The reason it won't go away is that we won't pull out of the Mideast. And we keep murdering civilians, and in pretty much every way imaginable we keep stirring the hornet's nest. The world would be a better and safer place today if we had never destroyed Iraq and Libya under false pretenses, and attempted the same with Syria. US military engagement in the Mideast has only made things much worse for everyone. So we should stop doing that.
That's not what happened. Clinton
did try to kill bin Laden with
Operation Infinite Reach. This was justified because we had proof that bin Laden had conducted specific terrorist attacks against us, resulting in a slew of American fatalities. But our intelligence was bad and he wasn't at the al Qaeda training camp when the Tomahawk cruise missiles struck their targets.
It's already had the opposite effect - radical Islamic groups are being flooded with new recruits right now. Soleimani wanted to be martyred. And we just gave him exactly what what he wanted - which is all we ever seem to do frankly.
Really - who's telling you that? The truth is that the US has been routinely operating in an extrajudicial military manner for decades (further bolstering the view of our geopolitical adversaries that we're a gigantic terrorist state running amok all over the world, spreading death and destruction wherever we tread), and the only people who don't see it that way are warmongering US politicians and their corporate news media lackeys who are always pro-war:
"But the United Nations official in charge of examining targeted killings, Agnes Callamard, questioned the operation in a series of tweets, noting that the U.S. did not detail any specific plot involving Soleimani. Under international human rights law, she noted, a country may kill in self-defense only under extremely narrow circumstances in which the lethal strike was the only option to prevent the imminent attack. She also argued that the deaths of those killed as collateral damage, including drivers and security guards, were unlawful.
Iraq's public objection to the strike in Baghdad also means it violates international law, other scholars argue.
'We have carried out the attack on the territory of a state that plainly did not give us permission,' said Mary Ellen O'Connell, a law professor and an expert on international disputes at the University of Notre Dame. 'The attack was unlawful, the assassination was not justifiable.'"
Was it legal for the U.S. to kill Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani?
Compare Iran's track record with ours. How many nations has Iran invaded and destroyed? None. Last I checked we were bombing seven countries...and we rarely hear a whisper about it on our state media televisions. Iran isn't a threat to the US and it never has been. Well, maybe that will change now that we've assassinated their most revered General - a man who just helped defeat the Islamic State in Syria btw.
All of our troops and advisors and CIA spooks should come home right now. Everything we do, and everything we've ever done over there has only made things worse, and escalated the dangers to Americans everywhere. While leaving mountains of innocent corpses in our wake btw.
First - you're not looking at this geopolitically: the Iran/Syria/Russia alliance is very real and very significant here. This attack was a short-cut to WWIII.
Second - if you rely upon the US state/corporate news media, then you have no idea why attacks against US bases and personnel have been increasing. The US and Saudi Arabia have been covertly supporting terrorists all across that region because they've been our mercenary army to attempt an overthrow of Assad (which is another internationally illegal war crime that we've been perusing for years). We trained al Nusra terrorists to stage chemical weapons attacks in Syria in order to garner public support for a full-scale US invasion, and all three times they did it the US news media immediately blamed Assad, and all three times subsequent chemical analysis proved that it was the US-sponsored terrorists in Syria who had done it, not the Syrian military. In fact the last "chemical weapons attack by Assad against his own people" (as the US fake news media breathlessly and falsely reported it) wasn't even sarin gas - it was ordinary chlorine:
How does overthrowing stable governments half a world away, and thereby rapidly inflating the anti-American terrorist networks all across the US, "protecting our own?" It doesn't. It increases the danger to all Americans, and undermines global stability on multiple fronts, which will eventually spiral out of control and result in a nuclear holocaust.
Actually the entire US news media always supports all mass murder operations and killing, regardless of who does it. Even now they're saying that the assassination was a good thing, but the way Trump did it was bad. But they're not against the strike itself; they never are.