• 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

I don't consider this a terrorist attack. First, I question whether the guy qualifies as a civilian. Regardless, the purpose was not to terrorize the country and thereby cause unrest and political pressure within the community. Terrorizing the other nuclear scientists/workers may be an incidental effect, but the goal was simply to take out the brains of the nuclear operation. It was a political assassination.

That said, to be consistent, people in this thread should probably have the same opinion of this as they did the US taking out Obama or that American terrorist last year.
 
Would you prefer that the US/Israel/anyone else go to war with Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons? If memory serves me correctly there were a ton of people upset with recent wars.
 
muciti said:
Would you prefer that the US/Israel/anyone else go to war with Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons? If memory serves me correctly there were a ton of people upset with recent wars.
Click to expand...
lol. If agents keep using terrorism on Iran then how do you expect them NOT to go to war to defend themselves? People used terrorism on the US and the US went to war at the drop of a hat. (welll... technically US didnt actually declare war)
 
muciti said:
Would you prefer that the US/Israel/anyone else go to war with Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons? If memory serves me correctly there were a ton of people upset with recent wars.
Click to expand...

There are more than just two choices. You offer only war or assasination. Those are not the only options.

Not only that is this assasination is only going to fuel the want for Iran to go to war. Is that what YOU want?
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
Would you prefer that the US/Israel/anyone else go to war with Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons? If memory serves me correctly there were a ton of people upset with recent wars.
Click to expand...

No. I consider this whole situation a failure of leadership of the United States and any western power endorsing these sanctions -- their inability to find a diplomatic solution to this problem. We've put financial sanctions in place. Exactly what does Iran have to do to get these sanctions lifted? We're going down the exact same road we went down with Iraq. "They have WMD's!! They have WMD's!!" Oops, they didn't. "They're going to make WMD's!! They're going to make WMD's!!" Wake up, folks.

There is a diplomatic solution here. Why are we not finding one? Iran signed the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. They haven't withdrawn as North Korea has. Why are we not making a better case?

What do they have to do to lift the sanctions? "Don't do that anymore," whatever that is, is hardly a realistic policy.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta says Iran is laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday, but is not yet building a bomb
Click to expand...

Prove it, Leon. Prove they are laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday. Where's the beef?
 
iliveonramen said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't you think this creates fear for any scientists who work for the Iranian government?
 
Thorgasm said:
Don't you think this creates fear for any scientists who work for the Iranian government?
Click to expand...

So everyone who has ever murdered or killed someone is a terrorist?
 
There are more than just two choices. You offer only war or assasination. Those are not the only options.

Not only that is this assasination is only going to fuel the want for Iran to go to war. Is that what YOU want?
Click to expand...

What other option is there? They are progressing forward with their nuclear program despite negotiations, treaties, and sanctions. They are not responsive. Something has to be done. Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
 
jamesrage said:
So everyone who has ever murdered or killed someone is a terrorist?
Click to expand...

Does your pogo stick have a nitrous bottle attached to it? That's quite a leap you made.

A foreign government attacking civilians on sovereign soil is not "everyone who has ever murdered or killed someone".
 
Don't you think this creates fear for any scientists who work for the Iranian government?
Click to expand...

Of course it does, that's a natural extension of any assasination. Killing Kennedy created fear, the shooting of Reagan created fear. Those were assasinations (or attempted assasinations) though not acts of terrorism.

Do you think creating fear was the reason we killed the scientists or were we removing a scientists that was important to their nuclear program? That's what distinguishes terrorism from assasination. If we were conducting a campaign of terrorism to stop their nuclear program we would go for targets that maximize the amount of fear created. Not one target.
 
Thorgasm said:
Does your pogo stick have a nitrous bottle attached to it? That's quite a leap you made.

A foreign government attacking civilians on sovereign soil is not "everyone who has ever murdered or killed someone".
Click to expand...

When someone is murdered it creates fear in other citizens that they could be potential victims.Therefore by your logic someone on the street getting murdered is a act of terrorism.
 
iliveonramen said:
Of course it does, that's a natural extension of any assasination. Killing Kennedy created fear, the shooting of Reagan created fear. Those were assasinations (or attempted assasinations) though not acts of terrorism.

Do you think creating fear was the reason we killed the scientists or were we removing a scientists that was important to their nuclear program? That's what distinguishes terrorism from assasination. If we were conducting a campaign of terrorism to stop their nuclear program we would go for targets that maximize the amount of fear created. Not one target.
Click to expand...

Oswald wasn't working for an organization. Hinkley was insane.


"We" killed the scientist?

I think you are using a false dichotomy. Couldn't the purpose of the killing to be both to instill fear in scientists and remove an important part of the program?

Also, who says that this was the only attack. Wasn't there an explosion at a site in Iran not too long ago?
 
jamesrage said:
When someone is murdered it creates fear in other citizens that they could be potential victims.Therefore by your logic someone on the street getting murdered is a act of terrorism.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand what logic I am applying here. I never said that. Is this National Obtuse Month?
 
Thorgasm said:
You obviously don't understand what logic I am applying here. I never said that. Is this National Obtuse Month?
Click to expand...

These are your own words.
Don't you think this creates fear for any scientists who work for the Iranian government?

So it is your logic that someone being murdered/assassinated creates fear in other potential victims.
 
I believe the CIA had to do with this...
Just look at the CIA's history...
 
I think you are using a false dichotomy. Couldn't the purpose of the killing to be both to instill fear in scientists and remove an important part of the program?
Click to expand...

It is a dichotomy...not a false one. If your goal is to create fear it's terrorism. If it's to take out a target it's an assasination. When drug cartels kills random civilians it's terrorism. When they target a specific individuals like a political figure or a police chief that is trying to combat the drug cartels it's an assasination.

I'm sure they knew it would cause fear but that was not the purpose. The purpose was to take out a strategic target tied to the nuclear program.

Edit: More examples...the killing of MLK was an assasination...it targeted an individual they wanted to remove. The KKK bombings during the civil rights era to was instill terror.
 
Last edited:
jamesrage said:
These are your own words.
Don't you think this creates fear for any scientists who work for the Iranian government?

So it is your logic that someone being murdered/assassinated creates fear in other potential victims.
Click to expand...

I should have said "nuclear scientists". :roll:

That doesn't mean that all Iranians should be afraid as your post implied.
 
iliveonramen said:
It is a dichotomy...not a false one. If your goal is to create fear it's terrorism. If it's to take out a target it's an assasination. When drug cartels kills random civilians it's terrorism. When they target a specific individuals like a political figure or a police chief that is trying to combat the drug cartels it's an assasination.

I'm sure they knew it would cause fear but that was not the purpose. The purpose was to take out a strategic target tied to the nuclear program.
Click to expand...

It's not like the target was unique and irreplaceable.
 
Thorgasm said:
It's not like the target was unique and irreplaceable.
Click to expand...

Nuclear experts must come a dime a dozen in your neck of the woods.
 
MaggieD said:
No. I consider this whole situation a failure of leadership of the United States and any western power endorsing these sanctions -- their inability to find a diplomatic solution to this problem. We've put financial sanctions in place. Exactly what does Iran have to do to get these sanctions lifted? We're going down the exact same road we went down with Iraq. "They have WMD's!! They have WMD's!!" Oops, they didn't. "They're going to make WMD's!! They're going to make WMD's!!" Wake up, folks.

There is a diplomatic solution here. Why are we not finding one? Iran signed the Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. They haven't withdrawn as North Korea has. Why are we not making a better case?

What do they have to do to lift the sanctions? "Don't do that anymore," whatever that is, is hardly a realistic policy.



Prove it, Leon. Prove they are laying the groundwork for making nuclear weapons someday. Where's the beef?
Click to expand...

Since they signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, they should abide by its rules. They are not. They have been found in non compliance numerous times and refuse to cooperate with the IAEA.

Here's a list of IAEA findings on Iran just in the past year:

In February 2010, the IAEA issued a report scolding Iran for failing to explain purchases of sensitive technology as well as secret tests of high-precision detonators and modified designs of missile cones to accommodate larger payloads. Such experiments are closely associated with atomic warheads.

In May 2010, the IAEA issued a report that Iran had declared production of over 2.5 metric tons of low-enriched uranium, which would be enough if further enriched to make two nuclear weapons, and that Iran has refused to answer inspectors’ questions on a variety of activities, including what the agency called the “possible military dimensions” of Iran's nuclear program.

In July 2010, Iran barred two IAEA inspectors from entering the country. The IAEA rejected Iran's reasons for the ban and said it fully supported the inspectors, which Tehran has accused of reporting wrongly that some nuclear equipment was missing.

In August 2010, the IAEA said Iran has started using a second set of 164 centrifuges linked in a cascade, or string of machines, to enrich uranium to up to 20% at its Natanz pilot fuel enrichment plan.

In November of 2011, IAEA officials identified a "large explosive containment vessel" inside Parchin. The IAEA later assessed that Iran has been conducting experiments to develop nuclear weapons capability.
Click to expand...
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iran has no reason to continue its games of obfuscation unless it is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.
 
Thorgasm said:
Illinois has a couple nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...

Nuclear power plants and nuclear experts are not synonymous. Quite a difference between weaponizing plutonium and running a power plant.
 
Whomever the person(s) were that did the assasination should be tried and shot at the very least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom