Yep, your opinion is correct and the rest are "brainwashed".

:facepalm

Tell me you have more than this to support your contentions, or are you another conspiratorial theorist who values information off of YouTube and other screwball websites that have an easily identifiable ax to grind.

Sure, its all the US fault with no other reasons, such as both countries national strategic objectives that compete and cause conflict, but I digress, just easier to say its the US's fault.

ok chips 1. he is not n innocent noncombatant. 2. it does not say the us did it. 3. this was an assassination not an attack to inflict mass casualties. can any of you folks not apply common sense to your arguments?

Common sense does not prevail in these discussions because presumably one side is right and the other is wrong making any logic besides the point. You could go back and forth and they will still have a firm belief that US actions are no different than the perpetrators of 9/11. Oh, wait, that was our fault as well.

For some reason, people think we should do anything and everything to avoid conflict even if it is detrimental to our own interest.

I guess if DOD or US scientist involved in the military complex started getting plucked off it would be ok, and you would have the same view on it.

1. Were any of these terrorist attacks?

• 1983 Beirut bombing
• 2000 USS Cole bombing
• 2009 Fort Hood shooting

How could he be a combatant? The US is not at war with Iran. He is a scientist, not a soldier. If Iranian agents kill a handful of scientist at Berkeley you would call it ???

2. Iran routinely denies the terrorism it sponsors. The US has ongoing covert operations in Iran. The US is very interested in damaging the Iranian nuclear program. Why wouldn't it be the US? Do you think somebody in Washington is going to block the operation because "we don't do terrorism"?

3. Your definition did not say terrorism has to inflict mass casualties. It certainly has the aim to terrorize everybody involved in the Iranian nuclear program (which is working, people are quitting).

This is an act of terrorism. The agents probably work for the MEK -- a group that has used chemical weapons.

Its called common sense man , and the ability for the masses to only view one side of the coin. I dont follow the pattern of calling a certain group of people freedom fighters and later on call them terrorist just because of the policy that is trying to be implemented.

Fight a war after being attacked is my preferred standard.

For those who just can't live with having a kick ass army that never kicks ass, it's hard to argue with this:

1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
7. Is the action supported by the American people?
8. Do we have genuine broad international support?

chips i am on record as saying the cole was not a terrorist attack. if they attack military targets while i may not like it i dont call it terrorism. kohbar towers though i would as it is a residential complex that holds civillians.

i have no problems with doing whatever we have to to stop iran from obtaining nukes. id like to do it cleanly as possible. but if it came down to having to nuke them to prevent it then i would have to support that.

i really dont care if we have international support. if we do great,if not well im a citizen of the united states not the world.

you really jumped through the part where you said this civilian scientist wasn't an innocent non-combatant. What was he then?

if you are actively designing a weapon of mass destruction you def fall under military target. same for chemists making sarrin or vx. or bio guys working on other weapons programs

Its a grey area imo. He certainly isnt an innocent civilian as part of the mechanism giving the bomb to Iran but he is probably forced into the work he is doing directly or indirectly and i believe he was an energy and not a weapons application nuclear scientist going from memory.

The second grey area is we dont know the processes that Mossad and the CIA are using in Iran. Scientists are being killed but they are also disappearing and there is a theory that the ones disappearing are the guys who are defecting and the ones being killed are the ones who wont.

I mean no one should be happy about assassinating scientists but the alternatives are all at least as horrific which is why i assume its nice to be a libertarian and not have to consider that life sometimes has hard and harder choices that dont conform to the simple rules they consider a political movement and they can just reject reality out of hand.

Military target =/= armed combatant. Just because they're plausible military targets doesn't make them anything more than non-combatant civilians, and targetting such is an act of terrorism.

I'm not saying it's all the US' fault, let alone saying Iran is innocent, but completely ignoring the causes and effects of our disgraceful foreign policy is irresponsible.

I guess the Japanese should have assassinated Einstein?

Grunching, but are they currently, or have they ever served the McRib?

If so, then no, they are friends.

As I understand this, as long as you can come up with a reason for why to attack someone, America is fine. However, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to ever attack an American.

wouldnt be happy about it. and would be all for a military response. but there is a big diff between blowing up a school bus by strapping a bomb to a mentally handicapped kid. and dropping a 500lber on a base or camp.

It's super easy to have this attitude when you know the other guys don't have the capability of flying over your military base. This is like the military version of the taxi medalion. If you don't have a million bucks to buy a medallion you're not a taxi driver you're a pirate and a menace to society. Only the big boys with deep pockets and aircraft carriers are "legit" and the other guys are terrorists.

they can suicide bomb all they want versus military targets. big diff when the whole plan is lets go to a market and just kill as many women and children as possible.

fyp

So when we run over a bomb, and then enter civilian homes, shooting first, and kill 23 women and children, is that terrorism?

This is mostly how I see it with a few notable exceptions:

I have a problem with the absolutes in this. I'm against wasting time and resources on fruitless diplomacy. Our advisers at the state department and other such agencies should be able to give a good indication of what the effectiveness and risk of non-violent course of actions and that should be weighed along with other policies in regards to reaching what ever foreign policy goals we are hoping to achieve.

This does not belong on the list. I see all the others as must have for any military involvement, except this. While I do not deny it should be considered, it should in no way prevent military intervention if the other significant criteria you listed is met.