The targeted assassination of a specific scientist working on a nuclear program may be a deplorable act (or it may not be, depending on the circumstances), but it is not terrorism.
Originally posted by sh76 The targeted assassination of a specific scientist working on a nuclear program may be a deplorable act (or it may not be, depending on the circumstances), but it is not terrorism.
So if Iran killed a specific scientist in the US you wouldn't consider it to be terrorism?
I get your point and you may not consider it as such if Iran did so, but if they did the government and every media outlet would be crowing about how this was a terrorist act. But then, such is the nature of the hypocrisy of politics I guess.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Terrorism is when you kill civilians in order to make them obey you out of fear. Assassination of skilled technicians is not the same.
Would you then consider 9/11 to be terrorism?
Whether we are discussing scientists being assassinated or attacking the economic and defense hub of a said enemy, they are both pretty much after the same thing.
These events have little to do with killing civilians to make them do what you want them to do, rather, its all about weakening a military foe.
Originally posted by whodey Would you then consider 9/11 to be terrorism?
Whether we are discussing scientists being assassinated or attacking the economic and defense hub of a said enemy, they are both pretty much after the same thing.
These events have little to do with killing civilians to make them do what you want them to do, rather, its all about weakening a military foe.
Yes 9/11 was terrorism. Individuals were not carefully targetted. An object was targetted because it was filled with nameless, faceless civilians.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Yes 9/11 was terrorism. Individuals were not carefully targetted. An object was targetted because it was filled with nameless, faceless civilians.
I would argue that civilians were not really targeted. They were after weakening the US economically and militarily. Now had the targets had no economic or military importance then you could argue otherwise, but you cannot.
So in part their goals were accomplished. They energized a nation to throw all its resources into wars abroad that helped weaken the US. Now wall you hear is how the military needs to be cut.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn So if Iran killed a specific scientist in the US you wouldn't consider it to be terrorism?
I get your point and you may not consider it as such if Iran did so, but if they did the government and every media outlet would be crowing about how this was a terrorist act. But then, such is the nature of the hypocrisy of politics I guess.
Of course it would not be terrorism.
Terrorism is meant to terrorize a populace and its government into cowering to your demands by making the people feel unsafe.
Targeting a specific individual is meant to get rid of that individual.
The two have little to do with each other, other than that they both aim to kill people.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Terrorism is when you kill civilians in order to make them obey you out of fear. Assassination of skilled technicians is not the same.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Terrorism is when you kill civilians in order to make them obey you out of fear. Assassination of skilled technicians is not the same.
BS. It's violence intended to terrorize civilians i.e. those working for the Iranian government in their nuclear program. I guarantee you that if a politically motivated group killed an American scientist working at a nuclear power plant, they'd be charged under Terrorism statutes here.
EDIT: US Code Title 22 Chapter 38 Para 2656f(d)(2)
2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
Originally posted by sh76 Of course it would not be terrorism.
Terrorism is meant to terrorize a populace and its government into cowering to your demands by making the people feel unsafe.
Targeting a specific individual is meant to get rid of that individual.
The two have little to do with each other, other than that they both aim to kill people.
BS. Killing a scientist is meant to frighten other scientists so that they won't work in the program thus accomplishing the politically motivated goal of stopping Iran's nuclear program by violence against civilians. That is "terrorism".
Originally posted by no1marauder BS. Killing a scientist is meant to frighten other scientists so that they won't work in the program thus accomplishing the politically motivated goal of stopping Iran's nuclear program by violence against civilians. That is "terrorism".
Well, that's different though. If the intent is simply to kill the scientists with the ability, then maybe technically it's not terrorism. It's not like they can be replaced by someone going to a weekend seminar.
Originally posted by Kunsoo Well, that's different though. If the intent is simply to kill the scientists with the ability, then maybe technically it's not terrorism. It's not like they can be replaced by someone going to a weekend seminar.
🙄🙄
There are tens of thousands of scientists (at least) with the knowledge sufficient to work in a nuclear program. The idea that such an assassination isn't done with the object to strike fear into those already working in the Iranian program or those potentially willing to do so is laughable.
12 Jan '12 19:36
Terrorism is good
Back to Top