Reply With QuoteNo, death became Oppenheimer.
Death to Oppenheimer
No, death became Oppenheimer.
Right, so apparently this is totally not terrorism.
If somebody started blowing up people working for a major US weapons manufacturer, I'm sure we would hear all about how it was "about time" and how the US had been asking for it.
What's that you say? 99% of the reaction would be shrieks of outrage and threats of war? Oh, well, surely you're mistaken...
-Arrian
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
My view is that "terrorism" is fine when it's carried out by pro-Western, pro-US governments and not fine when it's carried out by Communists, Islamists, and anti-American elements.Originally Posted by Arrian
It's preferable to not deliberately attack civilians, though.
I come from the land of the ice and snow
From the rust belt where industry won't go
At least try to disguise your trolls a bit.
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
Baron O RIP.
What makes you think I'm not being thoroughly honest in that post?
I come from the land of the ice and snow
From the rust belt where industry won't go
Because I don't think you're that stupid.
The OT at APOLYTON is like watching the Special Olympics. Certain people try so hard to debate despite their handicaps.
Baron O RIP.
How do we know that this isn't the result of a Chevy Volt mishap?
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
That would be American-sponsored terrorism then, right?
Heavily state-subsidized terrorism, even. What a dilemma; on the one hand, it's wasteful big government. On the other, it kills foreigners we don't like, so we have to support it.
1011 1100
Obviously the Iranian guy wasn't uniformed, he was an illegal combattant.
"The boastful seeks the company of parasites." (Spinoza)
Damn terrorists!
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Hundreds of them.
There's no moral equivalence between the US and Iran, Arrian. The world where Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons is better than the one where it does; enough better that it's probably worth the price one Iranian physicist. Which part of that do you disagree with?
Why, exactly, would it be right and proper to engage in full-scale warfare when just one bomb achieves the same objective? Is there some virtue to throwing away tens (hundreds?) of thousands of lives so that we can dot every i and cross every t?
See Hiroshima.
Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ Braindead
I'm sure someone will enumerate all the useless wars the US is/has engaged in to justify our hypothetical terrorist that attacks Boeing factories. This, of course, misses the point that no terrorist attack is going to actually prevent one of those useless wars or impede our ability to prosecute it. The same is not true of the Mossad's operations wrt Iran's nuclear program.
Killing the Iranian scientist doesn't really achieve the objective you want. Not in the long-run, anyway.
among other things... that you compare the price of killing "one Iranian physicist" with the value of a "world where Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons". It's a completely absurd evaluation given that "one Iranian physicist" is not going to be the price of a "world where Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons".
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
In the long run we're all dead, etc. The general strategy appears to have been effective so far.
Iran already has nuclear weapons, they are just making more... please tell me that you aren't naive enough to think that.
--=I am a Libertarian style Socialist=---
Even if we add up all the costs of the various military and intelligence operations conducted to date with this objective, I expect the result would be well worth the price. You really have to think that a nuclear Iran is no big deal to believe otherwise. Yet very little of the opposition here focuses on the idea "eh, nuclear Iran would be just peachy"; it alleges that Israel's tactics are 'terrorist-y' and therefore hypocritical.
Iran having nuclear weapons isn't the problem. There being countries that want to nuke the US/its allies is the problem.
A whole lot of people disagree with you on this point. I don't see much justification for your side of the issue.
Sure, if we magically changed the hearts and minds of everyone in Iran so that it was a nice pro-Western liberal democracy then Iran's nukes would be no more consequential than the UK's or France's. But that option isn't on the table. Assassinating an Iranian nuclear scientist apparently is.
They already have them! hello does everyone have me on ignore.........
--=I am a Libertarian style Socialist=---
I don't have you on ignore. Iran is believed to NOT yet have nuclear weapons but are believed to be "not too far off" developing the technology.
I don't agree that it's valid to to compare the "to date" expenses, when we know for certain these necessary costs are going to continue to accumulate, perhaps indefinitely.
"Just peachy" is silly. It's not going to be "just peachy" in any case. I think with Iran developing nuclear weapons, MAD would continue to work and offers a reasonable level of safety. I could even see some benefits of Iran having nuclear weapons, such as we could start minding our own damn business a bit more, rather than continuing to foster the possibility of invading Iran.
I don't think we will stop Iran from getting nukes via these methods. Eventually it will have to be through invade and occupy. I do not think the cost of invasion and occupation is worth the minimal safety increase of not testing MAD, certainly not with the chance that we do not stop Iran from getting nukes at all (like NK).
My assessment of our policy is that all we are really accomplishing is to ensure when they do get nukes (or potentially some other WMD in the future) that they will hate us as much as possible.
On a side note, do you agree with economic sanctions too, or are you not including them in the costs?
"tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner"
I have a rock that has kept tigers away so far.
"South Africa is a shithole. It used to be a decent place." -Ben Kenobi, sharing his wisdom on world history
That argument doesn't mean what you think it means.
I'm a little curious what standard of proof you would require to be convinced that the strategy is effective.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks