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.
Random acts of violence effecting large groups is terrorism, in that it instills terror in the general population who fear they might be victims.
Carefully orchestrated assassinations pose no threat to most citizens. If you aren't an Iranian nuclear scientist, you have nothing to fear.
It is absurd to say that that killing was not terrorism.
"One must understand what fear means in a world where murder is legitimate, and where human life is considered trifling...All I ask is that in the midst of a murderous world, we agree to reflect on murder and to make a choice." - Albert Camus
If you are going to advocate actions like that then at least be honest. (Start with yourself.)
Originally posted by normbenign Random acts of violence effecting large groups is terrorism, in that it instills terror in the general population who fear they might be victims.
Carefully orchestrated assassinations pose no threat to most citizens. If you aren't an Iranian nuclear scientist, you have nothing to fear.
And you don't think that 9/11 was carefully orchestrated? I beg to differ.
I would also add, that if you are an average citizen in Iran you have much to fear in terms of international involvement over the issue.
Terrorism is neither good or bad it is a military tactic favoured by the military underdog who would be annialated if they engaged their enemy in conventional warfare.
Originally posted by kevcvs57 Terrorism is neither good or bad it is a military tactic favoured by the military underdog who would be annialated if they engaged their enemy in conventional warfare.
Agreed.
'Terrorist' is the term frustrated officials use when their enemy has adroitly placed himself out of reach of retaliation.
"Stand out where I can shoot you g-d-mned...terrorist!"
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 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".
A scientist who is actively working to develop nuclear weapons is hardly a "civilian."
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Would whacking Oppenheimer have been terrorism?
Absolutely positively NOT.
I can't even see that as being a debatable issue.
Oppenheimer was actively trying to (and did) kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese people on behalf of the United States. Does that make him a bad person? No. But it does make him a soldier.
Originally posted by sh76 A scientist who is actively working to develop nuclear weapons is hardly a "civilian."
Hypothetical:
An Israeli scientist is working on a project which will increase the accuracy of "smart" bombs used by the Israeli military. Two Iranian agents plant a bomb in his car and he and his driver get blown to bits on the streets of Tel Aviv.
Terrorism is good
13 Jan '12 01:46
Back to Top