Religion is Evil!

If the victims of these attacks was indeed building nuclear weapons, then I'd be in agreement with you. All I know is that Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan worked at a non-secret Uranium Enrichment site that may have been subject to international inspections and the public face of which is to create fuel rods. I don't know he was making weapon grade Uranium. Maybe someone else did. His only confirmed crime seems to be that he probably knows how to make weapons grade Uranium, and probably has the capacity to do so.This strikes me as an unusual quirk in your character. You made it very clear that you were suspicious of the motivations of moderators on the grounds that power has a corrupting influence, when that power is limited to suspending someone from an internet forum. But when someone else has the power, and exercises it, to have a professor killed, you seem to be interpreting them as having the very best intentions rather that suspecting the worst.

No. It appears you have misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that the assassinations are automatically bad because I know more about the situation than the culprits, or those that ordered it. Rather I was saying that the assassinations are not automatically good because the victim works in a Uranium Enrichment Plant.My point was that crashfrog seemed to have information that I wasn't privy to, not that I had information that crashfrog wasn't privy to.We don't know the full extent of the intelligence that exists on the guy, and I prefixed my comments with

quote:

---

If the victims of these attacks was indeed building nuclear weapons, then I'd be in agreement with you.

---

But we don't know that is the case. Crashfrog seems willing to assume that the intelligence did support this and trust those in power to make the decision to kill someone, even though he has previously stated that the motivations of those in power should automatically be suspected.Crashfrog has assumed those in power have the best intentions in mind (the prevention of nuclear holocaust), rather than the worst intentions (for example: harming a legitimate Iranian business, killing someone who could conceivably make weapons grade Uranium if he so chooses - just in case) without any particularly compelling evidence that I have myself seen.Indeed - I haven't even seen it claimed that the reason for the killing was because he was working on building nuclear weapons, crashfro seems have simply made this assumption - though he is certainly not alone in this speculation.

Fair enough then. But we shouldn't just assume that the greater good was served, just because we'd like to think so. I'd like to think the world is better now, the threat of Iranian nuclear madness has been severely curtailed etc., but we'll probably never know if that is the case. Not quite, I assume whoever did it had reasons, but I see no reason to suppose they are necessarily reasons I'd agree with. I'm sure there are reasons to imprison innocent people in Guantanamo Bay without trial. It certainly sends a powerful message that American can almost act with impunity. And that might even turn out to be for the greater good, but on the other hand - I can't find myself exactly condoning the action and suspect it is more likely to just to help keep the power balance in favour of powerful American interests rather than being a deciding factor in fighting terrorism.I'm sure intimidating scientists from studying nuclear physics - or at least working officially as a nuclear physicist/engineer may hamper Iran in any number of ways, and that might be for the greater good of keeping them without nuclear weapons.And it certainly reminds Iran of where their 'rightful' place in the pecking order of international affairs is concerned. Of course, there is another series of questions that raises its head here.Who is making sure that this evidence is kosher, and not manufactured or otherwise erroneous? What's more, if the evidence is good - should there not be less bloody ways for dealing with someone who is illegally involved in nuclear weapon building? Unless we anticipate imminent completion of a deployable weapon, of course.I'm not trying to a bleeding heart here, just suggesting that assassination shouldn't just be assumed to have been the best decision, and the people making these decisions are necessarily above public scrutiny.I guess this, if it was evil at all, would be construed as a secular evil. I don't think we killed the guy because he was Shia. Ahh, who am I kidding, Phat's necromancy at least made for an interesting discussion even if it was doomed to spin wildly off topic.

I wasn't asking the question expecting you to be able to answer it, just pointing out that it was an example of the kind of question that raises its head when talking about the topic of the greater good of nationally approved killings. It is possible for the Iranian government to break Iranian law. But then, I wasn't talking about Iranian law. I believe Iran is allowed to operate the facility only on condition of them not using it to make weapons grade Uranium. I was really pointing at building nuclear weapons would be forbidden by whatever laws, agreements, treaties (such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty) etc have been set up regarding Iran and nuclear power in as succinct a way as possible.

The International Community, the UN, other nations. I agree. I was merely suggesting that you have seemed to assumed Iran was engaged in forbidden nuclear behaviour. I didn't think that would be something you'd dispute, and if it was, I didn't think you'd try the technical route of claiming that the things that forbid it don't have any enforcement mechanisms or what have you. I think the onus is on the person who thinks that killing someone is the less bloody option to justify that position. Or they could imprison the guilty person in a secret prison, seek international agreement for action through the UN or infect them with a virus or...As I said, I don't know what the best option is. I'm primarily surprised to see you so readily assuming that killing someone you know almost nothing about was done for the greater good. I agree that it might have been, and we can sit here and dream up circumstances in which that was the case all day if we want.

---

Just noticed your other post to me: Depends on what the outcome was. All we really know is that the outcome is a dead scientist. We don't know the outcome is a safer world, though you seem eager to believe that. Or he was otherwise inconvenient, or he was merely a potential threat, or he was key to the running of a perfectly legitimate Enrichment Plant that makes the Israelis nervous, or makes the Iranians slightly wealthier which makes Israel unhappy. I've said it multiple times now, but to drive the point home: I am not against people being killed if really is for a good reason. Whether it is immediate self defence or even national or global defence. I'm not objecting to the defence of assassinations. I objecting to the automatic assumption that it was a good thing because the main suspects wouldn't ever kill a non-evil scientist.I've played multiple Assassination based games, though I have not played Assassin's Creed - it never appealed to me, though I might pick it up if I see it cheap. I've just finished the Dark Brotherhood questline in Skyrim, but that's hardly sympathetic to assassins, since their motivation for killing was primarily for their own notoriety (and the money).But I suspect, since I'm not in disagreement with you about the potential benefits and arguments in favour of assasinations, it won't change the views I've put forward in this wildly off topic subthread. Heck, I can see a moral justification could be made for Kings that to execute children who are heirs to a powerful person if it might avoid civil war. Obviously the king is being selfish - protecting his own personal power and safety, but his selfishness might actually lead to greater good outcomes.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And the counterpoint to this is that I see no reason to assume that the interests of Israeli power align with our own except in some extreme hypothetical examples.I don't know all the details, but it wouldn't be the first time Mossad have been suspected of assassinating a nuclear scientist. Back in 1980 there was Yehia El-Mashad who was working with the Iraqi nuclear program when he died in suspicious circumstances (and an associated prostitute called Marie-Claude Magal who was allegedly a witness to some aspect of the plot, also suffered a tragic 'accident'). I don't think any evidence has ever surfaced over the last thirty years that he was developing nuclear weapons or even making weapons grade material. The French seemed to have a good relationship with the man.