Tuesday, June 17, 2025

Seen on Facebook

"If you think the assassination of a foreign leader is the way to resolve differences, it’s not hard to understand how his followers might believe it is ok domestically.

Connect.the.dots"
 
This is the FB status of a local pastor friend of mine.   
 
1.   Most problematically, it ignores the vast amount of death and destruction that can be laid at the feet of the Iranian leadership.
 
2.  It ignores the fact that Iran has had multiple opportunities to stop both it's pursuit of nuclear weapons as well as it's support for terrorists.
 
3.  It draws a false equivalence between one of the most evil humans on the planet, and someone who was (by all accounts) a decent human being. 
 
4.  It ignores the fact that Walz has been spouting rhetoric which at least can be interpreted as a call to violence, as well as the recent string of ASPL violent incidents. 
 
5.   It implies that Trump somehow instigated the shootings in MN.
 
6.  It assumes that the shooter was a Trump "follower".  
 
7.  It's not like Biden and P-BO haven't engaged in military action that's killed enemy leaders. 
 
8.   Is this really the kind of rhetoric you want from your pastor? 

18 comments:

  1. 8. Yes.

    Point blank, YES. Period.

    I want my spiritual leaders to take strong stands against criminal murders because, of course, I do. Who doesn't?

    You don't want your pastor or other leaders, friends, fellow citizens to be opposed to criminal murders and our president acting like it's okay?

    ?

    https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great, it's good to know.

      Strangely enough, this same pastor stands in favor of Hamas.

      Strangely enough this pastor didn't "stand against" the "criminal murders" committed by Mangione and the DC killer. I'm all for standing against "criminal murder", I'm not for only "standing against criminal murder" when it aligns with one's political views.

      As the president has not acted "like it's okay" in regard to the recent MN lawmaker murder/shooting, It's sure looks like you've chosen to engage in an intentional lie in this case. Are you suggesting that you want your "spiritual leaders" to choose to lie to advance a political agenda? Or is that just okay for you to lie.

      Delete
  2. "1.   Most problematically, it ignores the vast amount of death and destruction that can be laid at the feet of the Iranian leadership."

    No. No it literally doesn't. I can acknowledge that a deadly leader is an awful murderer AND at the same time, killing his children to punish him.

    Both things can be true at the same time.

    4. Bullshit.

    5. Bullshit.

    6. Remains to be seen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1. Yet, in this case the statement made literally ignores the vast crimes against humanity that can be laid directly at the feet of the Iranian leader. Again, when you choose to lie about things "killing his children" you make yourself look stupid. It should be obvious that it is wrong to kill the innocent children of a vile, oppressive, and murderous national leader. Yet do his children not benefit significantly from his actions? Are "his children" actively involved in the vile, oppressive, murderous actions of his regime?

      Your simplistic moral performance leaves much to be desired.

      4. We literally have audio and video of Walz engaging in this sort of harmful, violent rhetoric. (Well it would be harmful and violent if anyone not ASPL said what Walz said).

      5. Well, what was said clearly implies that Trump instigated the shooter. But whatever.

      6. Given that it "remains to be seen" then you obviously agree that making that assumption was wrong and that it should not have been made.

      Delete
    2. FYI, before you start bitching, I've posted multiple examples of Walz using inflammatory rhetoric as well as Walz using the national guard to impose his will on people hanging out on their front porches.

      Delete
    3. Craig...

      "I've posted multiple examples of Walz using inflammatory rhetoric"

      Yeah. I see that this is what you're claiming you've done. Unimpressed.

      Delete
    4. That you're unimpressed with reality isn't my problem. If you accept and excuse Walz rhetoric, that's on you. You do you.

      Delete
  3. If people would just study the history of Israel and all the Muslim countries around Israel, they'd undertake why Israel takes the actions it takes--SELF DEFENSE!

    The claim made by the pastor friend is nothing but horse crap.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is impossible for anyone with even a minimum of common sense to ignore the fact that Iran is intent on eliminating Israel, has spent billions arming proxies toward that end, and is actively trying to develop nuclear weapons. It's fascinating that the same people who blast the US for using nuclear weapons to end the war with Japan don't seem too worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Likewise, they don't seem particularly concerned with Iran's oppressive society, theocracy, and terrorist proxies.

      The horse crap aspect is why I posted it.

      Trump is in a difficult situation around this. Personally, I would support his seconding a B-2 and a few bunker buster bombs to the IDF so as to eliminate the Iranian nuclear capability and some of their military as well. I also am sympathetic to eliminating people as evil as the Iranian leadership as a way to encourage change in Iran. However, I also see the potential downside as well.

      Delete
  4. "Undertake". was supposed to be "understand" and I miss that auto spell didn't say what I wanted to say.

    Anyway, Now China is saying if we get directly involved there will be hell to pay. It seems China has been supplying armaments to Iran.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I kind of figured it out by the context, but share your frustration.

      China is one of Iran's biggest trading partners and buys significant amounts of Iran's oil. Which seems like it might violate an embargo or something.

      When you are the primary defender of one of the most vile, oppressive, evil, and warlike countries on earth that's not a good look.

      Delete
  5. So, breaking laws to murder someone is something you're cool with, just to be clear? And will you support the criminals who actually do this being held accountable?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I guess when you just make shit up, it doesn't really matter what you say.

      When you base your "questions" on false premises, they don't get answered.

      Delete
  6. ??

    By all means, make yourself clear.

    Your vaguely accusatory post made me wonder (given your description of Iran's horrible leaders) if you thought that it was okay to kill/assassinate their leader (which IS a crime)? AND that the Felon would be just in making that call.

    Are you thinking that would be acceptable?

    Help me understand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, when you base "questions" (accusations phrased as questions) on false premises, I simply choose not to indulge your fantasies.

      I have no idea what in the hell you are talking about with your "vaguely accusatory" bullshit.

      Yeah, the Iranian leadership is filled with evil, oppressive, vile, humans who support terrorism and have been financing Hamas and Hezbollah's attempts to eradicate Israel and try to kill innocent Israelis. Yeah, the Iranians who've been trying to get nuclear weapons for years, thanks to P-BO and Biden for funneling billions to Iran.

      Yeah, I am sympathetic to the notion that killing the Iranian leadership in a targeted fashion is preferable to a long, drawn out war. Just like I'm sympathetic to the notion that killing Hitler before he came to power, would have saved millions of people. Further, I've never once suggested that Trump should be the one to make that decision.

      But feel free to indulge in your fantasies and made up shit.

      Delete
  7. "Criminal" murder???? Is there any other kind?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you'd think not...

      Seriously, the question seems to be whether or not killing an enemy combatant as part of or to forestall a wider military action is actually murder.

      Or, whether or not it is justified.

      Delete
  8. It's interesting that Dan is advocating for a regime that is one of the 10 most oppressive regimes in the world at this point. Eliminating the leadership would increase the chances of the Iranian resistance rising up.

    But since it's Israel (who doesn't want to get nuked) and Trump it's automatically a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete