Cooky
Veteran Member
Of course it's Trumps fault. Everything is Trump's fault.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Flight 752 -- the cost not paid by America
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
Of course it's Trumps fault. Everything is Trump's fault.
If I recall, President Harry S. Truman had a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that said, "The buck stops here."
And Trump made the call to assassinate, in spite of vigorous opposition from his own officials.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Well, some high ranking officials had to have made the president aware of the assasination option. Unless you think Trump orchestrated this whole thing on his own, against the will of everyone else, while simultaneously tending to all his other obligations.
stvdv
Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I explained similar like below. It's not about Trump being bad. I believe he is a puppet anyway for the few billionaires he works for.
Cooky
Veteran Member
Violence begetting violence as a natural law..? That seems almost religious, or perhaps scientific.
That would be good reason to avoid it if possible.
And you brought up religion....is does figure into
the hatred.
Yes, that does happen, but the cases I recall were where they're either in international airspace or close to another country's airspace, such as with KAL 007. They were close to or inside Soviet airspace, although I don't recall all the exact details. It wasn't a scheduled flight within the Soviet Union.
Then there was that Iranian airliner shot down over the Persian Gulf by the US military, but that was also in international airspace in an area where tensions were high (just as they are now).
In this case, it was a scheduled, authorized flight originating within their own country.
As a hypothetical counter-example, one can say that tensions were raised within the US after 9/11. But in the days that followed, the US military didn't shoot down any commercial airliners over US territory, nor would there have been any valid excuse if they had done so.
There are a few crucial differences though.
The USA wasn't surrounded by a hostile army, the biggest on the planet.
The Iranians hadn't just taken out top US government officials with a clandestine missile attack.
The USA grounded all flights everywhere in the USA(except the military and private aircraft whisking Saudi nationals to safety).
Who knows what might have happened if a private pilot had taken off anywhere within a 100 miles of Washington DC during those first few days or weeks.
Tom
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Please cite the President Trump-appointed officials who were opposed to the killing of terrorist Quds force leader Soleimani; any white house staff member who were to have opposed President Trump's decision to have the U.S. military take down Soleimani, should be fired by Trump.
Before I go to any effort trying to cite the difficult (internal conversations are not generally published for all to see), tell me this. Is it wrong for a staff member to disagree with the boss? Is the boss always right -- even when he's wrong?
I've had many employees over my life-time, some of whom have saved me from making some pretty bad errors -- because they had the courage to speak out against authority. Is that something that you disagree with?
Yes, there are plenty of differences, although both were instances of rising tensions due to an act of hostility.
Then maybe the Iranians should have grounded all flights in their airspace.
I don't recall how long US flights were grounded after 9/11, although I think they've since implemented better controls in monitoring air traffic.
I think there have been cases of private pilots flying in restricted airspace. As to what happens, I would hope they would try to identify who it is, try to communicate. I would hope they wouldn't shoot first and ask questions later.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Please let's agree President Trump should get credit for opening an off-ramp towards a deescalation of conflict with Iran whose face saving military strike on bases housing U.S. troops in Iraqi caused no causalities due to Commander-in-Chief Trump's decision to have U.S. troops well-dispersed and sheltered in Iraqi with the anticipation of Iran's retaliatory attack on bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq. If any U.S. executive branch official were to have disagreed with President Trump's Nobel Peace Prize worthy decision to have Soleimani killed by a U.S. military drone, which then led to the off-ramp towards a deescalation of conflict between the U.S. and Iran,, should resign or loose their jobs for having disagreed with President Trump's decision leading towards a deescalation of armed military conflict between the U.S. and Iran.
Gotta admire anybody who can claim that the killing of a human being merits a Nobel Peace Prize.
One defending his country against the most violent enemy on the planet.Gotta admire anybody who can claim that the killing of a human being merits a Nobel Peace Prize.
Tom
Then you, too, are going to defend killing as a peaceful act? Then why would any of us bother with debate, argument, reason, diplomacy? Why not just off those who disagree with you, in the name "making everybody get along?"
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Gotta admire anybody who can claim that the killing of a human being merits a Nobel Peace Prize.
Please allow me to respectfully disagree with the notion of somebody absolutely not being worthy of a Noble Peace Prize for having one person killed in order to save countless lives.
Um...
Wut?
I was referring to Soulemani defending Iran against USA.
Iran is hardly the most violent enemy on the planet.
Tom
One could easily make the same argument for assassinating a large number of Americans.
Including Trump.
Tom
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
I didn't say that nor imply that, so please do not put thoughts and words into my post that simply ain't there.
Both Bush (junior) and Obama had a chance to kill the general but declined because they knew that this would lead to more deaths on both sides. Now, don't get me wrong, I have not shed one tear over the generals death, but now we see what else this has led to, some of which was really quite predictable.
To put it another way, it really wasn't even in our own self-interest to kill him, especially since the Iranian leaders had become increasingly unpopular within their own country. Just because we may be able to do something doesn't mean that we should do it. Consequences need to carefully be considered. I also felt that Obama's killing of O b-L was too fraught with possible negative repercussions.
BTW, in reality, do we really need to have such a presence in the M.E.? Not imo.
Last edited:
Negotiated peace, with room for some measure of win for all parties, can last a long time. Killing might have short-term benefits, but they pretty much always evaporate quickly, as the "wronged" party seeks revenge.