Nuclear scientist killed by motorcycle bomb in Iran

Radium

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
17
I don't see how this is justified.

Prempting is very dangerous ground. Especially when justification is later revealed to be bogus. The cause of nothing but fear mongering. The best any nation can do is be fully prepared to strike back. Prempting is aggression, plain and simple.

They don't threaten to wipe entire nations and ethnic groups off the planet. They aren't a haven for terrorists. They would only use the nukes in self defense. etc etc
America does not, but Israel does. Of course Israel will never openly admit it but this is what they have been actively doing in Palestine to this very day. Palestine as a nation could cease to exist under the guise of 'natural growth' by Israel.

I
Can you imagine what this world would be like if Iran, or any other Jihadist nation was a superpower? It's simple... You would either be Muslim, dead or paying a hefty jizya.
There has been no precedent so how can you assume that will be their behaviour? Pakistan has nukes but has never used them. Most muslim majority states have signficant minorities that aren't dead and nor are they paying jizya. The current Islamic theocratic state Saudi Arabia doesn't even have an expeditionary force, hasn't invaded a foreign country, nor do they have the intention to. So this just sounds like fear mongering to me.

There is no 'Jihadist' nation. You're distorting the truth. Jihad when taken in the sense of literal warfare is only a retaliatory concept. If they are attacked, you can expect every strategem of war in retaliation. The Quran is quite clear on this: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html

[2.178]...retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain... [2.179] ...there is life for you in (the law of) retaliation, O men of understanding, that you may guard yourselves.

[2.190] ...fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you...[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers.

[193]...fight with them...[194]...whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you...

You see, these things happen because of the way Muslims fight back. They shoot from hospitals, mosques, schools and such because they know that the enemy tries hard to avoid civilian casualties and is less likely to fire back. And if Israel does shoot back and accidently kill civilians then THEY are the one to be criticized. Nobody seems to blame the jihadist snipers shooting from the hospital, they just blame Israel for shooting back.

Hamas is also known for transporting their rockets in ambulances. THAT is the kind of filth Israel is fighting and it's not an easy fight.
Key word being 'Fight back'. We have a civilian populace with no military, incapable of preventing annexation of their land, marginalized and repressed when they do try to integrate, so what do you expect? A militant civilian insurgency. Do you think that the militants will stand somewhere in the open and meet a superior foreign military head-on and try to beat it at it's own game? While I don't agree with Hamas militancy and indiscriminate targeting of Israeli civilians, there are plently of other cases where those tactics were necessary.

Muslims are nutters and will be most happy to bomb the crap out of Israel.
There's enough evidence of that.
Right... and Jews are parisites feeding off of Western civilization. There has been enough evidence of that. Europeans have noted that throughout documented history. The Jews were 'covertly devious, manipulative, divisionist and self-interested with no care for the greater good etc'. Europeans had none of it, ghettoization and pogroms were the norm culminating with the holocaust. That event has given too much leeway in the way of sympathy for Israeli aggression.

See what I did there?

well done to whomever was responsible. Take out the lunatic terrorists that are developing the bombs. I don't want Iran having access to nukes and any rational person knows what their intentions are.
Obviously the usual suspects here will says its for energy :rolleyes:
Iran will not use nuclear weapons on Israel. Their intention is to reclaim the land and not ruin the region. As Morgoth stated, I believe this would be a MAD defensive measure.

I find it remarkable how diligently some seek to barbarianize groups as a justification and a diversion from their activities of usurping their land and wealth. This is concept long in use by aggressors. The Romans are notable for this, the colonial era is another, as well as the Nazis and Soviets.
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,996
Sounds like a Mossad operation :whistling:
Possible but improbable.

Mossad
They do not have a record of assassination with indiscriminate bombs. If he was ‘surgically assassinated’ by a passer-by with a silenced weapon, it would be plausible as they have local language speaking, culturally familiar intelligence assets in the area.

American
They would have stuffed it up. Besides, they don’t go for indiscriminate bombs either. They **don’t** have local language speaking, culturally familiar intelligence assets in the area (Arabic spoken with an American twang is a dead giveaway).

Joint operation
The Americans would have been domineering and wanting to take charge. The Israeli’s have to be tactful – they can’t say “Get lost, ********.” They would have avoided any operation involving the USA.

My opinion
It was other Arabic interests. They DO NOT want a nuclear Iran. They do go in for indiscriminate bombs. They knew America and Israel would be blamed. America and Israel would be rubbing their hands gleefully but, on balance, IMO they are not responsible.
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,204
Possible but improbable.

Mossad
They do not have a record of assassination with indiscriminate bombs.
BS

The Lavon Affair refers to the scandal over a failed Israeli covert operation in Egypt known as Operation Susannah, in which Israeli military intelligence planted bombs in Egyptian, American and British-owned targets in Egypt in the summer of 1954 in the hopes that "the Muslim Brotherhood, the Communists, 'unspecified malcontents' or 'local nationalists'" would be blamed.[1] It became known as the Lavon Affair after the Israeli defense minister Pinhas Lavon, who was forced to resign because of the incident, or euphemistically as the Unfortunate Affair (Hebrew: העסק הביש‎, HaEsek HaBish). In 2005, Israeli President Moshe Katzav honored the nine Egyptian Jewish agents who were involved.[2]
 

za1

Expert Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
3,017
I would have no problem if the Mossad were offing off the Iranian nuclear scientists one by one, but in this case, it is probably the Iranian regime who did the dirty work as this can't just be a coincidence:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100112/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran

He joined a list of 240 faculty members in a declaration supporting opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi before June's disputed presidential election
 

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,477
I don't see how this is justified.

Prempting is very dangerous ground. Especially when justification is later revealed to be bogus. The cause of nothing but fear mongering. The best any nation can do is be fully prepared to strike back. Prempting is aggression, plain and simple.
People said the same thing to those that advocated preempting the Nazis. Tens of millions of people died thanks to this line of thinking.

In any case preemptive is perhaps misleading. The Iranian regimes's refusal to meet it's obligations is justification enough.

Your attitude is see what happens. If you're wrong it's too late. Basically it comes down to what the consequences of being wrong is. If you're wrong at worst we'll have a nuclear Holocaust killing many millions of people or at least a major explosion of violence as a now immune Iranian regime is free to export as much terrorism as they please. It doesn't seem rational to run those risks IMO


Iran will not use nuclear weapons on Israel. Their intention is to reclaim the land and not ruin the region. As Morgoth stated, I believe this would be a MAD defensive measure.
According to who? Are we supposed to believe a regime that murders their citizens in the street cares for the plight of the Palestinians or anybody else for that matter. They're ruining their own country but they don't intend ruining the region :erm:

Um MAD is supposed to be a bad situation. An absolute last case scenario. a bunch of unstable regimes, proliferation will explode, all pointing nukes at each other in the world's most volatile region. You have confidence in this?

There would also be an explosion of violence from Iran supported terrorist groups as the Iranians will have immunity as mentioned above as a result of MAD. Do some research on the cold war to see what lies in store with a nuke armed Iran


I find it remarkable how diligently some seek to barbarianize groups as a justification and a diversion from their activities of usurping their land and wealth. This is concept long in use by aggressors. The Romans are notable for this, the colonial era is another, as well as the Nazis and Soviets.
On the contrary. Groups like the nazis, commies readily used people like yourself who underscore their threat and rationalize their actions. If you take a look through history you'll see those who "barbarianize" the Iranian regime were accused of doing the same thing to the nazis, commies etc.


American
They would have stuffed it up. Besides, they don’t go for indiscriminate bombs either. They **don’t** have local language speaking, culturally familiar intelligence assets in the area (Arabic spoken with an American twang is a dead giveaway).

Joint operation
The Americans would have been domineering and wanting to take charge. The Israeli’s have to be tactful – they can’t say “Get lost, ********.” They would have avoided any operation involving the USA.
Yet they managed to pull off 9/11 :erm:

I'm not ruling out anybody yet. They're all willing and capable of carrying out such an attack.
 
Last edited:

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,996
From **your** Wiki segment
Aman decided to activate the network in the spring of 1954. On July 2, they firebombed a post office in Alexandria, and on July 14, they bombed the U.S. Information Agency libraries in Alexandria and Cairo and a British-owned theater. The homemade bombs, consisting of bags containing acid placed over nitroglycerine, were inserted into books, and placed on the shelves of the libraries just before closing time. Several hours later, as the acid ate through the bags, the bombs would explode. They did little damage to the targets and caused no injuries or deaths.
Assassination with indiscriminate bombs implies the killing of innocents along with the target.
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,996
Um MAD is supposed to be a bad situation. An absolute last case scenario. a bunch of unstable regimes, proliferation will explode, all pointing nukes at each other in the world's most volatile region. You have confidence in this?
I think MAD (I stand to be corrected) was a cold war stand-off between the US and Russia. I don’t think the policy can be applied post-cold war. It requires rational opponents. The US and Russia were rational; they could see the consequences of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,204
From **your** Wiki segment

Assassination with indiscriminate bombs implies the killing of innocents along with the target.
Oh jeez then what is planting bombs among civilians? :erm: Closing time is still an active time in a library if you've ever been to one.(A good library)


Besides Irgun carried out the first major terrorist attack in the Arab world dressed up as Arabs and these members were absorbed into the IDF and mossad when Israel was founded.

This terrorist attack is still celebrated in Israel.
 
Last edited:

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,477
I think MAD (I stand to be corrected) was a cold war stand-off between the US and Russia. I don’t think the policy can be applied post-cold war. It requires rational opponents. The US and Russia were rational; they could see the consequences of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD).
Both were political ideologies and not fanatical religious theocracies and yet they still managed to come so close to annihilating each other during the Cuban missile crises.
 

BBSA

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
14,359
Oh jeez then what is planting bombs among civilians? :erm: Closing time is still an active time in a library if you've ever been to one.(A good library)


Besides Irgun carried out the first major terrorist attack in the Arab world dressed up as Arabs and these members were absorbed into the IDF and mossad when Israel was founded.

This terrorist attack is still celebrated in Israel.
And you have a problem with this? Your heroes is doing the same if not worse.
 

MrHands

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
574
Besides Irgun carried out the first major terrorist attack in the Arab world dressed up as Arabs and these members were absorbed into the IDF and mossad when Israel was founded.

This terrorist attack is still celebrated in Israel.
Big difference between the hotel bombing and typical islamic terrorism. In the Hotel Bombing the terrorists gave advance warning telling them of the bomb in hopes they would evacuate and avoid injures. Can you imagine any jihadist doing the same?
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,996
Both were political ideologies and not fanatical religious theocracies and yet they still managed to come so close to annihilating each other during the Cuban missile crises.
Ah ha! They would have annihilated each other for **rational** reasons. Besides, MAD was not a policy at the time of the Cuban missile crises.
 

Turtle

Expert Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,642
Isreal has nukes! but Iran isn't allowed to have any..... sounds about right to me.
That's not hypocrisy, since Israel uses them responsibly, while Iran has repeatedly confessed to wanting to nuke Israel off the map.

I suppose by your reasoning it's also hypocrisy to allow responsible law-abiding citizens to carry firearms but to deny convicted serial killers that right. Israel and Iran don't get treated the same because they aren't the same - duh.
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,204
*yawn* the same old immature accusations and rigid thinking. Now I remembered why I don't post here anymore.
 

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
40,627
So what would happen if we pre-empted everything ?

We could chop off a peeping toms weener because he ' might' become a rapist.

Why not execute animal abusers because some become serial killer.

But that's still not enough - let's execute everyone who has ever said in the heat of the moment " I will kill you " - just in case they actually do.

There is a far greater threat of Pakistan or North Korea using nukes so why is nobody discussing pre-emptive strikes against them ?

Just because Israel has no beef with them ?

There are those who believe the 'night of the long knives is coming' when Mandela dies - so let's kill all the blacks just in case.
 

Frankie

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
5,785
That's not hypocrisy, since Israel uses them responsibly, while Iran has repeatedly confessed to wanting to nuke Israel off the map.

I suppose by your reasoning it's also hypocrisy to allow responsible law-abiding citizens to carry firearms but to deny convicted serial killers that right. Israel and Iran don't get treated the same because they aren't the same - duh.
Bear in mind that Israel is not the only target, they are just higher on the Islamists "infidel" kill list.
 

Radium

Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
17
People said the same thing to those that advocated preempting the Nazis. Tens of millions of people died thanks to this line of thinking.

In any case preemptive is perhaps misleading. The Iranian regimes's refusal to meet it's obligations is justification enough.

Your attitude is see what happens. If you're wrong it's too late. Basically it comes down to what the consequences of being wrong is. If you're wrong at worst we'll have a nuclear Holocaust killing many millions of people or at least a major explosion of violence as a now immune Iranian regime is free to export as much terrorism as they please. It doesn't seem rational to run those risks IMO

According to who? Are we supposed to believe a regime that murders their citizens in the street cares for the plight of the Palestinians or anybody else for that matter. They're ruining their own country but they don't intend ruining the region :erm:

Um MAD is supposed to be a bad situation. An absolute last case scenario. a bunch of unstable regimes, proliferation will explode, all pointing nukes at each other in the world's most volatile region. You have confidence in this?

There would also be an explosion of violence from Iran supported terrorist groups as the Iranians will have immunity as mentioned above as a result of MAD. Do some research on the cold war to see what lies in store with a nuke armed Iran

On the contrary. Groups like the nazis, commies readily used people like yourself who underscore their threat and rationalize their actions. If you take a look through history you'll see those who "barbarianize" the Iranian regime were accused of doing the same thing to the nazis, commies etc.
@Alan
You're being incredibly paranoid. The state of the Iranian nation is not comparable to that of Nazi Germany.

Despite the current Iranian regimes rhetoric, they do not have a recent history of attacking neighbouring countries, even those which were actively hostile towards it.

Iranians are also obliged not to use nuclear weapons by decree of their Ayatollah who deemed that it is not in accordance with Islam. Thus I would expect that the regime is in no way careless about their populace. The regimes response to the civil unrest over supposed electoral fraud may seem harsh but it is hardly indicative of a suicidal state.

Your evaluation that the current regime is ruining Iran is highly subjective. In many ways Iranians have a higher quality of life than during the monarchy.

There is also the nuclear factor which if it were present in both France and Germany, could have prevented the outset of WW2. Just as it prevented a convential WW3 during the cold war. Yes this might spur Iranian and Israeli proxy conflicts, but this is already occurring.

Mutualy assured destruction is never a good thing. Israel initiated this situation so it must deal with the consequences. Neighbouring nations will never sit idlely by when a blantantly expansionist nation is nuclear armed. That is rationality. Iran are protecting there citizens in a comparable manner, to expect anything less is lunacy.

Honestly what is to stop Israel from continuing to expand its borders into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt if it remains the sole nuclear power? Morality? Their continuing actions answer with a resounding 'no'.

You're concerned about Iran's obligations but what about Israel?

I have faith that rationality will always prevail, even among aggressive regimes armed with nuclear weapons.

@Turtle
'Iran confessed to nuking Israel off the map'. No. You're sprouting outright lies now.
 
Last edited:

Alan

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
62,477
@Alan
You're being incredibly paranoid. The state of the Iranian nation is not comparable to that of Nazi Germany.
I did not compare them. I compared the "wait and see" mentality.

Despite the current Iranian regimes rhetoric, they do not have a recent history of attacking neighbouring countries, even those which were actively hostile towards it.
Rhetoric is enough. It's absurd to cast aside threats they've made. As for attacking they have a long history of supporting terrorist groups who fight their wars for them as a proxy.


Iranians are also obliged not to use nuclear weapons by decree of their Ayatollah who deemed that it is not in accordance with Islam. Thus I would expect that the regime is in no way careless about their populace. The regimes response to the civil unrest over supposed electoral fraud may seem harsh but it is hardly indicative of a suicidal state.
On the contrary . When they resort to murdering protesters in the street in front of the whole world it reveals a state acting in desperation. Calling the response "harsh" is an understatement. Hundreds murdered, thousands injured and dragged off to prisons to be tortured, raped...

I'm sure the Ayatollah claims treating people like this is "not in accordance with Islam" yet that is exactly what his regime is doing.

Your evaluation that the current regime is ruining Iran is highly subjective. In many ways Iranians have a higher quality of life than during the monarchy.
If true that still doesn't justify them obtaining nukes given their record


There is also the nuclear factor which if it were present in both France and Germany, could have prevented the outset of WW2. Just as it prevented a convential WW3 during the cold war. Yes this might spur Iranian and Israeli proxy conflicts, but this is already occurring.
It will be increased greatly along with the risk of total annihilation


Mutualy assured destruction is never a good thing. Israel initiated this situation so it must deal with the consequences. Neighbouring nations will never sit idlely by when a blantantly expansionist nation is nuclear armed. That is rationality. Iran are protecting there citizens in a comparable manner, to expect anything less is lunacy.
Whose to say the Iranians would give up nukes if Israel disarmed? It clear their aim is to be the regions super power. I don't see how you can claim their interests are to protect Iranians when they subjecting them to this abuse. In any case who's a threat to the Iranian people? Israel certainly is not. They've got enough on their plate. The American and Europeans certainly aren't up for a war.

The current Iranian policies are in fact drastically increasing the risk of harm coming to their citizens. If they gave in to U.N demands regarding their nuke program the threat would disappear.


Honestly what is to stop Israel from continuing to expand its borders into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt if it remains the sole nuclear power? Morality? Their continuing actions answer with a resounding 'no'.

You're concerned about Iran's obligations but what about Israel?
There own people. As with all democracies they can't stomach a fight. No Israeli government would get away with an invasion of another country without justification.


If Iran was a stable, open, democratic state then they can develop nukes if they feel threatened by Israel no problem.


I have faith that rationality will always prevail, even among aggressive regimes armed with nuclear weapons.
I'm not sure where you get this faith from given the history of human megalomania and mishaps
 

obs

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 21, 2007
Messages
227
Big difference between the hotel bombing and typical islamic terrorism. In the Hotel Bombing the terrorists gave advance warning telling them of the bomb in hopes they would evacuate and avoid injures. Can you imagine any jihadist doing the same?
I wonder if the sailors on the USS Liberty where given warnings ?
 
Top