On January 2, 2020 Major General Qassem Soleimani, leader of the foreign wing of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes were killed in Iraq when the convoy they were traveling in was struck on a road near Baghdad International Airport. U.S. President Donald Trump announced he ordered the attack after U.S. intelligence agencies learned that that General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq. Iran’s foreign minister called the attack and act of terrorism and Ayatollah Khamenei promised “harsh revenge.” NATO offered support for the U.S. and stated that NATO member countries had been alarmed about Iran’s support for ISIS and its activities in the Middle East.
I do not have enough information to form an opinion on this topic.
I trust the judgements of our military officials. All of these decisions should be made by them.
No, any attack on a suspected terrorist should be focused on capturing not killing.
No, I think it should have been approved by Congress and done as a LAST resort
yes only because the military had proof and a huge reason to believe it would be the best thing to keep America safe and more people alive that didn't need to be killed.
He did bad things but no one deserves to be killed. He should have been put in jail.
Not enough knowledge to form opinion
if it needed to be done to protect out nation.
Yes, but it should have been a last resort.
Yes, but congress should approve all military action.
No, assassinations are illegal and Trump should be impeached again.
it was illegal but also needed because he was a terrorist
This greatly oversimplifies the complexities of conflict in the Middle East. This attack greatly inflamed existing tensions, while the effectiveness of the action beyond a show of force is in question.
Yes, though not the methodology. The drone strike was reckless and could have started an unnecessary war.
The US should use its power to capture and subdue the perpetrator unless there was irrefutable evidence AND there are no other ways to stop the upcoming attack
No, they should have been captured and tried through legal channels
Do not know enough information to make judgements.
I do not support killing but the world is better off without him.
Uneducated on this topic
No, it should be the policy of the US and all other developed nations to refrain from targeting other countries' leadership when not at war.
Yes, but I wish we hadn't done it.
Yes, but only if it was legal, evidence-supported, and won't start a war.
I do not have a stance on that action.
i dont have enough knowledge on this to decide
not informed enough about the incident
No. It could have impulsively started an unnecessary war with Iran and was arguably illegal under international law.
Yes, although it is regrettable that other methods of recourse were not considered
No, abolish the military
I would prefer capture and trial in military court if there were crimes being committed against our country.
Both, I've never heard of this man but violence is never an answer
yes we seem to have successfully worked with Middle East countries to remove a violent terrorist without creating another Iraq/Libya situation
Only if there was no other way
Yes, but not at the expense of starting a war with Iran
If Soleimani absolutely, positively had to die, should have used more covert, deniable means. But otherwise, killing him carried unnecessary risk of escalating things to war
If he's killing and hurting Americans YES
Neither side was in the right. The president shouldn't have acted without Congress, but going to war is not the answer either.
Yes, but it was very badly executed
In theory yes, he was a threat to national security. But, it wasn't approved by Congress, so in practice no.
Don't have enough info for an informed opinion
Yes, it was an act of "national self defense."
Yes, but the president should have gotten approval first
I've no earthly idea.
Further investigation should take place and action should be approved by international agreements.
Do not feel informed enough to make a decision.
No, this strike could start a war in the Middle East, and whilst it's not illegal to not get congressional approval I feel like it still should've at least been mentioned to congress (even better would be letting them approve it).
Soleimani was a terrorist but I wish the US would have been more careful
If he truly was planning attacks on US agencies and diplomats then I support the killing of the Major. However due to propaganda and misinformation and the dehumanizing and pigeon-holing of any Muslim at this time I find it hard to believe information given to me that supports the presidents decisions just because I'm told that it's true.
Nothing should justify killing another human being. It is not our job to kill others.
We're better off with him dead but the proper channels should have been followed prior to carrying out the strike.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
