. Does it have to >100 killed? Do they need to be Americans?

Suleimani is a know killer...EVERY one of our candidates say so...they all say he had American blood on his hands.

Dead evil bastard....NORK leader, Khamenei, Salman.....not 100's of deaths of Americans on their hands ....right?

Suleimani wasn't "under"....anyone....he was a free reign terrorist....

Ayatollah Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of Iran - Suleimani served under him. Suleimani was an Iranian Government Official. A general in a branch of the ISRG. He was NOT a "free reign terrorist" just because 'Merica doesn't like the Quds Force.

There is a lot of blood on a lot of hands. By this logic, Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria would be justified in killing Trump, because he's ordered actions that have killed Iraqis, Afghanis and Syrians.

Nations are not supposed to assassinate leaders of other nation's governments. It could lead to something like, IDK, a World War. Just ask Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

The problem is that we DO NOT have a legal right to assassinate foreign leaders. If he had an AK and was actively gunning Americans down at the embassy, then it would be something legally justifiable.

Binary thinking is usually not something that Liberals engage in. Yes our candidates all say he was a bad actor. Yes the world is likely better off without him, but it still does not make assassinating him on a whim, for political reasons, acceptable.

That Embassy that was being "attacked" is American soil.....and NOBODY doubts who was in charge of that shitshow.....Do you?

I read the article from 6 days ago....laughable

but it appears your mind is closed on this topic.

As long as you pull the lever for a Dem in November, believe what you want.

No matter how much you say it. No matter how much you do not want to accept it. He was a ranked military officer in the Iranian Army. Essentially he was the equivalent of the highest ranking commander of our special forces.

Our special forces who go into foreign countries and engage in missions that may be seen as not necessarily legal and against governments who might view us as terrorists too. Right? Or are you one of those people who think that everything that Americans do is legal and valid all the time?

Now, the embassy attack was the result of retaliation against a faction of Hezbollah that rocketed an Iraqi base and killed an American contractor (aka private military or mercenary). The US attacked 2 bases and killed several people. That pissed off Iraqis who support the militias (as you may know the majority of people in Iraq are Shia like the militia members and Suleimani).

The US hit Suleimani AND tried to kill ANOTHER Iranian official so the story continues to unfold.

Again binary or simplistic thinking isn't really our thing. Thinking that the US is always in the correct is also not a good thing, especially when corrupt idiots like Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and others are in charge.

I could give you a very long list of Foreign Government Officials "the planet is way better off without". US government officials, too, for that matter.

Just because Soleimani, Assad, Trump, MDS, Putin, or Kim Jong Un make a subjective decision to murder someone doesn't mean it isn't criminal. Per the Iraqi PM (our ally), Soleimani was on a mission to negotiate a reduction in tensions with SA.

Justify your position with objective arguments, not appeals to emotion.

He won't order more hits on Americans...he can't

As big as he was, his death means little to Iran's strategy. In fact his death has helped advance that strategy. Before, Iraqis were conflicted and there were protests against too much Iranian influence in Iraq. There were massive protests in Iran against the regime. Since the killing, Iraq is booting US troops (which is what the Iranian backed militias wanted). The protests in Iran? Gone. They are unified now against the US killing a state official.

So, okay we took out a bad guy, that was fungible and in its place we have turned the whole region against us.

That sounds like an awesome strategy.

How much do you expect a follow up terrorist to do....I suspect the "successor" is going to be WAY less harmful......the fear of drone hits and all...

If my Dad was a terrorist and I was his heir apparent after a drone hit....I'm out....not a terrorist anymore....women can dress as they want...no more killing gay people, I'm a nice Iranian General

Are we justified in killing his replacement?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

Who killed the 290 passengers on that Iranian plane in 1988? Who overthrew the elected government of Iran and imposed the Shah on the Iranian people. I could go on and on.

My grandmother used to remind us that when we point one finger at someone else, three are staring back at us.
This planet has enough killers to share responsibility and to try and obey basic international laws to prevent more killing.
These days the US pays no attention to international law - ask the Iraqis.

Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (Arabic: محمد بن سلمان بن عبدالعزيز آل سعود?, romanized: Muḥammad bin Salmān bin 'Abd al-'Azīz Āl Sa'ūd; born 31 August 1985), colloquially known as MbS, is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_bin_Salman

bluntly, drones used to kill people is assassination, isn’t it?

We kill a lot of folks using drones. Has the face of conflict changed enough that this is the new standard? We need to define how drones have changed the idea of what constitutes assassination.

Not other government's soldiers or officials.

Or wedding parties. Or children.

This planet is sick.

??

I'm referring to our drone-assassination (or other assassination) program that we've been running in Afghanistan and Iraq for 17 years. The targets are extra-state terrorists like Bin Laden or Al-Baghdadi, not other nation's government officials or soldiers.

Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Trump has crossed a line even Bush the Lesser wouldn't cross.

Never the government always the regime.

Now even relatively civil journalists are becoming more crass in their comments. I cannot recall a time when politicians and journalists casually talked about assassinating a foreign leader, as if it was no big deal.

and numerous attempted assassinations have been going on for a very long time

but people didn't discuss it the way they do now. The word "assassination" would be whispered behind closed doors, if it was uttered at all. Putin assassinates people, we eliminate viable threats.

and yet he has presented way too many ridiculous reasons for the so called urgency.

And the Monroe Doctrine allows the US to interfere in the affairs of every country in the Americas.

International Law never applies to anything that the US Government wants to do.

and yes you're right

It's really like we are living in The Twilight Zone. Sometimes I feel like I am going completely mad.