Originally Posted by
Name User
As far as attacking our embassy goes, that would be an issue internally in the country it happened in IMO. If the embassy can't be protected, it shouldn't be there.
And your opinion doesn't mean jack as far as foreign policy and embassies are concerned.
Originally Posted by
rickair7777
Their general was operating in a third country conspiring to kill Americans with no declared war, ie state-sponsored terror. That particular general has been murdering Americans in an undeclared war since at least 2008 (unfortunately somebody set a bad precedent and let him get away with it). He has even killed on US soil, but was smart enough to stick to Iranian refugee/agitators. Although he *almost* succeeded in bombing a power-lunch restaurant in DC a few years ago. He was targeting a Saudi but would have also killed, wounded, or endangered some DC elites, potentially members of congress or senior executives depending on who was having lunch that day.
100% wrong. Embassies are sovereign territory. It's a fine distinction but a very important one. It's what got them in trouble in the first place.
Reread these parts again if you have questions or confusion.