And Iran, Iran so far away...

[Soxbadger]

Problem is that terrorism can be defined numerous different ways. This is pretty high profile so even if it was Mossad, it likely had some sort of green light from other countries.

[StrangeSox]

I'd like a consistent, sensible definition of terrorism that doesn't include using car bombs to blow up scientists and intimidate a country from pursuing a particular goal.

[Soxbadger]

A potential argument would be, Scientist was not really a civilian he was part of the military, therefore not "terrorism."

 

Once again, what determines "terrorism" is based on the facts. Easy ones are where civilians that have no connection to the military are targeted, its more gray when it could be argued that civilian was actually military.

 

IE If the US had killed Wernher von Braun, was that terrorism or was that a military target?

 

I dont have the facts, Iran will say that the scientist had nothing to do with an illegal nuclear weapons program, assassin would say that there was evidence that the guy was building illegal nukes. I dont really care what you call it because I think you can make an argument both ways.

[southsider2k5]

A potential argument would be, Scientist was not really a civilian he was part of the military, therefore not "terrorism."

 

Once again, what determines "terrorism" is based on the facts. Easy ones are where civilians that have no connection to the military are targeted, its more gray when it could be argued that civilian was actually military.

 

IE If the US had killed Wernher von Braun, was that terrorism or was that a military target?

 

I dont have the facts, Iran will say that the scientist had nothing to do with an illegal nuclear weapons program, assassin would say that there was evidence that the guy was building illegal nukes. I dont really care what you call it because I think you can make an argument both ways.

 

Or say Osama Bin Laden...

[StrangeSox]

A potential argument would be, Scientist was not really a civilian he was part of the military, therefore not "terrorism."

 

Once again, what determines "terrorism" is based on the facts. Easy ones are where civilians that have no connection to the military are targeted, its more gray when it could be argued that civilian was actually military.

 

IE If the US had killed Wernher von Braun, was that terrorism or was that a military target?

 

I dont have the facts, Iran will say that the scientist had nothing to do with an illegal nuclear weapons program, assassin would say that there was evidence that the guy was building illegal nukes. I dont really care what you call it because I think you can make an argument both ways.

 

USS Cole bombing no longer a terrorist attack, then?

[Balta1701]

Or say Osama Bin Laden...

The fact that he personally issued a declaration of war against the us probably counts there.

[Soxbadger]

USS Cole attack was committed by a terrorist organization, AQ, who I believe took responsibility for the act.

 

If a terrorist organization takes credit for this attack, then it almost self defines itself as terrorism.

 

IE If no one claimed responsibility for the USS Cole and it was believed Sudan was responsible, it wouldnt have been an act of terrorism, it would have been an act of war.

Edited January 12, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Milkman delivers]

USS Cole bombing no longer a terrorist attack, then?

 

For what it's worth, I agree with your line of reasoning so far. Terrorism is terrorism, even if it's the good guys doing it.

[StrangeSox]

USS Cole attack was committed by a terrorist organization, AQ, who I believe took responsibility for the act.

 

If a terrorist organization takes credit for this attack, then it almost self defines itself as terrorism.

 

IE If no one claimed responsibility for the USS Cole and it was believed Sudan was responsible, it wouldnt have been an act of terrorism, it would have been an act of war.

What a group (may?) Self-identify as doesn't necessarily change the nature of the act.

 

I guess the point is that the distinction between "terrorism" and "act of war" is arbitrary, and we would certainly define such an attack as one of terror, even if it were state-sponsored.

[Soxbadger]

Its not\ entirely arbitrary.

 

Its kind of like criminal law mens rea, terrorism is defined by the actors mind. If the goal is to use violence to instill fear, its terrorism, if that wasnt their goal, its not. Thus when a terrorist organization states that it was a terrorist attack, they have basically given you the reason for the attack.

 

Conversely we dont even know who caused the explosion in this case.

 

What if it was a spurned ex-lover, that wouldnt be terrorism, that would just merely be a homicide.

 

The distinction between act of war and terrorism, is going to be somewhat arbitrary, because it is subjective, not objective.

[Milkman delivers]

Its not\ entirely arbitrary.

 

Its kind of like criminal law mens rea, terrorism is defined by the actors mind. If the goal is to use violence to instill fear, its terrorism, if that wasnt their goal, its not. Thus when a terrorist organization states that it was a terrorist attack, they have basically given you the reason for the attack.

 

Conversely we dont even know who caused the explosion in this case.

 

What if it was a spurned ex-lover, that wouldnt be terrorism, that would just merely be a homicide.

 

The distinction between act of war and terrorism, is going to be somewhat arbitrary, because it is subjective, not objective.

 

Does everything go back to law with you?

[StrangeSox]

What if it was a spurned ex-lover, that wouldnt be terrorism, that would just merely be a homicide.

 

The distinction between act of war and terrorism, is going to be somewhat arbitrary, because it is subjective, not objective.

 

 

This isn't the first Iranian scientist tied to their nuclear program that's been killed like this. There's not really any reasonable doubt as to why he was targeted.

[southsider2k5]

The fact that he personally issued a declaration of war against the us probably counts there.

 

We declared we wouldn't allow Iran to build a nuclear program.

[Balta1701]

We declared we wouldn't allow Iran to build a nuclear weapons program.

Fixed that for you.

 

Under the terms of the Non-proliferation treaty, there is a huge, monstrous, gargantuan difference. Iran is legally allowed to possess a nuclear energy program and can receive assistance in building it internationally in exchange for inspections. They are not allowed to possess secret, uninspected facilities or to enrich uranium beyond the amounts that could be useful for medical and energy applications.

 

Iran has not done the latter of these to the best of our knowledge. It did build facilities that it tried to keep secret.

[southsider2k5]

Fixed that for you.

 

Under the terms of the Non-proliferation treaty, there is a huge, monstrous, gargantuan difference. Iran is legally allowed to possess a nuclear energy program and can receive assistance in building it internationally in exchange for inspections. They are not allowed to possess secret, uninspected facilities or to enrich uranium beyond the amounts that could be useful for medical and energy applications.

 

Iran has not done the latter of these to the best of our knowledge. It did build facilities that it tried to keep secret.

 

L O L

[Balta1701]

L O L

Seriously? That is an exact description of international law and of everything currently publicly admitted about Iran's nuclear program. There is nothing in there you get to laugh at.

 

[southsider2k5]

Seriously? That is an exact description of international law and of everything currently publicly admitted about Iran's nuclear program. There is nothing in there you get to laugh at.

 

There is the key in your statement. I don't believe for a micro-second that this program is for peaceful purposes, and the steps they are taking in it agree with me. The enrichment steps they are taking, and the hiding of the program in mountain sides and military bases speaks directly to that.

[Balta1701]

There is the key in your statement. I don't believe for a micro-second that this program is for peaceful purposes, and the steps they are taking in it agree with me. The enrichment steps they are taking, and the hiding of the program in mountain sides and military bases speaks directly to that.

The problem with that logic is that the facilities they just opened in a mountainside, for example, are under IAEA inspection. They are fully legal for Iran to possess. The NPT doesn't regulate where they are put.

 

Iran was caught red handed with enrichment facilities that weren't disclosed to the IAEA when they were about to be put into use in 2003. This is the entire basis for the international community being able to place sanctions on Iran's nuclear program, they failed to disclose these facilities. These could have been a reason to actually act against Iran's nuclear program at the time, but I guess we were a little busy then.

[southsider2k5]

The problem with that logic is that the facilities they just opened in a mountainside, for example, are under IAEA inspection. They are fully legal for Iran to possess. The NPT doesn't regulate where they are put.

 

Iran was caught red handed with enrichment facilities that weren't disclosed to the IAEA when they were about to be put into use in 2003. This is the entire basis for the international community being able to place sanctions on Iran's nuclear program, they failed to disclose these facilities. These could have been a reason to actually act against Iran's nuclear program at the time, but I guess we were a little busy then.

 

Iran has been trying to build a nuclear weapons program for something like 50 years now. That hasn't changed. Believing it has is the same wishful thinking that got us nuclear Pakistan and NK.

[Balta1701]

Iran has been trying to build a nuclear weapons program for something like 50 years now. That hasn't changed. Believing it has is the same wishful thinking that got us nuclear Pakistan and NK.

Pakistan was never a signatory of the nonproliferation treaty. The U.S. had no legal standing by which it could prevent them from development of nuclear weapons.

 

North Korea is the clearest story you can imagine of a country taking advantage of the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq. North Korea basically did all of their reprocessing work and withdrew from the NPT while the U.S. was preoccupied. They were very likely nuclear disarmed until that point. The NPT is the most important, useful framework you could possibly imagine here.

[southsider2k5]

Pakistan was never a signatory of the nonproliferation treaty. The U.S. had no legal standing by which it could prevent them from development of nuclear weapons.

 

North Korea is the clearest story you can imagine of a country taking advantage of the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq. North Korea basically did all of their reprocessing work and withdrew from the NPT while the U.S. was preoccupied. They were very likely nuclear disarmed until that point. The NPT is the most important, useful framework you could possibly imagine here.

 

Except that they spent the whole time bringing AQ Khan in as a consultant...

[Balta1701]

Except that they spent the whole time bringing AQ Khan in as a consultant...

Yup. They learned a ton about how to build a uranium bomb from Khan. Then they built and tested a pair of plutonium bombs.

[southsider2k5]

Yup. They learned a ton about how to build a uranium bomb from Khan. Then they built and tested a pair of plutonium bombs.

 

The information is out there all over the place. He traded enrichment info for missile technology.

[Balta1701]

The information is out there all over the place. He traded enrichment info for missile technology.

And that information was completely useless to North Korea in building a plutonium bomb.

 

The whole genius of the NPT is the understanding that it is perfectly reasonable for countries to possess the capability to highly enrich uranium, since you can do that with the same facilities you use to build a nuclear power plant or a system to produce radio isotopes for medical purposes. The only way you can possibly tell that a weapons system is being constructed is to have inspectors in the area and on the ground capable of taking samples. So the NPT says "We'll actually even give you the technology to build a nuclear weapon, willingly, and help you with it, as long as you let the IAEA put inspectors in, since those inspections are shockingly difficult to fool". And it works.

[southsider2k5]

And that information was completely useless to North Korea in building a plutonium bomb.

 

The whole genius of the NPT is the understanding that it is perfectly reasonable for countries to possess the capability to highly enrich uranium, since you can do that with the same facilities you use to build a nuclear power plant or a system to produce radio isotopes for medical purposes. The only way you can possibly tell that a weapons system is being constructed is to have inspectors in the area and on the ground capable of taking samples. So the NPT says "We'll actually even give you the technology to build a nuclear weapon, willingly, and help you with it, as long as you let the IAEA put inspectors in, since those inspections are shockingly difficult to fool". And it works.

 

Well all except for when countries hide facilities away from inspectors.