Imagine if France just covertly assassinated a US government scientist on US soil while s/he drove home to their family after work and then France just nonchalantly admitted this to the world and acted like it was normal.
source? What are you asking for? Can I prove God exists? No. Similarly, I cannot prove such a claim.
There have been seemingly plenty of news, I've spoken with Iranians, etc. None of this would be enough to prove anything to someone who can't see the writing on the wall.
Nonetheless, I do respect the possibility that I might be wrong, that's why I had written seemingly. But it's so likely at this point, based on what I've seen, observed, understand, that my comment seems good and fair.
You can tell it's an issue that warrants more than one sentence to come to a conclusion, because there is an entire wikipedia article dedicated to every country's viewpoint on the matter, meaning this is mostly a matter of opinion and cannot be used to justify the murder of a nuclear scientist. (Which I realise you did not justify)
Just because there's debate and different opinions, doesn't mean the truth is inconclusive.
Politicians have the same problem as you - where is the proof that Iran can't be trusted? There is no proof, there can't be proof. This leads to endless debate with many different opinions.
Just because there's a disagreement involving many sides, doesn't mean that none of the sides are correct. Sometimes, just one of those sides are correct. It is good then when that side pursues the truth, even against all doubt.
Not too long ago, in Iran, there were scores of mass protests against their own government, who were then oppressed, subdued, and killed for protesting.
Lots and lots of censorship including in the media, internet, and free speech.
Or alternatively, what makes democratic nations the better shepards of nuclear weapons? It's not like they're asking their voters before they'd start a nuke.
I think the cold war showed us how easy it is to succumb to fear and how close we can get to nuclear annihilation.
Russia is more trustworthy than Iran. Nonetheless, nobody wants Russia to have nuclear weapons, but nobody can do anything about it. They've already have them for a long time.
I don't trust anyone with nuclear weapons. It would be lovely if nobody had them. That's realistically not possible right now. As long as countries continue to amass them, there's a need for "more good" countries to keep them. These are almost always democracies.
Democracy is generally speaking just safer and better than dictatorship. I'm just going to stop there, and not get into a debate right now of democracy vs dictatorship.
Would you rather have the good man with the power, or the bad man? That's the ultimate question simplified. You want the good man with the power, then it's a question of who is good, which would lead to huge endless debate right now.
If nobody had nuclear weapons the second world war would have lasted longer and the invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost far more lives (on all sides) than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. The cold war would probably have gone hot, Europe would have been a battlefield and might have ended up under Soviet rule. As to how the conflict between China and the Soviet Union would have gone I can only speculate, that there would have been one is rather likely.
Nuclear weapons have kept the large powers from direct confrontation since the 50's, their existence has saved more lives than their use has cost. As long as they are not acquired by (in our eyes) irrational or suicidal actors they can be used for this purpose. As to whether a nuclear armed Iran would use them as a deterrent or otherwise - which includes providing nuclear weapons to third parties for use against common enemies - I can only guess. My guess is that a weakened theocracy - which is what Iran is - is an irrational actor and with that not to be trusted to "do the right thing".
Nagasaki was not necessary, Hiroshima ended the war. The war would have ended without it as well but the number of lives lost during an invasion would have been far greater than those lost during the bombings.
No! and that's why we had nuclear deal with Iran to monitor their nuclear program. No country has the same amount of international monitoring on their nuclear program that Iran has by IAEA. They signed more nuclear treaties than many other countries with nuclear power.
Putting sanctions and and assassinating their generals and scientist will only give them more reason to distance themselves from west.
You can't use force and unlawful actions and expect your opponent to do nothing or trust you after that. We need sensible solutions.
TLDR: the Iranian government attempted to commit a terror attack with a "playstation" (a 20kg explosive designed to set off other explosives). They were going to set it off in the middle of this crowd:
The EU is not pleased, because, well how many terror attacks have happened on French soil with dozens of victims in the last 10 years now? 5? Of course, the EU is mostly concerned about the reaction of France (such as unlawfully suspending the Shengen accords for 5 years and counting, and that's just their most "in your face" violating of EU policy, it's very far from the only one), but until this sort of stuff stops ...
The U.S. assassinated an Iranian major general in January claiming it was necessary to stop an imminent attack.
Israel has similar claims against Iran. That's why they are also assassinating Iranian scientists that are linked to their nuclear program.
Iran has similar claims against MEK (Mujahedin-e-Khalq) organization in Paris. MEK was listed as a terrorist organization by the UN, EU, and the U.S. until a few years. Hence the failed attempt from Iran that you linked here.
I think assassination of a scientist like that isn't justifiable, for the same reasons that Iran's attempt to target MEK organization isn't justifiable.
The attack on Qasem Soleimani was a military strike against a military target, WHILE this person was orchestrating military strikes against US soldiers. You start shooting at soldiers, they may shoot back, and the bullets coming back may kill you. That he used missiles instead of bullets makes this long-distance, but doesn't change the nature of what happened. This is not what people refer to when they say "assassination".
There are very bad actions by the US military. This is not one of them.
> Iran has similar claims against MEK (Mujahedin-e-Khalq) organization in Paris ...
That they are developing nuclear weapons to use against Iranian civilians? Because that's the claim of the US and Israel, a claim that's essentially validated by the Iranian regime. The mission of this person was to develop and maintain nuclear strike capability ... Netanyahu nor Trump see themselves or their power threatened by an Iranian Nuclear bomb. They see large amounts of civilians threatened by a nuclear weapons, weapons essentially in the hands of racists.
So no, I don't think anything about these claims is similar.
And that is supposed to give the regime in Iran the authority to carry out terrorist actions, in a crowd of civilians, on foreign soil? Foreign soil where other terrorists have randomly killed hundreds of civilians, again for racist reasons? Good luck with that argument ...
All attacks against these weapon development engineers and managers were pinpoint strikes.
So no, I don't think the opponents here are very comparable, neither in reasoning nor in methods.
I strongly suspect they dragged us into Libya & Syria through their Epstein blackmail operation. Using the holocaust as a get-out-of-jail free card is wearing pretty thin.
This was to be expected. Israel has been keeping tabs on this guy for a very long time. With Trump on the way out and Biden likely to restart the nuclear deal, Israel's and the UE's fear of Iran pushing a clandestine weapons program would be at an all-time high.
This actually kills three birds with one stone:
- Massive setback in Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.
- Hobbles negotiations for any future nuclear deal with Iran.
- Iran's rhetoric following this will likely be helpful in wooing the Saudi crown prince further to the Israeli side, and possibly help bring more Arab nations over (perhaps even Egypt? They've had softer words of late).
But it had to happen before Biden takes office. Now Iran will be isolated for another decade, possibly more, which is exactly what Israel's foreign policy has been in this area.
> Massive setback in Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.
You really believe that a single scientist was the main brain for the whole project?
The mail goal is perhaps to impact negotiations between Iran and Biden's administration.
Second possible goal could be a conflict between the U.S. and Iran. All it takes now is someone in the region to attack one of the U.S. bases, or just provide some fake intelligence that Iran is going to retaliate by attacking one of the U.S. interests in the region. Then it will be too late before anyone can proof it wasn't really a response from Iran.
Iran is well aware that this is a Mossad job. They're not going to start attacking US bases in retaliation - that would just hurt Iran even more.
The point of this assassination is to make it harder for Iran to restart even with a softening US stance. Iran obviously has other scientists who can pick up the baton, but don't underestimate the amplifying power of a visionary, and the impact on morale when you lose someone like that. You've also got the gnawing fear factor of anyone who succeeds him, having a giant target on his back.
These are classic tried-and-true intelligence service tactics, and they work well.
30 comments
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 81.9 ms ] threadAlso, Iran's government has seemingly shown over and over again that they are violent and cannot be trusted with nuclear power. Don't you think?
I'm not saying killing this scientist was good or correct, I'm just saying it's not even close to the analogy you provided.
There have been seemingly plenty of news, I've spoken with Iranians, etc. None of this would be enough to prove anything to someone who can't see the writing on the wall.
Nonetheless, I do respect the possibility that I might be wrong, that's why I had written seemingly. But it's so likely at this point, based on what I've seen, observed, understand, that my comment seems good and fair.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_nuclear_program_of_Iran
Politicians have the same problem as you - where is the proof that Iran can't be trusted? There is no proof, there can't be proof. This leads to endless debate with many different opinions.
Just because there's a disagreement involving many sides, doesn't mean that none of the sides are correct. Sometimes, just one of those sides are correct. It is good then when that side pursues the truth, even against all doubt.
Not too long ago, in Iran, there were scores of mass protests against their own government, who were then oppressed, subdued, and killed for protesting.
Lots and lots of censorship including in the media, internet, and free speech.
Sounds like a dictatorship to me.
Or alternatively, what makes democratic nations the better shepards of nuclear weapons? It's not like they're asking their voters before they'd start a nuke.
I think the cold war showed us how easy it is to succumb to fear and how close we can get to nuclear annihilation.
I don't trust anyone with nuclear weapons. It would be lovely if nobody had them. That's realistically not possible right now. As long as countries continue to amass them, there's a need for "more good" countries to keep them. These are almost always democracies.
Democracy is generally speaking just safer and better than dictatorship. I'm just going to stop there, and not get into a debate right now of democracy vs dictatorship.
Would you rather have the good man with the power, or the bad man? That's the ultimate question simplified. You want the good man with the power, then it's a question of who is good, which would lead to huge endless debate right now.
Nuclear weapons have kept the large powers from direct confrontation since the 50's, their existence has saved more lives than their use has cost. As long as they are not acquired by (in our eyes) irrational or suicidal actors they can be used for this purpose. As to whether a nuclear armed Iran would use them as a deterrent or otherwise - which includes providing nuclear weapons to third parties for use against common enemies - I can only guess. My guess is that a weakened theocracy - which is what Iran is - is an irrational actor and with that not to be trusted to "do the right thing".
Yes, that's what we were told. But, was it really necessary to bomb Japanese cities to show them force?
Putting sanctions and and assassinating their generals and scientist will only give them more reason to distance themselves from west.
You can't use force and unlawful actions and expect your opponent to do nothing or trust you after that. We need sensible solutions.
https://www.politico.eu/article/terror-trial-in-antwerp-will...
TLDR: the Iranian government attempted to commit a terror attack with a "playstation" (a 20kg explosive designed to set off other explosives). They were going to set it off in the middle of this crowd:
The EU is not pleased, because, well how many terror attacks have happened on French soil with dozens of victims in the last 10 years now? 5? Of course, the EU is mostly concerned about the reaction of France (such as unlawfully suspending the Shengen accords for 5 years and counting, and that's just their most "in your face" violating of EU policy, it's very far from the only one), but until this sort of stuff stops ...
The U.S. assassinated an Iranian major general in January claiming it was necessary to stop an imminent attack.
Israel has similar claims against Iran. That's why they are also assassinating Iranian scientists that are linked to their nuclear program.
Iran has similar claims against MEK (Mujahedin-e-Khalq) organization in Paris. MEK was listed as a terrorist organization by the UN, EU, and the U.S. until a few years. Hence the failed attempt from Iran that you linked here.
I think assassination of a scientist like that isn't justifiable, for the same reasons that Iran's attempt to target MEK organization isn't justifiable.
There are very bad actions by the US military. This is not one of them.
> Iran has similar claims against MEK (Mujahedin-e-Khalq) organization in Paris ...
That they are developing nuclear weapons to use against Iranian civilians? Because that's the claim of the US and Israel, a claim that's essentially validated by the Iranian regime. The mission of this person was to develop and maintain nuclear strike capability ... Netanyahu nor Trump see themselves or their power threatened by an Iranian Nuclear bomb. They see large amounts of civilians threatened by a nuclear weapons, weapons essentially in the hands of racists.
So no, I don't think anything about these claims is similar.
And that is supposed to give the regime in Iran the authority to carry out terrorist actions, in a crowd of civilians, on foreign soil? Foreign soil where other terrorists have randomly killed hundreds of civilians, again for racist reasons? Good luck with that argument ...
All attacks against these weapon development engineers and managers were pinpoint strikes.
So no, I don't think the opponents here are very comparable, neither in reasoning nor in methods.
Imagine the ruler of a county calling for your country to be destroyed, and the global community expecting you to accept it as “Sabre rattling” [1]
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/53136666737771...
This actually kills three birds with one stone:
- Massive setback in Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions.
- Hobbles negotiations for any future nuclear deal with Iran.
- Iran's rhetoric following this will likely be helpful in wooing the Saudi crown prince further to the Israeli side, and possibly help bring more Arab nations over (perhaps even Egypt? They've had softer words of late).
But it had to happen before Biden takes office. Now Iran will be isolated for another decade, possibly more, which is exactly what Israel's foreign policy has been in this area.
You really believe that a single scientist was the main brain for the whole project?
The mail goal is perhaps to impact negotiations between Iran and Biden's administration.
Second possible goal could be a conflict between the U.S. and Iran. All it takes now is someone in the region to attack one of the U.S. bases, or just provide some fake intelligence that Iran is going to retaliate by attacking one of the U.S. interests in the region. Then it will be too late before anyone can proof it wasn't really a response from Iran.
The point of this assassination is to make it harder for Iran to restart even with a softening US stance. Iran obviously has other scientists who can pick up the baton, but don't underestimate the amplifying power of a visionary, and the impact on morale when you lose someone like that. You've also got the gnawing fear factor of anyone who succeeds him, having a giant target on his back.
These are classic tried-and-true intelligence service tactics, and they work well.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25230284
* North-South split, thanks to USSR/USA insecurities.
What does this mean? Iran is a UN member state.