Alleged secret Syrian reactor
- Thread starter brennan
- Start date
Ecofarm
Deity
What I like most about this thread is the title: "alleged".
It's amazing that some people around here believe the floor is solid, as no evidence short of God himself thundering truth from the mountains will prove anything to them. Unless, of course, we are talking about anti-american stuff; then the slightest shread of evidence = conviction.
It's amazing that some people around here believe the floor is solid, as no evidence short of God himself thundering truth from the mountains will prove anything to them. Unless, of course, we are talking about anti-american stuff; then the slightest shread of evidence = conviction.
Ecofarm,
Although I happen to believe that the target probably was a nuclear reactor, exactly what "evidence" have you seen that suggests it was? All we seem to have to go on are allegations from the Israeli, American, and Syrian governments. As much as I trust the American government more than I do the Syrian, I wouldn't exactly equate Dana Perino with "God himself thundering truth from the mountains."
Cleo
Although I happen to believe that the target probably was a nuclear reactor, exactly what "evidence" have you seen that suggests it was? All we seem to have to go on are allegations from the Israeli, American, and Syrian governments. As much as I trust the American government more than I do the Syrian, I wouldn't exactly equate Dana Perino with "God himself thundering truth from the mountains."
Cleo
Ecofarm
Deity
Video and audio? You act as if the "accusations" are without physical evidence. You act as if evidence is never legit unless the accused admits it. Nothing short of that... audio, video, etc, will ever prove anything to you. You'll just say they are all faked, so there is no such thing as evidence for you. Evidence does not exist in your world, unless it is against the US. Otherwise, it's just fake stuff.
This is exactly what I am talking about. Stop being Russian.
Please point us to your secret stash of solid evidence. I'm really not all that keen on all the thundering truth from the mountain variety, which is kind of what we are getting in this case.
Ecofarm
Deity
How about photo, video, and audio? Of course, we all know it's just fake stuff invented by the NEOCONS anyway, so I don't no why I bother to post anything. Anyway, here's a slice of the "fake evidence invented by neocons" (from the OP article - did you read it?)
Have you watched the video in the OP?
Patroklos,
What happened in World War II was horrible, and yes, lots of the things that the good guys did were "monstrous" and violations of the laws of war. I've never said that we should have "left the home fronts alone," as you disingenuously suggested, but looking back with my 20/20 hindsight I can say with confidence that we shouldn't have been burning down Japanese and German cities near the end. We didn't pay for those crimes since they were in the service of fighting a genuinely unspeakable evil, but we had the sense to construct a system of international law after that war at least to attempt to keep that horror from returning. But some people don't believe in that system.
If Iran attacked Israel, there is absolutely no military justification to "obliterate" Iran. It would purely be killing millions of people who had nothing to do with the decision to attack Israel for punishment and revenge. In which I'm sure some morally-challenged people would revel, but I don't have a problem calling those people "monsters."
Here's a hypothetical -- feel free to answer or not. If we were to invade Iran to bring about regime change, and if they had secretly built a nuclear weapon, would they be justified in nuking Washington, D.C.? Would they be justified in threatening to nuke Washington, D.C. in order to keep us from invading?
Cleo
What happened in World War II was horrible, and yes, lots of the things that the good guys did were "monstrous" and violations of the laws of war. I've never said that we should have "left the home fronts alone," as you disingenuously suggested, but looking back with my 20/20 hindsight I can say with confidence that we shouldn't have been burning down Japanese and German cities near the end. We didn't pay for those crimes since they were in the service of fighting a genuinely unspeakable evil, but we had the sense to construct a system of international law after that war at least to attempt to keep that horror from returning. But some people don't believe in that system.
If Iran attacked Israel, there is absolutely no military justification to "obliterate" Iran. It would purely be killing millions of people who had nothing to do with the decision to attack Israel for punishment and revenge. In which I'm sure some morally-challenged people would revel, but I don't have a problem calling those people "monsters."
Here's a hypothetical -- feel free to answer or not. If we were to invade Iran to bring about regime change, and if they had secretly built a nuclear weapon, would they be justified in nuking Washington, D.C.? Would they be justified in threatening to nuke Washington, D.C. in order to keep us from invading?
Cleo
Ever since Colin Powell's show-and-tell, the bar has been raised whenever the NeoClown circus comes to town. Alleged is a proper word to use, even when the evidence points to mopre like true than not.
Ecofarm
Deity
They have actual photos of the interior of the facility. There's no grey area.
Alleged photos of the interior of the facility.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
No, you very clearly said, and have now said again, that ther is no reason to obliterate a people who had not conciously selected their leaders.
Yet, then you just said it was okay to do so in the beginning/middle of WWII?
I see nothing wrong with using monstrous tactics when fighting something more monstrous, you gotta do what you gotta do, but you are the one saying we can't obliterate Iran simply because it is monsterous.
Sure there is, to show what happens when someone decides to use a first stike nuke. That is of course the primary reason we haven't had anyone obliterated by nukes in 60+ years after all, because people believe that to be the case now. Lets prove them wrong and see what direction the world takes.
I am not sure if you are waffling on purpose between conventional obliterate and nuke oblitereate, but it is interesting. I am doing the same, mistakenly, I will try and be more clear.
Sure. And we would be just as justified in leveling the place (Iran) there after. So it would be a very stupid thing to do on Iran's part, as most first strike nuke scenarios are.
Ecofarm
Deity
And what would be sufficient for you to believe the photos are real?
Try this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/7366218.stm
How about the alleged moon landing? Do you believe that?
I personally believe they are real, but I also believe alleged is an appropriate modifier. It's really not that hard a concept to understand.
Ecofarm
Deity
And what would change alleged to "fact" for you, if not video and photos of the facility itself?
Confession from Syria or it forever remains "alleged"?
Confession from Syria or it forever remains "alleged"?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I got two words for you in turn. "American Revolution". Now go do some thinking yourself.
People dont have to live under such dictatorships. If they themselves are unable to enact the change needed to overthrow such dictators, then they can also simply leave and relocate to somewhere more amenable.
Patroklos,
Please just argue against what I write, not what you want to argue against. The WWII analogy is so hopelessly muddled now (and gets increasingly so with each of your successive posts) that I'm just going to stop. (Cue someone, possibly Patroklos, misrepresenting me and writing something like, "Well, I'm glad that you agree with me!")
I don't understand how you're using the word "waffling," and I don't understand how it may or may not be "interesting" if I'm doing so on purpose. But I'll try to explain myself: to me it doesn't matter if it's nuclear obliterate or conventional obliterate. It's still men and women and children who had nothing to do with the original attack being killed. I think it's immoral to extend the responsibility of Iran's government (for what would be a clear violation of the laws of war) to its people. It's also unlawful. No matter the utility of showing the world what happens to people who use nuclear weapons, killing millions of Iranian children to do that is immoral. Maybe you think we have the moral authority to say that the Iranian children will have to just serve as a sacrifice for the benefit of everyone else, but I would disagree.
Exactly my point from earlier on the thread: there is no law, only power.
Cleo
Please just argue against what I write, not what you want to argue against. The WWII analogy is so hopelessly muddled now (and gets increasingly so with each of your successive posts) that I'm just going to stop. (Cue someone, possibly Patroklos, misrepresenting me and writing something like, "Well, I'm glad that you agree with me!")
I don't understand how you're using the word "waffling," and I don't understand how it may or may not be "interesting" if I'm doing so on purpose. But I'll try to explain myself: to me it doesn't matter if it's nuclear obliterate or conventional obliterate. It's still men and women and children who had nothing to do with the original attack being killed. I think it's immoral to extend the responsibility of Iran's government (for what would be a clear violation of the laws of war) to its people. It's also unlawful. No matter the utility of showing the world what happens to people who use nuclear weapons, killing millions of Iranian children to do that is immoral. Maybe you think we have the moral authority to say that the Iranian children will have to just serve as a sacrifice for the benefit of everyone else, but I would disagree.
Exactly my point from earlier on the thread: there is no law, only power.
Cleo
Like I said, I believe the photos are real. I just don't have a problem with the word alleged. Went through the same argument regarding use of the word back in 2003.
I'm not particularly motivated to go without the use of the word "alleged." I believe the evidence, but don't think the word "alleged" is really out of place.Apparently he wants to roll around on top of the control rodes inside the reactor shielding. I say we let him
I would again repeat that it is not that hard of a concept to understand, but apparently, it must be.
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
Your inability to follow the logical consequences of your words is disturbing. I am sorry if you don't like the fact that I take what you say seriously.
It is intersting, because pretty much everyone makes a very stark distiction between nuclear and conventional war.
It should, because one is definetly going to lead to far more death and destruction than the other.
Thats nice, but you said yourself you were okay with it happening in WWII until close to the end. You are bieng inconsistant here, either it is okay to be monsterous of its not. If it is okay in certain situations, then there is no reason one of those can't apply to Iran.
Especially if Iran strikes first, which was your hypothetical to me.
Wait, unlawful? I thought you cared about killing children? So now its okay to validate a tactic of nuclear first strike and someone's following obliteration because it would be unlawful to invalidate it and save maybe/probably save millions more children?
Iranian children are more important than other children? In any case, take it up with the Iranian adults whose shoulder all the responsibility rests on, the ones left anyway.
Every country is allowed to defend iteself legally. Nuking for nuking is the best form of retaliation legally speaking, namely proportional.
Similar threads
- Sticky
