|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 13, 2020 22:18:58 GMT
I don't remember about the previous Presidents, but it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. Going back as far as Carter (and he's damned clean)... I'm pretty sure we can only absolutely rule out GHW Bush as being clean... and GHW was ex-CIA.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jan 14, 2020 1:10:38 GMT
Now Trump is saying it doesn't matter about the justification, the dude's past warranted his killing. Standard Trump playbook.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 14, 2020 1:59:41 GMT
Obama engaged in hundreds of targeted killings, including dozens of innocents murdered. Where were you then? I don't remember you screaming war crimes about it. The man was a terrorist. He attacked and murdered hundreds of Americans. Those attacks were all acts of war, as well as terrorism. It's not a war crime to kill a terrorist or a man committing acts of war against our country. And what about the consequences of committing acts of war and terrorism against the U.S.? Why aren't you talking about those? It's because you are so rabidly anti-Trump that you can't see that there could possibly be blame against anyone else. Your hate blinds you. It's more than conceivable that at least the last four Presidents (including Trump) could be tried for war crimes and found guilty. They won't be, but they have all done things that are considered war crimes. I don't remember about the previous Presidents, but it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. What did they do?
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 14, 2020 2:02:03 GMT
Now Trump is saying it doesn't matter about the justification, the dude's past warranted his killing. Standard Trump playbook. He's right, though. The guy's past as a terrorist did warrant death. Trump doesn't become wrong just because he's Trump.
|
|
|
Post by Scarbonac on Jan 14, 2020 17:13:19 GMT
Now Trump is saying it doesn't matter about the justification, the dude's past warranted his killing. Standard Trump playbook. He's right, though. The guy's past as a terrorist did warrant death. Trump doesn't become wrong just because he's Trump. So you're cool with assassinating government officials because they "warant" it? Nothing can possibly go wrong with that, right?
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Jan 14, 2020 17:38:40 GMT
I don't remember about the previous Presidents, but it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. Going back as far as Carter (and he's damned clean)... I'm pretty sure we can only absolutely rule out GHW Bush as being clean... and GHW was ex-CIA. Jimmy Carter:
*Supported Mobutu in Zaire *Officially cut off aid to Guatemala but continued to clandestinely supply the government so they could continue their genocide *Supported Suharto in his genocides *Supported pro-Apartheid interventions in Angola and Namibia *Stirred up the Jihadis in Afghanistan when it started looking too commie *Promoted the El Salvador Junta in their crackdowns against Liberation Theology-led Marxists
Granted, he's been atoning ever since. But his hands are far from clean.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jan 14, 2020 18:42:14 GMT
It's more than conceivable that at least the last four Presidents (including Trump) could be tried for war crimes and found guilty. They won't be, but they have all done things that are considered war crimes. I don't remember about the previous Presidents, but it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibility. What did they do? Let's see, all of the last four Presidents have ordered attacks in other nations without actually appearing to give a flying fuck about "collateral damage", mostly with intel that was pretty flimsy. Mostly using drone strikes for the last three. Bush authorized torture. And before you say it's not torture, remember that we executed Japanese POWs for using the exact same methods.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 14, 2020 19:38:07 GMT
He's right, though. The guy's past as a terrorist did warrant death. Trump doesn't become wrong just because he's Trump. So you're cool with assassinating government officials because they "warant" it? Nothing can possibly go wrong with that, right? There was no assassination. Killing another government official is an assassination if it is politically motivated. Killing a terrorist who attacked us is not a political motivation.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jan 14, 2020 19:42:14 GMT
Let's see, all of the last four Presidents have ordered attacks in other nations without actually appearing to give a flying fuck about "collateral damage", mostly with intel that was pretty flimsy. Mostly using drone strikes for the last three. Bush authorized torture. And before you say it's not torture, remember that we executed Japanese POWs for using the exact same methods. Wrong. They all had a desire to avoid collateral damage. However, collateral damage is inevitable in war operations, which drone strikes are. Inadvertent collateral damage is not a war crime. Nor is going with flimsy evidence. I will agree with you about using torture being a war crime..........if used against a conventional force. Terrorists groups are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. That said, I still consider torture to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 14, 2020 19:48:17 GMT
Going back as far as Carter (and he's damned clean)... I'm pretty sure we can only absolutely rule out GHW Bush as being clean... and GHW was ex-CIA. Jimmy Carter: A whole bunch of "Not War Crimes". The topic was war crimes. If we're just talking 'clean' I officially cease to give a shit as only one President comes close to that, so clearly Trump is a paragon of Presidential behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Jan 14, 2020 20:22:07 GMT
Jimmy Carter: A whole bunch of "Not War Crimes". The topic was war crimes. If we're just talking 'clean' I officially cease to give a shit as only one President comes close to that, so clearly Trump is a paragon of Presidential behavior. I should add aiding Pol Pot, of course.
It's an interesting take that you have - that a president who funds and supports regimes which commit genocide - is not complicit in war crimes.
|
|
|
Post by Libtard on Jan 14, 2020 20:45:29 GMT
It's a crazy world, eh?
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Jan 14, 2020 22:18:31 GMT
It's an interesting take that you have - that a president who funds and supports regimes which commit genocide - is not complicit in war crimes. It's a distinction I'm willing to make. Now, if you want to dish up some receipts showing Carter explicitly funded these war crimes, IE the money was offered contingent on them committing war crimes, then I'll slide Carter onto the "war crimes" list.
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jan 14, 2020 23:01:40 GMT
Let's see, all of the last four Presidents have ordered attacks in other nations without actually appearing to give a flying fuck about "collateral damage", mostly with intel that was pretty flimsy. Mostly using drone strikes for the last three. Bush authorized torture. And before you say it's not torture, remember that we executed Japanese POWs for using the exact same methods. Wrong. They all had a desire to avoid collateral damage. However, collateral damage is inevitable in war operations, which drone strikes are. Inadvertent collateral damage is not a war crime. Nor is going with flimsy evidence. I will agree with you about using torture being a war crime..........if used against a conventional force. Terrorists groups are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. That said, I still consider torture to be wrong. I find it hard to agree with that. Especially when the use of flimsy evidence has caused many strikes on people that weren't what the "evidence" said they were. Trump, Bush, and Obama ALL did this. And the US strikes in Serbia intentionally hit journalists, hospitals, etc. That was Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by Scarbonac on Jan 15, 2020 0:23:12 GMT
There was no assassination. Killing another government official is an assassination if it is politically motivated. Killing a terrorist who attacked us is not a political motivation. You're not even trying,
|
|