BLACK ⛧Jan 4, 2020·1 reply
FlowerImagine still being in Iraq after 2003
Imagine being in America in 2020
- Jan 4, 2020·1 reply
Aeptia3Isn't attacking an embassy and bombing a military base also illegal? What's the supposed consequence for either of these actions?
You're ignoring the fact that he US is an occupying force in the middle East.
- Jan 4, 2020·1 replyVersetti
You're ignoring the fact that he US is an occupying force in the middle East.
I'm purposely not addressing this element because if I use that line of reasoning, I'd have to mention that no country deserves to exist either. That would be pointless during this conversation.
Reason being that all nations are a result of conquest, no two ways about it. To complain about the occupation of a place by foreign forces, you have to willfully ignore the fact that this exact situation resulted in the nations we accept in current day. Everything we recognise as contemporary is the direct result of wars.
Jan 4, 2020Aeptia3I was referring to the militia, who have been linked to Iran. I don't even know how they've been linked myself, I'm quoting several news outlets that claim there is one.
Proxies.
We have proxies too, matter of fact Ukraine and it's militia is our proxy against Russiacbut Russia wouldn't attack us directly.
No sane or smart leader does that.Yes a contractor was killed and our embassy attacked but we probably had countless proxies with direct ties to the U.S. claim lives directly.
Yet those nations have yet to declare war or attack directly.
What Trump did beyond stupid, funny thing is my company's stock skyrocketed 3% in one day because of this. I work at Huntington Ingalls Industries.
Jan 4, 2020·1 replyAeptia3Isn't attacking an embassy and bombing a military base also illegal? What's the supposed consequence for either of these actions?
the iranian commander was only suspected to have played a part in the embassy protests.
those protesters were mostly iraqis btw and it makes complete sense to do so.
Pentagon’s press release wasn’t even that they killed him because of the embassy but because they suspected he was going to kill americans which sounds like bullshit
- Jan 4, 2020·1 replyKELYE
the iranian commander was only suspected to have played a part in the embassy protests.
those protesters were mostly iraqis btw and it makes complete sense to do so.
Pentagon’s press release wasn’t even that they killed him because of the embassy but because they suspected he was going to kill americans which sounds like bullshit
Wasn’t it also mentioned that the Iranian commander was making his way to meet with the militia before he was killed. I need to find a source for that, but that’s what I saw when I looked into it.
- Jan 4, 2020BLACK
Imagine being in America in 2020
- Jan 4, 2020Aeptia3
Wasn’t it also mentioned that the Iranian commander was making his way to meet with the militia before he was killed. I need to find a source for that, but that’s what I saw when I looked into it.
still doesn’t mean he should be bombed my guy
like i said, the US doesn’t site the embassy protests as a cause for the bombing.
Jan 4, 2020"Yeah, our President just did something stupid so y'all need to dip"
Scratchin Mamba ⚒️Jan 4, 2020·1 replyAeptia3I'm purposely not addressing this element because if I use that line of reasoning, I'd have to mention that no country deserves to exist either. That would be pointless during this conversation.
Reason being that all nations are a result of conquest, no two ways about it. To complain about the occupation of a place by foreign forces, you have to willfully ignore the fact that this exact situation resulted in the nations we accept in current day. Everything we recognise as contemporary is the direct result of wars.
This is such s***ty logic lol.
- Jan 4, 2020·1 replyScratchin Mamba
This is such s***ty logic lol.
Is it? What gives a person the moral right to take charge of a nation through conquest and then create laws that make subsequent conquests illegal? Is that not hypocrisy?
- Scratchin Mamba ⚒️Jan 4, 2020Aeptia3
Is it? What gives a person the moral right to take charge of a nation through conquest and then create laws that make subsequent conquests illegal? Is that not hypocrisy?
