16 Jan 12
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree.
Even IF Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb and even IF this scientist was part of that program, Israel and Iran are NOT at war so the Oppenheimer analogy is immaterial. IF Israel wants to declare war on Iran, then they can try to kill Iranians doing work that benefits the Iranian military. But doing the same thing NOW is an act of terrorism.
sh76 was making the assumption that Oppenheimer knew that the A-bomb would be dropped on heavily populated cities. I seriously doubt he was informed of any targets. If he had, I'll bet he would have had a problem with it.
16 Jan 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainOsirak was a peaceful nuclear power plant?
Oppenheimer was trying to help build an A-bomb as we all know now. There is no proof that the Iranian scientists are trying to do the same, therefore the killing of Iranian scientists is terrorism. Israel is not denying it as far as I know, and that looks very suspicious. Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear power reactor back in the 80s and no (weapons grade) h ...[text shortened]... ling Iranian scientists, at least for killing Iraqis working in a peaceful nuclear power plant.
That's a good one.
😀
From Wikipedia:
Following the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, American forces captured a number of documents detailing conversations that Sadaam Hussein had with his inner sanctum.[18] The archive of documents and recorded meetings confirm that Hussein was indeed aiming to strike at Israel.[18] In a 1982 conversation Hussein stated that, "Once Iraq walks out victorious [over Iran], there will not be any Israel." Of Israel’s anti-Iraqi endeavors he noted, "Technically, they [the Israelis] are right in all of their attempts to harm Iraq."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak
16 Jan 12
Originally posted by Metal BrainIraq and WMD has zero relevance to the conversation. If a trout is a metaphoric representation of a distraction issue, then yes. It was absolutely a trout.
Then what is your point?
Are you sure it is a herring and not a trout? All I did was make a good point.
We're all basing our positions on assumptions. First of all, the fact that he was in fact assassinated by a foreign government is in itself an assumption, albeit one most of us appear to be making.
Most of us are also assuming the reason behind the assassination was because he is believed to be helping Iran build nuclear arms, and both assumptions make logical sense.
But I don't know how anyone can claim there is no proof, when none of us even knows for sure what really happened.
16 Jan 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperThe premise of the conversation is a hypothetical:
Iraq and WMD has zero relevance to the conversation. If a trout is a metaphoric representation of a distraction issue, then yes. It was absolutely a trout.
We're all basing our positions on assumptions. First of all, the fact that he was in fact assassinated by a foreign government is in itself an assumption, albeit one most of us appear to be ...[text shortened]... anyone can claim there is no proof, when none of us even knows for sure what really happened.
A) Iran has a program to build a nuclear bomb;
B) This scientist was working in that program; and
C) Israeli agents blew him up to impede the program.
Assuming all those are true, is the assassination an act of terrorism? I maintain the answer is "yes" and find the Oppenheimer analogy inappropriate for the simple fact that Iran and Israel are not at war while Japan and the United States most certainly were. sh76 finds that distinction trivial. Do you?
16 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderI would basically agree with the way you put the question, but I would like to add that my position is that way it is only because Israel and Iran have been in a de facto war through Iran's Hezbollah proxy.
The premise of the conversation is a hypothetical:
A) Iran has a program to build a nuclear bomb;
B) This scientist was working in that program; and
C) Israeli agents blew him up to impede the program.
Assuming all those are true, is the assassination an act of terrorism? I maintain the answer Japan and the United States most certainly were. sh76 finds that distinction trivial. Do you?
I would not say the same if Israel were not in a de facto war with Iran.
Edit: I know you pointed out that the northern front has been quiet for a few years now, but given that Iran strongly supported Hezbollah in its flare up with Israel (or rather, assuming that),and given Iran's rhetoric vis a vis Israel, I don't think the lack of a formal declaration of war is the key issue.
16 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76Rhetoric does not justify killing people, sh76. Nor does support for an internal political movement which is hostile to Israel for good reason.
I would basically agree with the way you put the question, but I would like to add that my position is that way it is only because Israel and Iran have been in a de facto war through Iran's Hezbollah proxy.
I would not say the same if Israel were not in a de facto war with Iran.
Edit: I know you pointed out that the northern front has been quiet for a few ...[text shortened]... ric vis a vis Israel, I don't think the lack of a formal declaration of war is the key issue.
16 Jan 12
Originally posted by sh76What about the School of the Americas in Georgia (the US State, not the Eastern European country)?
We take out terrorist training camps on Afghan and Pakistani soil with similar justifications.
They train terrorists. For US benefit...
What about your water-boarding?
What about nuclear weapons? The threat of having nuclear weapons? The threat of 7 fleets ready to be deployed anywhere in the world?
What, come to think of it, about threatening the Netherlands with an invasion if EVER A SINGLE US CITIZEN IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL COURT?
What is terrorism? And why do you suppose one form if it is seemingly acceptable and another is not?
Carpet bombing, shock and awe (blitzkrieg is what we Europeans used to call that little cracker), assissinations... These aren't aims at achieving similar goals to people blowing up busses?
-----------------------------------
Wait for it...
Wait for it....
They deliberately target civilians; that is the difference...
-----------------------------------
Well, first of all, I'm glad to see you're capabable of using a semi-colon. However, any arena of war has collatoral damage... it's known before hand. It's only the amount TIMES the chances of being found out which dictate if a method is used or not.
And the US isn't discreet about it either. Nor do they have low averages to back them up.
Let me quote 9 year old Salnohands Bin Bug Gered: "Oh look, that's a nice looking little yellow toy."
16 Jan 12
Originally posted by shavixmireh?
What about the School of the Americas in Georgia (the US State, not the Eastern European country)?
They train terrorists. For US benefit...
What about your water-boarding?
What about nuclear weapons? The threat of having nuclear weapons? The threat of 7 fleets ready to be deployed anywhere in the world?
What, come to think of it, about threatenin ...[text shortened]... year old Salnohands Bin Bug Gered: "Oh look, that's a nice looking little yellow toy."
