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.
Yes, But these strikes should only be carried out after undeniable evidence has been provided
I think we have to be careful about killing foreign dignitaries and these operations should be done jointly between allies of other countries for enemies deemed a threat to society like Hitler was to the surrounding countries and abroad. But the short answer is "Yes."
No, he should have been tried on a Global level and imprisoned for his crimes.
No extrajudicial assassinations
No, the US needs to stay out of the Middle East and let them figure out their own things.
I think if Obama had done this it wouldn’t even be a question. And Yes
only if he has been prooven to attack or provide means for such against the u.s.
No, this could start another war in the Middle East and It wasn't approved by the U.S. Congress
He deserved to be brought to justice, but killing him, especially in the way they did, isn't a smart choice. We should try to stay as far away from playing in the middle east as we can
Yes because they were planing to attack and no because they didn't attack yet
I am indifferent about this situation.
No, the attack could cause a new war in Middle East and the attack was not approves bu the U.S. Congress
If anyone on the planet is looking to hurt the American people then yes
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.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
