Iran, Epic Troll

[Lemur]

Since ACIN and Don C are going on about Iran in the GOP thread, I thought it might be wise to start up an Iranian love-in on its own terms.

So, what do you do with a bitter, entrenched, trolling rogue state like Iran? (Besides watch their excellent movies (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1832382/)?)

Both Bush II and Obama went with international isolation, for which there is a good argument (http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/09/will_sanctioning_iran_work).

[T]he Obama administration's hopes are more ambitious. They want the sanctions to be so crippling that Khamenei's ultimate authority comes under challenge, to the point where factional divisions open up space for a substantive change in the regime.

This might work, but I'd put the odds of this happening at less than 1 in 3. Still, this is the thing about instances in which economic sanctions are deployed. Even if their prospects don't look great, they're usually employed because the other options have even worse odds. For the next, say, six months, pursuing this course of action makes sense. It weakens Iran at a key moment in the Middle East, and it might lead to some positive developments down the road. That said, even if the sanctions work in crippling Iran's economy, they likely won't work at altering Iran's objectionable nuclear policies -- the expectations of future conflict are too great. At that point, the United States is going to need to consider whether it's prepared to pursue a longer-term containment strategy or alter course.There's an equally good argument that isolation through sanctions and pressure will not work (http://www.insideiran.org/featured/qa-iranian-government-faces-economic-turmoil-and-public-panic/).

The nuclear issue is a popular policy. What the United States should say is we are going to impose sanctions until you hold free elections, respect human rights….This would have much force within Iran and with a change in regime, then the nuclear issue could be better resolved. The issue the US has picked (the nuclear issue) will not rally the people against the regime. Sanctions are aimed at hurting the government and forcing the regime to change its policies, or squeezing the average citizen to turn against the regime. It hurts the average person. This is sad, but inevitable, fallout of sanctions that cannot be helped.So, in the next 48 hours, I expect the Backroom to solve this whole Iranian trolling business. (Did you like the one where they threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz (http://www.cnbc.com/id/45867457)? That was a knee-slapper, given their naval capability. Epic troll!)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well, to be fair it was GC that really brought up the bulk of what I said to Don in my post. He deserves credit for bringing up what I stated first and removing my internet anxiety from regurgitating everything he said.

But as to the OT. Iran is a joke. It isn't Nazi Germany. It's not a threat. It is a power hungry theocracy that uses religion to control the rural areas and is making a nuke to maintain power in the region, not to send off to terrorists.

Israel can handle itself, otherwise what is the point of giving them our weapons and money? The Iranian regime is scared of a couple things:
A. Israel
B. Saudi Arabia (which is very powerful to due to holding hands with US presidents)
C. A Western backed Iraqi/Afghanistani government.

With these three factors in play, Iran feels literally surrounded and has good reason to worry about an invasion toppling the kushy spots all the Islamic leaders have. So they want a trump card. Same reason why North Korea wants to build a nuke. They really don't want to use it, they need leverage to get food from the UN.

Lemur is 100%. Stop feeding the troll our American money with costly military exercises.

[Lemur]

I think a key question when dealing with lying scum like the Iranian government is "What endgame is acceptable? And what price are we willing to pay to get to that state?"

Hyperventilating about what a huge threat they are to us and their neighbors kinda plays into their trolling. Cold calculation is called for, not Cheney-esque paranoia and panic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine).

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think a key question when dealing with lying scum like the Iranian government is "What endgame is acceptable? And what price are we willing to pay to get to that state?"

Hyperventilating about what a huge threat they are to us and their neighbors kinda plays into their trolling. Cold calculation is called for, not Cheney-esque paranoia and panic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_One_Percent_Doctrine).

If it was up to me, I would take a hands off approach. But I would say publicly that if they cross over the line, we would carpet bomb every inch of the state and allow the neighboring states that Iran's land is up for grabs if they join our coalition. We tell them to that if their troops secure it, it is theirs and we will bomb as much as they want beforehand.

Rouge states like to play on the fact that US won't annihilate an entire country due to our principles but if we give the ball in the hands of their middle eastern competitors, then the stakes are raised substantially for them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Muchos gracias ACIN, for taking the time to draft a more coherent version of what I was trying to say. That post in the other thread was fantastic.
Thank you. :bow:


For the price of the War on Terror alone, we could have nation-wide high-speed public rail.

Oh man, I am having manly secretions right now just thinking about high speed rail everywhere. Going from LA to San Fran in 3 hours? UUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[rory_20_uk]

The phrase "stop feeding the troll" is exactly right. Iran has a vast number of problems. What it needs is someone to blame for everything that is wrong, and also for the repression that takes place. The only things that unify the populace is hatred of Israel and America. The former is nigh on impossible to change, but the latter can be.

They happily state that they are setting up new facilities for enriching Uranium and even where they are. Why? Are they angling for more hostility from the West? If they wanted a covert bomb, why not get Pakistan to enrich some and transport it across the border - no easy task by any means but that might be covert with the ability to say that there is a nuke on a medium range missile somewhere in Iran. As it stands they are bragging that in 5-10 years they might have the bits required, just in case Obama wants to look tough on foreign policy in an election year.

The best way to get change would be to stop sanctions, to as far as possible open Iran up. People don't revolt when they've nothing to loose, they do so when they see they've something to gain.

I don't really see what the problem of Iran having a nuke is. We've nutters in North Korea and Pakistan with them and that is apparently fine. If the aim was casualties, then biological and / or chemical weapons are quick, cheap and equally deadly - yet they've apparently not tried to use one (or else the West and Israel has an astounding track record of getting them all). The aim must be defensive - that any massive fleet might be vaporised.

So, get trading with them. Get them access to stuff. Show them that fear of the West is not justified - ideally by not having hostile troops on 3 our of 4 sides. It won't be flicking a switch, but I think that kicking the Islamic hornet's nests in the Middle East isn't working.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Things aren't going very well for beardneck, Iran is probably more fragile than ever. Epic troll indeed, nominated for the golden panflute

[Lemur]

Iran has a vast number of problems. What it needs is someone to blame for everything that is wrong, and also for the repression that takes place.
A role we Americans already play for Cuba and North Korea. Sigh. We make a very good scapegoat.

I like your idea of flooding them with Western consumer goods and soap operas. Let their people watch some Jersey Shore, and the revolution will follow!

Then again, there already kinda was a revolution in '09, and the entrenched mullahs demonstrated they ere perfectly willing to kill (http://theglobalconsciousness.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/letters-from-iran-and-zahras-paradise-laying-witness-to-the-oppressive-crackdown-of-the-green-movement-09/), torture and crack heads to keep their power.

On the flip side, the Arab Spring brought nothing good for the mullahs. And the Green movement is not dead, it's only resting (http://www.aslanmedia.com/news-a-politics/301-world/3243-why-the-iranian-spring-is-taking-its-sweet-time-).

I see little role for the US in pushing this process forward, however. The more engaged we become, the more we play into the regime's scapegoating. Let's back off, send them Snooki and The Situation, and let things happen naturally.

[PanzerJaeger]

The best strategy for dealing with Iran would be to cut ties with Israel.

[Fragony]

'On the flip side, the Arab Spring brought nothing good for the mullahs.'

Que? Arabist spring turns islamist winter, especially in Egypt

[Hax]

Arab spring, an Arabist is someone who studies Arab culture and language, like your precious Hans Jansen.


C. A Western backed Iraqi/Afghanistani government.

I don't think they're afraid of that at all. To be fair, I think they see it as a possibility to "export" their Revolution. I'll come back to this later, as I have dinner waiting for me now, there's one thing I'd like to point out.


EDIT: At university, I had the honour to meet two Iranian girls, one of whom had lived in Iran up to three years ago and spoke English, whereas the other (http://www.irancomite.nl) was raised in the Netherlands, speaks Dutch fluently and has been Iran several times. In any case, I spoke in length with them about several subjects, including the current state of affairs in Iran. So between the three of us, we came to several conclusions:

The first being that Ahmadinejad is a troll. We all know that, but what's even worse, and I guess this is something that many people don't know, he's a troll at home. He treats people like they're idiots, even his subjects. Parazit made a wonderful point out of this: check it out, it has English subtitles (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNdCXgpYMmk). So yeah, Ahmadinejad is something of a troll, but that's "just" his personality. It's kinda how Berlusconi is, to be honest.

However, he is also more than willing to try and see how far he can push the clergy; he is not a clergyman himself and has received no theological training, as far as I'm aware. In fact, I made a thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?136419-Mashaei-gate-OR-quot-What-is-going-on-in-Iran) a couple of months back; and to be honest, it's interesting to see how far Ahmadinejad was was willing to go in antagonising Khamenei.

Secondly, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei, which is the man I mentioned earlier, appears to have a lot of influence on Ahmadinejad's policy-making; he appears to steer towards a line of pragmatism, both in domestic policy as well as in dealing with the west. Iranians themselves have pointed to the fact that if gradual change is desired, this is probably the best way to go.

Additionally, one of the girls I mentioned said that if Rahim-Mashaei was president and his policy was the main line in Iran, she'd be returning there immediately.

So basically, what I'm trying to say, when you look at the Iranian government right now, there are two things that should be kept in mind:

1) It is not representative for its people right now. I'm not a great fan of the "Ahmadinejad did fraud!" theory, because I believe his support in 2009 was large enough to have won. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. In any case, the government is not representative, because parliament and the judiciary being controlled by Khamenei's lackeys.

2) The Iranian government is very fractured; influential policy-makers and close allies of Rahim-Mashaei have been arrested for charges such as "witchcraft" and "invoking jinn" that should tell us enough about what's going on there. In any case, there are currently two factions within the government fighting for control and Ahmadinejad as somewhat of a charismatic leader, is caught inbetween. Let's see what happens.

[Lemur]

In the latest trolling news, looks like Iran is jamming Al Jazeera (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/10/iran-jamming-al-jazeera-broadcasts/). You know, keeping the liberal bias out. It's like a whole nation run by Fox News.

Iran is jamming broadcasts by Qatar-based news channel Al-Jazeera, satellite operator Arabsat said in a statement received on Tuesday.

“Al-Jazeera is affected… from two different locations in Iran,” near Tehran and near the northwestern city of Maragheh, it said, adding that the cause was located at the request of the pan-Arab news channel.

The satellite television on Sunday announced a new frequency for Arabsat viewers due to “continued interference.”

“Over the past few months, Al-Jazeera has faced sustained interference to our satellite transmissions,” it said in a statement.

“These occurrences will only strengthen our commitment to continue providing our award-winning coverage across the region 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” said the broadcaster.

The influential channel has been criticised by many Arab governments for its coverage of the anti-regime uprisings which have swept the region since the start of 2011.

[Veho Nex]

Iran executing game developer. (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/10/kumawar-dev-faces-execution-in-iran/#more-88139)

[Fragony]

Iran executing game developer. (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/01/10/kumawar-dev-faces-execution-in-iran/#more-88139)

Who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and has never been in Iran before, that is at least stupid

[Lemur]

There's more than one way to skin a cat (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/iran-reports-killing-of-nuclear-scientist.html)

A bomber on a motorcycle killed a scientist from Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment site and his bodyguard-driver on Wednesday during the morning commute in Tehran, Iranian media reported, in an assassination that could further elevate international tensions over the Iranian nuclear program and stoke the country’s growing anti-Western belligerence.

It was the fourth such attack reported in two years and, as after the previous episodes, Iran accused the United States and Israel of responsibility. The White House condemned the attack and denied any responsibility. The official reaction in Israel appeared to be more cryptic.

Iranian news accounts said the suspected assassin had attached a magnetized explosive device to the scientist’s car and escaped during the rush hour in northern Tehran. News photographs from the scene showed a car, a Peugeot 405, draped in a pale blue tarp being lifted onto a truck. Some photographs published by Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency showed what it said was the body of the scientist still inside the car. The head was covered with a white cloth.

[Papewaio]

So this isn't a act of war or terrorism?

We would think this is a normal diplomatic overture if Western scientists where culled by Taliban, Iran, North Korea or Phelps feeling it is punishment for gays in the military?

Surely our reaction would to bomb them into the stone age. So can't Iran respond in kind?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Surely our reaction would to bomb them into the stone age. So can't Iran respond in kind?

Not really relevant, given that they don't have the ability. Then again not so that long ago there were all these stories about Iran plotting murders on US soil by Mexican drug cartel proxy. Anyway, the bumping off of vaguely strategically important figures is not exactly new -- the inclusion of (nuclear) scientists as targets isn't exactly new either.

[Vladimir]

Surely our reaction would to bomb them into the stone age. So can't Iran respond in kind?

No. They lack the capabilities to do so; however, as a sovereign state they are allowed to take action against those targeting their national assets (people). Of course, that assumes they know who did it. Blame the U.S. is only good for pacifying the locals.

I'm sure the regime has and/or will kill and detain as many people as it wants to in retaliation.

[Lemur]

So this isn't a act of war or terrorism?
I don't see how you can call it terrorism; the goal was not to spread chaos and terror, but rather to deny the Iranian state a specific asset. So it's an act of war. Or even more specifically, assassination.

I would not be surprised to learn that Israel green-lighted and directed this attack.

[Greyblades]

Personally, I dont think it was the US, when I think of american assassins I think snipers and poison, not car bombs. I could be wrong though, but if the americans wanted someone dead I would think they would kill him off quietly.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I wish they had kidnapped him rather than blow him up. The intel he could have provided would have been worth it, not to mention that the death of anybody smart enough to work on nuclear physics is a tragedy to an extent in my eyes.

[Ronin]

So this isn't a act of war or terrorism?

We would think this is a normal diplomatic overture if Western scientists where culled by Taliban, Iran, North Korea or Phelps feeling it is punishment for gays in the military?

Surely our reaction would to bomb them into the stone age. So can't Iran respond in kind?

it would be an act of war if it can be proven...but the Mossad will have taken precautions.

as for retaliation....well...if they can they can...if they can´t they can´t...that's how it works normally.

[Hax]

It might just as well not have been Israel, could have been the Mujahideen of Iran. I think they were outlawed by Khomeini and have been fighting the regime ever since.

[Vladimir]

It might just as well not have been Israel, could have been the Mujahideen of Iran. I think they were outlawed by Khomeini and have been fighting the regime ever since.

Exactly. It's sad to hear educated Westerners default to the Iranian party line. There are many groups in Iran itself that have good reason to kill government officials.

[Ronin]

Exactly. It's sad to hear educated Westerners default to the Iranian party line. There are many groups in Iran itself that have good reason to kill government officials.

The Iranian party line is to say, "this was those Israelis...damn them"
I´m saying "it was probably the Israelis....right on"

[Lemur]

Personally, I dont think it was the US, when I think of american assassins I think snipers and poison, not car bombs.
Oh, we've used our share of bombs, but American human resources in Iran are always low. Whenever an intelligence briefing leaks or is declassified, you always hear Langley complaining that we've got too few feet on the ground in Iran. That's why I suspect this attack was not originated by the USA. Also, it seems rather too precise and strategic to be the work of the mujahedeen, who are more likely to strike soft targets and spread the classical form of terrorism.

So the most likely perp is Israel, which has excellent humint, capabilities to spare, and is perfectly capable of making a reliable magnetic bomb. (Also note the methodical nature of the assassinations; four nuclear scientists over two years. That speaks to a strategic initiative, not to opportunistic mujahedeen.)

I feel for the scientist and his family. But I have no sympathy for the Iranian regime and their nuclear ambitions.

[Fragony]

So this isn't a act of war or terrorism?

Nope. That scientist wasn't even a scientist

[Don Corleone]

Guessing the culprit without actionable intel is is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It won't lead to anything....

Sure, Israel has the capability and a strong motive. They would have to be included in any list of likely suspects.

But as others have mentioned, it could be insurgents working within Iran, though I tend to agree with Lemur on this one... that sort of timing and coordination is not usually practiced by guerilla groups.

It could have been the Saudis. The Iranians had plans to kill at least one of their diplomats last year. Saudi Arabia is arguably more afraid of a nuclear Iran than Israel is. Actually, scratch the arguably... they don't have a bomb of their own to lob back.

It could have been the Russians. That would be rather Putinesque to try to keep them right on the hairy edge... making enough progress to continue paying the Russians for their help in developing but never quite wanting to see it happen.

It could have been elements within Iranian heirarchy itself. Not rebels, so much as groups within Iranian military or intelligence communities that don't want Iran to become nuclear armed. (There will be a price to be paid).

And I'm not even a foreign policy wonk. I'm sure those that spend time reading Foreign Affairs Journal could add a dozen more to my list without even trying.

And unless Iran has some intel on it, they'll have to be pretty careful about retaliation. Retaliating against the wrong group can bring a lot of hardship.

[Lemur]

It could have been elements within Iranian heirarchy itself. Not rebels, so much as groups within Iranian military or intelligence communities that don't want Iran to become nuclear armed.
Extremely unlikely. The nuclear program is very, very popular in Iran, at nearly all levels of society. Not impossible, but the least likely scenario I've heard.

[Vladimir]

The Iranian party line is to say, "this was those Israelis...damn them"
I´m saying "it was probably the Israelis....right on"

Not laying blame, just wish we reflected more in Iran's complexities. ;-)

[Hax]

The Iranian party line is to say, "this was those Israelis...damn them"

No, you mean "the zionists". Of course, Iran doesn't acknowledge Israel's existence, there is only "Occupied Palestine".


It could have been the Saudis. The Iranians had plans to kill at least one of their diplomats last year. Saudi Arabia is arguably more afraid of a nuclear Iran than Israel is. Actually, scratch the arguably... they don't have a bomb of their own to lob back.


I don't believe that plot, the Quds force wouldn't ever do something that silly

[Fragony]

gI don't believe that plot, the Quds force wouldn't ever do something that silly'

Saudi Arabia and Iran are allready at war

[Lemur]

A good essay on the status quo in Iran (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/features/letters-from/christmas-is-no-time-for-an-iranian-revolution?page=show):

No one doubts that Israeli and Western operators are behind recent assassinations of nuclear scientists on the streets of Tehran. And the sudden frequency of "accidents" at various factories and Revolutionary Guards bases (which a majority -- their government's denial notwithstanding -- also believe are the work of foreign agencies) has done nothing to change the minds of either government officials or the general public about the nuclear program.

Few in Iran believe that the nuclear program is a quest for a Shia bomb to obliterate Israel once and for all. No, the Iranian people, from my greengrocer to college students who resent their government, still consider the nuclear question in generally nationalistic terms. The particular regime in power is of passing relevance. [...]

And so life in Iran continues as it always has. The government is less powerful than it was, but the regime itself is firmly in control. The nuclear program continues; Iranians go about their business, grumbling as they do. But a nation that weathered a revolution, an eight-year war with Iraq, and more than 30 years of sanctions and the enmity of the West is not about to crumble, nor to change direction. Nothing that the United States or the West can do -- not even war -- will solve the "Iran problem" to its satisfaction. In fact, it's what the United States and its allies don't do that might be the key to the issue -- and what may also give Iranians looking to effect domestic change some badly needed breathing room.

[Hax]

Saudi Arabia and Iran are allready at war

See, the thing is, whenever you post something, I get the idea that you already know everything about events in the Middle East. Could you enlighten the rest of us lowly commoners by citing some quotes or articles or..something?

EDIT: To expand on the subject of possible culprits, it might even have been the Iranian government themselves. It's not necessarily uncommon, as we've seen in Algeria in the 1990s, that army regiments would often don djelabbas and fake beards, march into a village, massacre (some of) its population, in order to set the population up against eachother and to increase fears of "jihadists".

Still, the main difference between Algeria and Iran being that the Iranian regime doesn't really have to do that, as they already have enough enemies basically everywhere.

[a completely inoffensive name]

See, the thing is, whenever you post something, I get the idea that you already know everything about events in the Middle East. Could you enlighten the rest of us lowly commoners by citing some quotes or articles or..something?

EDIT: To expand on the subject of possible culprits, it might even have been the Iranian government themselves. It's not necessarily uncommon, as we've seen in Algeria in the 1990s, that army regiments would often don djelabbas and fake beards, march into a village, massacre (some of) its population, in order to set the population up against eachother and to increase fears of "jihadists".

Still, the main difference between Algeria and Iran being that the Iranian regime doesn't really have to do that, as they already have enough enemies basically everywhere.

Hey Hax, if I remember correctly, aren't your studies at uni about the middle east/arabic countries? You seem to know a lot about the region but I forget if that is uni education or you just have an interest in the region.

[Hax]

Hey Hax, if I remember correctly, aren't your studies at uni about the middle east/arabic countries? You seem to know a lot about the region but I forget if that is uni education or you just have an interest in the region.

Well, my father's a Muslim Algerian and after 9/11 I developed my own interest for Islam, politics, and the Middle East. I used to be pretty enthusiastic about things like the Israel-Palestine debate and used to be staunchly pro-Palestinian, although I now think both sides are definitely very wrong about a lot of things.

In any case, I started my BA in Middle-Eastern Studies at the University of Leiden this year, with Arabic as my major (taking Persian as a minor next year), but I was definitely very interested in the political history and situation of the region before this year.

[Lemur]

Required reading (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag?page=0,0) about Israel's operations in Iran, and our reaction to their tactics.

U.S. intelligence services have received clearance to cooperate with Israel on a number of classified intelligence-gathering operations focused on Iran's nuclear program, according to a currently serving officer. These operations are highly technical in nature and do not involve covert actions targeting Iran's infrastructure or political or military leadership.

"We don't do bang and boom," a recently retired intelligence officer said. "And we don't do political assassinations."

Israel regularly proposes conducting covert operations targeting Iranians, but is just as regularly shut down, according to retired and current intelligence officers. "They come into the room and spread out their plans, and we just shake our heads," one highly placed intelligence source said, "and we say to them -- 'Don't even go there. The answer is no.' " [...]

While many of the details of Israel's involvement with Jundallah are now known, many others still remain a mystery -- and are likely to remain so. The CIA memos of the incident have been "blue bordered," meaning that they were circulated to senior levels of the broader U.S. intelligence community as well as senior State Department officials.

What has become crystal clear, however, is the level of anger among senior intelligence officials about Israel's actions. "This was stupid and dangerous," the intelligence official who first told me about the operation said. "Israel is supposed to be working with us, not against us. If they want to shed blood, it would help a lot if it was their blood and not ours. You know, they're supposed to be a strategic asset. Well, guess what? There are a lot of people now, important people, who just don't think that's true."

[Centurion1]

We most certainly do do assassinations. And I fully support it. The world can no longer solve their violent issues conventionally for better or worse so now more... finesse is required.

[Papewaio]

Assassination of civilians by the state is equvalent if not worse then terrorism by a non state actor.

Assassination of civilians is a non-democratic act. It justifies the use of force by dictators everywhere when democracies chose political policy of removing rivals by murder.

How is what is happening in Syria any different in direction except magnitude?

[Ronin]

Assassination of civilians by the state is equvalent if not worse then terrorism by a non state actor.

Assassination of civilians is a non-democratic act. It justifies the use of force by dictators everywhere when democracies chose political policy of removing rivals by murder.

How is what is happening in Syria any different in direction except magnitude?

a couple of observations:

1- The use of force against an intended target, in this particular case, against a person involved in a nuclear power of a foreign country is a direct action against something you are trying to combat, by definition terrorism is an indirect action destined to try and coerse the other side into complying with something you want through psychological pressure on the population - usually by undiscriminated violence against civilians
If it is provable that a foreign country had this guy killed this might be considered an act of war...but terrorism? that word gets thrown around a little too loosely these days, mostly by the US and Israeli governments after 9/11.
And also, what is the definition of "civilian" here? to me a civilian (in bellic/military terms) is a someone who is totally uninvolved with the subject at the base of a conflict, if someone had killed some random guy walking out of his work in a bank office in Tehran, that's a civilian, a scientist working on a nuclear bomb is not a "civilian" in a conflict about said nuclear program as far as I´m concerned.

2- The democratic responsibilities of a government are to its people...not to the people of other countries....so a government that uses force against its own people is on a very different level from one who takes action against a foreign target.

[Hax]

And also, what is the definition of "civilian" here? to me a civilian (in bellic/military terms) is a someone who is totally uninvolved with the subject at the base of a conflict, if someone had killed some random guy walking out of his work in a bank office in Tehran, that's a civilian, a scientist working on a nuclear bomb is not a "civilian" in a conflict about said nuclear program as far as I´m concerned.

It's like bombing a farmaceutical factory because medicines there might be used to treat wounded soldiers. Right?

[Ronin]

It's like bombing a farmaceutical factory because medicines there might be used to treat wounded soldiers. Right?

more distant relation....I can´t think of any pharmacological product that has a purely military application.

[Papewaio]

a couple of observations:

1- The use of force against an intended target, in this particular case, against a person involved in a nuclear power of a foreign country is a direct action against something you are trying to combat, by definition terrorism is an indirect action destined to try and coerse the other side into complying with something you want through psychological pressure on the population - usually by undiscriminated violence against civilians
If it is provable that a foreign country had this guy killed this might be considered an act of war...but terrorism? that word gets thrown around a little too loosely these days, mostly by the US and Israeli governments after 9/11.
And also, what is the definition of "civilian" here? to me a civilian (in bellic/military terms) is a someone who is totally uninvolved with the subject at the base of a conflict, if someone had killed some random guy walking out of his work in a bank office in Tehran, that's a civilian, a scientist working on a nuclear bomb is not a "civilian" in a conflict about said nuclear program as far as I´m concerned.

2- The democratic responsibilities of a government are to its people...not to the people of other countries....so a government that uses force against its own people is on a very different level from one who takes action against a foreign target.

Reread what I wrote in that post and show where I call it an act of terrorism.

Assassination is a political act and is typical of a police state. A democracy that thinks it is okay to assassinate political rivals is not something to aspire too. Or do you think the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was a legitimate act? After all Greenpeace was interfering in the nuclear weapons programme of a democratic nation and signatory of the non proliferation treaty.

Part and parcel of being a democracy is accountability and transparency. An uninformed electorate is not a viable democratic one. Look at all the middle eastern dictatorships that have collapsed when an informed youth have held their leaders to account.

As for the nuclear scientist the enrichment of uranium does not a bomb make. Enrichment is needed for every uranium fuel rod. So if you want global warming kill the nuclear scientists who can provide you with a lifetime of energy and a coke can of waste for that.

As for pharmaceutical scientists: They can make both chemical and biological weapons. Mustard gas as dropped on the Kurds or fleas with plague as done by Japan on Chinese in WWII. Much cheaper, deadlier and portable then most nukes. Considering that the design for mini nukes requires advanced understanding of explosive detonation to get small quantities of weapons grade material to fission, whilst the technology to hold a virus is a glass vial.

[The Stranger]

if you bully the bullies youll get carpet bombed...

[Goofball]

Reread what I wrote in that post and show where I call it an act of terrorism.

Assassination is a political act and is typical of a police state. A democracy that thinks it is okay to assassinate political rivals is not something to aspire too. Or do you think the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was a legitimate act? After all Greenpeace was interfering in the nuclear weapons programme of a democratic nation and signatory of the non proliferation treaty.

Part and parcel of being a democracy is accountability and transparency. An uninformed electorate is not a viable democratic one. Look at all the middle eastern dictatorships that have collapsed when an informed youth have held their leaders to account.

As for the nuclear scientist the enrichment of uranium does not a bomb make. Enrichment is needed for every uranium fuel rod. So if you want global warming kill the nuclear scientists who can provide you with a lifetime of energy and a coke can of waste for that.

As for pharmaceutical scientists: They can make both chemical and biological weapons. Mustard gas as dropped on the Kurds or fleas with plague as done by Japan on Chinese in WWII. Much cheaper, deadlier and portable then most nukes. Considering that the design for mini nukes requires advanced understanding of explosive detonation to get small quantities of weapons grade material to fission, whilst the technology to hold a virus is a glass vial.

I don't think it was undemocratic when OBL was assassinated. I guess I am agreeing and disagreeing with you at the same time. I disagree with your idea that democracies must never engage in assassinations. But I agree that if they do, they must be transparent and accountable to their populaces.

[Ronin]

Reread what I wrote in that post and show where I call it an act of terrorism.

you're absolutely right...you just called it "equivalent or worse"...my mistake



Assassination is a political act and is typical of a police state. A democracy that thinks it is okay to assassinate political rivals is not something to aspire too. Or do you think the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was a legitimate act? After all Greenpeace was interfering in the nuclear weapons programme of a democratic nation and signatory of the non proliferation treaty.


Again, a "police state" describes to the relation between a state and it's citizens, not foreigners. If we were talking of a country that was assassinating it's own citizens I´d see the comparison.
The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was first of all a dumb act...we don´t even need to go into legitimate or illegitimate....right off the bat it was not a reasonable or proportionate answer to the situation, you don´t kill a fly with a canon.
Second, it was also impressively transparent as to it's intent and author, I´d expect covert actions to be....you know...covert...and also minimally thought out in an intelligent manner, the blow back from the Rainbow Warrior situation was obvious and easy to predict.



Part and parcel of being a democracy is accountability and transparency. An uninformed electorate is not a viable democratic one. Look at all the middle eastern dictatorships that have collapsed when an informed youth have held their leaders to account.

I count....1 - Tunisia...everything else is still way too up in the air to see if it will be beneficial for western interests or not or even if the dictatorships have truly fallen or not....no matter how much CNN and BBC editorials might have wanted to turn it into a rosy news soap opera for the summer months.



As for pharmaceutical scientists: They can make both chemical and biological weapons. Mustard gas as dropped on the Kurds or fleas with plague as done by Japan on Chinese in WWII. Much cheaper, deadlier and portable then most nukes. Considering that the design for mini nukes requires advanced understanding of explosive detonation to get small quantities of weapons grade material to fission, whilst the technology to hold a virus is a glass vial.

the post I was answering to clearly specified a "pharmaceutic factory" producing "medicine"....scientists can do many things, they could be producing teddy bears, but that's not what was being discussed.

[drone]

Again, a "police state" describes to the relation between a state and it's citizens, not foreigners. If we were talking of a country that was assassinating it's own citizens I´d see the comparison.
Well, we are doing this as well.

[Vladimir]

Well, we are doing this as well.

Yes but only the bad ones.

[drone]

Yes but only the bad ones ones the executive gives the order for, and those in close proximity to.
FTFY

[Hax]

Yes but only the bad ones

Scientists. The U.S. government would be assassinating scientists.


To draw a quick comparison; Monday night after a long day of lectures concerning the influence of Ibn-Sina/Avicenna on the Islamic world and the West. One of the lecturers was an Iranian, Mohammad Javad Esmaili, who is associated with the Tehran Institute for Philosophy; he specialises in medieval Islamic theology.

That's not the issue though; what if he would write a popular novel based on say, a subject like the Crusades, in which he attacks what he perceives as "western interference/imperialism" leading to massive revolts throughout the Islamic world in which several American soldiers are killed. In spite of threats, he continues to write and is preparing a sequel to or a commentary on the book, possibly resulting in revolts again.

Is he a bad guy? Would an assassination of such an intellectual be justified?


And we're surprised we get the idea the Iranians don't like us. It's a crying shame; apparently nothing was learned from the way we supported the Shah and deposed Mossadegh and then taught the SAVAK how to go about torturing Iranian citizens.

[drone]

Scientists. The U.S. government would be assassinating scientists.
Pretty sure the US isn't (directly) behind those hits, too deftly done, my money is on the Israelis. We're just on a tangent about Anwar al-Awlaki, Samir Khan, and al-Awlaki's son, don't mind us. ~;)

[Hax]

Earlier in this thread, I expressed my doubts that the U.S. government was involved; however, it was more a philosophical statement directed towards the sentiment expressed by centurion and Vladimir.

[Ronin]

Epic use of a semi-colan.

This whole argument is moot anyway--under the Geneva conventions, this kind of behaviour is uncalled for. According to the written laws of land warfare, we take the high road even when our enemies don't.

or at least....follow the 11th Commandment - Thou shall not get caught.

[Hax]

semi-colan

Don't you mean semi-colon? ;D

[Vladimir]

Sheesh people; I thought one liners with simple moralistic statements would draw some smiles in here.

(semicolon)

[Hax]

That's just how polarised things get, I suppose. My apologies to you.

My statement towards centurion1 still stands, as apparently, he thinks that assassinating civilians is justified.

[Papewaio]

Very difficult to post a long post in a train. So bullet points.

Relationships are reciprical. Use the golden rule.

If you advocate assassination then the reciprical of that is your citizens being assassinated. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Governments can do worse things to their citizens in the name of security then terrorists can in the name of anarchy.

It takes time and effort to form a democracy. We should still support people in their desire to have self determination. To allow dictatorships so we can have easier access to resources is the same as colonialism and slavery. Some nations remember those who helped free them, others hold onto who held them down.

France thought they could blow up the Rainbow Warrior and get away with it. They almost did.

Pharmaceutical factories can just as easy produce chemical weapons as they can pain killers. After all most of the time the difference is in the dose. Look at all the people injecting nerve toxins into their faces.

[Centurion1]

you werent replying to me hax i havent really said anything in this thread

[Hax]

you werent replying to me hax i havent really said anything in this thread

Ah yes, I must have been mistaken (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?139680-Iran-Epic-Troll&p=2053412412&viewfull=1#post2053412412).

[Crazed Rabbit]

I like Goofball's point about transparent assassinations.

But the motorcycle drive-by with a magnetic bomb was pretty freaking awesome.

CR

[Jolt]

There's more than one way to skin a cat (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/12/world/middleeast/iran-reports-killing-of-nuclear-scientist.html)

A bomber on a motorcycle killed a scientist from Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment site and his bodyguard-driver on Wednesday during the morning commute in Tehran, Iranian media reported, in an assassination that could further elevate international tensions over the Iranian nuclear program and stoke the country’s growing anti-Western belligerence.

It was the fourth such attack reported in two years and, as after the previous episodes, Iran accused the United States and Israel of responsibility. The White House condemned the attack and denied any responsibility. The official reaction in Israel appeared to be more cryptic.

Iranian news accounts said the suspected assassin had attached a magnetized explosive device to the scientist’s car and escaped during the rush hour in northern Tehran. News photographs from the scene showed a car, a Peugeot 405, draped in a pale blue tarp being lifted onto a truck. Some photographs published by Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency showed what it said was the body of the scientist still inside the car. The head was covered with a white cloth.

Israel's version of who did it:

http://troll.me/images/ancient-aliens-guy/only-one-explanation-aliens.jpg

[Sarmatian]

Well, serves him right! What business did he have commuting so early.

I'm taking a huge dislike to Israelis (and their backers) methods.

[The Stranger]

u obviously have not been to india...

or russia... apparently


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2JFL1Sk21Y&feature=related

[Papewaio]

So is it only scientists that work for the government de facto military or do other occupations count?

[Vladimir]

Only if they're bad people.

Don't tell me you expected an intelligent answer to that.

[rory_20_uk]

America's take on taking the high road is to do whatever it wants - and then explain why this action is the high road - if they bother at all. Of course, this is completely different to most other countries doing so when it is very bad. The only ones that are "allowed" to do so with America's blessing.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

America's take on taking the high road is to do whatever it wants - and then explain why this action is the high road - if they bother at all. Of course, this is completely different to most other countries doing so when it is very bad. The only ones that are "allowed" to do so with America's blessing.

~:smoking:

Bow before your masters!

[Husar]

I think most Americans know that things like assassinating civilian scientists is not okay. I think. Its just that most Americans don't care enough to make a big deal out of it either.

Would they do the same if Iranian intelligence managed to kill an american scientist?

[rory_20_uk]

That's not really fair. The people not taking the high road in America are the ones who believe themselves above such judgement. In matters of war, the average American soldier is more than educated on what is right and what is wrong, and knows the take the high road. Yes, we have the occasional "wtf moment" (like those Marines pissing on those corpses) but at least we get up in arms about it and prosecute such cases vigorously (both within the military and out).

I think most Americans know that things like assassinating civilian scientists is not okay. I think. Its just that most Americans don't care enough to make a big deal out of it either.

In every war, soldiers have done wrong. Generally it is expedient to not look too hard for bad things lest they are found. Having a song and dance when pictures are leaked isn't quite the same. Abduction, rape and murder was quite common in Vietnam (how else to pass the time on longer missions?) and unless schools didn't teach right from wrong in the 60's the same thing probably happens now - I seem to recall the troops employing "shake 'n' bake" on insurgents although against the Geneva convention.

The CIA happily kills civilians all the time, but they are referred to as "collateral damage". For some reason killing one person with a limpit mine is bad, blowing up a car and the surrounding area is fine though.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

See, this is why I didn't respond because I would have sounded something like this. I'm getting much better at ignoring flame bait.

Don't get so upset.

[Centurion1]

In every war, soldiers have done wrong. Generally it is expedient to not look too hard for bad things lest they are found. Having a song and dance when pictures are leaked isn't quite the same. Abduction, rape and murder was quite common in Vietnam (how else to pass the time on longer missions?) and unless schools didn't teach right from wrong in the 60's the same thing probably happens now - I seem to recall the troops employing "shake 'n' bake" on insurgents although against the Geneva convention.

The CIA happily kills civilians all the time, but they are referred to as "collateral damage". For some reason killing one person with a limpit mine is bad, blowing up a car and the surrounding area is fine though.

~:smoking:


Common?

How cute and wrong. I don't think the CIA ever kills anyone for joy or sadistic reasons. They most certainly have their purposes and compared to more conventional methods a bomb or a snipers bullet is just as effective and far more surgical than a conventional strike.

But yes this is purely a troll and a rather bad one at that.

[Greyblades]

...he didnt say that the CIA kills for joy or sadistic reasons, he said they dont concern themelves wth reducing the amount of civillians killed, accidentally or otherwise, by thier actions if it get thier jobs done.

[rory_20_uk]

Common?

How cute and wrong. I don't think the CIA ever kills anyone for joy or sadistic reasons. They most certainly have their purposes and compared to more conventional methods a bomb or a snipers bullet is just as effective and far more surgical than a conventional strike.

I believe that we are into the thousands of drone strikes now. Assuming that when a hellfire hits a target someone (and generally a lot more than one person dies) that's a large number.

And if I read this right, it is OK as firing missiles kills less people than a conventional strike... :inquisitive: A sniper's bullet might kill several people, but I would imagine that this would be exception rather than the rule.

In summary it appears that as long as the USA is doing it this is alright and since the murders sorry, killings sorry, collateral damage could be a lot worse it is all fine and we should almost be grateful that the USA is showing such restraint with deaths merely in the thousands, not millions (if every target was hit with B-52s or cruise missiles).

Which in essence was the whole point of "The USA views itself always in the right, and bases the rest of the moral compass around its actions".

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Well, that's certainly not what i've been saying. I've been saying you need to educate yourself on the difference between the CIA and the USA, but you seem hellbent on blaming an entire nation for the actions of an organization that does not answer to the people.

:wall:

That's somewhat correct, but you said "people at the top" earlier and those people so answer to the public, no? The president for example.
So it's about time you elect Newt Gingrich to show Obama that this is unacceptable for the american people...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Common?

How cute and wrong. I don't think the CIA ever kills anyone for joy or sadistic reasons. They most certainly have their purposes and compared to more conventional methods a bomb or a snipers bullet is just as effective and far more surgical than a conventional strike.

But yes this is purely a troll and a rather bad one at that.

You should look into how the CIA kills people in Pakistan via drone strikes because the targets, basically, may have associated at one point with suspected insurgents:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/in-pakistan-drones-kill-our-innocent-allies.html?_r=3&src=tp

On the night before the meeting, we had a dinner, to break the ice. During the meal, I met a boy named Tariq Aziz. He was 16. As we ate, the stern, bearded faces all around me slowly melted into smiles. Tariq smiled much sooner; he was too young to boast much facial hair, and too young to have learned to hate.
...
I told the elders that the only way to convince the American people of their suffering was to accumulate physical proof that civilians had been killed. Three of the men, at considerable personal risk, had collected the detritus of half a dozen missiles; they had taken 100 pictures of the carnage.
...
At the end of the day, Tariq stepped forward. He volunteered to gather proof if it would help to protect his family from future harm. We told him to think about it some more before moving forward; if he carried a camera he might attract the hostility of the extremists.

But the militants never had the chance to harm him. On Monday, he was killed by a C.I.A. drone strike, along with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan. The two of them had been dispatched, with Tariq driving, to pick up their aunt and bring her home to the village of Norak, when their short lives were ended by a Hellfire missile.

http://www.salon.com/2011/11/05/the_drone_mentality/

This tragedy repeats itself over and over. After I linked to this Op-Ed yesterday on Twitter — by writing that “every American who cheers for drone strikes should confront the victims of their aggression” — I was predictably deluged with responses justifying Obama’s drone attacks on the ground that they are necessary to kill The Terrorists. Reading the responses, I could clearly discern the mentality driving them: I have never heard of 99% of the people my government kills with drones, nor have I ever seen any evidence about them, but I am sure they are Terrorists. That is the drone mentality in both senses of the word; it’s that combination of pure ignorance and blind faith in government authorities that you will inevitably hear from anyone defending President Obama’s militarism.
...
A Wall Street Journal article yesterday described internal dissension in the administration to Obama’s broad standards for when drone strikes are permitted, and noted that the “bulk” of the drone attacks — the bulk of them – “target groups of men believed to be militants associated with terrorist groups, but whose identities aren’t always known.” As Spencer Ackerman put it: “The CIA is now killing people without knowing who they are, on suspicion of association with terrorist groups”; moreover, the administration refuses to describe what it even means by being “associated” with a Terrorist group (indeed, it steadfastly refuses to tell citizens anything about the legal principles governing its covert drone wars).

CR

[rory_20_uk]

Well, the CIA answers to the president and to several oversight comittees. The people that the CIA answers to are elected, but the records of what these people specifically allow, certify/don't certify, and what exactly they oversee, never comes to light until way after it matters, if it ever comes to light at all. The NSA is even worse, with a budget that dwarfs the CIAs and far more secrecy.

They answer to elected officials who never have to answer for what the CIA or other black agencies do. That's hardly accountability, and the people have no real prospects of trying to change it.

It can't be had both ways.

Either the CIA et al are effectively a state within a state which kills people and underlines how flawed "Democracy" is in the USA, OR it is the democratic will of the American people to kill anyone who happens to be close to someone who might be a Terrorist.

Neither is exactly reassuring. Having one's cake and eating is it saying "it is an elected state and a good democracy when we want it to be, but we reserve the right to have plausible deniability for the bits we'd rather not think about".

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

The US acts in an imperialistic fashion with the ruthlessness and destruction that usually comes along with imperial policies.

rory is right here. The CIA is what the US is at its core in many ways. The citizens have always been implicitly agreeing with all its actions through their silence.

[rory_20_uk]

Stating that it is a truism does not mean that the matter can be completely ignored - especially when that same very state after having an episode of retrograde amnesia goes after others based upon this very concept.

Hypocritical? Any other states firing drone missiles off based in Europe?
Ridiculous? I thought that you just said it was true.

Since you seem to be completely happy with the "having your cake and eating" it methodology - and even dismissing this as merely Euros mouthing off on something that whilst true and in some way reprehensible, should be viewed at the same time hypocritical for some reason and indeed ridiculous although true there isn't any point going over this further since we agree on the facts, merely have different takes on what one should do with this.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Seeing as I never stated that I was more enlightened appears to be more of a case of reflected beliefs rather than what I think. Over the years I have expressed views that most would view as a long way from enlightened. America recently sent in the SEALS to rescue hostages. I wish the UK did such things.

But the converse of these actions is it is not possible to accuse other countries of doing the same thing. Building weaponry whose only real use is self defence when the USA has what? Tens of thousands of them which has a far more plausible offensive use.

Whilst your state does these things Americans be blasted on them as apparently America is still viewed as a Democracy. It's election year and I've yet to hear anyone on any side saying anything about this. No protests, no strikes... nothing.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

Ah, libertarians, a semi-noble cause bogged down by the fact that they need political support yet want to remove the powers over the populous that all other politicians would rather die than lose.

Y'know, you'd think cinicism would make me feel superior, what with the whole "seeing things for what they are and not following the sheep" bits but I have yet to feel anything but fed up and depressed, being a "blind sheeple" sounds kinda appealing right now.

[Vladimir]

Ron Paul's been saying it. But of course, Ron Paul's also been getting a media blackout compared to the other guys so its no surprise you haven't heard.

Maybe it's a LOLtroll joint CIA/NSA/LMNOP conspiracy to keep him down. They're in league with the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations to take over where the Masons left off. Their true intention is to hide the fact that the Greys walk amongst us.

I think we need a blue ribbon commission to investigate these allegations.

Or maybe he's just a nutter and the only troll is Rory (and Vladimir).

[Vladimir]

Look at that, a smart-aleck on the Internet. I suppose I make for easy troll-bait, though.

Not really. You're cool but I have a weakness of character that compels me to be a smart-:daisy: .~;)

Ron Paul is the actual troll bait and there is no conspiracy to keep him down. Just like there was no conspiracy against Iran when their plan to kill a Saudi ambassador was discovered.

[Greyblades]

Ron Paul's the only one that's not a corrupt fat cat.
I believe that is less to do with the integrity of the man and more to do with noone in the position to corrupt him wanting to support him.

[Lemur]

I believe that is less to do with the integrity of the man and more to do with noone in the position to corrupt him wanting to support him.
I'd like to see your reasoning for that. A candidate who consistently pulls in 15%–20% of the Republican base would, under normal circumstances, be a hot commodity in the conservative media complex.

[Greyblades]

To be honest I am not exactly familiar with Ron paul (2 minutes before starting this post I thought he was still in the libertarian party) but I think because of his libertarian past and push for reform, most "fatcats" would prefer a puppet who is inclined to try and gain more power over the people than him.
Of course I barely know what I'm talking about, I have a hard time being bothered enough to research my own countries political spectrum, let alone yours.

[Papewaio]

So Ron Paul and Ru Paul are not the same guy?

[Vladimir]

Ru Paul is a guy?!?

[Lemur]

Required viewing, if you give a **** about US/Iranian relations:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaFC9WFUPfc

[Sasaki Kojiro]

hmm, kind of a different perspective from this:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2012/01/bad-at-chess-iran-enriched-uranium-nuclear-motahhari-ahmadinejad/

Ali Motahhari, a prominent conservative member of the Iranian parliament, recently found himself wrangling with a journalist who proved even more hardline than him. Amid questions on Iran’s nuclear programme and foreign policy, the journalist asked him to comment on relations with the west. What did he think of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s line—beloved by many in Ahmadinejad’s government —that Iran should be wary of American praise and pleased by its condemnation? A strong critic of the government, Motahhari replied that this was all well and good, but such statements should not be translated into doctrine. All policy should be judged on the basis of national interest.

Motahhari’s point, buried mid-interview, is a crucial criticism of the posturing and theatrics that define Iran’s otherwise opaque nuclear programme. While pundits debate whether the country has decided to “weaponise,” one thing is certain. Iranian foreign policy is increasingly based on a single question: will this annoy the Americans? If it does, then it must be right.

Some time ago, I mischievously suggested to a senior Iranian diplomat that the Anglo-Americans (the British have to be included for this to have the desired effect) were very clever. Every time they said “no,” Iran insisted on saying “yes,” pouring more money into an incoherent nuclear programme that would bankrupt the country, just as the Soviet Union had been bankrupted before it. The expression of shock on his face was a sight, although he relaxed when he realised I had been (half) joking.

The incoherence I mentioned to him, however, will be recognisable to those familiar with Iranian politics. In Iran, incoherence is often seen as a virtue, a means of confusing one’s foes. It used to be that Iran insisted on the right to enrich uranium. But now that it has achieved this, it seems the government has little idea what to do next.

Just what is all this enriched uranium for? It cannot be for energy since there are no more power plants being constructed or contracted—it takes about seven years to build one. The much-vaunted Bushehr plant, inaugurated last year, is fuelled by a separate supply of uranium from Russia. Meanwhile, the country is producing much larger quantities than those needed for medical isotopes. It is not hard to see why suspicions abound in the west. But the truth may be mundane. The Iranians are enriching because they can. It is, at heart, an emotional reaction; to seek any kind of rationale is ultimately futile.

So what can be done? How does one engage with deliberate incoherence, which is designed to confuse, but which also typifies a Byzantine decision-making process that has raised procrastination to an art form? First, it is important to take it at face value and not to be distracted by vague notions of Iranians as “chess grand masters”. There are some excellent chess players in Iran but few, if any, of them remain in the chain of command—most are in prison or in exile. Ahmadinejad and his bedfellows are famed for their tactical skill, not their strategic vision, which amounts to little more than obscure utopianism. Their success so far is largely down to an abundance of oil money, a ruthlessness that has often surprised opponents and a degree of luck. This last factor has been the most effective in persuading sceptics that the governing elite must “know” something.

But Iran cannot rely on these factors much longer. The money has been squandered, leaving the country vulnerable to financial sanctions when it should be sitting on vast cash reserves of oil wealth. At the same time, the regime’s opponents are becoming more ruthless and, most significantly, Ahmadinejad’s luck is running out. With few answers to the mounting problems, there is a perceptible and growing lack of confidence, not only in the streets but also among the elite. In such circumstances, a normally fractious political system becomes increasingly venomous and, tellingly, paranoid.

Nothing symbolises the internal decay better than the news in early January that Motahhari has been deemed insufficiently “Islamic” to run in March’s parliamentary elections. Perhaps even more revealing was his sanguine response to the news. The regime is doing an excellent job of isolating itself. The best thing the west can do at the moment is to recognise this, monitor it, contain it, and let it run its course.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Is it really dangerous for a nation to develop nuclear weapons? At least one person thinks history shows a trend that once a nation acquires nuclear weapons it behaves in a more peaceful manner.http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/01/29/how-do-states-act-after-they-get-nuclear-weapons

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Lol, that's about as silly as I expected.

There is no historical trend. That implies that we know what the odds of it turning out the way it has are, and that the reason it did applies exactly the Iran case. I like the way he tries to back away from actually saying that his statistics mean anything, but the post is nothing without them, so...

[gaelic cowboy]

Well there is an idea out there that as the amount of nuclear weapons approaches zero the likelyhood of there use increases.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Or rather the converse: if you have one + nice ballistic missile, the first to invade is the first to get fried.

Doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea to try and dissuade the Iranians from building useless stocks of nukes, though.
If only because for the same reasons why the nukes of both the USA and the Russian Federation are more of a liability than an asset: old age.

[Papewaio]

Well the stats also say that having McDonalds in both countries stops war. Of course Russia and Geirgia have gone to war... which is closer to a civil war.

Anyhow given the choice of nuclear power & nuclear deterrent Or face overthrow of ones regime... Which would you as a dictator chose uranium pile or tin pot?

[Hooahguy]

So DEBKA is claiming that US troops are amassing on some islands (http://www.debka.com/article/21708/)within reach of Iran.

Anyone else heard about this? You think it would be more widely known. The article seems a bit sketchy if you ask me.

[PanzerJaeger]

So DEBKA is claiming that US troops are amassing on some islands (http://www.debka.com/article/21708/)within reach of Iran.

Anyone else heard about this? You think it would be more widely known. The article seems a bit sketchy if you ask me.

...


debkafile's Middle East analysts challenge the hypothesis heard in Israel and other places that the massive war preparations going forward at this time are backing for sanctions, contrived to propel Iran to the negotiating table and accept a deal for halting its nuclear weapon program.
Our sources stress that these military preparations are for real and are taken very seriously by all the governments concerned because Tehran is far from being intimidated by threats.

That kind of gave it away. I wouldn't doubt that the US is very seriously preparing for the possibility of conflict with Iran, but then that is SOP when global hot spots flare up. I think the writer goes too far by implying certain inevitability. I get the impression that Obama has put is foot down, which is a very good thing.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I recall reading once that terrorists (the IRA I believe) would set off bombs, and have another bomb nearby go off a short time later, to kill rescuers and people moving in to help victims.

Apparently that's basically what we're doing with drone strikes in Pakistan (http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_drones_targeting_rescuers_and_mourners/singleton/):


The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.

The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a “targeted, focused effort” that “has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties”. . . .

A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.

Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.

So Obama has basically made the War on Terror much nastier.

CR

[Hax]

It has also been stated by the Iranian regime that they have an army of suicide bombers and bomb makers should the US invade.

I'm interested in a source for this. However, it could also be misinterpretation; during the Iran-Iraq war the Iranians used human wave attacks, which isn't exactly the same as suicide bombing though. I don't know.

[Vladimir]

I'm interested in a source for this. However, it could also be misinterpretation; during the Iran-Iraq war the Iranians used human wave attacks, which isn't exactly the same as suicide bombing though. I don't know.

Apparently they have ninjas too: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/irans-ninja-army/

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Interesting. The prohibition on the red cross is kind of at odds with a battlefield environment in the first place ("I was trying to kill this guy, but I missed, so now I'm going to stop shooting and let him be taken to a hospital and cured") but it exists because both sides benefit from it. With drone strikes that equal benefit disappears, so we aren't giving immunity to the strike zone. Clearly their intent is not to kill the civilian rescuers though, like that histrionic greenwald guy suggests.

[Fragony]

Can Iran be an even more epic troll? They send Obama his drone. A scale-model that is. Politics was never so interesting, period

[Lemur]

Well, this is a comforting read (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137403/jacques-e-c-hymans/botching-the-bomb). I guess we've been ... trolled.

The historical record strongly indicates that the more a state has conformed to the professional management culture generally found in developed states, the less time it has needed to get its first bomb and the lower its chances of failure. Conversely, the more a state has conformed to the authoritarian management culture typically found in developing states, the more time it has needed to get its first bomb and the higher its chances of failure [...]

In a study of Iranian human-resource practices, the management analysts Pari Namazie and Monir Tayeb concluded that the Iranian regime has historically shown a marked preference for political loyalty over professional qualifications. "The belief," they wrote, "is that a loyal person can learn new skills, but it is much more difficult to teach loyalty to a skilled person." This is the classic attitude of authoritarian managers. And according to the Iranian political scientist Hossein Bashiriyeh, in recent years, Iran's "irregular and erratic economic policies and practices, political nepotism and general mismanagement" have greatly accelerated. It is hard to imagine that the politically charged Iranian nuclear program is sheltered from these tendencies.

[rvg]

Well, this is a comforting read (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137403/jacques-e-c-hymans/botching-the-bomb). I guess we've been ... trolled.

Makes me wonder how the heck Comrade Kim managed to get a nuke.

[Greyblades]

I believe his dad was handed one by the chinese.

[rvg]

I believe his dad was handed one by the chinese.

The Chinese might be authoritarian, but they're not stupid. They wouldn't give the Kims a nuke.

[Greyblades]

They put them there in the first place, and say what you like about Mao, he was a bit of an idiot when it came to running his country.

[rvg]

They put them there in the first place, and say what you like about Mao, he was a bit of an idiot when it came to running his country.
Installing a puppet state (with the generous help from the Soviets) is one thing, giving the puppet a nuke is a whole different ballgame.

[Greyblades]

Hrm, I thought my general knowledge was off, I looked up wikipedia and it was the soviets that stuck them in office first then after the korean war mao's china put Il-sung back in office as PM. Presumably the nuclear weapons they were boasting about back in the cold war were soviet or chinese weapons they were being leased, kind of what happened with american nukes in Non nuclear NATO European contries. The bombs were there but they probably couldnt arm them on thier own.
Huh, that would explain why people are getting finicky about the nuclear tests they have been doing since the 90's, if they were able to make thier own nukes they wouldnt need china/russia's approval to use them.

[Lemur]

Makes me wonder how the heck Comrade Kim managed to get a nuke.
I wonder. If you've read any defector accounts of life in the Hermit Kingdom, you know that blind loyalty (or the expression thereof) is pretty much required for survival. So I wonder if the Kims didn't do an end-run around the competence issue, since if you are alive in NK you are (outwardly) a tremendously loyal person. Thus allowing competence to become a factor again.

Just a theory.

[rvg]

I wonder. If you've read any defector accounts of life in the Hermit Kingdom, you know that blind loyalty (or the expression thereof) is pretty much required for survival. So I wonder if the Kims didn't do an end-run around the competence issue, since if you are alive in NK you are (outwardly) a tremendously loyal person. Thus allowing competence to become a factor again.

Just a theory.
Sounds plausible. Crazy on some level, but at the same time very plausible: if everyone has to be 100% loyal to survive, then loyalty indeed becomes worthless and can be overshadowed by merit.

[gaelic cowboy]

The Chinese might be authoritarian, but they're not stupid. They wouldn't give the Kims a nuke.

It has never actually been confirmed those tests that were detected was actually a Nuke, I remember reading at the time some people were convinced it was merely just a massive bomb designed to give the impression of nukes tests or that it was a failed test of say the trigger mechanism.

Point is were unsure if they have a nuke but were pretty sure they are so close it makes no difference, hence everyone tippy toes around them just in case they do have one.

At best they have a couple of small yield warheads maybe a couple of kilotons but they probably have no delivery system to use it.

[Montmorency]

Point is were unsure if they have a nuke but were pretty sure they are so close it makes no difference, hence everyone tippy toes around them just in case they do have one.

Could it be concluded that North Korea and Iran maintain "visible" nuclear weapon programs not for the purpose of acquiring a deployable weapon but of generating or encouraging certain policy responses by geopolitical rivals (i.e. the USA)?

If that seems possible, then isn't the US being played like a finely-tuned violin for its sensitivity towards nuclear weapons?

[Greyblades]

At best they have a couple of small yield warheads maybe a couple of kilotons but they probably have no delivery system to use it. Er, I think the fact that they are the main makers of SCUD missiles and thier general disregard for sanity means they will find a way if they want to. I just wish the chinese and russians would just withdraw support and end this charade of a country before south korea gets nuked.

[gaelic cowboy]

Er, I think the fact that they are the main makers of SCUD missiles and thier general disregard for sanity means they will find a way if they want to. I just wish the chinese and russians would just withdraw support and end this charade of a country before south korea gets nuked.

Those scuds would not big big enough for the possible nuke they have, hence the effort there making on "Sattelite launchs"

[gaelic cowboy]

Could it be concluded that North Korea and Iran maintain "visible" nuclear weapon programs not for the purpose of acquiring a deployable weapon but of generating or encouraging certain policy responses by geopolitical rivals (i.e. the USA)?

If that seems possible, then isn't the US being played like a finely-tuned violin for its sensitivity towards nuclear weapons?

Yes but the possibility for misscalculation in these senarios is of a very high order, it's not that USA would or could get bombed but that we cannot know what happens. Would you risk the world economy and the nation of South Korea on the off chance Kim does or doesnt have nukes.

Likewise Iran has a couple of cards which can do a lot of damage in her region and the US needs to take them into account for it's long term security.

[Greyblades]

Those scuds would not big big enough for the possible nuke they have, hence the effort there making on "Sattelite launchs"

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but considering that there are nuclear weapons the size of a RPG7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29) I would think they could get one to fit on a Hwasong-6.

[gaelic cowboy]

Um, correct me if I'm wrong but considering that there are nuclear weapons the size of a RPG7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29) I would think they could get one to fit on a Hwasong-6.

Yes developed by America after years of testing and actual ye know use of nukes in combat an all, basically you cannot compare North Korea in relation to US nuclear expertise the two are not even remotely the same.

Even the Wiki page on NK nukes says as much as regards the delivery systems NK have in place.

Anyway your missing the point I was trying to make in the begining anyway the possibility of NK potentialy having nukes is what begets the diplomacy. It is the fear of misscalculation that drives the talks because as I said earlier you risk South Korean destruction for little gain in reality.

[Greyblades]

Hrm, and the reason we dont just kick the jim's out and end this charade is because noone wants to deal with rebuilding the mess the kims have made of the country. Is there any scenario where this North Korea problem can end well?

[Centurion1]

At the very least, North Korea has enough firepower on the border to make everyone very nervous. There are long-range artillery peices that would be able to pound Seoul the moment the order was given--they wouldn't even have to be moved. The US presence would be a speed-bump despite our technological advantages. The best-case scenario for a war with Korea would be a lot like the first war: Hold them off as long as possible until re-enforcements arrive, but likely they'd push us nearly into the Ocean first.

We tip-toe for a reason.

Very VEry debatable

[gaelic cowboy]

Very VEry debatable

Actually NK can hit the south with artillery and cause a lot of damage very easily and quickly, the US and SK would have to attack first and be sure the hit everything close to the border.

[Jolt]

At the very least, North Korea has enough firepower on the border to make everyone very nervous. There are long-range artillery peices that would be able to pound Seoul the moment the order was given--they wouldn't even have to be moved. The US presence would be a speed-bump despite our technological advantages. The best-case scenario for a war with Korea would be a lot like the first war: Hold them off as long as possible until re-enforcements arrive, but likely they'd push us nearly into the Ocean first.

We tip-toe for a reason.

Push to the South with what Air Force? With what logistics? Unless China spoon-feeds them equipment and supplies, they are not going anywhere if a war breaks out. With a huge army of questionable morale, feeding them is already difficult and fuel rations are everywhere during peace-time, how much more when they are miles into South Korean territory with most of South and North Korea already bombed to smithereens, under the stress of their predicament. At the sight of the first PoWs coming into South Korean/American camps, and being treated generously, it's gonna start a landslide of desertions.

[rvg]

Push to the South with what Air Force? With what logistics? Unless China spoon-feeds them equipment and supplies, they are not going anywhere if a war breaks out. With a huge army of questionable morale, feeding them is already difficult and fuel rations are everywhere during peace-time, how much more when they are miles into South Korean territory with most of South and North Korea already bombed to smithereens, under the stress of their predicament. At the sight of the first PoWs coming into South Korean/American camps, and being treated generously, it's gonna start a landslide of desertions.
The North will have some significant gains, at least initially. No matter how superior the Southern troops in conjunction with the U.S. contingent might be, you cannot ignore the laws of numbers: there's more than a million men on the other side of the border ready to attack at a moment's notice. Northern resources are limited, but they are capable of frontloading so much damage and pushing South at such speed that the limited supplies might not matter. I would bet that North will count on a blitzkrieg, they cannot afford a war of attrition.

[gaelic cowboy]

North Korean missiles used in lavish parade were clumsy fakes – analysts (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/north-korean-missiles-used-in-lavish-parade-were-clumsy-fakes-analysts-3092570.html)

As usual there pulling our legs again

[Greyblades]

Dang, kim jong un looks dumber than his dad if that's possible.

[drone]

North Korean missiles used in lavish parade were clumsy fakes – analysts (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/asia-pacific/north-korean-missiles-used-in-lavish-parade-were-clumsy-fakes-analysts-3092570.html)

As usual there pulling our legs again
It's not our legs they are pulling. Got to keep the people happy and proud.

[rvg]

It's not our legs they are pulling. Got to keep the people happy and proud.
Indeed...



Kim Jong Un's Feats for Army Building
Pyongyang, April 25 (KCNA) -- On the army day, the servicepersons and civilians of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea pay deep respects to Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army Kim Jong Un, who is bringing a new heyday in the history of the revolutionary armed forces.
Kim Jong Un performed undying feats for building up the Juche-based armed forces, always accompanying leader Kim Jong Il on the road of the Songun (military-first) revolution and acting his closest military aide.
He guided the armed forces to give full play to the politico-ideological might as the army of the leader and the party and developed the Juche-based military idea, theory and war methods on an overall way.
He made a signal contribution to turning the Korean People's Army into an elite army equipped with self-defensive nuclear deterrent and up-to-date military hardware.
With superb commanding art, matchless courage and toughest countermeasure, he has neutralized the enemies' military provocations and war moves.
Thanks to his Songun leadership, the KPA could create the Huichon Speed, a new Chollima Speed, and work epoch-making miracles in the drive to build a thriving nation.
After assuming the supreme commandership, he chose the Seoul Ryu Kyong Su 105 Guards Tank Division of the KPA as the first stop in his field guidance. Regarding soldiers as his closest comrades-in-arms, he made inspection tours of frontline military posts and remote islets, caring so much for them.
Therefore, the men and officers of the KPA have regarded him as the dignity and destiny of the KPA, with firm faith that led by him they would always emerge victorious.
All servicepersons are now filled with resolve to devotedly defend him under the slogan "Let Us Defend with Our Very Lives the Party Central Committee Headed by the Great Comrade Kim Jong Un!" and fully discharge their mission in the struggle for national reunification and accomplishment of the revolutionary cause of Juche.

[Lemur]

As I am fond of saying, there's more than one way to skin a cat (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.htm?_r=1):

From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran’s main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America’s first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.

Mr. Obama decided to accelerate the attacks — begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games — even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran’s Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet. [...]

It appears to be the first time the United States has repeatedly used cyberweapons to cripple another country’s infrastructure, achieving, with computer code, what until then could be accomplished only by bombing a country or sending in agents to plant explosives. The code itself is 50 times as big as the typical computer worm, Carey Nachenberg, a vice president of Symantec, one of the many groups that have dissected the code, said at a symposium at Stanford University in April. Those forensic investigations into the inner workings of the code, while picking apart how it worked, came to no conclusions about who was responsible.

A similar process is now under way to figure out the origins of another cyberweapon called Flame that was recently discovered to have attacked the computers of Iranian officials, sweeping up information from those machines. But the computer code appears to be at least five years old, and American officials say that it was not part of Olympic Games. They have declined to say whether the United States was responsible for the Flame attack.

Mr. Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade. He repeatedly expressed concerns that any American acknowledgment that it was using cyberweapons — even under the most careful and limited circumstances — could enable other countries, terrorists or hackers to justify their own attacks.

[Vladimir]

In all seriousness, good article, but it went all NY Times about here: Having falsely accused Saddam Hussein of reconstituting his nuclear program in Iraq, Mr. Bush had little credibility in publicly discussing another nation’s nuclear ambitions.

Gotta put that twist on it.

[Lemur]

In all seriousness, good article, but it went all NY Times about here: Having falsely accused Saddam Hussein of reconstituting his nuclear program in Iraq, Mr. Bush had little credibility in publicly discussing another nation’s nuclear ambitions.
Yeah, I see what you mean; the NYT is describing a political reality from the time (a lot of political capital was destroyed when Iraq turned out to not possess WMDs), but they could have phrased it a little more ... politely?

I am curious about the correct way to refer to sitting and former Presidents. I was under the impression that you called them "President X," as in, "President Bush" or "President Obama." And yet a lot of articles just go with "Mr." I should probably look up the rules in a style guide, but I am too lazy.

-edit-

Okay, I looked. The Chicago Manual of Style is subscriber-locked, which is irritating. So is the AP Manual of Style. What the fudge? Don't these nimrods want us to have correct usage? Clearly time for someone to set up a Wiki Manual of Style kinda thing.

The best reference on usage with presidents I could find was this article (http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/07/no-disrespect-intended/), which sorta clears things up.

The reason The Times calls the president Mr. on second reference is not a matter of politics or disrespect but of style. Although the newspaper’s Manual of Style and Usage says the president of the United States can be called president or Mr. once he has been introduced in a news article, in practice it is virtually always Mr. [...]

We always referred to all presidents, Democrats and Republicans alike, by their last names only after the first reference. That practice is common among the printed news media and says more about the flow of language, saving space – and perhaps a certain (small-d) democratic impulse – than it does about disrespect. [...]

I went to the White House to see what folks there think about how the president is referred to in The Times.

Are they upset at the title “Mr. Bush?”

“No, not at all,” said Tony Fratto, the deputy press secretary. “There are lots of things we find disrespectful to the president, usually on the editorial page or in a news analysis, but we take no offense at his titled reference in news articles,” Fratto said.

“Remember,” he said, “We have citizen presidents. Mr. is a perfectly fine title.”

[Vladimir]

Yeah, I see what you mean; the NYT is describing a political reality from the time (a lot of political capital was destroyed when Iraq turned out to not possess WMDs), but they could have phrased it a little more ... politely?...[/ind]

Not to worry. I'm generally biased against them because they'll gladly choose making a buck over national security. They have their place.

It's odd the style manuals are locked. WTH is up with that? Still an interesting story. I haven't yet heard of a direct attribution as to the development of Flame. I suppose they're slightly more legitimate than Iran.

[Fragony]

We just got slapt on tne wrist by the UN from Iran, good fun. We have no respect for human rights it seemss, according to Iran

Why are we in the UN anyway

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why are we in the UN anyway

Because everyone got together and agreed that there is a man out there who goes by the name of Fragony who would be really ticked off if we made stupid resolutions and took them seriously.

[Fragony]

But it isn't my real name, it's a nick

[a completely inoffensive name]

But it isn't my real name, it's a nick

Nonsense. Don't try to deconstruct the characters I have created in my head that surround you and everyone else in the org.

Next you will be telling me that Lemur doesn't actually look like a 19th century infantryman.

[Fragony]

Sorry but he doesn't, they where much more handsome

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorry but he doesn't, they where much more handsome

So what you are telling me is that you are not a Dutchman who sits on the dock next to the internet cafe sipping on coffee all day lamenting the death of his boat?

[Fragony]

So what you are telling me is that you are not a Dutchman who sits on the dock next to the internet cafe sipping on coffee all day lamenting the death of his boat?

It did't really die it was lost to me, I blame other people

[Papewaio]

Sorry about the loss of your boat. Living in Netherlands without a boat, I hope sea levels really don't rise too much.

=][=

Attacking a countries infrastructure isn't that an act of war? If it isn't how can anyone in anonymous be accused of any crime?

Surely destroying industrial capacity is far more criminal / terrorism / warfare kind of act then revealing which company is funding which think tank or uses a private spy agency.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So if there is no official declaration of war, isn't the reciprical A Ok? Doesn't it now mean any entity can virus bomb another one be it a company or country?

Surely a boundary has been crossed. It isn't a one way membrane where a couple of nation states get a free pass. Others are allowed to follow suit. The attacks on the centrifuge was brilliant.

What is particularly stupid on a precedent and strategic level is that anyone can create a computer virus for a relatively cheap cost. Other attacks on command and control systems won't be so well contained. This is not the kind of precedent one should give to China and Russia and the script kiddies. If it is ok for US and Israel to do this with impunity why not anyone else? After all, all is fair in love and war. It's also all fair in apps and viruses.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Sorry about the loss of your boat. Living in Netherlands without a boat, I hope sea levels really don't rise too much.

=][=

On the upside, there are probably plenty of Germans who'd pay good money to extend their beach trip with some scuba city tours.

[Fragony]

Sorry about the loss of your boat. Living in Netherlands without a boat, I hope sea levels really don't rise too much.

Gracias. Selling it is a truly heartfelt decision. It makes me sick every nice day but it got too expensive, winter of doom killed my engine. I kinda suspect a lot of them will be for sale for a good price the comming months though including boarding place. I have not been defeated I WILL have a new one.

[Vladimir]

If National Security means stuffing the free press then fuggitallanyway.

As a matter of fact, it does.


Sorry about the loss of your boat. Living in Netherlands without a boat, I hope sea levels really don't rise too much.

=][=

Attacking a countries infrastructure isn't that an act of war? If it isn't how can anyone in anonymous be accused of any crime?

Surely destroying industrial capacity is far more criminal / terrorism / warfare kind of act then revealing which company is funding which think tank or uses a private spy agency.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So if there is no official declaration of war, isn't the reciprical A Ok? Doesn't it now mean any entity can virus bomb another one be it a company or country?

Surely a boundary has been crossed. It isn't a one way membrane where a couple of nation states get a free pass. Others are allowed to follow suit. The attacks on the centrifuge was brilliant.

What is particularly stupid on a precedent and strategic level is that anyone can create a computer virus for a relatively cheap cost. Other attacks on command and control systems won't be so well contained. This is not the kind of precedent one should give to China and Russia and the script kiddies. If it is ok for US and Israel to do this with impunity why not anyone else? After all, all is fair in love and war. It's also all fair in apps and viruses.

We're already at war: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosively_formed_penetrator

[Sir Moody]

Attacking a countries infrastructure isn't that an act of war? If it isn't how can anyone in anonymous be accused of any crime?

yes it is but only if you get caught - so far all they can prove about Stuxnet and now the Flame virus is they were written by English speaking programmers (the comments are all in English) - not enough to go to war over


Surely destroying industrial capacity is far more criminal / terrorism / warfare kind of act then revealing which company is funding which think tank or uses a private spy agency.

again yes but as with many illegal things its all ok when its the GOVERNMENT doing it... :rolleyes:


What is particularly stupid on a precedent and strategic level is that anyone can create a computer virus for a relatively cheap cost. Other attacks on command and control systems won't be so well contained. This is not the kind of precedent one should give to China and Russia and the script kiddies. If it is ok for US and Israel to do this with impunity why not anyone else? After all, all is fair in love and war. It's also all fair in apps and viruses.

China and Russia are ALREADY doing this - the US is late to the party (although late with style - Flame is one hell of a stylish virus) - remember Russia actually shut down an entire countries access to the internet with one attack when said country argued about the price of Gas... (it was blamed on "Russian citizens" but we all know how that works)

the Internet is the new "weapon" in style among all governments, you can target your enemies with little risk of being caught and everything uses computers now... you can do some major damage...

[Kadagar_AV]

Sorry about the loss of your boat. Living in Netherlands without a boat, I hope sea levels really don't rise too much.

=][=

Attacking a countries infrastructure isn't that an act of war? If it isn't how can anyone in anonymous be accused of any crime?

Surely destroying industrial capacity is far more criminal / terrorism / warfare kind of act then revealing which company is funding which think tank or uses a private spy agency.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So if there is no official declaration of war, isn't the reciprical A Ok? Doesn't it now mean any entity can virus bomb another one be it a company or country?

Surely a boundary has been crossed. It isn't a one way membrane where a couple of nation states get a free pass. Others are allowed to follow suit. The attacks on the centrifuge was brilliant.

What is particularly stupid on a precedent and strategic level is that anyone can create a computer virus for a relatively cheap cost. Other attacks on command and control systems won't be so well contained. This is not the kind of precedent one should give to China and Russia and the script kiddies. If it is ok for US and Israel to do this with impunity why not anyone else? After all, all is fair in love and war. It's also all fair in apps and viruses.

<- this.

USA is a country. Iran is a country.


To all US citizens - to not come weeping on this forum when someone attacks you. Even better, don't weep anywhere else either.

You have it coming. Face it.

When there is a terrorist / nation attack that makes you suffer a tenth of the people the US has killed over only the last 10 years, I would begin to start listening.

Till then I just cheer on the opposing side.

[Lemur]

You have it coming. Face it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lYVggyHRkY&t=0m39s

[Papewaio]

Cyberwarfare is here to stay.

However just like drones it would be better to have at least some sort of legal structure around their use/misuse.

Also as the threshold to create computer viruses is much lower than nuclear weapons my defensive efforts would be reviewing the soft computer infrastructure.

Terrorists will get far more mileage out of computer hacks then explosives will. Take down Facebook and Google for a week and you will get the worlds attention.

Nation states need to remember that terrorists hit soft targets cheaply.

[Kadagar_AV]

I dont even...

Are you serious?

Yepp :)

I don't believe in eye for an eye, but when it comes to an eye for ten (or hundreds of..) eyes I might start actually listening to why you think the loss of the one eye was a terroristic act.

Don't get me wrong, I would only listen because of the comedy of it all.



Papewaio , yeah. If I was the Cobra Commander I would give ten guys a lighter and a passport during the dry season. I don't get why the oppressed have the addiction to aeroplanes, when other solutions would give way more for less.

[Montmorency]

Papewaio , yeah. If I was the Cobra Commander I would give ten guys a lighter and a passport during the dry season. I don't get why the oppressed have the addiction to aeroplanes, when other solutions would give way more for less.

You mean starting forest fires? That would be a national emergency-scale attack. Terminate with military force and extreme prejudice.

[Hax]

Besides, Iran has some very legitimate reasons not to trust the USA at all. In fact, most of the countries in that area have some pretty bad experience with western countries in general.

[Kadagar_AV]

You mean starting forest fires? That would be a national emergency-scale attack. Terminate with military force and extreme prejudice.

I was more thinking along the lines of harvest fires...

And as to the "national emergency-scale" I would put it on the shelf next to the high altitude bombings of Afghanistan the first years.

Come to think of it, I would put it at a lower shelf, since none or very limited lives would be at stake.

[Kadagar_AV]

Besides, Iran has some very legitimate reasons not to trust the USA at all. In fact, most of the countries in that area have some pretty bad experience with western countries in general.

I still wonder about how the world somehow acknowledged (have we!?) that the ONLY country to ever put a nuclear bomb on civilians should be some kind of a moral guideline.

[Montmorency]

I was more thinking along the lines of harvest fires...

And as to the "national emergency-scale" I would put it on the shelf next to the high altitude bombings of Afghanistan the first years.

Come to think of it, I would put it at a lower shelf, since none or very limited lives would be at stake.

If terrorists were to head to the American West and burn down thousands of homes and thousands of square miles of woodland, that would be a catastrophe: the most damaging attack on American soil ever.

[Lemur]

If I was the Cobra Commander I would give ten guys a lighter and a passport during the dry season.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/somemenjustwanttowatchtheworldburntinkywinky.jpg

[Kadagar_AV]

If terrorists were to head to the American West and burn down thousands of homes and thousands of square miles of woodland, that would be a catastrophe: the most damaging attack on American soil ever.

Well duh!

I am the cobra commander, remember? I just let go of the cape, to gay. Not because I am anti-gay, but who would wear it anyway?



Gelatinous Cube, I can take that. It is fair. But then, who is the likely target of a WWIII? Do the world oppose Sweden more than than the USA? I'd bet I'll be the one watching the news about it all :)

[Kadagar_AV]

His last post

I don't know how to respond to that.. But to cut it short: I would absolutely NOT want the world to burn. But if some acres in some countries would, I'd like some popcorn :)

[Montmorency]

Ecological warfare is the worst of them all IMO. More than anything, it ought to be considered a crime against humanity.

Worse than a thousand Hitlers!

[Lemur]

I would absolutely NOT want the world to burn. But if some acres in some countries would, I'd like some popcorn :)

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/1236090210351yx1.jpg

[Kadagar_AV]

Ecological warfare is the worst of them all IMO. More than anything, it ought to be considered a crime against humanity.

Worse than a thousand Hitlers!

I think I won. Do we have a referee?


Lemur, u s e y o u r w o r d s...

[Tuuvi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8v3F1n8E-c

[Kadagar_AV]

I kid anyway. All war is tragic, and nobody should wish it on anyone.

But I think your perspective is flawed, deeply. In Iraq we went out of our way to keep civilians safe, often at our own expense, while insurgents killed hundreds every week with indescriminate bombings. Nobody appreciates your desire to stick it to the man (so to speak) more than me, but the American soldier is--by and large--the portrait of a "good guy."

Do you mean the WMD war?

You... Killed civilians because you thought their leader had WMD's

I think your perspective is flawed. You killed completely innocent human beings because of terribly bad intelligence (take that literal if you want).

[Kadagar_AV]

We would have been in-and-out if not for the insurgency. I don't disagree with your premise: the Iraq war should have never happened. However, American soldiers don't target civilians to make a political statement. Your angst should be directed at those who use idealogy to promote and justify massacres, not at soldiers who were actually trying to make the country a better a place.

From the pictures I have seen, american soldiers don't target civilians to make a political standpoint.

They just need some sort of aiming point for where they urinate.

[Kadagar_AV]

Every Army has bad apples. But whatever, I'm sure there's nothing I can say that would get past your preconcieved prejudices. Go ahead and think of us as barbaric baby-killers if it makes you sleep better at night.

Every army has bad apples, agreed. That is what happens when you give automatic rifles to basically very young people.

However, the BIG question is if we want to send those people abroad. And if so, what is the reason?

The soldiers are the tools of society, it is people like you (?) and me who direct the tools.

I for one would not have sent them to Iraq chasing WMDs.

And if the USA get bitten because they sent those guys there, I do have some understanding.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't direct the tools, I was the tool. You grossly underestimate the professionalism of our soldiers if you think they run amok killing civilians all day. I really can't tell if you're trying to bait me or debate with me.

Hey, I agree!

I do not, however, agree with your view of me thinking the american soldiers at large are scum.

I am fairly sure that the very most of them are good guys.

However, and this is the main point: When you send XXthousands of young men into a foreign country (with XXXXXXthousands of rounds of ammunition) some of them will flower up.

That is why it is so important that countries only send these young men in times of great peril.

[Montmorency]

I think I won. Do we have a referee?

You never saw it coming.

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/1289061392_comkino_com.jpg

[Kadagar_AV]

I agree in principle, but if most swedes have this kind of attitude its no wonder you don't use your Army.

Maybe its the language barrier but you've made it as difficult as possible for me to agree with you.

This is called tact, you should try it.

It's no wonder that Sweden at large don't support our war efforts when young Swedish men are coming home on crutches/coffins and americans like you don't even acknowledge the fact.

It might be some language barrier where you as a born English speaker do no not get it when I try to use English as my third language.

But you still have not, in any language i might add, explained why you think sending tens of thousands of young men with automatic rifles and a ****load of ammunitions to a foreign country without any sort of cause (except a miss informed one)would be a good idea?

[Kadagar_AV]

You never saw it coming.

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/1289061392_comkino_com.jpg

I was more thinking of Godwin...

But yes. Your post have me humbled.You so SO SO, got me with your last intellectual point in the debate.

[Kadagar_AV]

.

I'm not the one that brought that kind of crap into this thread, you are. It should never be a comparison by the numbers, but all you've been doing in this thread is saying how americans deserve to die because the wars we've been in. I don't even know how to respond to this because obviously I (and America as a whole) am very familiar with young men and women coming home on crutches. You are the only one saying somebody deserves it, and you've said it multiple times.



I was referring to the double-meaning of the word tool, in the way you used it. I took offense, then figured you didn't mean it that way, but maybe I should have taken offense?



Its not. Like I said, we agree in principle. Now we're talking about you.

1. If you are at war you must expect to take casualties from it, no?

2. My grasp of the English language is pretty bad I believe, but once in a while people get me. If you have a glass, raise it for a cheer!

3. Can we change the topic and talk about You instead? I am utterly bored with me. Been there done that - you know?

[Tuuvi]

Kadagar, it's not like we have a very good selection in our elections. Obama promised to end the war and be a peace loving hippie and now look at him, he's bombing civilians with drones in Pakistan. I don't think it's fair to blame the civilians of the US and be glad if they get attacked and killed when our democracy is in bad need of a tune up.

[Montmorency]

I was more thinking of Godwin...

It's an advanced form. For example, I didn't even have to refer to your dual Swedish-Austrian heritage!

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagar, it's not like we have a very good selection in our elections. Obama promised to end the war and be a peace loving hippie and now look at him, he's bombing civilians with drones in Pakistan. I don't think it's fair to blame the civilians of the US and be glad if they get attacked and killed when our democracy is in bad need of a tune up.

In a democracy, who would you blaim but the civilians? No really.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yes, absolutely. You blame the civilians for being ignorant and short-sided, and you chastise them for being complete tools. You hope that in the future they grow a collective spine and not elect crooks, liars, and villains who start stupid wars and destroy the economy. But they hardly deserve to die for being ignorant, and that's all they're guilty of.

Sucks being a democratic country, doesn't it?

Of course people in a democracy deserve to die if they go to war. There are not bombs smart enough to tell if you were on the 49% side or the 51% side.

Bombs at large don't think much, much like troopers, that is why democratic countries should think twice before sending them.

So yes, I very very very very very much disagree with you. People do deserve to die if they live in a democratic country . They are, after all the leaders, who else would you target?

All the information is out there, what a democratic citizen does with all that information is, at the end of the day, on his shoulders. No?

[Montmorency]

So everyone on this forum deserves to die? How harsh.

[Kadagar_AV]

So everyone on this forum deserves to die? How harsh.

Sweden is at war with Afghanistan.

If my family would get killed because of a bomb some jihadist moron planted I would have to accept it.

We are at war, what else to expect?

I would turn my anger and frustration towards the state.

[Montmorency]

We're not a democracy, first of all. We're a republic.

Democratic republic! You won't get off on semantics. :stare:


Sweden is at war with Afghanistan.

If my family would get killed because of a bomb some jihadist moron planted I would have to accept it.

We are at war, what else to expect?

I would turn my anger and frustration towards the state.

I'll tell you what - we can arrange for a conference in the world capital of your choice. Following the deployment of several dozen homemade VBIEDs against various government buildings and embassies, we'll fight it out with the depraved fascists and their civilian stooges: knife-to-knife, mano-a-mano.

The survivors will regroup in a designated hidden location, were they will kill each other off in ritual combat/suicide. The entrance will be rigged to blow for when the war criminals arrive on the scene.

Thus our honor will be restored.

:bow:

[Kadagar_AV]

We're not a democracy, first of all. We're a republic.

At the end of the day, you don't know what you're voting for--you only have a vague idea.

Is that cause for reform? I think so. Does that mean Americans in general deserve to die? Uh, no.

So your claim is that the USA is a republic, so the peoples vote don't matter?

I... I... I don't know where to begin with this.


"Does that mean Americans in general deserve to die? Uh, no."

Uh, any democratic country must take full responsibility for the re-actions to their actions.

Is that really that hard to comprehend?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Sucks being a democratic country, doesn't it?

Of course people in a democracy deserve to die if they go to war. There are not bombs smart enough to tell if you were on the 49% side or the 51% side.

Bombs at large don't think much, much like troopers, that is why democratic countries should think twice before sending them.

So yes, I very very very very very much disagree with you. People do deserve to die if they live in a democratic country . They are, after all the leaders, who else would you target?

All the information is out there, what a democratic citizen does with all that information is, at the end of the day, on his shoulders. No?

So our rampant killing via drones is therefore justified because, after all, Pakistan is supposed to be a democracy, and the pseudo random people we're killing have a say in its leadership?

No wonder Lemur used teletubbies. That's an appropriate response to you.

CR

[Kadagar_AV]

So our rampant killing via drones is therefore justified because, after all, Pakistan is supposed to be a democracy, and the pseudo random people we're killing have a say in its leadership?

No wonder Lemur used teletubbies. That's an appropriate response to you.

CR

Yes. I do mean that the people of Pakistan deserves (from an american standpoint) any death caused by US bombs. Just like I hold the USA accountable for every bomb dropped (my very own standpoint).

Both countries are democratic. What the people choose to do with their vote is up to them.

Heck, even if they were not democratic I would still prefer that they face a international trial, you know, the kind of trials the US can't be bothered with.



Long story short, I believe that it is the humans populating a national boundary who are responsible for the actions within that boundary. Is that wrong?

[Montmorency]

And yet you neither die nor fight against your state.

[Kadagar_AV]

And yet you neither die nor fight against your state.

Jag är löjtnant i en jägarbataljon och jag har gjort aktiv tjänst, vad mer behöver du?

laughs aside, my fight is in my vote ticket. I hold myself responsible for it, and I will bear the burden if my countrymen think different.

[Montmorency]

Huh?

I said fight against, not for. That merely increases your culpability, by your own standards.

No wonder you sleep with so many women! In your eyes, they all deserve to die. Might as well use them a bit...

:evil:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think that America is a big, big bully and it makes me cry. Why can't we all get along, UN tries to make world better but america burns.

[Kadagar_AV]

Huh?

Huh?


I said fight against, not for. That merely increases your culpability, by your own standards.

I have fought for the state in a just war. I think that entitles me to have an opinion of what a just war is and isn't. How much blood have you seen?




No wonder you sleep with so many women! In your eyes, they all deserve to die. Might as well use them a bit...

:evil:

I take very much offense by that accusation. Don't get me wrong, I can take flame. However, when someone accuse me of thinking that women all deserve to die an should be used - I can not help but report the post.

[Montmorency]

I have fought for the state in a just war.


I take very much offense by that accusation.

I can't help but pounce when I see some honest-to-god hypocrisy and self-righteousness. It's delicious to me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I can't help but pounce when I see some honest-to-god hypocrisy and self-righteousness. It's delicious to me.

So you like to hang around guys who major in feminist studies?

[Vladimir]

This is trolllicious. I didn't know people did meth benders in Sweden.

I'm going to go worship at my Shrine of Notch for perspective.

[Tuuvi]

In a democracy, who would you blaim but the civilians? No really.

I don't think you read what I wrote. Our democracy is semi-broken, our elected officials don't hold themselves accountable to the electorate and they lie to us about how they will act while in office. Barack Obama made himself out to be a peace loving guy, so we voted for him, because we're sick of the wars and we don't like killing civilians. And then look what happened. Now who's to blame, Obama or the civilians? I hope you read what I wrote this time.

[Vladimir]

I don't think you read what I wrote. Our democracy is semi-broken, our elected officials don't hold themselves accountable to the electorate and they lie to us about how they will act while in office. Barack Obama made himself out to be a peace loving guy, so we voted for him, because we're sick of the wars and we don't like killing civilians. And then look what happened. Now who's to blame, Obama or the civilians? I hope you read what I wrote this time.

So, is he saying that because many terrorist organizations are Muslim that we should kill all Muslims?

[ajaxfetish]

I'm sorry you seem to think you deserve to die, Kadagar. If it makes you feel any better, I don't think you deserve to die.

Ajax

[Tuuvi]

So, is he saying that because many terrorist organizations are Muslim that we should kill all Muslims?

Huh? I don't understand what you're getting at.

[Tuuvi]

He's talking about Kadagar's line of reasoning. If the average American is responsible for the geo-political machinations of a lying presidential administration that has taken advantage of the public trust, then it follows that the average muslim must be responsible for the ulterior political motives of some of their spiritual leaders. Hell, why stop there though? We're all human, and we live in age where we're all somewhat interconnected when it comes to sharing ideas. Surely the whole planet deserves to die for the actions of the worst few, then?

The whole line of reasoning is absurd. Kadagar's opinion of the average american would only be valid if the average american actually had a say in the matter. Most of us only have the illusion of choice, and no amount of disagreement can change the course set down for the nation by those with more power and less morals.

Not that it matters anyway. I'm pretty sure he's just trolling and venting.

Ah ok. I thought that might be what he meant but I wasn't sure.

[Noncommunist]

I don't think you read what I wrote. Our democracy is semi-broken, our elected officials don't hold themselves accountable to the electorate and they lie to us about how they will act while in office. Barack Obama made himself out to be a peace loving guy, so we voted for him, because we're sick of the wars and we don't like killing civilians. And then look what happened. Now who's to blame, Obama or the civilians? I hope you read what I wrote this time.

I thought we voted for him because he was going to focus on the "real" battle in Afghanistan as opposed to the "distraction" of Iraq.

[Tuuvi]

I thought we voted for him because he was going to focus on the "real" battle in Afghanistan as opposed to the "distraction" of Iraq.

Yea true but he still made himself out to be the kind of guy who wouldn't go overboard bombing people with drones.

[Vladimir]

Thanks GC. I was AWOL from the thread again.

[Lemur]

Iran says explosives cut power line to nuclear site (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-hits-u-n-atom-watchdog-nuclear-meeting-114139004.html)

Explosives were used to cut the electricity power lines to Iran's Fordow underground enrichment plant last month in an apparent attempt to sabotage Tehran's atomic advances, its nuclear energy chief said on Monday.

It was believed to be the first time Iran has mentioned the incident, which atomic energy organization chief Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani said took place on August 17.

He also told the annual member state gathering of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that "the same act" had been carried out on power lines to Iran's main enrichment plant near the central town of Natanz, without giving a date.

[Vladimir]

Weren't they also blaming the IAEA?

[SoFarSoGood]

Mr Abbasi, head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation: "During the early hours of next morning, an Agency inspector requested to conduct an unannounced inspection. Does this visit have any connection to that detonation? Who, other than the IAEA inspectors, can have access to the complex in such a short term to report and record failures?"

If Fordow didn't have a backup generator the centrifuges would have been damaged but the IAEA didn't (or maybe hasn't) reported any damage after visiting the next day.

[drone]

Amateurs. You should first generate a voltage spike, then blow up the lines after you have fried all unprotected equipment. :evil:

[SoFarSoGood]

Totally agree and they have done that before.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Amateurs. You should first generate a voltage spike, then blow up the lines after you have fried all unprotected equipment. :evil:

Too obvious. You should plug in all computers and similar electronic equipment using American power supplies and plugs without earthing[1] in proper mains sockets[2] with the cheapest, lowest bidding contract made adapter plugs with no earthing either[3]. Bonus points for using extension leads and sockets, preferably at a 45° angle for extra fun[4].

Then, introduce small subtle vibrations... kzzzerrrt... kzzzerrrt...

[1] Because American plugs are unseated easily compared to UK or European style sockets. Very easily, in fact.
[2] Because incompatible, meaning that the weight of American plugs will not get any "support" from the socket and there's more wiggle room
[3] Time for a good old fashioned Christmas tree, right?
[4] Because then the weight of the plugs in the adapter plugs will cause the original plugs to be partially lifted out of the adapter plugs due to rotation... !

[Lemur]

Iran and the Onion: Made for each other (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57522363/iran-news-agency-picks-up-onion-story-tells-iranians-rural-americans-prefer-ahmadinejad-to-obama/)

An Iranian news editor may be lamenting his or her own fact-checking practices this Friday.

The English-language website of the Fars news agency appears to have been duped by a spoof story by "The Onion", which claimed that a recent poll had found an "overwhelming majority of rural white Americans" would rather vote for Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad than President Obama.

The story only appeared on the English site of Fars - which, like all other Iranian news organizations, is controlled strictly by the Islamic cleric-led government.

It is possible that, due to the tight controls on the internet and news organizations in Iran (and the fact that the story has not yet appeared on the native Farsi language site) that most Iranians will never see the ill-conceived story by Fars.

Friday is the holy day in the Muslim world, so it is also possible that Fars' normal editor had the day off and a more junior member of staff made the apparent error.

If the editor in question is still working, it's worth noting, to their credit, that they appear not to have picked up a story on The Onion a couple days earlier, showing a green-glowing Ahmadinejad proclaiming to the United Nations that he was, himself, a nuclear weapon.

[Lemur]

Things is getting interesting ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61FPAW6HBbA

[SoFarSoGood]

Hardly surprising with the real nose diving.

[Hax]

Not so strange, when you look at the inflation rates there, lately. Interestingly, a very steep increase of prices was also one of the causes of the Constitutional Revolution, back at the start of the 20th century.

[SoFarSoGood]

More dangerously the Turkish/Assad Syrian war seems to be kicking off... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9585515/Turkey-launches-retaliatory-attack-on-Syrian-targets.html

Here it says they have contacted NATO and under the terms of NATO charter any attack on one member can be construed as an attack on all - if Turkey requests the enforcement of clause of the Charter (I forget which particular clause it is) then Turkey can force us into war. Hopefuly wiser counsel will prevail.

And if you wonder that I connect the two I remind you of these words from Russia's UN envoy, Vitaly Churkin "It's all about Iran. It's all about geopolitical complexion of the Middle East. It's all about the changes, some unexpected to our Western colleagues, which came about as a result of military intervention in Iraq and change of the political structure there. I'm not making any revelations to you, there is not a serious person I have talked to who would have any doubt about it, that a major geopolitical battle is being fought on the fields of Syria which has nothing to do with the interests of the Syrian people who are not interested in being the objects of this kind of geopolitical competition."

Of course he neglects to say that he represents one of the 'competitors'.

[Hooahguy]

Yup, this will get interesting. Wonder how NATO will respond, since Russia is clearly backing Assad.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well that should shorten the odds on a rebel victory: apart from perhaps Israel, Turkey can commit the most forces of any outside power in the region.

[SoFarSoGood]

The Turks must be restrained. Why?

A. Because Russian nuclear armed ships are in Syrian ports.
B. Because Iranian Revolutionary Guards are in Syria.
C. Because if/when we do go for Iran the Russian and Iranian will NOT be just mining the Gulf but the invasion of Azerbaijan and Georgia, thus cutting the non Russian controlled oil and gas supply to Europe. If that happens forget missile shields in Europe - the Russians have the energy blackmail card.

[Hax]

Hmm, this will also sour Turkish-Iranian relations. I don't think Erdogan is up for that, though.

[Montmorency]

A. Because Russian nuclear armed ships are in Syrian ports.
B. Because Iranian Revolutionary Guards are in Syria.
C. Because if/when we do go for Iran the Russian and Iranian will NOT be just mining the Gulf but the invasion of Azerbaijan and Georgia, thus cutting the non Russian controlled oil and gas supply to Europe. If that happens forget missile shields in Europe - the Russians have the energy blackmail card.

:laugh4: Yes, the Russians value Syria so much that they are willing to risk WW3 over it.

You overestimate the strength of the Russo-Iranian and the Russo-Syrian relationships.

[gaelic cowboy]

The Turks must be restrained. Why?

A. Because Russian nuclear armed ships are in Syrian ports.
B. Because Iranian Revolutionary Guards are in Syria.
C. Because if/when we do go for Iran the Russian and Iranian will NOT be just mining the Gulf but the invasion of Azerbaijan and Georgia, thus cutting the non Russian controlled oil and gas supply to Europe. If that happens forget missile shields in Europe - the Russians have the energy blackmail card.

The problem is though IF Russia plays those cards it would in all likelyhood backfire in a greater sense of unity against Russia.

Strategically Russia has depth but has to cover west, east and south the european nations only have one front.

[Fragony]

Things is getting interesting ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61FPAW6HBbA

Awesome. The Iranians could be our best friends instead of our worst enemies, they don't want it to be like this and neither do we.