Reply to Panetta: Israel may attack Iran in April

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Panetta: Israel may attack Iran in April"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=TheManWithAUsername][quote=jsteele]Let's be clear, you could not locate a direct quote by an Iranian leader saying that he would like to eradicate the US and you now believe it is unfair to say that Iranian leaders have expressed such a desire. Yet, you justified the assassination of Iranian scientists because you take them at "their word that they would gleefully eradicate us if they could." So, your justification has simply melted away, but the conclusion which it justified remains?[/quote]
Your confusing my reason with my evidence supporting that reason. The reason I support espionage and assassination to interfere with Iran's nuclear program is that I believe there is a significant danger that Iran will do something terrible with a nuclear weapon. That terrible thing could include using it on us, Israel, or someone else.

Since the best evidence of that threat would be statements to that effect, I went there. I correctly stated that their words support my belief as relates to Israel, and incorrectly stated that as relates to the U.S. I could have stopped there, b/c I don't want Iran nuking Israel or anyone else, but I went to the next best evidence as relates to us, namely their suspected actions.

[quote=jsteele]You are doing a pretty good George W. Bush imitation with your developing rationalizations.[/quote]
Yo' mama is doing a pretty good George W. Bush imitation! I know you're W, but what am I? Etc.

[quote=jsteele]First, killing scientists was supposed to be a better alternative to an all out war.[/quote]
First and still. Or do you disagree? Want to stand up and cast your vote for war? I've been wondering with which of my premises you actually disagree.

[quote=jsteele]Then, assassinations were justified because Iranian leaders said they want to eradicate us.[/quote]
Nope. See above. I wouldn't support assassination over statements any more than I would support shooting a unarmed schizophrenic making impotent death threats. They're justified because there is reason to believe that Iran is in fact dangerous. And when I first said "us" I was clearly referring to our country [b]and[/b] Israel. You seem to doubt Iran's hostility to the U.S., which I understand, but I hope you don't question their hostility to Israel.

[quote=jsteele]Now, assassinations are justified because you "believe my government’s conclusion that Iran has been sponsoring terrorism for decades." So, you support killing civilian scientists -- which is an act of terrorism -- because Iran sponsors terrorism? Wouldn't Iranians be justified in saying that you are their enemy and would consider a major terrorist attack against them if you were empowered to execute one?[/quote]
Stop pretending that I'm switching justifications. I'm giving multiple reasons - which exist concurrently - to accept my justification: [b]It's better to take these actions than to accept the risk that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon, which will create a significant risk that they will use it somewhere.[/b]

You and I apparently disagree on the definition of "terrorism." Actually I think you disagree with just about everyone who isn't playing a BS word game. The purpose of those assassinations isn't to coerce or to induce terror. Would it have been "terrorism" if we had been able to execute a few hundred al-Qaeda leaders instead of bombing the shit out of an entire country?

It doesn't really matter - call it terrorism if you want. If you're going to use the term that broadly, then I'll say that the "terrorism" of killing these strategically valuable scientists (if in fact they are) is far better "terrorism" than, say, killing a bunch of random people in a market, so no, the Iranians wouldn't be justified.

By (ab)using the term "terrorism," you obviously want to equate these things - do you really believe they're the same? Do you believe it was also terrorism when partisans in WWII assassinated an officer or blew up a rail line? Where are drawing the lines?

Anyway, I don't think they're looking for justification, which is one big point of disagreement here. It's amazing to me that you continue to write as if Ahmadinejad might get riled up enough to do something. He seems pretty riled up to me already. I think his weaknesses are restricting him quite a bit more than is his amicability.

[quote=jsteele]Personally, I would not believe a single damn thing my government says when it comes to foreign policy.[/quote]
That's sounds dramatic and counter-culture, but it makes discussion difficult. I've never been to Iran, and I've never met Ahmadinejad - how do I know they're real? Some claims are more believable than others. Several administrations have made this claim over decades, citing multiple specific instances.

[quote=jsteele]Have you already forgotten the lies that were told about Iraq? Clearly, those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.[/quote]
I can see that you're just dying to argue with someone who advocates for invading Iran. It's a big world - go find that special someone. I'm not him, and all your pretending won't make it so.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics