Iran, Epic Troll

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

There's more than one way to skin a cat

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-alien...ion-aliens.jpg

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

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

u obviously have not been to india...

or russia... apparently

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2JF...eature=related

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

Only if they're bad people.

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

Bow before your masters!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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/op...ml?_r=3&src=tp

Quote:

---

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/

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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:

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.

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:

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

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.

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

Ru Paul is a guy?!?

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

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

hmm, kind of a different perspective from this:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/20...i-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.

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/2012/0...uclear-weapons