woah, woah, woah.

listen.

maybe this guy soleimani was the guy that technically ordered the death of some personnel that are carrying forward with the continuing occupation of iraq; i'm actually not willing to place a moral value on an act of that nature, but i'm willing to acknowledge that it is probably true that he signed the papers.

but, you're not stupid enough to think that killing the leader of an organization does anything to undermine it, are you?

if they haven't already named a new commander, they'll do so shortly, and that new commander will carry on in the same role as the previous one.

so, nothing has been accomplished here, whether this is a bad guy or not. pointing to his crimes is really just a red herring - what he has done or not done has no logical effect on whether the decision to kill him was worthwhile or not, and you'd only think it does if you think in terms of retribution, that is if you're a part of trump's base of religious conservatives.

so, i'm not even interested in answering the question - and posing it, in context, is logically fallacious. it doesn't matter if he was a bad guy or not; even if he was the worst guy ever, it still does nothing to advance america's self interests in the region, and was still a dumb move.

if you want to take this organization out, you'll need to start a serious war. but, because this was wagging the dog, and the justifications are just sheer propaganda, that's not actually going to happen.