Ha... you're the one that is hollering racism.. I'm just stating the obvious.. "Intelligent minorities" LOL!!! So now we're classified!!! Oh man very very very subtle... T_Man
So by your thinking it's only okay when it's done on American soil and just against American citizens just a question.
I think at this point, dangling US assets and troops in a war torn region we destabilized for 17 years and being shocked and chagrined that the local regional superpower makes attempts to push you out is equivalent to tying up a soldier on train tracks for weeks and being shocked and chagrined a train eventually ran over the soldier. It's as if we are there to bait more proxy ward because it's good for business... Defense contractor business. Also we are down this downward spiral because of Trump. https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/2020/01/03/us-iran-conflict-since-nuclear-deal/2803223001/
So we're supposed to behave just like all perceived enemies? Mimicry as policy? Also, just a question. And I haven't seen Iran go after american cultural sites (like Branson, Missouri, or a NASCAR event).
Glove off, attacking cultural, religious, civilian sites and not just military targets have huge costs. Just questions: A basic question is are we targetting specific military targets or are we targeting a culture? A religion? You want to engage the government or a whole population? Not considering the basic moral and legal argument, how is angering a culture or religious group(s) within a nation helpful? You not only anger the local population and strengthen their resolve, you will alienate every military and diplomatic relationship that you may have, and potentially causing other Muslim majority nation to come to Iran defense. Furthermore, if the US is willing to engage this way, are we not terrorists? And as terrorist, aren't we subjected to military actions from nations fighting terrorism?
Again it's okay to anger Americans and attack American sites. The current president and his base will call for blood and won't care about international law or U.S laws when it comes to engaging targets.
I don’t think anyone claim it’s okay to attack cultural, religious or civilian sites. It’s part of the reason why the war on terrorism is an international collaborate effort. You actually are the only one here that is making an argument that it’s okay. I’m not sure why - what do you see as the benefits? I have already listed a number of costs.
Threatening can be a crime though. Not saying if the law applies to what the tweet is referring to but threatening can be a crime.
In the abstract the average American is against war w. Iran, but history has shown that all you need to turn it around quickly is a pretext given credibility by the media to rally around the flag. Gulf of Tonkin for Vietnam War, the weapons of mass destruction lie in 2003? etc. Just recently I watched as support for massive bombing of Syria which would have increased our involvement there was turned around very quickly. Fortunately Obama in one of his better moments resisted that call for war, by the same neo-cons and their allies the Suadis, the Emiratis and the Israelis to provoke war w, Iran. BTW anybody see Pelosi causally admitting on national TV that as a member of the House intelligence CMTE she saw the raw intelligence and new Cheny and Bush were deceiving about wmd's.
He also said he was not volunteering because his Rice U degree and his desk job in the energy sector made him too valuable to risk his ass. lol a true Chickenhawk. I doub t he even had the balls to put a yellow ribbon on his car.
