- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Massie going against Trump again
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:15 pm to RogerTheShrubber
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:15 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
quote:
Go topple a gov building if you're such a freaking patriot.
Id rather vote the fricker out who just put the biggest tax on Americans in 30years and wants to seize the means of production.'
Comrade
JFC... You need to get therapy for your TDS. You have fricking lost it.
0
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:15 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Formally titled the Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001, this joint resolution was passed shortly after the September 11 attacks and authorizes the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against those responsible for the attacks and associated forces.
There is ZERO relation between the Iranians and the 9/11 attacks. The AUMF wouldn't cover an attack on Iran:
CHATGPT:
Short answer: No — the 2001 AUMF tied to 9/11 does not plausibly justify strikes against Iran as a general matter. Only a very narrow, contested theory could be argued, and it is widely criticized and not supported by the text or original understanding of the authorization.
Here’s the legal breakdown.
1. What the 2001 AUMF Actually Authorizes
The 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force authorizes force against:
“those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”
Key limits:
It is actor-based, not geography-based.
It is tied to 9/11 responsibility, not generalized terrorism.
Congress did not authorize force against all future threats or all state sponsors of terrorism.
2. Iran and 9/11: The Critical Fact Problem
Iran did not plan, authorize, commit, or carry out 9/11.
Al-Qaeda is Sunni jihadist; Iran is a Shiite theocracy that has historically opposed al-Qaeda.
The 9/11 Commission found:
Some limited contacts between Iran and al-Qaeda prior to 9/11
No evidence Iran knew of, supported, or approved the 9/11 attacks
No finding that Iran “harbored” al-Qaeda in the sense contemplated by the AUMF
That is legally decisive.
3. The “Associated Forces” Theory — and Why It Fails for Iran
The executive branch later developed the concept of “associated forces” (not found in the AUMF text) to cover groups that are:
Organized
Co-belligerent with al-Qaeda
Actively engaged in hostilities against the U.S.
Even under this expanded theory:
Iran is not an “associated force” of al-Qaeda
Iran does not take direction from al-Qaeda
Iran has fought al-Qaeda affiliates (including ISIS)
Using this theory to justify strikes on a sovereign state like Iran would be a major leap beyond prior precedent.
4. Executive Branch Practice (What Presidents Have Actually Claimed)
Presidents of both parties have been careful not to claim that the 2001 AUMF authorizes war with Iran.
Examples:
The 2020 Soleimani strike was justified under Article II self-defense powers, not the 2001 AUMF.
DOJ and OLC opinions have consistently avoided asserting that the 2001 AUMF covers Iran itself.
That avoidance is telling.
5. Constitutional Implications
Using the 2001 AUMF to strike Iran would:
Effectively convert a narrow, event-specific authorization into a blank check for war
Undermine Congress’s Article I war powers
Stretch statutory interpretation beyond any plausible limiting principle
Many constitutional scholars (including those otherwise deferential to executive war powers) view this as statutorily and constitutionally unsound.
6. What Would Be Required to Strike Iran Lawfully
One of the following would be needed:
A new AUMF specifically authorizing force against Iran, or
A clear, imminent armed attack justifying limited Article II self-defense actions, or
An actual state of war declared by Congress
Absent those, reliance on the 2001 AUMF would be legally weak and politically explosive.
Bottom Line
The 2001 AUMF does not justify strikes against Iran.
Any claim to the contrary would:
Contradict the text of the statute
Conflict with the 9/11 Commission’s findings
Exceed historical executive interpretations
Severely erode Congress’s war-making authority
If you want, I can:
Compare this to arguments made about Iraq (2003) or Syria
Walk through the strongest pro-executive argument and why it still fails
Analyze how courts might treat such a claim if it were ever squarely litigated
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:15 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
"claimed"
Head so deep up your own arse you forgot the Conservative staple of "you cant tax yourself to prosperity."
Good luck, you'll be making excuses for years to come.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:17 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:Suddenly, it’s on trend to trust the IC again. Like I said the other night, it’s too bad we can’t bring Colin Powell back.
Why do you think the barrels have anything to do with fentanyl?
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:19 pm to RogerTheShrubber
This you, bro?
This post was edited on 1/2/26 at 4:26 pm
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:21 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
This you, bor?
Sorry I dont speak ebonics.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:21 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Suddenly, it’s on trend to trust the IC again.
See the heads get twisted over Iran and "globalism" for a similar 180
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:25 pm to BCreed1
How is the United States punishing Iran for their internal affairs good for the American people?
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:26 pm to SDVTiger
quote:
Because Joe Bidens admin said so
As I recall that document said nothing about fentanyl and certainly didn't shed light on what was in those particular barrels.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:27 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
How is the United States punishing Iran for their internal affairs good for the American people?
7D chess. Its even better than 6D chess.
Us mere citizens cant grasp it.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:29 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
RogerTheShrubber
Spent 8+ hrs on a Friday crying like a female about Trump.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:34 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
IvoryBillMatt
All you know how to do is run to chatgpt for an opinion. LMAO!
Did you know that Vandy offers classes to teach you how to effectively use Ai like Chatgpt? Why do they offer classes? Because it can be manipulated. It also excludes details when not asked.
The AUMF is NOT just about 9/11. From your CHATGPT:
quote:
Key constraints:
Tied to 9/11
Limited to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and “associated forces”
Requires a connection to hostilities against the U.S.
Now watch this:
quote:
Iran provides material support to groups designated as:
Al-Qaeda affiliates
ISIS enemies
Shia militias attacking U.S. forces (e.g., Kataib Hezbollah)
Those groups are “associated forces” of al-Qaeda/ISIS
Therefore:
Limited strikes on Iranian-backed militias
Possibly Iranian assets directly supporting them
fall under the 2001 AUMF
And my favorite from your CHATGPT:
quote:
7. Bottom-Line Answer
? Yes, an administration could:
Use the 2001 AUMF to justify limited, defensive strikes on Iranian-backed terrorist militias
? No, it does not legitimately authorize:
War with Iran
And for the sugar on top.... Do you know how many Iranians were arrested in the USA under terrorism charges in 2025?
I can do this ALL day Bill. One more ChaGPT for you on this? What ever you need me to do.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:39 pm to IvoryBillMatt
I feel you will need more chatgpt. I will just list the first 5. Should you need more... ask:
1- “Nations” Clause in the AUMF Text
The AUMF authorizes force against “nations, organizations, or persons” that aided or harbored those responsible for 9/11. Proponents argue this language explicitly includes state actors, not just non-state groups.
2- Material Support Equals “Aiding”
Iran’s provision of funding, weapons, training, intelligence, and safe transit to designated terrorist organizations is argued to constitute “aiding” forces covered by the AUMF.
3- Associated Forces Doctrine
Executive branch interpretations hold that groups co-belligerent with al-Qaeda or successor jihadist organizations fall within the AUMF, and that state sponsors directing or enabling those forces inherit that status.
4- Continuing Hostilities Theory
The conflict authorized by the 2001 AUMF is treated as ongoing, not time-limited to 2001. Iran’s continued involvement in regional attacks against U.S. forces is framed as participation in that same conflict.
5- Force Protection Authority
When Iranian-backed groups attack U.S. troops engaged under the 2001 AUMF, defenders argue the President has authority to strike any actor materially responsible for those attacks, including state sponsors.
1- “Nations” Clause in the AUMF Text
The AUMF authorizes force against “nations, organizations, or persons” that aided or harbored those responsible for 9/11. Proponents argue this language explicitly includes state actors, not just non-state groups.
2- Material Support Equals “Aiding”
Iran’s provision of funding, weapons, training, intelligence, and safe transit to designated terrorist organizations is argued to constitute “aiding” forces covered by the AUMF.
3- Associated Forces Doctrine
Executive branch interpretations hold that groups co-belligerent with al-Qaeda or successor jihadist organizations fall within the AUMF, and that state sponsors directing or enabling those forces inherit that status.
4- Continuing Hostilities Theory
The conflict authorized by the 2001 AUMF is treated as ongoing, not time-limited to 2001. Iran’s continued involvement in regional attacks against U.S. forces is framed as participation in that same conflict.
5- Force Protection Authority
When Iranian-backed groups attack U.S. troops engaged under the 2001 AUMF, defenders argue the President has authority to strike any actor materially responsible for those attacks, including state sponsors.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:42 pm to BCreed1
quote:
. Bottom-Line Answer
? Yes, an administration could:
Use the 2001 AUMF to justify limited, defensive strikes on Iranian-backed terrorist militias
I have tried the route of going to the statutes and caselaw, cutting and pasting, and then analyzing them myself. But it takes too long considering you get dishonest answers such as yours.
How in the world would Trump striking Iran over protestor deaths POSSIBLY be a "limited, defensive strike on Iranian-backed terrorist militias?"
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:44 pm to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:The argument has swung from ‘can he do it’ to ‘should he do it’, depending on what time of day it is and if someone is trying to win an argument.
How is the United States punishing Iran for their internal affairs good for the American people?
Whether or not he can is irrelevant if he shouldn’t. I am waiting for a rational reason of why he should. I have not seen one yet that makes any sense, except ‘we don’t know what he knows.’
If we destroyed their nuclear capability to make weapons, what is the imminent threat that requires action? ‘We are at total war’ words by Iran was in response to sanctions and ‘death to America’ and ‘great Satan’ are losing their shine. Am I missing anything? If Bibi strikes Iran soon, then we will find out ‘how necessary’ it was and that we stand with Israel.
At some point, the ‘you have TDS’ and ‘you love goatfrickers’ mantra should be replaced with rational dialogue.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:47 pm to BCreed1
quote:
I feel you will need more chatgpt. I will just list the first 5. Should you need more... ask:
I do need more, but you are too dishonest and cowardly to do it. Prove me wrong. Type in the facts in this case:
"Would President Trump be authorized by the AUMF in attacking Iran because Iran had killed peaceful protestors in Iran?"
If you don't share the results, we will know what a coward you are.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:48 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Wait... I'm not being fair. How could I have not asked GROK what we all need to be thinking here. I mean to form an opinion for me and you!
Grok, What should we think:
Hey GROK.... Bill said your are wrong because... well.. because.
Grok, What should we think:
quote:
1- Iran aided the 9/11 attackers — Some administration officials (e.g., Mike Pompeo in Trump's first term) and commentators claimed Iran provided material support or assistance to al-Qaeda operatives involved in 9/11.
2- Iran harbored al-Qaeda operatives responsible for or linked to 9/11 — Iran allowed senior al-Qaeda figures (e.g., family members or facilitators) to reside or transit through its territory post-9/11, qualifying as "harboring" under the AUMF's past-tense language.
3- Iran supports "associated forces" of al-Qaeda — An extension of the "associated forces" doctrine (used against ISIS), arguing Iran's occasional tactical cooperation with al-Qaeda elements makes it coverable.
4- Defensive actions to protect U.S. forces engaged in 2001 AUMF operations — Limited strikes if necessary to defend U.S. or partner forces conducting counterterrorism under the 2001 AUMF (e.g., against threats from Iranian proxies interfering with anti-al-Qaeda/ISIS missions)
Hey GROK.... Bill said your are wrong because... well.. because.
Posted on 1/2/26 at 4:55 pm to BCreed1
Why is Trump saying he will attack them? For self-defense of the United States or for defense of Americans?
NO...for killing IRANIAN protestors in IRAN.
Do you really not see how AUMF doesn't apply in that situation?
Here, ChatGPT will help you:
No.
The 2001 AUMF provides no authority for a President—Trump or any other—to attack Iran because Iran killed peaceful protesters inside Iran.
That justification fails textually, historically, constitutionally, and under international law.
1. The AUMF Has Nothing to Do With Human Rights Abuses
The 2001 AUMF is narrowly limited to:
“nations, organizations, or persons [that] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”
Killing peaceful protesters:
Is not terrorism against the United States
Has no connection to 9/11
Does not involve al-Qaeda or associated forces
Occurs entirely within Iran’s domestic jurisdiction
There is zero statutory hook.
2. “Humanitarian Intervention” Is Not Authorized by the AUMF
Congress has never authorized humanitarian war against Iran.
Even controversial humanitarian interventions (Kosovo, Libya):
Were not justified under the 2001 AUMF
Relied on Article II claims, NATO action, or UN Security Council resolutions
Remain constitutionally disputed
Using the AUMF for this purpose would turn it into a general moral police power, which Congress expressly rejected in 2001.
3. Presidents Cannot Convert the AUMF Into a Human Rights Statute
No President—Trump included—has claimed:
The AUMF authorizes force to punish human rights violations
Or that internal repression creates AUMF authority
If that were allowed, the President could:
Bomb any country committing atrocities
Without congressional approval
Based solely on executive judgment
That would erase Article I war powers entirely.
4. Article II Self-Defense Still Wouldn’t Apply
Article II might justify limited force only if:
The U.S. or U.S. forces are under imminent attack, or
There is a direct threat to Americans
Iran killing its own protesters:
Is not an attack on the United States
Is not imminent harm to U.S. forces
Does not trigger national self-defense
So even outside the AUMF, the President lacks authority.
5. International Law Makes This Even Weaker
Under the UN Charter:
Force is lawful only for self-defense or with Security Council authorization
Unilateral punishment for domestic repression is illegal
The U.S. has never claimed a general right to bomb sovereign states for internal abuses.
6. What Would Be Required Instead
To lawfully attack Iran for killing protesters, one of the following would be necessary:
A new, explicit AUMF authorizing humanitarian intervention in Iran
A UN Security Council resolution (politically unlikely)
A treaty-based obligation (none exists here)
Absent that, such strikes would be unlawful.
Bottom Line
President Trump would not be authorized by the 2001 AUMF to attack Iran because Iran killed peaceful protesters.
Not under the statute
Not under Article II
Not under historical precedent
Not under international law
Any such action would require new congressional authorization.
NO...for killing IRANIAN protestors in IRAN.
Do you really not see how AUMF doesn't apply in that situation?
Here, ChatGPT will help you:
No.
The 2001 AUMF provides no authority for a President—Trump or any other—to attack Iran because Iran killed peaceful protesters inside Iran.
That justification fails textually, historically, constitutionally, and under international law.
1. The AUMF Has Nothing to Do With Human Rights Abuses
The 2001 AUMF is narrowly limited to:
“nations, organizations, or persons [that] planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”
Killing peaceful protesters:
Is not terrorism against the United States
Has no connection to 9/11
Does not involve al-Qaeda or associated forces
Occurs entirely within Iran’s domestic jurisdiction
There is zero statutory hook.
2. “Humanitarian Intervention” Is Not Authorized by the AUMF
Congress has never authorized humanitarian war against Iran.
Even controversial humanitarian interventions (Kosovo, Libya):
Were not justified under the 2001 AUMF
Relied on Article II claims, NATO action, or UN Security Council resolutions
Remain constitutionally disputed
Using the AUMF for this purpose would turn it into a general moral police power, which Congress expressly rejected in 2001.
3. Presidents Cannot Convert the AUMF Into a Human Rights Statute
No President—Trump included—has claimed:
The AUMF authorizes force to punish human rights violations
Or that internal repression creates AUMF authority
If that were allowed, the President could:
Bomb any country committing atrocities
Without congressional approval
Based solely on executive judgment
That would erase Article I war powers entirely.
4. Article II Self-Defense Still Wouldn’t Apply
Article II might justify limited force only if:
The U.S. or U.S. forces are under imminent attack, or
There is a direct threat to Americans
Iran killing its own protesters:
Is not an attack on the United States
Is not imminent harm to U.S. forces
Does not trigger national self-defense
So even outside the AUMF, the President lacks authority.
5. International Law Makes This Even Weaker
Under the UN Charter:
Force is lawful only for self-defense or with Security Council authorization
Unilateral punishment for domestic repression is illegal
The U.S. has never claimed a general right to bomb sovereign states for internal abuses.
6. What Would Be Required Instead
To lawfully attack Iran for killing protesters, one of the following would be necessary:
A new, explicit AUMF authorizing humanitarian intervention in Iran
A UN Security Council resolution (politically unlikely)
A treaty-based obligation (none exists here)
Absent that, such strikes would be unlawful.
Bottom Line
President Trump would not be authorized by the 2001 AUMF to attack Iran because Iran killed peaceful protesters.
Not under the statute
Not under Article II
Not under historical precedent
Not under international law
Any such action would require new congressional authorization.
This post was edited on 1/2/26 at 5:01 pm
Posted on 1/2/26 at 5:00 pm to IvoryBillMatt
quote:
"Would President Trump be authorized by the AUMF in attacking Iran because Iran had killed peaceful protestors in Iran?"
If you don't share the results, we will know what a coward you are.
Cry me a river. I have explained it to you over and over. I listed the methods that your chatgpt gave.
Like I said. Take an online class via Vandy. It's really great
Posted on 1/2/26 at 5:00 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
The OP was a screenshot of Massie's criticisms of miliatary intervention in Iran aka "war" for some folks on this board
Okay, but I was responding to this part of your post -
quote:
So what "war" are all the TDS Masshole JOOtards melting about that we're in
And I answered - we're discussing the never-ending support of Ukraine. Not a hot shooting match someone is pretending we're involved in.
quote:
no matter what level of miliatry intervention is involved... Those who apparently believe any level of military intervention is equivalent to long, protracted military conflicts in far off countries with American troops on the ground engaged in combat ala the Cheney/W. Bush administration
Well, I explained where you went wrong but I do have a question in response to the above part of your post.
I think Trump was just typing words but if you took his words as a president speaking, do you believe we could put boots on the ground in Iran to save protesters from their government in some sort of limited action?
quote:
"JOOtard" - would be the people who think Israel needs to be wiped off the earth in its most extreme context; or simply those who believe Israel and Jews are 100% evil, responsible for all ills in the world today, they deserve all the ire and terrorism aimed at the state and its citizens by muslims, and they control U.S. foreign policy... and not the other way around. At the very least I would argue its a reciprocal relationship, given that Israel is the number one customer of our defense industry and military industrial complex with regard to purchasing U.S. military weaponry, and has been for decades.
How many posters think Israel needs to be wiped off the earth or think Jews are 100% evil? I have not been on this board that much lately and may be missing a lot of anti-Isreal threads.
My personal opinion - I'm not a fan is Israel's outsized influence on our government/US policy (foreign and domestic) and media but think it's Hamas that needs to be wiped from the face of the earth.
Page 17 of 19
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News