Read the article - "He was the principal architect for Iran’s nuclear weapons program, having assumed the role decades ago. "
Obama and everyone else said they were not developing nuclear weapons - but for decades - while this Iran deal was being negotiated - they had a principal architect for the program. Go figure.
Once everything is in the "cloud" and Winston Smith is hired they will get it straight on who Oceania's enemies are - Eastasia or Eurasia.
As I said, so many lies. Now tell me now why Fauci was collaborating with our "enemy" China on a bio-weapon bat coronavirus bioweapon?
12/3/20 Gareth Porter on the Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh
Gareth Porter discusses the recent assassination of Iranian defense official Mohsen Fakhrizadeh by the Israeli government, which continues to claim that Fakhrizadeh was a “top nuclear scientist” in Iran. In reality, explains Porter, Fakhrizadeh was not a nuclear scientist, and this assassination is part of a years-long campaign to convince the world that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. No doubt the assassination was intended to provoke some kind of response from the Iranians before President Trump leaves the White House. It will also make it harder, he says, for President Biden to renegotiate the Iran nuclear agreement, a clear goal of Israel and its allies in Washington.
I get your point, but if you are going to make this case, then you need to be consistent. You will need to label all of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project as evil too for developing a weapon which was used to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians when it was unnecessary to do so in order to end WW2.
The atomic bombs dropped onto Japan was used to stop the war, rather the extreme loss of life on both sides. Island hopping costs a lot of lives, and the mainland of Japan would have been total war as in the final German days, just much more ferocious. Remember the fire tanks and how that was the best to use in tunnel warfare at the time. Was dropping the bombs ethical? No, no warfare is ethical. That’s not the question though, is it more ethical to kill\maim as many if not more with bullets on both sides not only bringing both sides to the brink of breaking to “win”.
It’s in simplistic terms it’s the train question, is it better to kill the one one man on the track one or 10 on track 2.
Also remember that the Japanese were doing living autopsies and infecting people with all types of infections and cutting them open (wide open) without any pain medication to see how the infections travelled, those poor souls were referred to as logs, and treated as such.
Did you read the article that I linked to? Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped. They would have surrendered, except not unconditionally so. They wanted to spare the emperor. Which the U.S. ended up doing anyway.
They did not surrender after the first bomb, there was only one Japanese admiral whom wanted to stop the offensive, and what do you call “surrender”? Stopping the offensive but retaining the gains made? That’s not a surrender but a stalemate or ceasefire. One, in war doesn’t surrender more or less. They agree to terms of surrender, you can only do that when one side quits.
Japan was an evil empire in many ways. The things they did to prisoners were abominable. Their treatment of their own people was often terrible. The aggressive war mongering mentality of many in power was a continual problem in the region. Have you read the accounts of our soldiers? How about the Chinese or Koreans? That empire didn't just need to be stopped for a moment; it needed to be crushed. Anything else would be short term, a bandaid on a massive wound.
My point was that the unnecessary nuking of Japanese civilians was undoubtedly evil. And if Jordan thinks that it is OK to assassinate an Iranian scientist who was helping Iran develop the bomb, then he should be OK with assassinating the scientists who worked on the Manhattan project who enabled this evil as well.
Nor is Mr. Rockwell burning about approximately the same result in Hamburg, Dresden, or Berlin, achieved with non-nuclear weapons.
But all of these other actions cost us much more dearly in American servicemen -- is that desirable? Is that moral?
The fact is that a war cannot end until the people give up. The Germans and the Japanese were both beaten, but they refused to give up. They kept fighting.
This was not written by Lew Rockwell. It was written by historian Ralph Raico.
It is not true that the Japanese "refused to give up". They refused to give into the Allies' demand for "unconditional surrender". They wanted to maintain their emperor. Which the Allies ultimately allowed anyway.
You're arguing about what the Japanese would have done. But Truman had to go on what the Japanese had actually done -- they hadn't given up. They'd been badly beaten, and they hadn't given up.
Then Truman warned them we had the bomb, gave them a chance to avoid ruin, and they still didn't give up.
So Truman dropped one atomic bomb and waited for their surrender. They STILL didn't give up. So Truman dropped the 2nd atomic weapon, and the war was over -- the Japanese came to the table and surrendered.
But all of this misses the biggest point -- the USA was defending. We used atomic weapons to win a defensive war. We were pushing back a monstrous aggressor that had successfully tried to seize (and had enslaved) a large part of the world.
Iran wants atomic weapons for terror and offensive war, an entirely different moral proposition.
That’s the most cobbled together apologist account I’ve seen, I’m not American, they bombed pearl harbour without viable reason other than aggression, they did not quit when they were loosing, article blamed it all on emperor whom never left his city and would not know anything but what’s told to him by top advisors, but leaves that out. It seems the emperor is just a pawn used by his counsel for their own ends. The dropping of the bombs in my opinion was justified, the locations of the bomb drops are up for discussion as ethical arguments. But the rest of this article is just copy paste from other people with nothing but opinions and I’ve got one to.
The result was tragic; would you be happier with the alternative? A lengthy war with Japan was judged to be more devastating. No good options were available. It was a desperate measure in desperate times, not an outright evil.
Would you have preferred a million more to die if we chad chose instead to invade Japan? Would it have been murder if they had dropped the bomb on us instead because they were losing the war? How about if, attacking Pearl harbor they kept on going and tried to invade the West Coast. Would that result have been expected to be any different than what the Japanese had done to China? In the end, you have to decide who is in the right and who is in the wrong and leave it at that.
Heh heh heh, yeah, I caught that. We were also told that there were WMDs in Iraq and that 19 amateur terrorists used box cutters and two planes to bring down 3 buildings in NY on Sept. 11, 2001. Of course Iran has never invaded another country and just might think that nuclear weapons are a good deterrent to being attacked. They know they would be wiped out if they struck Israel or anyone else with a nuke. Israel has 200 nukes.
Believe what you will. If they ever find out who claims responsibility for this murder you can send them a box of candy and a thank you note. After all, this guy was EVIL.
To Iranian’s it should be justified and I can understand why they would congregate to take him out since their religion teaches to never develop nuclear weapons. The fact that Iranian’s would protect Allah in word and deed holds moral ground.
Sir, I understand how you feel about this. However, neither YOU nor anyone else has the right to determine that a person is justifiably murdered. You are assuming to yourself the place of God. That is a very dangerous thing to do. Being "evil" is not a crime, especially a capital crime deserving death. Extra-judicial murder is against the law and governments cannot do what is illegal for individuals. Either live by the law or everyone is in danger. Can't have it both ways.
If I determine that someone is "evil" can I take it upon myself to kill them? Apparently you can.
They did live by the law, the highest law. Allah is very clear in his writing to never tolerate nuclear weapons. Christians do not make laws that violate our God. Why would Muslims?
I cannot speak for Muslims even though I lived two years in Saudia Arabia and watched people shot to death over smoking a cigarette during the time of fasting. I am a Christian and shun murder even though my tax dollars go to support Planned Parenthood which aborts (murders) babies every year. No laws that violate our God? I beg to differ.
Nuclear weapons or no, there is no "moral justification" for murdering someone on the basis that what they are doing "might" be used in a way that would cause harm. Nukes have been used as deterrents for many years by countries around the world. Why can Israel and other countries in that area have nukes, but Iran can't? Seems perfectly equitable to me. Oh, I forgot: they're EVIL.
Attributing murder to God's law is blasphemous, but have it your way. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. Is that the Christian way? I'll answer that: NO.
You are making an assumption that Israel or someone else killed the guy. The Iranians are not above killing their own and staging it to look like someone else did it. The regime is getting a lot of heat from their own people right now and this smells a lot like a stunt to generate some hatred of the US and Israel to take some focus off the government. Trump has made a lot of inroads into ME peace and Iran does not like it. Better wait for the real info to come out down the road perhaps before making moral judgements about who did it.
My original comment was to the author's use of the "morally justified" statement. Regardless of who did it, it is murder. For years this country has been worried about Iran's nuclear capabilities and we heard that they shouldn't have a nuke. Some in this country have been pushing to attack them and there has been sabotage of their facilities by the US. Our covert forces have meddled in other counties affairs for years. Folks are okay with that. I'm not.
I do not know who killed this scientist, but to say it was justified is a judgment call. My original post questioned that since murder is against the laws of God and man. People read a post and twist it around to fit their views and want to make an argument out of it. I'm out.
God complex comes to those whom humility and empathy have never been taught, control and arrogance is the forte of these types of people. I’ve met General Practitioners whom fit this bill as well. My mother was physically assaulted as a patient by a doctor whom disliked her getting a second opinion.
No matter the amount of initials behind your name, letters cannot fix evil behaviour, just gives evil people more power. That’s why rule of law and hard punishment is supposed to deter this behaviour, but in Canada, these people seem to make it into positions to do the most harm and face no consequences for illegal or illicit behaviour, not only allowing for this to continue but actually condone it.
Chief medical officers and surgeon generals should be an elected position or in fact a group of 5 with internal votes. One non publicly appointed man shutting down anything due to suspicion is not only an medical ethical violation as burden of proof is on them but also illegal without a vote.
Wait a minute - didn't Obama strike a deal to end Iran's nuclear weapon program?
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues/foreign-policy/iran-deal
So many lies.
Was it followed by the Iranians?
Read the article - "He was the principal architect for Iran’s nuclear weapons program, having assumed the role decades ago. "
Obama and everyone else said they were not developing nuclear weapons - but for decades - while this Iran deal was being negotiated - they had a principal architect for the program. Go figure.
Once everything is in the "cloud" and Winston Smith is hired they will get it straight on who Oceania's enemies are - Eastasia or Eurasia.
As I said, so many lies. Now tell me now why Fauci was collaborating with our "enemy" China on a bio-weapon bat coronavirus bioweapon?
Obama is gonna be so pissed along with those other guys Susan Rice and Valerie Jarret.
Don't forget professional liar and Iranian bribe recipient John Kerry.
12/3/20 Gareth Porter on the Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh
Gareth Porter discusses the recent assassination of Iranian defense official Mohsen Fakhrizadeh by the Israeli government, which continues to claim that Fakhrizadeh was a “top nuclear scientist” in Iran. In reality, explains Porter, Fakhrizadeh was not a nuclear scientist, and this assassination is part of a years-long campaign to convince the world that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. No doubt the assassination was intended to provoke some kind of response from the Iranians before President Trump leaves the White House. It will also make it harder, he says, for President Biden to renegotiate the Iran nuclear agreement, a clear goal of Israel and its allies in Washington.
https://scotthorton.org/interviews/12-3-20-gareth-porter-on-the-assassination-of-mohsen-fakhrizadeh/
I get your point, but if you are going to make this case, then you need to be consistent. You will need to label all of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project as evil too for developing a weapon which was used to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians when it was unnecessary to do so in order to end WW2.
Horse crap. You're just another apologist for true evil.
The atomic bombs dropped onto Japan was used to stop the war, rather the extreme loss of life on both sides. Island hopping costs a lot of lives, and the mainland of Japan would have been total war as in the final German days, just much more ferocious. Remember the fire tanks and how that was the best to use in tunnel warfare at the time. Was dropping the bombs ethical? No, no warfare is ethical. That’s not the question though, is it more ethical to kill\maim as many if not more with bullets on both sides not only bringing both sides to the brink of breaking to “win”.
It’s in simplistic terms it’s the train question, is it better to kill the one one man on the track one or 10 on track 2.
Also remember that the Japanese were doing living autopsies and infecting people with all types of infections and cutting them open (wide open) without any pain medication to see how the infections travelled, those poor souls were referred to as logs, and treated as such.
Did you read the article that I linked to? Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped. They would have surrendered, except not unconditionally so. They wanted to spare the emperor. Which the U.S. ended up doing anyway.
They did not surrender after the first bomb, there was only one Japanese admiral whom wanted to stop the offensive, and what do you call “surrender”? Stopping the offensive but retaining the gains made? That’s not a surrender but a stalemate or ceasefire. One, in war doesn’t surrender more or less. They agree to terms of surrender, you can only do that when one side quits.
Japan was an evil empire in many ways. The things they did to prisoners were abominable. Their treatment of their own people was often terrible. The aggressive war mongering mentality of many in power was a continual problem in the region. Have you read the accounts of our soldiers? How about the Chinese or Koreans? That empire didn't just need to be stopped for a moment; it needed to be crushed. Anything else would be short term, a bandaid on a massive wound.
Yes it was. I said nothing to suggest otherwise.
My point was that the unnecessary nuking of Japanese civilians was undoubtedly evil. And if Jordan thinks that it is OK to assassinate an Iranian scientist who was helping Iran develop the bomb, then he should be OK with assassinating the scientists who worked on the Manhattan project who enabled this evil as well.
Not at all. Read some real history, Horace.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/11/ralph-raico/the-greatest-us-war-crime-against-japan/
That was pretty thin gruel. Rockwell doesn't seem at all outraged that we fire-bombed Tokyo, killing about the same numbers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
Nor is Mr. Rockwell burning about approximately the same result in Hamburg, Dresden, or Berlin, achieved with non-nuclear weapons.
But all of these other actions cost us much more dearly in American servicemen -- is that desirable? Is that moral?
The fact is that a war cannot end until the people give up. The Germans and the Japanese were both beaten, but they refused to give up. They kept fighting.
This was not written by Lew Rockwell. It was written by historian Ralph Raico.
It is not true that the Japanese "refused to give up". They refused to give into the Allies' demand for "unconditional surrender". They wanted to maintain their emperor. Which the Allies ultimately allowed anyway.
You're arguing about what the Japanese would have done. But Truman had to go on what the Japanese had actually done -- they hadn't given up. They'd been badly beaten, and they hadn't given up.
Then Truman warned them we had the bomb, gave them a chance to avoid ruin, and they still didn't give up.
So Truman dropped one atomic bomb and waited for their surrender. They STILL didn't give up. So Truman dropped the 2nd atomic weapon, and the war was over -- the Japanese came to the table and surrendered.
But all of this misses the biggest point -- the USA was defending. We used atomic weapons to win a defensive war. We were pushing back a monstrous aggressor that had successfully tried to seize (and had enslaved) a large part of the world.
Iran wants atomic weapons for terror and offensive war, an entirely different moral proposition.
That’s the most cobbled together apologist account I’ve seen, I’m not American, they bombed pearl harbour without viable reason other than aggression, they did not quit when they were loosing, article blamed it all on emperor whom never left his city and would not know anything but what’s told to him by top advisors, but leaves that out. It seems the emperor is just a pawn used by his counsel for their own ends. The dropping of the bombs in my opinion was justified, the locations of the bomb drops are up for discussion as ethical arguments. But the rest of this article is just copy paste from other people with nothing but opinions and I’ve got one to.
The result was tragic; would you be happier with the alternative? A lengthy war with Japan was judged to be more devastating. No good options were available. It was a desperate measure in desperate times, not an outright evil.
Would you have preferred a million more to die if we chad chose instead to invade Japan? Would it have been murder if they had dropped the bomb on us instead because they were losing the war? How about if, attacking Pearl harbor they kept on going and tried to invade the West Coast. Would that result have been expected to be any different than what the Japanese had done to China? In the end, you have to decide who is in the right and who is in the wrong and leave it at that.
OK, another guy who didn't read the article I linked to who raises the standard strawmen.
Makes a guy want to shave.
Governments have the right to execute their citizens and in war those of other nations
The difference between murder and morally justifiable homicide is very, very narrow sometimes.
To kill because of what might happen is much different from someone attempting to take your life or someone else's.
Did you not catch that this scientist was attempting to kill people? Actively.
Heh heh heh, yeah, I caught that. We were also told that there were WMDs in Iraq and that 19 amateur terrorists used box cutters and two planes to bring down 3 buildings in NY on Sept. 11, 2001. Of course Iran has never invaded another country and just might think that nuclear weapons are a good deterrent to being attacked. They know they would be wiped out if they struck Israel or anyone else with a nuke. Israel has 200 nukes.
Believe what you will. If they ever find out who claims responsibility for this murder you can send them a box of candy and a thank you note. After all, this guy was EVIL.
I think you have strange incomplete view of Iran.
Just because some intelligence some other time didn't pan out doesn't mean this was wrong.
Evil alone is insufficient. Giving nukes to known active terrorists who want death to America and Israel and show they mean it is.
They (Iran) have no nukes. You are the one with the incomplete view of Iran. As I said, believe what you will. My last comment.
I know. The point is to keep it that way.
LOL.
I will. Thanks?!
Ok.
To Iranian’s it should be justified and I can understand why they would congregate to take him out since their religion teaches to never develop nuclear weapons. The fact that Iranian’s would protect Allah in word and deed holds moral ground.
Sir, I understand how you feel about this. However, neither YOU nor anyone else has the right to determine that a person is justifiably murdered. You are assuming to yourself the place of God. That is a very dangerous thing to do. Being "evil" is not a crime, especially a capital crime deserving death. Extra-judicial murder is against the law and governments cannot do what is illegal for individuals. Either live by the law or everyone is in danger. Can't have it both ways.
If I determine that someone is "evil" can I take it upon myself to kill them? Apparently you can.
They did live by the law, the highest law. Allah is very clear in his writing to never tolerate nuclear weapons. Christians do not make laws that violate our God. Why would Muslims?
I cannot speak for Muslims even though I lived two years in Saudia Arabia and watched people shot to death over smoking a cigarette during the time of fasting. I am a Christian and shun murder even though my tax dollars go to support Planned Parenthood which aborts (murders) babies every year. No laws that violate our God? I beg to differ.
Nuclear weapons or no, there is no "moral justification" for murdering someone on the basis that what they are doing "might" be used in a way that would cause harm. Nukes have been used as deterrents for many years by countries around the world. Why can Israel and other countries in that area have nukes, but Iran can't? Seems perfectly equitable to me. Oh, I forgot: they're EVIL.
Attributing murder to God's law is blasphemous, but have it your way. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. Is that the Christian way? I'll answer that: NO.
You are making an assumption that Israel or someone else killed the guy. The Iranians are not above killing their own and staging it to look like someone else did it. The regime is getting a lot of heat from their own people right now and this smells a lot like a stunt to generate some hatred of the US and Israel to take some focus off the government. Trump has made a lot of inroads into ME peace and Iran does not like it. Better wait for the real info to come out down the road perhaps before making moral judgements about who did it.
My original comment was to the author's use of the "morally justified" statement. Regardless of who did it, it is murder. For years this country has been worried about Iran's nuclear capabilities and we heard that they shouldn't have a nuke. Some in this country have been pushing to attack them and there has been sabotage of their facilities by the US. Our covert forces have meddled in other counties affairs for years. Folks are okay with that. I'm not.
I do not know who killed this scientist, but to say it was justified is a judgment call. My original post questioned that since murder is against the laws of God and man. People read a post and twist it around to fit their views and want to make an argument out of it. I'm out.
God complex comes to those whom humility and empathy have never been taught, control and arrogance is the forte of these types of people. I’ve met General Practitioners whom fit this bill as well. My mother was physically assaulted as a patient by a doctor whom disliked her getting a second opinion.
No matter the amount of initials behind your name, letters cannot fix evil behaviour, just gives evil people more power. That’s why rule of law and hard punishment is supposed to deter this behaviour, but in Canada, these people seem to make it into positions to do the most harm and face no consequences for illegal or illicit behaviour, not only allowing for this to continue but actually condone it.
Chief medical officers and surgeon generals should be an elected position or in fact a group of 5 with internal votes. One non publicly appointed man shutting down anything due to suspicion is not only an medical ethical violation as burden of proof is on them but also illegal without a vote.
Please stick to medical topics!
Please explain how an article detailing the evils of a nuclear physicist requires commenters to stick to medical topic.