← Back to context

Comment by tejohnso

3 hours ago

There would likely be millions of Americans celebrating the murder of their current president, should that happen. It doesn't mean it's reasonable, right, just, or civilized, nor would it indicate that it was a unanimously supported action.

But in the case of an actual dictator who murdered thousands of protestors it is reasonable, right, just, and civilized.

Shed no tears for the deaths of tyrants. They would happily see you and any other threat to their illegitimate power put six feet under.

Well, there are other things you can look at. For one, Khamenei was dictator of a regime that abducts women and recently murdered 10s of thousands of protesters in the streets. I'd reckon most, including Iranians, would not judge the killing of such an individual immoral, unjust or uncivilized.

They threw the justice and civility when they murdered people on the street. That ship has sailed and the party who's responsible for this escalation is the government.

There aren't millions. Maybe thousands which are completely insane considering Trump didn't kill any US citizen, unlike Haminayi killing 50k of his own people.

Perhaps, but there would be tens/hundreds of millions of people like me who didn't vote for Trump and don't like him, but would be absolutely enraged beyond perhaps anything in this country's history if another country blew up the White House and he was killed.

Exactly. This is just western media trying to project some morality to what was an internationally illegal act ... (and perhaps some in the media hoping against hope this publicity would please the dear, glorious leaders of Israel and the US to end the war).

  • International law being thrown around a lot. Seems like everyone is an int’l law expert, even though it’s quite an exotic speciality.

    So please go ahead and tell me, where does International Law prohibit a state that’s at war with another to assassinate its head of state?

    • Preventive war (attacking to neutralize a future, non-imminent threat) is considered illegal under modern international law. The UN Charter restricts the use of force to UN Security Council authorization or self-defense against an actual, imminent armed attack, making preventive actions, which target potential future dangers, unlawful.

      1 reply →