• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Car bombs kill Iranian nuclear expert

And you think this doesn't create terror? They targeted a CIVILIAN.

What amazes me is that if this is so right and acceptable, why hasn't the coward country that oked this come forward? Oh yeah, because they know it's wrong and illegal.

I don't necessarily find it acceptable but I do think this professor who may be involved very directly in a dangerous project doesn't fit the profile of what I consider terrorist activity. Technically any killing creates some kind of terror. If the CIA or some Israeli convert agents did this then of course they are not going to admit it.
 
This seems like a rather ineffective way to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear power. Until the guys making the decisions are the ones being targeted, I don't see Iran changing course. That western powers have stooped to killing civilians because they're afraid to tackle the real problems is truly sad.
 
Yet you are in complete agreement with the one who actually introduced the false concept into this thread and keeps accusing people of supporting it. It would be magnitudes less hypocritical of you if you were to take it up with him, instead.

Now we have to define hypocrisy as well? :rofl --What is hypocritical about my posts?

I don't know why it's so important as to whether or not this incident qualifies as terrorism. It's close enough to terrorism for me. And probably for the family of the innocent passenger who was killed as well. There are other very successful and clandestine ways to assassinate a target. Having chosen a car bomb shows that the perpetrators were sending a message of terror to others.

I agree: dispicable. I do wonder why you don't think the U.S. had direct involvement, though. The CIA will facilitate/arrange/support/condone anything that serves to protect the United States short of political assassination -- and I'm not even sure about that. From November 11th:

Exclusive: CIA Spies Caught, Fear Execution in Middle East - Yahoo!

Oh, brother.


From your own source:

Is this the best we can do on this thread? Parse a word to death until it croaks?
 
he was involved with a government program to develop nuclear weapons. Thats not a civilian. Stop acting like this was just some random guy.

Show me the International law or even U.S. law that states a civilian working on a nuclear program can be targeted for assasination.
 
On a serious note, while I do understand theNextEra's point - that the Iranian scientists are not the Iranian government - I also understand Israel's position here. They believe they're fighting for their very survival in keeping a nuclear Iran from existing. Let's look at the facts:

- Peace negotiations (whether you believe Israel's been genuine or not) haven't worked.
- Sactions haven't stopped Iran from going forward with their nuclear ambitions.
- Diplomacy hasn't worked either.
- Nor has sabatoge (i.e., crippling Iran's centrifuges via an Internet virus)

So, nothing's worked to stop them completely. Yet, Iran (as well as a large part of the Muslim world) continues in their lamentations to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. If all other peaceful diplomatic efforts have failed, what else is left short of all out war except espionage, assassination or terrorism which is an extreme form of assassination?

I understand theNextEra's point of view in that the scientist are civilians...ordinary people who are just going to work to do a job, and as such, perhaps shouldn't be viewed any differently than say the scientist who once worked on the Manhatten Project, but there's a difference between building a weapon to defend yourself against an enemy and building one to wipe your country off the face of the planet!

Now, if all Iran wants to do is build nuclear weapons as a deterant to a military strike against their country - have such as an offensive weapon same as the U.S. or the Soviet Union or even Pakistan, India or (to a lesser degree) N. Korea - I say they have that right. But when you've made your position known not only to the nation you despise but also to the world-at-large, it comes a time when you must use every method at your disposal to stop your "enemy" from acquiring the means to destroy you. And if said method includes stopping the development of that weapon at the source - the nuclear scientist themselves - then so be it.

Let me be clear: None of this would be necessary if Iran would be truthful and see reason. IMO, they haven't been truthful concerning nuclear development projects nor will they be. And they certainly won't become more cooperative unless they're forced to be. When all else fails, drastic measures calls for drastic actions. I hate it for the Iranian scientist, but...

Abdullah, if you're wearing a white smock and you plan to enter a facility that might be construde as a Iranian nuclear weapons facility, keep your head on a swivel and look out for motorcyclists wearing backpacks...:shrug:
 
Last edited:
This seems like a rather ineffective way to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear power. Until the guys making the decisions are the ones being targeted, I don't see Iran changing course. That western powers have stooped to killing civilians because they're afraid to tackle the real problems is truly sad.

it might be that those same western powers do not want to face reprisal in the same way
 
And you think this doesn't create terror? They targeted a CIVILIAN.

What amazes me is that if this is so right and acceptable, why hasn't the coward country that oked this come forward? Oh yeah, because they know it's wrong and illegal.

To stop "alleged terrorism" agents burn a scientist in an explosive fiery death to send a message to Irans nucular ambitions. If it turns out the US had any part of the effort they should be pursued for terrorism. We cant pretend to be a civil and noble country if we condone exploding people. People need to admit their hethen tendancies or just drop the pretense.
 
Last edited:
On a serious note, while I do understand theNextEra's point - that the Iranian scientists are not the Iranian government - I also understand Israel's position here. They believe they're fighting for their very survival in keeping a nuclear Iran from existing. Let's look at the facts:

- Peace negotiations (whether you believe Israel's been genuine or not) haven't worked.
- Sactions haven't stopped Iran from going forward with their nuclear ambitions.
- Diplomacy hasn't worked either.
- Nor has sabatoge (i.e., crippling Iran's centrifuges via an Internet virus)

So, nothing's worked to stop them completely. Yet, Iran (as well as a large part of the Muslim world) continues in their lamentations to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. If all other peaceful diplomatic efforts have failed, what else is left short of all out war except espionage, assassination or terrorism which is an extreme form of assassination?

I understand theNextEra's point of view in that the scientist are civilians...ordinary people who are just going to work to do a job, and as such, perhaps shouldn't be viewed any differently than say the scientist who once worked on the Manhatten Project, but there's a difference between building a weapon to defend yourself against an enemy and building one to wipe your country off the face of the planet!

Now, if all Iran wants to do is build nuclear weapons as a deterant to a military strike against their country - have such as an offensive weapon same as the U.S. or the Soviet Union or even Pakistan, India or (to a lesser degree) N. Korea - I say they have that right. But when you've made your position known not only to the nation you despise but also to the world-at-large, it comes a time when you must use every method at your disposal to stop your "enemy" from acquiring the means to destroy you. And if said method includes stopping the development of that weapon at the source - the nuclear scientist themselves - then so be it.

Let me be clear: None of this would be necessary if Iran would be truthful and see reason. IMO, they haven't been truthful concerning nuclear development projects nor will they be. And they certainly won't become more cooperative unless they're forced to be. When all else fails, drastic measures calls for drastic actions. I hate it for the Iranian scientist, but...

Abdullah, if you're wearing a white smock and you plan to enter a facility that might be construde as a Iranian nuclear weapons facility, keep your head on a swivel and look out for motorcyclist wearing backpacks...:shrug:

Huh? Iran is pursuing efforts in order to level Israel? News to me. The only thing I remember them saying thats even close to that is when they where talking about retaliation. AKA if Israel attacked them they would respond be taking it off the map. AKA they try to mess with Irans sovereignty and Iran will respond by usurping all of theirs.

After the WMD flops that have been going on I do not trust that Iran has nuclear weapons. I think people just want more war.
 
On a serious note, while I do understand theNextEra's point - that the Iranian scientists are not the Iranian government - I also understand Israel's position here. They believe they're fighting for their very survival in keeping a nuclear Iran from existing. Let's look at the facts:

- Peace negotiations (whether you believe Israel's been genuine or not) haven't worked.
- Sactions haven't stopped Iran from going forward with their nuclear ambitions.
- Diplomacy hasn't worked either.
- Nor has sabatoge (i.e., crippling Iran's centrifuges via an Internet virus)

So, nothing's worked to stop them completely. Yet, Iran (as well as a large part of the Muslim world) continues in their lamentations to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. If all other peaceful diplomatic efforts have failed, what else is left short of all out war except espionage, assassination or terrorism which is an extreme form of assassination?

I understand theNextEra's point of view in that the scientist are civilians...ordinary people who are just going to work to do a job, and as such, perhaps shouldn't be viewed any differently than say the scientist who once worked on the Manhatten Project, but there's a difference between building a weapon to defend yourself against an enemy and building one to wipe your country off the face of the planet!

Now, if all Iran wants to do is build nuclear weapons as a deterant to a military strike against their country - have such as an offensive weapon same as the U.S. or the Soviet Union or even Pakistan, India or (to a lesser degree) N. Korea - I say they have that right. But when you've made your position known not only to the nation you despise but also to the world-at-large, it comes a time when you must use every method at your disposal to stop your "enemy" from acquiring the means to destroy you. And if said method includes stopping the development of that weapon at the source - the nuclear scientist themselves - then so be it.

Let me be clear: None of this would be necessary if Iran would be truthful and see reason. IMO, they haven't been truthful concerning nuclear development projects nor will they be. And they certainly won't become more cooperative unless they're forced to be. When all else fails, drastic measures calls for drastic actions. I hate it for the Iranian scientist, but...

Abdullah, if you're wearing a white smock and you plan to enter a facility that might be construde as a Iranian nuclear weapons facility, keep your head on a swivel and look out for motorcyclists wearing backpacks...:shrug:

If the point of this was deterrant, all Iran will do is place more emphasis on protecting their scientists. Does anyone REALLY think this will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons? No, therefore this is indeed just an act of terrorism. If the U.S. was involved in anyway, those involved should be tried and that goes all the way to the top if needed.
 
Now we have to define hypocrisy as well? :rofl --What is hypocritical about my posts?

You need your hypocrisy explained to you, Maggie? That's easy. You are a hypocrite for agreeing with the dishonest poster who introduced the dishonest terminology and has used it the most often, and have limited yourself to criticizing only those who wish to correct the dishonest element thus introduced.

You are obviously hypocritical.
 
You need your hypocrisy explained to you, Maggie? That's easy. You are a hypocrite for agreeing with the dishonest poster who introduced the dishonest terminology and has used it the most often, and have limited yourself to criticizing only those who wish to correct the dishonest element thus introduced.

You are obviously hypocritical.

It is not dishonest to call this a terrorist attack. The definition of terrorism fits this to a tee.
 
From your own source:



Is this the best we can do on this thread? Parse a word to death until it croaks?
The purpose of the assassination was not to intimidate or coerce through the use of violence of threats, it was to permanently stop a nuclear scientist working on a nuclear program. His assassination was no more an act of terrorist than JFK's, Lincoln's or even the attempt of Reagan.
 
It is not dishonest to call this a terrorist attack. The definition of terrorism fits this to a tee.

So by your logic Lee Harvey Oswald was a terrorist, so was John Wilkes Booth and John Hinckley, Jr. is a terrorist or attempted terrorist and anyone who ever murdered someone is a terrorist.
 
Last edited:
So by your logic Lee Harvey Oswald was a terrorist, so was John Wilkes Booth and John Hinckley, Jr. is a terrorist and anyone who ever murdered someone is a terrorist.

If some brown dude with a cloth wrapped around his head blew up ANY American scientist it would be terrorism. It would be alllll ove the news as terrorism. I think there is a bunch of subconcious racists just beating the war drum. Maybe its what comes after Highschool. No more teams to rush at eachother blindly so they need a war banner to keep them entertained.
 
It is not dishonest to call this a terrorist attack. The definition of terrorism fits this to a tee.

No, it doesn't. Not to anybody who is intellectually honest.

You simply have an agenda at work here and are pursuing it against all reason.
 
No, it doesn't. Not to anybody who is intellectually honest.

You simply have an agenda at work here and are pursuing it against all reason.

The definition of terrorism has been provided and this fits it. Sorry you don't like the truth.

As for agenda, it is not mine, but yours to justify this as acceptable.
 
You need your hypocrisy explained to you, Maggie? That's easy. You are a hypocrite for agreeing with the dishonest poster who introduced the dishonest terminology and has used it the most often, and have limited yourself to criticizing only those who wish to correct the dishonest element thus introduced. You are obviously hypocritical.

*Sigh*

Hypocrisy:

1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

Just because someone does not agree with you about the definition of a WORD, Gardner, doesn't brand them a hypocrite. But rather than derail this thread any further with ridiculous semantics, I'll let you call me a hypocrite as much as you'd like. Perhaps it will distract you from making a even one real, yet probably misguided, observation on the subject of the Original Post.

Some people are extraordinarily ignorant of the meaning of basic terms, and this is especially true among those who are motivated by a political agenda rather than any search for truth.

A targeted assassination is not terrorism, obviously so, since to be considered terrorism, the targets need to be civilian AND RANDOM. This was not random, so it wasn't terrorism.

Post #19 in this thread an obvious example.

The victims were certainly random, since their identities were unknown.

Some, like yourself, are both honest and intelligent.

As we have seen here in this thread, some aren't.

as long as we are referring to online dictionaries and all......... ;)

and quite ironic, too, since he is accusing your position as being the one al Qaeda would applaud rather than his.

What is truly despicable are the lengths you will go to in order to engage in agitprop through the use of incredibly false equivalencies and blatant turnspeak.

Yes -- Hatuey gave an intelligent and honest reply rather than an unintelligent one motivated by a dishonest agenda.

Are you actually TRYING to sound as stupid and dishonest as you do, or does it just come naturally to you?

You need your hypocrisy explained to you, Maggie? That's easy. You are a hypocrite for agreeing with the dishonest poster who introduced the dishonest terminology and has used it the most often, and have limited yourself to criticizing only those who wish to correct the dishonest element thus introduced.

You are obviously hypocritical.

No, it doesn't. Not to anybody who is intellectually honest.

You simply have an agenda at work here and are pursuing it against all reason.

Other than parsing words, Gardner, do you have an actual opinion on the opening post?
 
If some brown dude with a cloth wrapped around his head blew up ANY American scientist it would be terrorism. It would be alllll ove the news as terrorism. I think there is a bunch of subconcious racists just beating the war drum. Maybe its what comes after Highschool. No more teams to rush at eachother blindly so they need a war banner to keep them entertained.


It would be an assassination. If someone regardless of what color that person's skin or what he had or did not have on his head blew up a building,bus,train or what ever full of random people then it would be a act of terrorism.
 
It appears that somebody's "Spooks" have been busy__Hmmm?__Wonder if it was Mossad or CIA???

I admit the morality here is very difficult but heres a comparative example to see if people here are being consistent. The french oil giant Total (and its American asociates Unocol) was sucessfully sued for abuses in Burma* after many people were killed, displaced or forced to work on the pipeline by the army in order to facilitate the building of this pipeline . If an armed opossition group decided to target employees of these companies through bombings and assasinations in Paris and New York then would they have a right to do so? if not why not? Remember the C.I.A/Mossad killed this person due to the percieved *potential* threat that they posed to their security in a wort-case senario. Whereas the Burmese would be responding to a threat that had already been established as 100% verifiable to their lives and liberty because these events had already transpired. Why is one legitimate but not the other?

*Possibly it was just UNOCOL that was sued sucessfully, I'll check.
 
Last edited:
I disagree that it is to create a state of fear or coerce. The purpose was to hamstring their nuclear project by taking out a key memeber of the project.

In order for it to be terrorism the goal is fear and the ultimate goal is to use that fear for political purposes.

This was to take out someone that is a key person in a project, not to create fear in iran in order to stop them working on their nuclear project.
 
I disagree that it is to create a state of fear or coerce. The purpose was to hamstring their nuclear project by taking out a key memeber of the project.

In order for it to be terrorism the goal is fear and the ultimate goal is to use that fear for political purposes.

This was to take out someone that is a key person in a project, not to create fear in iran in order to stop them working on their nuclear project.

It is being used for political purposes. It is instilling fear for ALL Iranian scientists that they may be targeted. Fits terrorism to a tee.
 
Oh man.. The lengths some will go to bury their own head in sand. Its terrorism. The only reason why some don't think so is because it happened to the "bad guys". Laughner? Terrorist. Hasan? Terrorist. Agents blowing up some Iranian civilean due to specutalive threats? Not terrorist.
 
Back
Top Bottom