Quote:
Originally Posted by leoslayer
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?
1. Were any of these terrorist attacks?
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.