Support NeoGAF

[Amir0x]

I certainly prefer the individual picking off of members of the Iran nuclear program and sabotaging nuclear facilities over putting thousands of american lives at risk (as well as the American economy) to go to war with the entire country for being retarded and not stopping their nuclear program as is (and all such covert operations/small operations are the way future military endeavors will be run anyway, for the most part), but on the other hand it's hard not to think it's a case of not being much better than those who you're fighting against.

hard to know the right choice, all I know is that Iran certainly should never get nukes.

 

[scorcho]

wait, the N. Korean died?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You said, "live by the bomb, die by the bomb."

You then clarified the quote (after everyone jumped down your throat about it being racist), saying you meant it was ironic that a man working on an illegal nuclear weapons program was killed in a bombing explosion.



Or as steam put it,



So unless we're not speaking the same language, you're saying it's okay he's dead because he was working on Iran's nuclear program. So I ask, "do you think everyone working on Iran's nuclear program deserves to die?" It's a yes or no question, even if it's "yes, if...", or "no, but...".



My apologies for using "we" to refer to Americans, when I should have used the more general "Western powers/Saudi Arabia/Israel" as we really have no way of knowing who is responsible for the attack, only who is the most likely culprit. My disgust is only hypothetical.

I'm not saying that, I was point out what Supreme possibly met. I personally don't have a huge problem with Iran getting the nuke, but thats me.

 

[Gaborn]

I certainly prefer the individual picking off of members of the Iran nuclear program and sabotaging nuclear facilities over putting thousands of american lives at risk to go to war with the entire country for being retarded and not stopping their nuclear program as is (and all such covert operations/small operations are the way future military endeavors will be run anyway, for the most part), but on the other hand it's hard not to think it's a case of not being much better than those who you're fighting against.

Iran has every right to a peaceful nuclear program. I mean, you're essentially saying you're ok with assassinations because Iran is doing what it's entitled to do. If there is solid evidence that they're actually enriching uranium to the 90% required for a nuclear bomb rather than the 20% the IAEA says that's one thing, but there has been nothing credible that shows they're doing anything that warrants this action (assuming you believe that would be appropriate action in the first place).

 

[Marleyman]

I would actually guess the Russians. They've been playing a double game with Iran.

and the plot thickens...

 

[Joel Was Right]

I certainly prefer the individual picking off of members of the Iran nuclear program and sabotaging nuclear facilities over putting thousands of american lives at risk (as well as the American economy) to go to war with the entire country for being retarded and not stopping their nuclear program as is (and all such covert operations/small operations are the way future military endeavors will be run anyway, for the most part), but on the other hand it's hard not to think it's a case of not being much better than those who you're fighting against.

hard to know the right choice, all I know is that Iran certainly should never get nukes.

Forget about the Iranian civilians?

 

[Marleyman]

I certainly prefer the individual picking off of members of the Iran nuclear program and sabotaging nuclear facilities over putting thousands of american lives at risk (as well as the American economy) to go to war with the entire country for being retarded and not stopping their nuclear program as is (and all such covert operations/small operations are the way future military endeavors will be run anyway, for the most part), but on the other hand it's hard not to think it's a case of not being much better than those who you're fighting against.

hard to know the right choice, all I know is that Iran certainly should never get nukes.

If everyone around them has nukes why not?

 

[Corky]

all I know is that Iran certainly should never get nukes.

Psst... Pakistan has nukes as well.

 

[Kinyou]

They forgot to call him a martyr. Now he won't receive his virgins.


Also,


Live by the bomb... die by the bomb.

Someone punch this guy in the face

 

[empty vessel]

The same can be said about the evidence pointing to it being an assassination by Israel or the US. But nobody is making a big deal about that... weird how that works.


I guess people have prejudices which lead them to believe that scenario?

No, there are reasons grounded in geopolitics for suspecting Israel (and the US and other countries) were behind the bombing. It's altogether different, in my opinion, to excuse the murder of a scientist by presumption.

hard to know the right choice, all I know is that Iran certainly should never get nukes.

In the sense that we'd all be better off if no country had them? Sure. In the sense that Iran is uniquely untrustworthy to possess nuclear weapons, no.

 

[ToxicAdam]

If you think Israel and the US killed him, why not entertain the hypothethis that the Iranian government killed them to boost propaganda and anti-US sentiment?

Or they found out that he was possibly going to defect. I wouldn't put it past Western governments to attempt to do that.

 

[SUPREME1]

You said, "live by the bomb, die by the bomb."

You then clarified the quote (after everyone jumped down your throat about it being racist), saying you meant it was ironic that a man working on an illegal nuclear weapons program was killed in a bombing explosion.

Your specific question was:

So I gather that you believe that everyone in Iran's nuclear program deserves death?

My answer was no. I do not believe everyone involved in Iran's nuclear program deserves death. There are many different levels and positions involved with such a program. Also, at what point was it assumed that I believed he deserved death.

I basically substituted the word 'sword' for 'bomb'. The same way I say when I'm watching the news and see that some gang banger was killed in a hail of bullets... I say,"Live by the gun, die by the gun."

In no way am I judging him or saying he deserved such a fate. More or less implying it's ironic he died in such a manner.

Same with the scientist.

 

[Amir0x]

Iran has every right to a peaceful nuclear program. I mean, you're essentially saying you're ok with assassinations because Iran is doing what it's entitled to do. If there is solid evidence that they're actually enriching uranium to the 90% required for a nuclear bomb rather than the 20% the IAEA says that's one thing, but there has been nothing credible that shows they're doing anything that warrants this action (assuming you believe that would be appropriate action in the first place).

If they had a peaceful nuclear program, sure. But this is not like Iraq. In this case, we do have evidence that they're enriching uranium for use in weapons and we do have wide consensus of this fact. The U.S. is not the only lonely soldier screaming this out, with the rest of the world sort of haphazardly falling in line. Any country who has nothing to hide would let the appropriate international bodies into their facilities to check to boot, which is something Iran has for the most part fiercely opposed.

U.N. Says Iran is Working on Nuclear Weapons

WASHINGTON—The United Nations' nuclear agency said Iran has developed technologies needed to produce nuclear weapons, a finding that puts new pressure on the Obama administration to act more forcefully against Tehran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, in its first public airing of such charges, said Tuesday that Tehran appears to have conducted advanced research on a miniaturized warhead that could be delivered by medium-range missiles. The watchdog agency also cited evidence that Iran has worked to develop the uranium metal used for warheads and said it has conducted computer simulations of nuclear detonations.

The 25-page report represents the loudest alarm yet sounded by the agency in a decade-long standoff with Iran over its nuclear program, and comes as Israeli officials have discussed a possible military strike. It will also raise questions over which avenues the U.S., already under pressure domestically and internationally to ratchet up penalties against Tehran following several rounds of sanctions, has left to pursue.

Now unless the UN Nuclear Agency is good for nothing in your estimation - which may indeed be the case - they exist for a reason and I'd say their recommendations must hold weight. And in recent months and days, their statement has continued to be reaffirmed by evidence obtained. It's not a peaceful nuclear program, at least not entirely, and Iran should not be allowed to get nukes - any Holocaust denying country by default should be stripped of such a right.

I don't want to go to war with Iran and risk countless American lives and the American economy to disassemble their nuke program, so this seems to be a cheaper and still viable route of destabilizing progress. Until we see how far sanctions continue to cut and if it makes any movement in Iranian politics, something must be done.

It's not an easy question, but I do firmly believe stopping Iran in their ability to produce nuclear weapons is of general importance for stability in the region.

If everyone around them has nukes why not?

Not all countries are the same. False equivalency does no arguments any good.

Psst... Pakistan has nukes as well.

No shit. The idea is not allow MORE countries with extremely fragile social/political situations to get nukes, much less ones which have large terrorist connections and which, as we know, regularly claim to wish to wipe certain countries off the map.

One has to try to stop the bleeding somewhere. How we do it is another question entirely, but I'm not so far left as to think everyone should be able to run on rainbows and get what another country has. Not all countries are equal politically and it is dangerous to the stability of the region to allow Iran to develop nukes.

In the sense that we'd all be better off if no country had them? Sure. In the sense that Iran is uniquely untrustworthy to possess nuclear weapons, no.

Sorry, Iran is less trustworthy than most states that have nuclear weapons - save North Korea and Pakistan. False equivalency just makes your argument look completely thoughtless. But in any event, the point is to prevent more countries from getting them. Many countries have crossed that line and it's impossible to go back now. So continuing to let more countries make that mistake is a bad idea, let alone a country as awful as Iran.

 

[AndyD]

'killed'?

This.

Two types of arguments will be presented as comments to this story:


Israel/Zionists/America/The West is killing our scientists!
or
Iran stages internal assassinations to incite unity through defense and justify hateful rhetoric.

 

[Kurdel]

I'm not saying that, I was point out what Supreme possibly met. I personally don't have a huge problem with Iran getting the nuke, but thats me.

If the iranian people had a liberal democratic governement it would ot bother me either.

But the fact is, the current goverment and the Ayatollahs are completely insane. They said Amadinejad was glowing a green hue during his speech to the UN, because he was blessed by the holy colour of God.

I would not trust religious zealots with a warped world view with nukes.

Now, do we know if they are developping nukes? Nope. If we had any actual proof, Hilary Clinton would be presenting it to the UN a la Colin Powell.

 

[Wazzim]

If the iranian people had a liberal democratic governement it would ot bother me either.

But the fact is, the current goverment and the Ayatollahs are completely insane. They said Amadinejad was glowing a green hue during his speech to the UN, because he was blessed by the holy colour of God.

I would not trust religious zealots with a warped world view with nukes.

Now, do we know if they are developping nukes? Nope. If we had any actual proof, Hilary Clinton would be presenting it to the UN a la Colin Powell.

So they would photograph some random buildings and trucks and create a fitting story?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

If the iranian people had a liberal democratic governement it would ot bother me either.

But the fact is, the current goverment and the Ayatollahs are completely insane. They said Amadinejad was glowing a green hue during his speech to the UN, because he was blessed by the holy colour of God.

I would not trust religious zealots with a warped world view with nukes.

Now, do we know if they are developping nukes? Nope. If we had any actual proof, Hilary Clinton would be presenting it to the UN a la Colin Powell.

I don't believe the Ayatollahs actually believe that. Basically propaganda. Ask yourself why Bin Laden never went on one of his suicide missions. Because first and formost he was about survival. He sent his minions to do the dirty work, same with the leadership of Iran. They are about survival first and foremost. They're not dumb. They know that if they were to ever use the nuke on ANYBODY, not only would the U.S. and Israel be out for blood but they'd have the backing of the entire world. Its simply for deterrence, just as NK and Pakistan's programs are.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Sorry, Iran is less trustworthy than most states that have nuclear weapons - save North Korea and Pakistan. False equivalency just makes your argument look completely thoughtless. But in any event, the point is to prevent more countries from getting them. Many countries have crossed that line and it's impossible to go back now. So continuing to let more countries make that mistake is a bad idea, let alone a country as awful as Iran.

Actually, countries like Iran develop these weapons, that is if Iran of is developing them, just for self preservation. There is no way in hell they would attack anyone with nukes. It will mean the end of their regime, which would negate the advantage of having nukes in the first place. So no. Iran, NK, Pakistan will not just push buttons and attack. If that was the case NK would have attack SK, and Pakistan would have attacked India with nukes long time ago.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Actually, countries like Iran develop these weapons, that is if Iran of is developing them, just for self preservation. There is no way in hell they would attack anyone with nukes. It will mean the end of their regime, which would negate the advantage of having nukes in the first place. So no. Iran, NK, Pakistan will not just push buttons and attack. If that was the case NK would have attack SK, and Pakistan would have attacked India with nukes long time ago.

Yep. Also, think about this. With all of the wars, the nuclear weapons produced, the new powers that have nukes, only two nuclear weapons have ever been used against another country and that was by the U.S. during WWII. We've gone almost 70 years without another being used and Iran getting the nuke won't change that.

 

[Black Mamba]

I don't believe the Ayatollahs actually believe that. Basically propaganda. Ask yourself why Bin Laden never went on one of his suicide missions. Because first and formost he was about survival. He sent his minions to do the dirty work, same with the leadership of Iran. They are about survival first and foremost. They're not dumb. They know that if they were to ever use the nuke on ANYBODY, not only would the U.S. and Israel be out for blood but they'd have the backing of the entire world. Its simply for deterrence, just as NK and Pakistan's programs are.

It's about hegemony in the region, not purely survival. No one is going to invade Iran, regardless. But with nuclear capabilities, they can get a stronger hold on oil if they were willing to do it. It ain't even about Israel, it's more about the Saudis and Kuwaitis than anything else. Really, the whole Israel-Iran stuff is a smokescreen for Saudis who really don't want a nuclear Iran more than anyone else. And Iran wouldn't use nukes, regardless, too. As you said, it is deterrent, but deterrent for their hegemonic power plays.

 

[A.R.K]

I certainly prefer the individual picking off of members of the Iran nuclear program and sabotaging nuclear facilities over putting thousands of american lives at risk (as well as the American economy) to go to war with the entire country for being retarded and not stopping their nuclear program as is (and all such covert operations/small operations are the way future military endeavors will be run anyway, for the most part), but on the other hand it's hard not to think it's a case of not being much better than those who you're fighting against.

hard to know the right choice, all I know is that Iran certainly should never get nukes.

so the likes of you or America/Israel decides who gets the nukes and who doesn't? Even though they don't have any concrete proof that Iran really is building one? These kinds of actions are just provoking Iran to do something stupid and then America/Israel can go attack them and thus start another senseless war where most casualties would be civilians again. No wonder the doomsday clock has been advanced 1 minute.

U.N. Says Iran is Working on Nuclear Weapons

yeah, how about them WMDs we found in Iraq right?

 

[Pristine_Condition]

People are, without hesitation believing a report from the Iranian government-run propaganda service that one of their key scientists was murdered by the evil Israelis?

Ok.

You guys do know that to everyone in the espionage game, this guy means far more to them alive than dead, right?

I'd just tap the breaks a little bit before I go believing these reports.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

yeah, how about them WMDs we found in Iraq right?

Iran stole them and now their scientists are CLONING the WMD's to make SDWMD's. It's all right there.

 

[Cromat]

So what if it is Israel? It probably is. The guy was a military target.

 

[speculawyer]

I wouldn't want to be an Iranian nuclear scientist these days.

But I guess that is the point.

 

[Clipjoint]

Why ever would the paranoid Iranian regime want a nuke?

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

So what if it is Israel? It probably is. The guy was a military target.

So they are at war now?, people can just go around and blow shit up because its a "military target"?.

 

[Cromat]

So they are at war now?, people can just go around and blow shit up because its a "military target"?.

Hate to break it to you, but Iran funds Hizbullah, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, the three terrorist groups that are responsible for most Israeli casualties. Iran is directly linked to the terrorist attacks against the Jewish community in Argentina. Iran also planned to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the United States, and would probably kill Israeli officials if it had the chance.

On the other side, the US flies drones over Iran, Israel probably killed many of these scientists and the Iranian nuclear program is constantly being sabotaged by mysterious forces.

So yes, they are at war, just an under-the-radar type of war.

 

[params7]

I'm going to say this is a KGB inspired assassination to try to get Iran to retaliate against Israel and drag the US and Israel into an epic war. Just throwing my hat into the ring.

US/Israel vs Iran. Seems really epic bro.


How about we take the US out and make this a little bit fair.

 

[Clipjoint]

People are, without hesitation believing a report from the Iranian government-run propaganda service that one of their key scientists was murdered by the evil Israelis?

Ok.

You guys do know that to everyone in the espionage game, this guy means far more to them alive than dead, right?

I'd just tap the breaks a little bit before I go believing these reports.

Yeah why would you believe the Israelis did it?

The Israeli military leader told the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Tuesday that “2012 is expected to be a critical year for Iran.” He cited “the confluence of efforts to advance the nuclear program, internal leadership changes, continued international pressure and things that happen to it unnaturally.”

 

[Amir0x]

so the likes of you or America/Israel decides who gets the nukes and who doesn't? Even though they don't have any concrete proof that Iran really is building one? These kinds of actions are just provoking Iran to do something stupid and then America/Israel can go attack them and thus start another senseless war where most casualties would be civilians again. No wonder the doomsday clock has been advanced 1 minute.

They do have proof. You just don't want to accept the proof currently. Which is fine. I understand the hesitation to accept the 'proof' after the IRAQ debacle. People are understandably more skeptical. But there is every reason to believe this is a much different case. I was firmly against the IRAQ war because I didn't think the evidence was strong there and there was evidence the Bush administration had designs on that country for a good while. I feel differently about IRAN.

Further, nobody should have nukes. Unfortunately the argument about that has been put to rest because we do. We can't turn back the clock or the Cold War, and there's nothing that can be done unless all countries simultaneously agree to disarm, which won't happen in the current climate. That said, these countries are not equivalent. Some are more trustworthy than others. Iran is a despicable theocracy with a history of human rights violations near the bottom third of the world, and a damning system of laws. Their very society is currently built upon such things. They have Holocaust deniers running the country and openly proclaim the desire to eradicate Israel. The U.S. is not an innocent, and I'd never claim they are - but the U.S. quite clearly isn't built upon such abhorrent beliefs, and there are equally viable political movements that aim to fight against such things as waterboarding and illegal assassinations. And while we've certainly done harm to our human rights record with things like our obsession with the death penalty and Guantanamo Bay, by and large our trajectory for human rights is one of continued improvement and a general example for a large part of the world. We're not Sweden, but we rank in the top 15 of the world in human rights. Things aren't black and white.

But yes, none of us should have nukes. We do. We can't change this. So the goal should be to prevent any further country from getting them, PARTICULARLY countries with such atrocious records as Iran, and then keep working on disarmament treaties to continue to reduce the nuclear stockpile around the world.

yeah, how about them WMDs we found in Iraq right?

Yeah that was basically the U.S. (and the U.K.) unilaterally acting with their 'evidence', and the world falling in line. This on the other hand is the U.N. Nuclear Agency making a case and building it, and then a vast consensus of countries agreeing this is the case based on what we have on hand. If Iran had nothing to hide, they would let the international community in to monitor. They won't, because the evidence strongly suggests they do have something to hide. This is not the IRAQ war, so that's more false equivalency.

There's always SOME chance we are wrong, which is why Iran should let the international community in to see. If Iran refuses, then they only have themselves to blame when things like this happen (presuming it's true).

 

[wsippel]

People are, without hesitation believing a report from the Iranian government-run propaganda service that one of their key scientists was murdered by the evil Israelis?

Ok.

You guys do know that to everyone in the espionage game, this guy means far more to them alive than dead, right?

I'd just tap the breaks a little bit before I go believing these reports.

Agencies aren't going in blind. If they go out of their way to assassinate someone, which is by no means unheard of, you can rest assured they already knew everything he could have told them.

 

[Dude Abides]

People are, without hesitation believing a report from the Iranian government-run propaganda service that one of their key scientists was murdered by the evil Israelis?

Ok.

You guys do know that to everyone in the espionage game, this guy means far more to them alive than dead, right?

I'd just tap the breaks a little bit before I go believing these reports.

Your first point is well-taken, but I think the current strategy is to delay the development of a nuke by any means necessary, so it does make sense to try to kill this guy rather than try to capture him (which would probably be more difficult).

 

[thekad]

Did Supreme1 really say that the guy was developing a nuclear bomb because he was assassinated?

He didn't just say that, did he?

 

[A.R.K]

So what if it is Israel? It probably is. The guy was a military target.

Israeli military chief’s comments hint at involvement in attacks on Iranian nuclear program

 

[elrechazado]

I don't even have have to explain it because everyone in this thread understands why you're a racist asshole. The virgins part is enough evidence.

Islam is a race?

 

[Cromat]

Israeli military chief’s comments hint at involvement in attacks on Iranian nuclear program

Well, that's basically what I said. I meant the it IS probably Israel.

But I don't see what's the big outrage.

 

[outunderthestars]

I dont mean on america, but maybe fund terrorist groups that will atack us bases?

Maybe even supply the taliban weapons.

what ever it is, i really hope it does not end up with a war between israel/usa against iran

Iran has already been doing both of those things for years.

The day Iran gets a functional nuclear weapon is the day we turn the country into a glass parking lot.

 

[params7]

The day Iran gets a functional nuclear weapon is the day we turn the country into a glass parking lot.

All their civilians are also taking part in the nuclear program.

 

[A.R.K]

They do have proof. You just don't want to accept the proof currently. Which is fine. I understand the hesitation to accept the 'proof' after the IRAQ debacle. People are understandably more skeptical. But there is every reason to believe this is a much different case. I was firmly against the IRAQ war because I didn't think the evidence was strong there and there was evidence the Bush administration had designs on that country for a good while. I feel differently about IRAN.

Further, nobody should have nukes. Unfortunately the argument about that has been put to rest because we do. We can't turn back the clock or the Cold War, and there's nothing that can be done unless all countries simultaneously agree to disarm, which won't happen in the current climate. That said, these countries are not equivalent. Some are more trustworthy than others. Iran is a despicable theocracy with a history of human rights violations near the bottom third of the world, and a damning system of laws. Their very society is currently built upon such things. They have Holocaust deniers running the country and openly proclaim the desire to eradicate Israel. The U.S. is not an innocent, and I'd never claim they are - but the U.S. quite clearly isn't built upon such abhorrent beliefs, and there are equally viable political movements that aim to fight against such things as waterboarding and illegal assassinations. And while we've certainly done harm to our human rights record with things like our obsession with the death penalty and Guantanamo Bay, by and large our trajectory for human rights is one of continued improvement and a general example for a large part of the world. We're not Sweden, but we rank in the top 15 of the world in human rights. Things aren't black and white.

But yes, none of us should have nukes. We do. We can't change this. So the goal should be to prevent any further country from getting them, PARTICULARLY countries with such atrocious records as Iran, and then keep working on disarmament treaties to continue to reduce the nuclear stockpile around the world.



Yeah that was basically the U.S. (and the U.K.) unilaterally acting with their 'evidence', and the world falling in line. This on the other hand is the U.N. Nuclear Agency making a case and building it, and then a vast consensus of countries agreeing this is the case based on what we have on hand. If Iran had nothing to hide, they would let the international community in to monitor. They won't, because the evidence strongly suggests they do have something to hide. This is not the IRAQ war, so that's more false equivalency.

There's always SOME chance we are wrong, which is why Iran should let the international community in to see. If Iran refuses, then they only have themselves to blame when things like this happen (presuming it's true).

UN was backing U.S and UK in that debacle. Anyways, I agree no country should ever have these WMDs but as you said its not possible. But then every country has the right to defend itself with every thing possible. A group of countries can't decide what is right and wrong for other countries when they themselves would do any thing to protect their sovereignty. So Israel is sane to have 100s of these nukes but all muslim countries are insane and should never have nukes just because they are close to Israel? Talk about height of hypocrisy.

 

[Volimar]

Suddenly, Israel.

 

[Clipjoint]

They do have proof. You just don't want to accept the proof currently. Which is fine. I understand the hesitation to accept the 'proof' after the IRAQ debacle. People are understandably more skeptical. But there is every reason to believe this is a much different case. I was firmly against the IRAQ war because I didn't think the evidence was strong there and there was evidence the Bush administration had designs on that country for a good while. I feel differently about IRAN.

Further, nobody should have nukes. Unfortunately the argument about that has been put to rest because we do. We can't turn back the clock or the Cold War, and there's nothing that can be done unless all countries simultaneously agree to disarm, which won't happen in the current climate. That said, these countries are not equivalent. Some are more trustworthy than others. Iran is a despicable theocracy with a history of human rights violations near the bottom third of the world, and a damning system of laws. Their very society is currently built upon such things. They have Holocaust deniers running the country and openly proclaim the desire to eradicate Israel. The U.S. is not an innocent, and I'd never claim they are - but the U.S. quite clearly isn't built upon such abhorrent beliefs, and there are equally viable political movements that aim to fight against such things as waterboarding and illegal assassinations. And while we've certainly done harm to our human rights record with things like our obsession with the death penalty and Guantanamo Bay, by and large our trajectory for human rights is one of continued improvement and a general example for a large part of the world. We're not Sweden, but we rank in the top 15 of the world in human rights. Things aren't black and white.

But yes, none of us should have nukes. We do. We can't change this. So the goal should be to prevent any further country from getting them, PARTICULARLY countries with such atrocious records as Iran, and then keep working on disarmament treaties to continue to reduce the nuclear stockpile around the world.



Yeah that was basically the U.S. (and the U.K.) unilaterally acting with their 'evidence', and the world falling in line. This on the other hand is the U.N. Nuclear Agency making a case and building it, and then a vast consensus of countries agreeing this is the case based on what we have on hand. If Iran had nothing to hide, they would let the international community in to monitor. They won't, because the evidence strongly suggests they do have something to hide. This is not the IRAQ war, so that's more false equivalency.

There's always SOME chance we are wrong, which is why Iran should let the international community in to see. If Iran refuses, then they only have themselves to blame when things like this happen (presuming it's true).

Where's the proof?

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/times-errors-irans-nukes-sfs-voting/

In a January 5 article, The Times reported that European nations were nearing a decision to impose an embargo on Iranian oil in response to Iran’s purported efforts to build a nuclear bomb. In the article, the paper referred to “a recent assessment by the International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran’s nuclear program has a military objective.”

This characterization of the IAEA’s report spawned reader complaints that the IAEA had said no such thing and that The Times had over-stated the IAEA’s position.

In reviewing the November IAEA report, I see the following language in it:

“The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:

Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities…
Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material…
The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network…
Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components…
“While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons.”
These words strongly suggest Iran is conducting a nuclear weapons program but it is noteworthy that nowhere does the IAEA come right out and say this. The agency stops short of making a clear conclusive statement.

The absence of such a statement is evident in The Times’s first article about the report, back on Nov. 8. In that story, The Times said:

“United Nations weapons inspectors have amassed a trove of new evidence that they say makes a ‘credible’ case that ‘Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device,’ and that the project may still be under way.

“The long-awaited report, released by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Tuesday, represents the strongest judgment the agency has issued in its decade-long struggle to pierce the secrecy surrounding the Iranian program.”
In other words, the IAEA moved much closer with this report toward stating absolutely that Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb. Yet the fact that the agency has stopped short of such a finding remains significant. Readers complaining about the Jan. 5 article believe The Times should avoid closing the gap with a shorthand phrase that says the IAEA thinks Iran’s program “has a military objective.”

I think the readers are correct on this. The Times hasn’t corrected the story but it should because this is a case of when a shorthand phrase doesn’t do justice to a nuanced set of facts. In this case, the distinction between the two is important because the Iranian program has emerged as a possible casus belli.

Some readers, mindful of the faulty intelligence and reporting about Saddam Hussein’s weapons program, are watching the Iran nuclear coverage very closely. On December 9, Patrick B. Pexton, ombudsman for The Washington Post, wrote about reader backlash to a Post online slideshow whose headline likewise over-stated the IAEA’s findings.

(Unfortunately I can’t link to the text itself because it no longer exists on NYTimes.com, having been replaced by a new version of the story. I highlighted the issue of article replacement and iterations in my January 16 and June 26 columns about this problem in the digital domain.)

 

[jchap]

All I can say is I'm glad no one assassinates American Scientists who work for DoD

 

[astroturfing]

They forgot to call him a martyr. Now he won't receive his virgins.


Also,


Live by the bomb... die by the bomb.

without a doubt the worst comment so far in 2012.

how the FUCK do you even know if he was ultra-islamic and that he wanted to have sex with virgins after death? you do understand that Iran has plenty of moderate muslims, secular-minded people, jews, christians, zoroastrians etc? Iran is not an entirely homogenous country. and how do you know he had anything to do with bombs? he was a scientist, a chemist, and i would guess had probably never even seen a bomb in his life...

and besides, other innocent people got injured in the terrorist attack too. show at least some fucking human decency.

 

[Carcetti]

Iran has already been doing both of those things for years.

The day Iran gets a functional nuclear weapon is the day we turn the country into a glass parking lot.

How old are you?

 

[Joel Was Right]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16519304

The US has condemned the killing of an Iranian nuclear scientist in a car bomb attack in north Tehran. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said the US "had absolutely nothing to do" with the attack. Several Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated in recent years, with Iran blaming Israel and the US. Both deny any involvement. "The United States had absolutely nothing to do with this. We strongly condemn all acts of violence, including acts of violence like this," said Mr Vietor.​

I'm not saying the C word this time

 

[astroturfing]

The day Iran gets a functional nuclear weapon is the day we turn the country into a glass parking lot.

hilarious jingoistic overconfidence. seriously, how many countries with nukes has USA dared to attack or even threaten? yeah...

if Iran gets a nuke, it's a guarantee for their people to not get invaded by anyone. right now the average citizen on the streets of Tehran probably doesn't feel very safe or secure, knowing their own country is in the crosshairs of the world's greatest superpower.

Iran would be very smart to develop some nukes in secret, if their government values their own people at all.

 

[Wazzim]

So what if it is Israel? It probably is. The guy was a military target.

He is not, this would be illegal according to International Law even in war time. He was a civil scientist and thus counts as a civilian.

Fucking rules, how do they work?

 

[Seraphinianus]

The day Iran gets a functional nuclear weapon is the day we turn the country into a glass parking lot.

lay off the call of duty

 

[empty vessel]

It's about hegemony in the region, not purely survival. No one is going to invade Iran, regardless.

It is true that regional hegemony and power matter, but it is not true that no one is going to invade Iran. True, nobody is going to invade imminently, but the whole point of imposing sanctions is to weaken the country for invasion. See Iraq. Iran understands that full well. Despite that, there still isn't solid evidence that they have or are trying to establish a nuclear weapons program (although I wouldn't be surprised if they did).