Terrorism hits Iran again

[aelf]

I didn't support the Iraq War.

You seem to think that Iranian leadership thinks in the same ways you do. I wish that were the case, because then they wouldn't even seek the nuke.
Are you familiar with Achy's particular religious views and how they play into his politics?

I hope that calmer heads prevail in Iran, I really do. It'll be disastrous if there is another war... but there is a faction that can create ever more disaster if given the chance, and it has real power in Iran to do so potentially.

The best way to deal with your enemies, in the view of the American conservative, is to assume that they are crazy or that they are aliens from a different universe.

There are obviously geopolitical reasons for Iran seeking the nuke. It may turn out to be a bad bet, but it has a rationale, unlike the imaginary scheme that goes:

1) Nuke Israel
2) Start war against the West
3) ???
4) Profit

Unfamiliar with propaganda? Ok, if you say so... jeez.

Yeah, obviously. If you knew anything, you'd know that he was pandering (i.e. talking to people whose minds were already made up).

 

[kochman]

The best way to deal with your enemies, in the view of the American conservative, is to assume that they are crazy or that they are aliens from a different universe.

Whereas your best way is to believe everyone wants rainbows and teddy bears... rose colored lenses.

There are obviously geopolitical reasons for Iran seeking the nuke. It may turn out to be a bad bet, but it has a rationale, unlike the imaginary scheme that goes:
1) Nuke Israel
2) Start war against the West
3) ???
4) Profit

Yes. Doesn't mean we should be cool with it.

Yeah, obviously. If you knew anything, you'd know that he was pandering (i.e. talking to people whose minds were already made up).

Well, I obviously don't know anything... you are the super genius who has proved superior intellect... good work!

 

[aelf]

Whereas your best way is to believe everyone wants rainbows and teddy bears... rose colored lenses.

What?

I said they want power

Well, I obviously don't know anything... you are the super genius who has proved superior intellect... good work!

And you obviously have nothing more to say on the topic.

 

[say1988]

This wasn't terrorism. It was a justified attack against a legitimate target.


Exactly how would you go about scaring somebody like Ahmadinejad (however the hell you spell that)? The dude doesn't care about the lives of his citizens, and he only cares about his nuclear scientists insofar as they help him build The Bomb. You can't use fear against a dictator. (cue the old saw about snakes being immune to their own venoms)

The only thing a dictator fears is being removed from power. Did this bombing help to remove him from power? No. Therefore it's not terrorism. It was intended to help eliminate Iran's ability to build The Bomb; that's all.

So, a civilian working at a Boeing plant would have been a legitimate target for Iraqis?

Exactly how would you go about scaring somebody like Ahmadinejad (however the hell you spell that)? The dude doesn't care about the lives of his citizens, and he only cares about his nuclear scientists insofar as they help him build The Bomb. You can't use fear against a dictator. (cue the old saw about snakes being immune to their own venoms)

That is not related to what I said in any way. While denying technical knowledge was obviously a goal of this, this campaign definitely is supposed to put the fear into any nuclear scientist that works, or may consider working, for Iran that they will get blown up one day.

 

[Ajidica]

Jerusalem has been in the hands of the Jews longer than the Arabs have had it. Jerusalem is only important to Arabs/Muslims if they can deny Jews that city, otherwise it is a useless city to them.

You don't know much about Islam, do you?

I hope that calmer heads prevail in Iran, I really do. It'll be disastrous if there is another war... but there is a faction that can create ever more disaster if given the chance, and it has real power in Iran to do so potentially.

Unfortunately, our sabre-rattling about Iran only gives the hard line conservative elements more influence and credence when they talk about a culture war between Islam and the West. If the conservatives say that America hates Islam and wants to destroy Iran, and the first thing on the news is presidential candidates trying to out do each other in how quickly they will bomb Iran and news of American warships being sent to the Gulf due to Iranian actions (the last time we got involved in the Gulf because of Iran, things didn't go well), it only affirms what the conservatives are saying.

 

[kochman]

Yes, this is true... I hope all this one-upping rhetoric doesn't lead to war.
However, the root of the problem is the behavior of Iran, almost entirely. Sponsoring terrorist organizations more than any other nation while seeking nukes is hardly sending a relaxing message...

 

[say1988]

Neither does invading neighbouring countries and assassinating civilians.

 

[bombshoo]

Jerusalem has been in the hands of the Jews longer than the Arabs have had it. Jerusalem is only important to Arabs/Muslims if they can deny Jews that city, otherwise it is a useless city to them.

I might be misunderstanding you, but Jerusalem is important to Muslims primarily because it is where Muhammad ascended to Heaven. It is also the home of many of the earlier prophets in Islam like Elijah and Jesus (who also ascended to Heaven there) and it was where Muslims originally prayed towards before this was changed to Mecca by Muhammad. Basically it has been holy to Islam as long as there has been Islam.

I suppose the reasoning "the Jews had it first" is sort of an argument, but based on this logic we should give it to the few remaining people who worship pantheon of the ancient Levant or Egypt since they had it before the Jews did.

 

[kochman]

Neither does invading neighbouring countries and assassinating civilians.

"assassinating civilians"... pricelessly put... good night!

 

[Ajidica]

Yes, this is true... I hope all this one-upping rhetoric doesn't lead to war.

For once we are in complete agreement.

However, the root of the problem is the behavior of Iran, almost entirely. Sponsoring terrorist organizations more than any other nation while seeking nukes is hardly sending a relaxing message...

I may be expressing my point poorly, but terrorism is very much in the eye of the beholder. Remember the lesson's of the Soviet's invasion of Afghanistan: One man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter. When the British still controlled the Palestine Mandate, was the Irdun and Sten gangs Jewish terrorists or Jewish freedom fighters?
Moving to today, one can make the argument that Iran is sponsoring freedom fighters looking to throw off the yoke of Zionist oppression. (Whether they are freedom fighters and everything else is beside the point right now.) When we supported the mujahideen in Afghanistan, or the various rebels in South America, were we supporting terrorism? It depends. In many cases what we view as terrorism Iran views as fighting for freedom. How would you take it if, Canada for instance, had told America to stop supporting "terrorists" fighting against the Soviet invasion of Afghanstan? It is much the same with Iran. By telling them to stop supporting "terrorism", they hear it as "Quit supporting freedom".
NOTE: I do NOT want to get into round of Genocide Olympics: Terrorism Edition, the morality of Israeli occupation of most of the Mandate, or anything else like that.

 

[say1988]

How is such a scientist not a civilian?

And it isn't like being a civilian actually matters for that point. Assassinations of anybody case don't send relaxing messages.

 

[Azale]

I hope none of you guys are making the mistake of thinking Iran's government is completely unresponsive to popular pressure or is somehow different from every other nation on Earth in how they pursue geopolitical goals.

 

[kochman]

How is such a scientist not a civilian?

And it isn't like being a civilian actually matters for that point. Assassinations of anybody case don't send relaxing messages.

Oh, I didn't know it was proved that America, with a notoriously weak espionage ability in Iran, was the one who pulled that off...
Thanks for enlightening me.

For all we know, that could have been internal, there is a strong opposition movement in Iran, who probably doesn't want to deal with potential repercussions of completing a nuclear weapons program while almost the entire world is telling Iran to stop pursuing it...

 

[Azale]

For all we know, that could have been internal, there is a strong opposition movement in Iran, who probably doesn't want to deal with potential repercussions of completing a nuclear weapons program while almost the entire world is telling Iran to stop pursuing it...

It takes some mental gymnastics for me to think the Iranian opposition would want or could pull this off (especially considering the method and that this wasn't the first target). Most likely it was Mossad. Israel has lost the benefit of the doubt.

The mantle of representative democracy did not guard Gaza or Lebanon from the IDF, so why would the Iranian opposition assume they would be safe? They might be interested in pursuing a nuclear program as much as Khameini & friends, or at least not opposed enough to it in principle to assassinate one of their own nuclear scientists.

 

[bombshoo]

Oh, I didn't know it was proved that America, with a notoriously weak espionage ability in Iran, was the one who pulled that off...
Thanks for enlightening me.

For all we know, that could have been internal, there is a strong opposition movement in Iran, who probably doesn't want to deal with potential repercussions of completing a nuclear weapons program while almost the entire world is telling Iran to stop pursuing it...

A large part of the opposition (if not most) are still for continuing the nuclear program. Just because they want more freedoms and are not into denying the holocaust doesn't mean they don't want nukes.

Seven in ten Iranians favor their country developing and possessing nuclear weapons.
Support for nuclear arms has risen almost 20 points in the past 18 months, as the international
confrontation over Iran’s nuclear program has deepened. Nuclear development is favored by
both pro- and anti-government Iranians.

http://www.charneyresearch.com/pdf/2010Dec8_PressRelease_IPI_Iran_poll.pdf

 

[kochman]

Just making the point, that while it looks like Israel may be the initiator, they may not be.
We don't know for certain who was behind it at this time.
Obviously, public perception within Iran probably condemns Israel, doesn't make it a fact.

 

[bombshoo]

Just making the point, that while it looks like Israel may be the initiator, they may not be.
We don't know for certain who was behind it at this time.
Obviously, public perception within Iran probably condemns Israel, doesn't make it a fact.

I actually agree, though I see the RG as far more likely than any of the domestic groups in opposition to the government.

The nuclear scientist had ties to some opposition movements (or so said the article) and thus the RG could have been trying to kill two birds with one stone. Kill a member of the opposition, and since he is a nuclear scientist, it will inevitably end up being blamed on the West. I do doubt one scientist (especially one just out of grad school) could really be that vital to the program that it would be considered excessively counterproductive.

Mind you, I do think is unlikely, but IMO the most likely scenario after a clear cut assassination by Mossad.

 

[Hygro]

More like you completely missed the point for that one.

I think you missed his joke.

kochman you're grasping thin air here. Calling scientists non-civilians and then putting your money on the Iranians doing it... I don't even know what to say.

 

[kochman]

I think you missed his joke.

kochman you're grasping thin air here. Calling scientists non-civilians and then putting your money on the Iranians doing it... I don't even know what to say.

You're the one grasping buddy...
1) I never said scientists were "non-civilians"... I thought say1988 was referring to our invasion of Iraq and how we "targetted civilians", I didn't realize he was talking about the Iranian nuke scientists.
2) It is very possible that some Iranians did it (if even simply because paid to do it by some other nation)... dissidents, hitmen, etc... My point wasn't that they necessarily did it, but that we can't sit here and condemn Israel (or the West) as if we know it was 100% certain it was them.

 

[aelf]

I think you missed his joke.

It's not a joke. It's a reference to another thread where he suggested that acts of cruelty against animals should only be punished lightly (if at all) because they aren't human, to which I replied that considering certain people sub-human in order to justify acts of cruelty against them is a rationale for genocide. And he clearly didn't understand where I was coming from.