Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Khamenei Dead

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 95 posts

Re: Khamenei Dead

#81

Post by antonvs »

SllX wrote: post #50
lukan wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, by one lone shooter without support in the background. If there is a determined team of assassins .. all it takes is one well placed shot.

Again, the Secret Service is there to protect against all threats and the US Military there for every single other threat above the Secret Service’s pay grade and scale. It’s the most dangerous and most protected job in America no matter what the POTUS is actively doing at any and every single moment.

> Again, the Secret Service is there to protect against all threats

They didn't do a great job in the Pennsylvania case - they screwed up in some obvious ways and got lucky, essentially.

Re: Khamenei Dead

#82

Post by goalieca »

mullingitover wrote: post #74
goalieca wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re out to lunch on what the Iranian government has been doing. They’ve armed Islamic groups all over the Middle East, they armed the Houthis who have been shooting at civilian ships transiting through the straight of Hormuz, they’ve supplied Russia with the drones and arms for the Ukraine invasion, .. and the list goes on and on.

Yes, this is all true, but totally irrelevant to the question I was addressing. Iran's system of government doesn't really directly relate to their geopolitical strategy. You can have the most awesome democratic system at home and commit absolutely evil atrocities abroad. Just ask Kissinger (or maybe Khamenei can ask him now?).

I was responding to your criticism of the American right wing only caring about religion. I’m not even American and i don’t follow the news and I’ve come across enough valid complaints about the regime that any one of any party would agree with.

Re: Khamenei Dead

#83

Post by nullocator »

tokyobreakfast wrote: post #21
helaoban wrote: post #8

So now heads of state are fair game for unilateral elimination without a declaration of war This should be fun.

Generally when you murder 30k of your own people the civilized world doesn't let you get away with it.

How many children have dead from the wholesale and unlawful destruction of USAID? How many children in Gaza have died from the unlawful genocide?

The two countries bringing this attack have done as much or more evil than Iran, roughly as recently.

Re: Khamenei Dead

#84

Post by lukan »

lukan wrote: post #56
Shank wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has happened for thousands of years.

Yes, but I am currently not aware of any pre WW2 events.

Typo (not "pre"-> "after"). I am not aware of any case where a nation state openly assasinated the leader of another state in the more recent human affairs till WW2. I know of the attempts towards Castro, but apart from that?

Re: Khamenei Dead

#85

Post by spwa4 »

DivingForGold wrote: post #51
0l wrote: post #3

Better source: https://www.reuters.com/world/iran-crisis-live-explosions-te...

Aren't these Iranians the same folks that declare religious wars or Jihad's ? I would not be surprised if we see increased terrorism against Americans worldwide for the next 100 years . . .

Do you really want an answer to that? In islamic theology, religious war is a constant state that lasts until everyone is subjugated (muslims and non-muslims, everyone), at which point the islamic messiah will come, the dead will rise, a last war will break out, and the world ends.

Until then, it's constant war (insofar that jihad means war. But that's not entirely true. Think of it more like "subjugating everyone by any means. Violence if necessary, but preferably just subjugation")

So no, jihad is not started or stopped. Specific missions are declared (like killing British authors for pointing out obvious contradictions in the quran, like allah having 3 man- and child-killing daughters)

Re: Khamenei Dead

#86

Post by erxam »

CrzyLngPwd wrote: post #46

It's such an off timeline, where Israel can commit de facto genocide and there is no nato bombing like there was in Yugoslavia, and the USA, defenders of Ukraine's sovereignty, kidnap a state's leader and try to murder another state's leader, neither of which were a threat to the USA. The board of peace means nothing, the USA cannot be trusted since it is a lapdog of Israel (did Epstein have something on somebody), a…

[flagged]

Re: Khamenei Dead

#87

Post by dragonwriter »

beloch wrote: post #48
helaoban wrote: post #8

So now heads of state are fair game for unilateral elimination without a declaration of war This should be fun.

The U.S. hasn't declared war since WWII. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (I and II), Afghanistan, etc. were not technically wars in the sense that there was any form of formal declaration by congress. The U.S. constitution allocates the authority to declare war to congress but, in practice, it's been under the sole authority of the POTUS since long before Trump. This reallocation of authority hasn't been a huge problem until no…

> Korea, Vietnam, Iraq (I and II), Afghanistan, etc. were not technically wars in the sense that there was any form of formal declaration by congress.

(1) A declaration of war is not necessary for a war to legally exist, except in the context of specific US laws that might rely on a declared state of war,

(2) Congress constitutional power to declare war is not dependent on the use of special words; every (conditional or unconditional) “authorization for the use of military force” (including the broad but time limited authorization in the War Powers Act) and similar is an application of the Constitutional power to declare war.

Re: Khamenei Dead

#88

Post by SllX »

antonvs wrote: post #81
SllX wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the Secret Service is there to protect against all threats and the US Military there for every single other threat above the Secret Service’s pay grade and scale. It’s the most dangerous and most protected job in America no matter what the POTUS is actively doing at any and every single moment.

> Again, the Secret Service is there to protect against all threats They didn't do a great job in the Pennsylvania case - they screwed up in some obvious ways and got lucky, essentially.

I think y’all are so quick to try and criticize everything around the President that you’re kinda missing my point:

Of course there are people that would love to target the POTUS. The Secret Service detail exists for a reason. That reason being that yeah, it’s an unsafe job, and having them there is how we prevent a foreign adversary from just walking right into the White House and doing what we did to Maduro.

Re: Khamenei Dead

#89

Post by cindyllm »

SllX wrote: post #88
antonvs wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, the Secret Service is there to protect against all threats They didn't do a great job in the Pennsylvania case - they screwed up in some obvious ways and got lucky, essentially.

I think y’all are so quick to try and criticize everything around the President that you’re kinda missing my point: Of course there are people that would love to target the POTUS. The Secret Service detail exists for a reason. That reason being that yeah, it’s an unsafe job, and having them there is how we prevent a foreign adversary from just walking right into the White House and doing what we did to Maduro.

[dead]

Re: Khamenei Dead

#90

Post by JshWright »

technate4eva wrote: post #37
JshWright wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no benefit, and significant risk, in lying about that (it's an easily disproven claim if they're lying). I don't trust them because I like them. I trust them because being truthful is in their best interest (and I trust they will always act in their own interest).

It is not in their best interest, since it's obvious that for at least a decade, blatantly lying and even being caught lying has no impact on their so-called credibility. Lying about this does improve morale among troops and citizens, and gives them some form of early justification. So no. They do benefit from lying about this.

They why haven't they done that in any previous round of attacks? The risk of loosing credibility and giving Iran the opportunity for a propaganda win significantly outweighs any benefit to lying about this.
Post reply on HN