Religion is Evil!

How could I possibly answer that? What makes you think there was anything illegal about it? I doubt very much that working with the Iranian government on their own weapons program somehow breaks Iranian law.

I wasn't asking the question expecting you to be able to answer it, just pointing out that it was an example of the kind of question that raises its head when talking about the topic of the greater good of nationally approved killings. It is possible for the Iranian government to break Iranian law. But then, I wasn't talking about Iranian law. I believe Iran is allowed to operate the facility only on condition of them not using it to make weapons grade Uranium. I was really pointing at building nuclear weapons would be forbidden by whatever laws, agreements, treaties (such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty) etc have been set up regarding Iran and nuclear power in as succinct a way as possible.

But it begs the question "allowed by whom"? Iran may be a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but it's a treaty with no enforcement mechanism but reciprocity - the nuclear weapon states agree to pursue disarmament, and the non-weapon states agree not to pursue weapons development. And since the nuclear weapon states largely haven't pursued disarmament, there's very little incentive for Iran to meet its end of the bargain.I think if you're going to reject assassination as being more extreme and bloody than the alternatives, you actually have to present the less extreme, less bloody alternative. If Iran chooses to flaunt non-compliance with the NPT, I don't see what option exists beyond these three: ignore them and allow them to weaponize, work covertly to derail their program (StuxNet, assassinations), or invade. Of the three, assassinations seem to be the least bloody.

The International Community, the UN, other nations. I agree. I was merely suggesting that you have seemed to assumed Iran was engaged in forbidden nuclear behaviour. I didn't think that would be something you'd dispute, and if it was, I didn't think you'd try the technical route of claiming that the things that forbid it don't have any enforcement mechanisms or what have you. I think the onus is on the person who thinks that killing someone is the less bloody option to justify that position. Or they could imprison the guilty person in a secret prison, seek international agreement for action through the UN or infect them with a virus or...As I said, I don't know what the best option is. I'm primarily surprised to see you so readily assuming that killing someone you know almost nothing about was done for the greater good. I agree that it might have been, and we can sit here and dream up circumstances in which that was the case all day if we want.

---

Just noticed your other post to me: Depends on what the outcome was. All we really know is that the outcome is a dead scientist. We don't know the outcome is a safer world, though you seem eager to believe that. Or he was otherwise inconvenient, or he was merely a potential threat, or he was key to the running of a perfectly legitimate Enrichment Plant that makes the Israelis nervous, or makes the Iranians slightly wealthier which makes Israel unhappy. I've said it multiple times now, but to drive the point home: I am not against people being killed if really is for a good reason. Whether it is immediate self defence or even national or global defence. I'm not objecting to the defence of assassinations. I objecting to the automatic assumption that it was a good thing because the main suspects wouldn't ever kill a non-evil scientist.I've played multiple Assassination based games, though I have not played Assassin's Creed - it never appealed to me, though I might pick it up if I see it cheap. I've just finished the Dark Brotherhood questline in Skyrim, but that's hardly sympathetic to assassins, since their motivation for killing was primarily for their own notoriety (and the money).But I suspect, since I'm not in disagreement with you about the potential benefits and arguments in favour of assasinations, it won't change the views I've put forward in this wildly off topic subthread. Heck, I can see a moral justification could be made for Kings that to execute children who are heirs to a powerful person if it might avoid civil war. Obviously the king is being selfish - protecting his own personal power and safety, but his selfishness might actually lead to greater good outcomes.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

At no point did I suggest this is good vs bad. Now you're using the creo tactic of black and white. Gotta go now. Will explain later.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Or isolate them and pursue other overt options short of invading. How about building visible deterrent and anti-ballistic missile systems targeting Iran's offensive capabilities?What if Iran simply backs out of the treaty? That is after all what the US has done on a few occasions when the government has found treaty provisions inconvenient to follow?How did we respond when Pakistan, India, and North Korea obtained nuclear weapons? What action would other countries be justified in taking in response to the execution of Humberto Leal Garcia in violation of the Vienna Convention?

The scientists that was killed was 32, married and had a young son. He wasn't armed. Last July another scientist, Darioush Rezaeinejad, was shot dead outside his daughter's nursery in Tehran. Two other Iranian scientists have met a similar fate in the last year or two.These are state sponsored murders aren't they? Arguably even state sponsored acts of terrorism. Do you support state sponsored murder?5th Amendemnt - "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"Now I know that this doesn't legally apply to Iranians but doesn't it apply morally? I wouldn't condone torturing a surefire terror suspect so I don't see how I can support governments giving themselves the right to murder their suspected enemies abroad.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Which is surprising, because last I knew, Iranians were people too. You'd think if we had wanted to be so exclusive about the rights enumerated in the Constitution we would have specifically said "American Citizen" instead of "person."But I suppose treating non-Americans as people is just too inconvenient.

Yeah, we should all hold hands and sing I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harrrr-mo-neee! Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

Actually I would suggest that the reason that governments need to be held to account for these sorts of things is exactly because governments are prone to legitimising atrocious acts on little more than a "them" and "us" basis. It's not about singing in harrrr-mo-neee. It's about how moral (or otherwise) we want our governments to be in our name.If the Iranian government implemented a series of killings of top Western scientists there would be no hesitation at all in declaring these immoral acts of state sponsored terrorism would there?

I was merely pointing out, albeit rather crudely how unrealistic it is to think governments will see the very cogent and logical points yourself and Rahvin has made.I agree with you both. The U.S. has a double standard in how it chooses to view terrorism. How it chooses to label what torture is. How it chooses to wage undeclared wars. I get it.
I feel it is disgusting how the saber rattling hawks in America want to perpetuate the continued march to war in the name of "freedom". It is not freedom for which we march. But for Money,Power and Control.

Just a thought on all of this. I don't think that there are any easy answers and we live in a very fragile world politically.I would like to try and look at this from what I contend is a Christian perspective. Ultimately the war is against evil. Yes, we can have short term victories by dropping bombs on people, or assassinating people, but in the end the only way to secure victory, (other than genocide I suppose ) is to win over the hearts of the enemy.I think a modern example of that is after WW I we had the punitive "Treaty of Versailles" which ultimately brought us WW II. After WW II the allies, and particularly the US to their everlasting credit, helped rebuild the countries of their former enemies and established trade with them. Today we are all the best of friends.I know things are never simple, but there are long term objectives as well as short term ones. Possibly, although I have my doubts, the assassination of this nuclear scientist will turn out to be a good decision, but if they are going down that road there had better be a plan to build a long term relationship with the people of Iran, and we should be prepared for the fall out of the decision in the short term.I know this is simplistic but maybe if instead of dropping bombs on places like Iraq and Afghanistan we could set up a satellite network and blanket the country with computers, and if food or clothing is an issue then drop some of that as well. In the end we are all products our cultures and we need to establish trust between the various world cultures. We keep reacting to the actions of a few whether it be those responsible for 9/11 or whether it be the leadership in Iran. IMHO we have to find ways of reaching out to the people of other cultures with compassion instead of force. We have to go around the leaders of these countries who enjoy their positions of privilege and power, and we have to accept the fact that this will not be resolved in our life times nor in the life time of our kids but we have to make a start somewhere.It does seem to me that if our war is against evil and we use evil means to fight it then in the end evil is going to come out ahead. A simple case in point. We rightly abhor seeing our own people tortured but we seem to be able to justify it for ourselves on the grounds of gaining intelligence and saving the lives of our own citizens.Recently the US arms manufacturers sold a pile of F-15’s to the Saudis. At some point I think it has to become less about making money at the cost of everything else. Remember the US support for the regime of Saddam Hussein when it suited them. The west armed the Taliban in their war with the Russians. This idea of arming the world and then correcting the mistake with more military action can only end badly.Now maybe George Bush is right when he claims that torture saved lives but it seems to me that although he may be correct in the short term I question whether it will on the longer term. If we in the west justify torture, then the leaders of enemy countries can easily make the case that their side is the righteous one, and turn the hearts of the people of those countries against us. As I said, quoting my favourite theologian N T Wright, if you fight evil with evil then evil is bound to win.I don’t have any conclusive answers but I think that we are continually trying to find short term military solutions to what are really long term ideological problems. This may be partly blamed on having politicians constantly trying to solve issues during their term in office, or prior to the next election. In the end however, it all seems to come down to pride and power and none of us seem immune to that. Edited by GDR, : typo

Hello GDR, It is easy looking back through history how the chain of events of the past led to the new problems and crisis of today. I served in the Military and can remember a time when stationed in West Germany how America was viewed in a positive light. I traveled all over Europe and can say the U.S. was like a rock star. When someone found out there was a American in they're midst open smiles and warm welcome. Sadly it is not like that any longer.It seems we are viewed by many as meddling ignorant bullys, who want to make the world our personal playground.I can not put my finger on exactly how this change came about, but I can not help but think it was when we began to disregard other nations. When we began to conduct ourselves in a way that was contrary to our former ideals and put ourselves above our own principles. Decades of apathy I feel has produced our state of current polarized government. Decades of abject greed and self absorbed materialism has spawned a generation of idiots being led by zealots. I feel that Countries must abide by the Golden rule and treat others as we would like to be treated. This seems to be a universal constant that has been lost in a sea of mistrust.

Well, what options? There are no "anti-ballistic missile systems", none that work anyway, and even if there were why would it matter if they were deployed around Iran? Iran doesn't have a ballistic missile program, they have a nuclear weapons program. You understand that those are two different things, right? Then they'll have made their intentions to weaponize clear. What, then, is a justifiable response in your opinion? Well, critically, we didn't do anything. We stopped taking any effort at all to derail their weapons projects because now they had nuclear weapons to point back at us. I suspect Iran is looking at the examples of Pakistan, India, and North Korea and thinking that the best way to get people off your back about your nuclear weapons is to have some.

I too am ex-military back when the C-130 was a new aircraft type.I think that there is a real desire in the American people to do the right thing. Let's look at Iraq. There was a brutal regime in control that bullied their own people into submission. There was a real sense of wanting to liberate these oppressed people. (Frankly this was the view I held at the time, but as my understanding of Christianity has grown my understanding of the issues has brought about a change in my views.)The thing is though that the regime has to be replaced with something else that will bring long term stability to the country. We in the west think that democracy is the answer but realistically Iraq is a long way from being able to form a democracy. It is a tribal society where there is considerable distrust between the tribes. Also, I think a basic understanding of human nature will tell us that a political solution imposed by outsiders will not have the support of the population.I contend that as difficult as it may be, if revolution is going to happen it is going to have to come from within. (Hopefully we did the right thing in Libya.) It requires patience and it requires politicians that realize that sometimes the best thing to do is essentially nothing. In the meantime as I suggested we should be reaching out with a hand of friendship through trade and other forms of support. If we are dealing with tyrants in power we have to find ways to work around them, and we have to realize that there are no short term final solutions.If we look at the relationship between the west and the various Asian countries we can see how the bonds between our countries have grown when we reduced the barriers between the countries. There is no reason that over time the same can't be done with Middle Eastern countries, but if we keep seeing them as a monolithic block as represented by some of the leaders, we will have problem.The majority of Iraqis or Iranians are just like us - trying to feed and house their families. Yes, we have our cultural difference and yes I sometimes am shocked by things like so-called honour killings in families. However, as I said earlier if we are going to win people over it can only be done over the long term with love and ideas. Bombs only harden hearts, for both the dropee and the dropper.