quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

Terrorism is pretty much as emotive a word as murder. You suggested on another thread that the statements of the Iranian leadership was mere "rhetoric". What I think people like yourself need to do is engage with the potential consequences of the dilemma. There are many indicators that Iran will not only develop nuclear weapons (as per the IAEA report) but use them with malign intent. They have threatened not only Israel but their Arab Islamic neighbours as well. They are probably the biggest sponsors of terrorism throughout the world. Even if they don't use these weapons against Israel the consequences are disturbing because they will not shy away from throwing their weight around as in the past but with an added incentive due to their newfound superiority. As some commentators have suggested, a Nuclear Iran will likely cause a nuclear arms race in the Middle-East, the like of which would be far more dangerous than that of the Cold War for it will involve extremely volatile nations. The long-term ramifications are likely to be devastating.

Consequently it is an evil (used in the non-metaphysical sense of the word) for Iran to get weapons with such destructive power. I suggest it's a greatly lesser evil to take steps to prevent Iran getting said weapons with the loss of as little life as humanly possible for there is a distinct possibility there will be a vastly greater loss of life if no action is taken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Terrorism is pretty much as emotive a word as murder. You suggested on another thread that the statements of the Iranian leadership was mere "rhetoric". What I think people like yourself need to do is engage with the potential consequences of the dilemma. There are many indicators that Iran will not only develop nuclear weapons (as per the IAEA report) but use them with malign intent. They have threatened not only Israel but their Arab Islamic neighbours as well. They are probably the biggest sponsors of terrorism throughout the world. Even if they don't use these weapons against Israel the consequences are disturbing because they will not shy away from throwing their weight around as in the past but with an added incentive due to their newfound superiority. As some commentators have suggested, a Nuclear Iran will likely cause a nuclear arms race in the Middle-East, the like of which would be far more dangerous than that of the Cold War for it will involve extremely volatile nations. The long-term ramifications are likely to be devastating.

Consequently it is an evil (used in the non-metaphysical sense of the word) for Iran to get weapons with such destructive power. I suggest it's a greatly lesser evil to take steps to prevent Iran getting said weapons with the loss of as little life as humanly possible for there is a distinct possibility there will be a vastly greater loss of life if no action is taken.

Firstly, dont tell me what you think "people like me" need to do. I have every right to condemn the murder of civillians, despite any possibly outcome of Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb. You have a habit of defending everything Israel does, regardless of any political outcome, so to suggest I do otherwise is somewhat hypocritical.

quote:


You seem to feel it is evil for Iran to have nuclear weapons while other nations are free to brandish theirs. personally I would love to see them all disapear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

It is debatable if such killings, even authorised, are debatable under International Law though.

I say this even though I have backed the use of Drones by both Bush and Obama, provided they have 100% info on any targets.

"International Law"? 

100%?  Never happened.  Never gonna happen.  Will you accept some number less than 100%?

On a sliding scale, as close to 100% as possible, not the fiasco of blowing up wedding parties. There has to be a fixed point below which information becomes unreliable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


So by your standards, it would be perfectly OK for a country in dispute with the US to blow up civilian scientists working for the US Govt (or a major defense contractor like McDonnell-Douglas) in broad daylight in the middle of a street in say NYC or any of your cities. And if they manged to kill a few civilian bystanders too that would merely be "a bitch"?

You're surely not going to claim that wouldn't be a terrorist action are you? I mean no one is that dumb are they?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Here’s a really scary thought: Using Aylee’s definition of terrorism as suggested by Anax. Why? Let’s see what happens if it is applied:

quote:

Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

So... What is your definition of "terrorism", anyway?

Using violence to instill fear in order to convince someone to do things a certain way politically.

Firm definitely had a point when he said that terrorism was such a difficult thing to define. For example, using Aylee's definition of terrorism offered above, and bearing in mind Aylee's justification of violence to obtain political ends as below:

quote:

Aylee
This is exactly where the concept of reprisal comes to play. You hurt the other guy until he plays YOUR way.
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3991790/tm.htm

Is there any alternative to concluding that, under Aylee's own definitions, Aylee is a terrorist? Scary huh?

Sadly this is precisely the outcome to be expected when people are naïve enough to try to define terrorism in such a way as to only condemn the 'other side's' violence but retain for themselves the right to use similar violence whenever and however they choose. To put that a bit more directly, these problems result from attempting to define terrorism selectively and self servingly.

It is an approach driven by expediency and self interest and therefore thoroughly flawed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Oh dear I seem to have ruffled a few feathers. lol No offense was intended when I referred to people like you. It was meant with respect to those holding common stance that Iran means no real harm. BTW if I defend everything Israel does (which I dispute BTW) then you surely condemn everything Israel does even when you have no real proof.

quote:


Who brandishes their Nuclear weapons? I assume you are going to say Israel as many who defend Iran do but I suggest that is nonsense. They have never threatened any other country with extinction or with their usage despite possessing them for nigh on 50 years, and facing some nasty wars in that time. In fact Syria, Egypt and Jordan hedged their bets in 1973 that Israel wouldn't have the balls to use them when they tried to destroy the State. I see the sum of your argument here as being that if other nations have them then it is quite OK with Iran having nuclear weapons despite the aggression of their rhetoric (including the apocalyptic talk of the Twelfth Iman) and their substantial sponsorship of terrorism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Well, alrighty then ... we can argue about "how much" pregnant we are then ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

but if the target is one of the guys who helps build drones, just for an example, it isn't going to meet the definition of terrorism I have offered.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys

quote:

If you don't want to be part of the war, don't be part of the war machine.

Iran moving to nuclear doesn't make them part of the war machine. US government has already admitted they don't have nukes.

We're making them out to be part of it like we usually do when we want to go to war. Everyone seems to think this crap with Iran is a new developing issue but they've laid out plans years ago to go into numerous countries way prior to even the Afghanistan involvement.

They are only making the case for this one at the moment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Well, alrighty then ... we can argue about "how much" pregnant we are then ...

No we cant. It is something clearly definable by a medical test, you are either pregnant or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
My point being that absolute certainty is impossible, therefore there will be mistakes and innocents killed as some time or the other.  Do you then condemn those mistakes, and say that they are "terrorism" or simply collateral damage?

I have made my views clear, attacks on civillians are terrorism plain and simple. With terrorists, I think they have given up any rights to be afforded the notion that they are just civillians. Lets not forget one guy was just a driver, the other a scientist, albeit a top level one. Doing things the way you suggest means ANY scientist, in ANY nation, is fair game as an assassination target

quote:

Oh good grief. This is what happens when people decide that "we ain't gonna study war no more."

Within the accepted, customary, and traditional laws of warfare, terrorism and reprisals are two different things. Although they can be the exact same action. For example, killing every man, woman, child, dog, cat, and rat in a village.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Welcome back BTW.

quote:

No doubt the US is actively working to justify a war, but I don't think there's much question that Iran wants nukes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
Oh dear I seem to have ruffled a few feathers. lol No offense was intended when I referred to people like you. It was meant with respect to those holding common stance that Iran means no real harm. BTW if I defend everything Israel does (which I dispute BTW) then you surely condemn everything Israel does even when you have no real proof.

Which goes to show you dont pay attention to my posts. I have clearly stated in the past Israel has every right to go after known terrorists. Oddly enough I get irritated when they kill innocent civillians.

quote:

quote:


Who brandishes their Nuclear weapons? I assume you are going to say Israel as many who defend Iran do but I suggest that is nonsense. They have never threatened any other country with extinction or with their usage despite possessing them for nigh on 50 years, and facing some nasty wars in that time. In fact Syria, Egypt and Jordan hedged their bets in 1973 that Israel wouldn't have the balls to use them when they tried to destroy the State. I see the sum of your argument here as being that if other nations have them then it is quite OK with Iran having nuclear weapons despite the aggression of their rhetoric (including the apocalyptic talk of the Twelfth Iman) and their substantial sponsorship of terrorism.

There you go go again assuming, you know the old saying, it makes an ASS out of U and ME.
My post clearly stated, that I wish everyone were to dispose of nuclear bombs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
You seem to feel it is evil for Iran to have nuclear weapons while other nations are free to brandish theirs. personally I would love to see them all disapear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
Now our policy is, stick our noses in and move in so we can occupy for the foreseeable future.

If we hadn't stirred shit up in the first place we might not be where we are today. I favor talking with them and trying a diplomatic approach firs but I believe that if they want a nuke, let them have it. They are a sovereign nation. What are we doing telling other countries what they can and can't do?

Then of course there's the economic side which people don't even discuss.. You can see that they want to look over that because they go right to their next thought and uncomfortably skip over the obvious.. if they pause, it's for a minute before they justify the need for war again. Rarely do people stop and think about the huge threat to national security these policies put forward.

Another thing is blowback or retaliation. We aren't making friends over there.

Last but not least: The greater part of the American people don't want it, many soldiers don't want it and I'm betting the women, children, elderly and even many of the men in Iran probably don't want it.

I say we get all of the "leaders" who want war in a warehouse and give them baseball bats so they can go at it. That would be a good idea I think since most of the ones calling for war haven't served a day in the military. We could even sell tickets to the fiasco.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icarys
They've never said they wanted to nuke us like Bachmann's irresponsible ass has stated and the interpretation of "I want to wipe Israel off of the face of the map" is crude at best. We have a history of sticking our noses in foreign lands, stirring shit up, then watching them tear each other up.