Quote Originally Posted by poop
Still waiting to hear the evidence of an imminent threat.
You won't. The words "imminent threat" were carefully chosen to refer to the Bethlehem Doctrine (named after a person, not the place). This is a document that "justifies" extrajudicial state assassinations on the basis of self defence. In this document, the meaning of "imminent threat" is not what normal people who speak English would imagine, in that "imminent" does not mean "soon" or "inevitable". In fact, if there is any evidence that someone might have been planning an attack at any time in the past or the present, then they will use the phrase "imminent threat". It's like playing chess and killing you opponent after one move because he might checkmate you. This document was created by a guy who worked as a legal advisor first for Netanyahu and then for Blair, and it only seems to hold weight with the governments of UK, USA and Israel.

With that said, I'm not sure why people are so fucking outraged by this. Sure its legality is extremely tenuous, but USA have hardly cared about "legality" for decades, and taking out a general seems like a more civilised method of warfare than regime change, enforced by relentless air strikes and drone attacks on civilians and critical infrastructure like airports and hospitals. Or even funding the opposition, no matter how brutal and criminal they are.

I couldn't give a fuck about an Iranian general, especially one allegedly responsible for the killing of many Iranian protesters. The Iranian people are a great culture compared to places like Saudi Arabia, but their leaders, political and military, can go fuck themselves for all I care.