Iran, Epic Troll

[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:

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 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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I like Goofball's point about transparent assassinations.

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

CR