RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist?

RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/29/2012 11:14:43 PM)
Actually I was using "tribal" in a very specific sense which I defined when I introduced the term into this discussion in post 115 on page 6. It goes like this: "However, I do like your reference to tribalism. That seems to be a key point of demarcation between the two broad arguments being presented here. Broadly speaking, one side - can we agree to call it the legalist case - is arguing for the same set of rules to apply to every country equally, to be enforced rigorously and without favours or exceptions. This view holds that the actions in Iran were terrorist and demands that the perpetrators are made accountable for their actions. The other argument - the tribal one - is trying to justify those actions on various spurious grounds, even resorting to contentious hypotheticals. Their arguments seem to boil down to 'might is right' and 'we're right and they're wrong' therefore it's OK for 'us' to do whatever we like but if 'they' do the same, they're terrorists. It seeks to excuse the perpetrators." (post 115, this thread) Aylee responded accepting that definition in post 122 on page 7. My usage is therefore consistent with the way the term has been used throughout this thread. I'm sorry but if you wanted to challenge that definition the time to do so was long ago, when it was first introduced and defined. It's far too late to try to challenge or change it it now. Now, are there any other logical holes you're about to dig for yourself that I can help you avoid? [:D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 12:00:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Actually I was using "tribal" in a very specific sense which I defined when I introduced the term into this discussion in post 115 on page 6. It goes like this: "However, I do like your reference to tribalism. That seems to be a key point of demarcation between the two broad arguments being presented here. Broadly speaking, one side - can we agree to call it the legalist case - is arguing for the same set of rules to apply to every country equally, to be enforced rigorously and without favours or exceptions. This view holds that the actions in Iran were terrorist and demands that the perpetrators are made accountable for their actions. The other argument - the tribal one - is trying to justify those actions on various spurious grounds, even resorting to contentious hypotheticals. Their arguments seem to boil down to 'might is right' and 'we're right and they're wrong' therefore it's OK for 'us' to do whatever we like but if 'they' do the same, they're terrorists. It seeks to excuse the perpetrators." (post 115, this thread) Aylee responded accepting that definition in post 122 on page 7. My usage is therefore consistent with the way the term has been used throughout this thread. I'm sorry but if you wanted to challenge that definition the time to do so was long ago, when it was first introduced and defined. It's far too late to try to challenge or change it it now. Now, are there any other logical holes you're about to dig for yourself that I can help you avoid? [:D] So, you claim to have defined day as night, and up as down, and therefore when the Sun is up, it's night outside? Got it. [8D] Firm PS. Let me add some substance: If I agree with your definitions above, you still have placed yourself in your own"tribal" definition, with your comments about "Marine animals" and its consequently implied treatment of them as creatures not worthy of being classified as human (i.e. outside your tribe, and therefore easily subsumed in the group of creatures which can be killed out of hand). As well, my initial comments regarding your non-standard definitions of things stand. I never accepted anything, not even "for the sake of argument". In other words, you are changing the common definition to fit your own particular rhetorical requirements. I don't accept either your definitions, nor your arguments. Firm

tweakabelle -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 5:24:37 AM)
quote: Firm PS. Let me add some substance: Make it an alcoholic or an illegal substance Firm. It can only improve the level of your contribution. [:D]

Anaxagoras -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 5:34:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If I agree with your definitions above, you still have placed yourself in your own"tribal" definition, with your comments about "Marine animals" and its consequently implied treatment of them as creatures not worthy of being classified as human (i.e. outside your tribe, and therefore easily subsumed in the group of creatures which can be killed out of hand). As well, my initial comments regarding your non-standard definitions of things stand. I never accepted anything, not even "for the sake of argument". In other words, you are changing the common definition to fit your own particular rhetorical requirements. I don't accept either your definitions, nor your arguments. Nicely struck Firm. One should appreciate the er... strength-of-character of someone who defined tribalism a few pages back, and now insists it must be the operative definition because the apparent window-of-opportunity to challenge said definition has now passed! [:D]

vincentML -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 7:06:57 AM)
quote: As well, I disagree with your "no tribe is better than another" claim. Any group which actually believes that is doomed to extinction, and the earth will be populated by groups who do not believe in such foolishness. uhh . . . does the phrase "American exceptionalism" ring a bell? quote: Whether or not the killing of the scientist in Iran is "murder" can only be determined based on the motives for the killings. I tend to guess (since neither I nor any other poster knows beyond any real doubt) that it isn't murder, but part of a nation-state conflict, and therefore legal and sanctioned, and therefore not "murder". So you are guessing about some undefined nation-state conflict being sanctioned by who? By UN Charter Article 51 or by GW Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike? And, how well did the latter turn out for us vis-a-vis Iraq 2003? Seems we are again being steamrolled by the scaremongering of WMDs. I know, I know, you said way back in the thread that we can't be certain but we shouldn't take a chance. So, war or murder based on uncertainty is the new criteria? When is assassination legal and sanctioned? When does nation-state conflict short of war permit legal and sanctioned killing?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 10:49:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: As well, I disagree with your "no tribe is better than another" claim. Any group which actually believes that is doomed to extinction, and the earth will be populated by groups who do not believe in such foolishness. uhh . . . does the phrase "American exceptionalism" ring a bell? uhhh ... what? Perhaps you misunderstand my point. I'm not claiming that "no tribe is better than another". That is tweake's position. I'm saying that any "tribe" which doesn't value itself higher than all the others is on the wrong side of evolutionary history. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: Whether or not the killing of the scientist in Iran is "murder" can only be determined based on the motives for the killings. I tend to guess (since neither I nor any other poster knows beyond any real doubt) that it isn't murder, but part of a nation-state conflict, and therefore legal and sanctioned, and therefore not "murder". So you are guessing about some undefined nation-state conflict being sanctioned by who? By UN Charter Article 51 or by GW Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike? And, how well did the latter turn out for us vis-a-vis Iraq 2003? Seems we are again being steamrolled by the scaremongering of WMDs. I know, I know, you said way back in the thread that we can't be certain but we shouldn't take a chance. So, war or murder based on uncertainty is the new criteria? When is assassination legal and sanctioned? When does nation-state conflict short of war permit legal and sanctioned killing? vincent, normally your posts are insightful, interesting and on-point, but I think you must have slipped up a little. First earlier in the thread, we discussed what "murder" is. It the unlawful killing of an individual. If it is lawful, then it's not murder. Second, assassination by a nation state is legal most of the time. The current Administration even sanctions the killing of it's own citizens without due process of law, and can hold them indefinitely without charges. Assassination of other than American citizens has never been illegal in the American legal system. It has only been "not done" due to Presidential finding, and can be (and was, apparently) re-authorized by another Presidential finding. If the assassinations are being done by another nation-station, you'd have to refer to that state's own laws, but just about every nation has some allowances for such things. International law? [sm=biggrin.gif][sm=biggrin.gif] Firm

Aylee -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 1:35:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If I agree with your definitions above, you still have placed yourself in your own"tribal" definition, with your comments about "Marine animals" and its consequently implied treatment of them as creatures not worthy of being classified as human (i.e. outside your tribe, and therefore easily subsumed in the group of creatures which can be killed out of hand). As well, my initial comments regarding your non-standard definitions of things stand. I never accepted anything, not even "for the sake of argument". In other words, you are changing the common definition to fit your own particular rhetorical requirements. I don't accept either your definitions, nor your arguments. Nicely struck Firm. One should appreciate the er... strength-of-character of someone who defined tribalism a few pages back, and now insists it must be the operative definition because the apparent window-of-opportunity to challenge said definition has now passed! [:D] Anaxagoras, I ceased responding to Tweak because she was making up her own rules for the conversation. My tribal definition was based on "who you trust." Tweak is trying to pull in some other definition. She is also throwing out red herrings. It gets tiring to try and follow her twists and turns. I have noticed that this is a favored tactic of several posters. I am not sure if they are really incapable of following thought or they like to be deliberately obtuse.

Slavehandsome -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 1:39:24 PM)
Watch Rick Santorum show what a criminal he is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8uNcIEvGdo

vincentML -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 5:44:36 PM)
quote: Perhaps you misunderstand my point. I'm not claiming that "no tribe is better than another". That is tweake's position. I'm saying that any "tribe" which doesn't value itself higher than all the others is on the wrong side of evolutionary history. Firm, mea culpa. I certainly did misunderstand the point. Now that I do understand allow me to pose this question for clarity: What evolutionary history are you referencing? Malthusian-Darwin-Spencerism applied to nation-states? Can we not consider some tribes who valued themselves higher than all the others and are now on the junk heap of history? Just to name a few: Persia, Athens, Rome, 16th C Spain, 19th C Prussia, 19th C British Empire, 20th C Nazi Germany, 20th C Soviet Union. Are these only anomolies to your theory? Or did you pull that theory out of thin air? Or am I still missing your point? quote: If the assassinations are being done by another nation-station, you'd have to refer to that state's own laws, but just about every nation has some allowances for such things. the above is a broadly sweeping statement that I cannot disprove nor can you easily prove. But, back to the killing of a scientist in Iran. There seems to be a difference between targeted killings and assassinations. To wit: Targeted Killing is the intentional killing–by a government or its agents–of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention. So, you would have to hold that this scientist was taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism. Maybe that was already decided in this thread. If so, sorry for coming in late. But if this scientist was taking part in terrorism by virtue of his work in a nuclear facility then anyone engaged in an armaments project would fall under that broad concept. Seems like a bullshit application of the definition of terrorism. Additionally, from the same source: Judge Abraham Sofaer, former federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, wrote on the subject: When people call a targeted killing an "assassination," they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action. Assassination is widely defined as murder, and is for that reason prohibited in the United States.... U.S. officials may not kill people merely because their policies are seen as detrimental to our interests.... But killings in self-defense are no more "assassinations" in international affairs than they are murders when undertaken by our police forces against domestic killers. Targeted killings in self-defense have been authoritatively determined by the federal government to fall outside the assassination prohibition. So, has there been a finding that the killing of this particular scientist was done as an act of self-defense? Really? The killing of one scientist is an act of self-defense? Strikes me more like an act of terrorism to frighten other scientists much in the same vain that killing one abortionist is an act of terrorism. To ask anyone to believe that this one scientist was a terrorist is nonsense. Murder, I think. Do I have that wrong? Btw, greetings, Firm. [:D]

tweakabelle -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 5:47:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If I agree with your definitions above, you still have placed yourself in your own"tribal" definition, with your comments about "Marine animals" and its consequently implied treatment of them as creatures not worthy of being classified as human (i.e. outside your tribe, and therefore easily subsumed in the group of creatures which can be killed out of hand). As well, my initial comments regarding your non-standard definitions of things stand. I never accepted anything, not even "for the sake of argument". In other words, you are changing the common definition to fit your own particular rhetorical requirements. I don't accept either your definitions, nor your arguments. Nicely struck Firm. One should appreciate the er... strength-of-character of someone who defined tribalism a few pages back, and now insists it must be the operative definition because the apparent window-of-opportunity to challenge said definition has now passed! [:D] Anaxagoras, I ceased responding to Tweak because she was making up her own rules for the conversation. My tribal definition was based on "who you trust." Tweak is trying to pull in some other definition. She is also throwing out red herrings. It gets tiring to try and follow her twists and turns. I have noticed that this is a favored tactic of several posters. I am not sure if they are really incapable of following thought or they like to be deliberately obtuse. How audacious of me to specify clearly what I meant and to stick to that meaning throughout the thread!!! Dirty underhand tactics snarks the looney Right. How devious of me to resist the losers changing the rules after they've lost the debate (and the plot) completely !! Tut! Tut! Such outrageous leftist perfidy moans the looney Right. I wish I could say that I'm surprised and disappointed by the shocked reaction of the looney Right to someone insisting on clarity, honesty and consistency in their contributions to these threads. But that would be a barefaced lie by me. I fully appreciate how alien such values are to the luminaries of the looney Right and, like many other contributors here, have adjusted my expectations accordingly.

Anaxagoras -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 7:23:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY If I agree with your definitions above, you still have placed yourself in your own"tribal" definition, with your comments about "Marine animals" and its consequently implied treatment of them as creatures not worthy of being classified as human (i.e. outside your tribe, and therefore easily subsumed in the group of creatures which can be killed out of hand). As well, my initial comments regarding your non-standard definitions of things stand. I never accepted anything, not even "for the sake of argument". In other words, you are changing the common definition to fit your own particular rhetorical requirements. I don't accept either your definitions, nor your arguments. Nicely struck Firm. One should appreciate the er... strength-of-character of someone who defined tribalism a few pages back, and now insists it must be the operative definition because the apparent window-of-opportunity to challenge said definition has now passed! [:D] Anaxagoras, I ceased responding to Tweak because she was making up her own rules for the conversation. My tribal definition was based on "who you trust." Tweak is trying to pull in some other definition. She is also throwing out red herrings. It gets tiring to try and follow her twists and turns. I have noticed that this is a favored tactic of several posters. I am not sure if they are really incapable of following thought or they like to be deliberately obtuse. Aylee, I agree with your views on said individual. Most people have strong views on certain topics, which often leads to unpleasantness when disagreement arises but we can still afford a modicum of respect to those we disagree with since we are more than the sum of our opinions, unless they turn discussions into a charade or an opportunity to be abusive.

Edwynn -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 7:56:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Can we not consider some tribes who valued themselves higher than all the others and are now on the junk heap of history? Just to name a few: Persia, Athens, Rome, 16th C Spain, 19th C Prussia, 19th C British Empire, 20th C Nazi Germany, 20th C Soviet Union. Are these only anomalies to your theory? Thank you for the much needed condensation of what need be said where I have been inveterately verbose in various attempts to point out the same phenomenon previously. What is that quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different result being an indication of some mental aberration or another? Another poster's comment that a tribe should consider itself superior to all others is instructive, because even though I think likewise to some degree, I also take note of the fact that so-called superior tribes often find their way further, actually got that way to begin with, by significant and long-term interaction with other (ergo, 'inferior') tribes, as clearly shown by anthropology and history, not by destroying them (and by that adventure ultimately themselves, the latter repeated error explicated clearly enough by history as you point out). Any regards, not a great surprise here that facile invocation of evolution occurs most from those who understand it least.

tweakabelle -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/30/2012 9:05:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: As well, I disagree with your "no tribe is better than another" claim. Any group which actually believes that is doomed to extinction, and the earth will be populated by groups who do not believe in such foolishness. uhh . . . does the phrase "American exceptionalism" ring a bell? quote: Whether or not the killing of the scientist in Iran is "murder" can only be determined based on the motives for the killings. I tend to guess (since neither I nor any other poster knows beyond any real doubt) that it isn't murder, but part of a nation-state conflict, and therefore legal and sanctioned, and therefore not "murder". So you are guessing about some undefined nation-state conflict being sanctioned by who? By UN Charter Article 51 or by GW Bush Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike? And, how well did the latter turn out for us vis-a-vis Iraq 2003? Seems we are again being steamrolled by the scaremongering of WMDs. I know, I know, you said way back in the thread that we can't be certain but we shouldn't take a chance. So, war or murder based on uncertainty is the new criteria? When is assassination legal and sanctioned? When does nation-state conflict short of war permit legal and sanctioned killing? Thank You VincentML. "American exceptionalism" is precisely what I had in mind when described Aylee's position as 'tribal". The choice for each nation (or tribe) in how it conducts its international affairs is short and sweet. We can all agree to set of rules that apply to every country equally and which we all must abide by. Nations that break the rules are subject to collective sanctions from all the other nations. Or each nation can claim some kind of exceptional status (for whatever mythical reason it chooses) and insist that their way is the only/superior way. It's a no-brainer that the second option leads to endless conflict, war and violence. The rules that govern the use of force between nations are clearly set out in international law and the Geneva Conventions. Disputes can be resolved at the International Court, or through negotiation. The use of violence targetting civilians is expressly forbidden. Blowing up a car containing a civilian scientist in broad daylight, in the middle of a street in the middle of a city, with zero attention paid to safety of civilian passers by is an act of war if carried out directly by agents of a State, wearing the uniform of that State. If it is conducted by non-State agents, it is usually classified as a 'terrorist' act. Thus, the murders in Iran were clearly a terrorist act. They would be unambiguously terrorist acts if they occurred in New York, Sydney or London, and targeted civilian scientists employed by Western utility or defense companies. Is anyone here in any doubt that the looney Right would the first to condemn in loud unequivocal terms such an act and demand revenge/retaliation? Of course they would. Such acts don't suddenly change their nature and cease to be terrorist acts simply because the location is in Iran and the acts were carried out, most probably, by Israelis/Israeli agents - unless one takes a tribal/exceptionalist approach. And, as noted above, that is a recipe for chaos.

thompsonx -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/31/2012 5:02:19 PM)
quote: First earlier in the thread, we discussed what "murder" is. It the unlawful killing of an individual. If it is lawful, then it's not murder. Second, assassination by a nation state is legal most of the time. The current Administration even sanctions the killing of it's own citizens without due process of law, and can hold them indefinitely without charges. Assassination of other than American citizens has never been illegal in the American legal system. It has only been "not done" due to Presidential finding, and can be (and was, apparently) re-authorized by another Presidential finding. If the assassinations are being done by another nation-station, you'd have to refer to that state's own laws, but just about every nation has some allowances for such things. The proof of the ignorance of this post is that if a foriegner, whose nation sanctioned assasination as the u.s. does, were to kill a u.s. nuclear scientist with the same claim to imunity would find himself facing trial and absolute conviction.

tweakabelle -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/31/2012 7:54:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: First earlier in the thread, we discussed what "murder" is. It the unlawful killing of an individual. If it is lawful, then it's not murder. Second, assassination by a nation state is legal most of the time. The current Administration even sanctions the killing of it's own citizens without due process of law, and can hold them indefinitely without charges. Assassination of other than American citizens has never been illegal in the American legal system. It has only been "not done" due to Presidential finding, and can be (and was, apparently) re-authorized by another Presidential finding. If the assassinations are being done by another nation-station, you'd have to refer to that state's own laws, but just about every nation has some allowances for such things. The proof of the ignorance of this post is that if a foriegner, whose nation sanctioned assasination as the u.s. does, were to kill a u.s. nuclear scientist with the same claim to imunity would find himself facing trial and absolute conviction. Yes. The idea that American law applies universally is one example of how fallacious tribal/exceptionalist approaches are. Outside the USA, American law is irrelevant to the approx. 6.7 billion humans who live outside the USA. I cannot think of a place where the unlawful killing of a civilian is not considered murder and punishable under whatever local legal statutes apply. A crime is always punishable under local laws. The problem of terrorism is an international problem. Terrorism will only be eliminated by co-operation between countries. The only way that will work is if all countries agree on the same standards and those standards are applied equally to all States and countries. Introducing double standards or claiming exceptional standards for one State is the fastest known way of making the goal of defeating terrorism impossible. This is such basic common sense I'm surprised I have to point it out. When this standard is applied the murders of the Iranian civilians are precisely that - murders, they are the victims of terrorism. Those who wish to claim otherwise are de facto aiding the goals of terrorists.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (1/31/2012 9:49:24 PM)
vincent, I've not deserted the discussion, but it's likely I will be very slow to respond, as work is stealing my time a lot right now. Interesting conversation, though, and thank you. Hopefully we'll continue soon. Firm

Politesub53 -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (2/1/2012 2:52:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY but it's likely I will be very slow to respond, Firm I have often thought you seemed a bit slow Firmy [8D]

vincentML -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (2/1/2012 5:27:54 AM)
quote: Terrorism will only be eliminated by co-operation between countries. I love your optimism. But eliminating terrorism? Not likely. Terrorism has a long and infamous history and imho a long and annoying future. It is fundamental to the drama of human conflict. It aint pretty but its us.

vincentML -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (2/1/2012 5:29:04 AM)
Firm; We will keep the light on for you [:D]

Anaxagoras -> RE: Who is Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientist? (2/1/2012 6:06:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY but it's likely I will be very slow to respond, Firm I have often thought you seemed a bit slow Firmy [8D] In fairness Firm doesn't have the benefit of a frequent caffeine intake, unlike yourself who always seems to be drinking a cup of coffee when I see you comment on the forum. [8D]

Page: << < prev 9 10 11 [12] 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875