[XIMHOTEP-X]

A Tehran university professor and leading iranian nuclear scientist has been killed by a bomb. It comes as no surprise that the regime is pointing to Tel Aviv and Washington for those behind the killing.........


Iran blames Israel and U.S. for nuclear scientist's murder - Haaretz - Israel News

[Jffxljtw]

Frankly I don’t think we have the assets and competence to pull this off and I don’t see Obama green lighting an op like this either.

The Mossad? I am sure they have the will and capability.

The Rev. Guard, given the go ahead by the Mullahs trying to create a counter balance to the restlessness and protests of the populace, by building some nationalist sentiment is worth considering too. We don’t know how valuable this guy was, his work by and large may have been done and he was sacrificed.

[MpNelQTU]

The plot twists even more:

One university official said Mr Mohammadi was not a political figure. But other reports said his name appeared on a list of academics backing opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi before the 2009 presidential election.

BBC News - Israel and US behind Tehran blast - Iranian state media May not have been external forces at all.

(Cue Andrewl to tell us this is impossible because Iran is a peace-loving land of puppies and rainbows....)

Matt

[AndrewBoss]

Don't look at us. Obama doesn't have the balls.

Given the near constant riots, I think its time we reexamine the assumption that an air campaign on military and government targets would cause the the Iranian people to circle the wagons around the regime.

[oscilsoda]

Don't look at us. Obama doesn't have the balls.

Exactly...

[Trientoriciom]

Don't look at us. Obama doesn't have the balls.

Given the near constant riots, I think its time we reexamine the assumption that an air campaign on military and government targets would cause the the Iranian people to circle the wagons around the regime.

Exactly...

And you guys have big brass ones...as long as they're somebody else's

All you guys want to attack Iran so much I vote we give you a gun and wish you luck. You can be 21st century filibusterers, howsabout it?

Riots against the government don't mean shit in that area, particularly not when the Great Satan is involved. The present regime probably did this themselves, in some sort of machiavellian machination to get us to attack them, which they are hoping for desperately. That would, of course, be utterly insane for us to do, but hey, we still have some Republicans in the government.

[diundasmink]

The plot twists even more:



May not have been external forces at all.

(Cue Andrewl to tell us this is impossible because Iran is a peace-loving land of puppies and rainbows....)

Matt

aaahhhhh...prophetic one he is, says yoda...

[M1zdL0hh]

A Tehran university professor and leading iranian nuclear scientist has been killed by a bomb. It comes as no surprise that the regime is pointing to Tel Aviv and Washington for those behind the killing.........

of course it's no surprise they need to point outside the country because it was either internal fundamentalist -terrorists striking out at an intellectual or pro government interests striking out against a vocal supporter of the opposition. Neither of those two more likely factions makes the government look stronger then people within the country so diverting the blame to outside maintains power.

[natahololll]

And you guys have big brass ones...as long as they're somebody else's

All you guys want to attack Iran so much I vote we give you a gun and wish you luck. You can be 21st century filibusterers, howsabout it?

Riots against the government don't mean shit in that area, particularly not when the Great Satan is involved. The present regime probably did this themselves, in some sort of machiavellian machination to get us to attack them, which they are hoping for desperately. That would, of course, be utterly insane for us to do, but hey, we still have some Republicans in the government.

In your opinion, would it be better for the U.S. to attack Iran, or would it be better for Iran to be nuclear armed?

[anenselog]

In your opinion, would it be better for the U.S. to attack Iran, or would it be better for Iran to be nuclear armed?

If the US could make sure that the ENTIRE program would be destroyed by that and could do so without boosting the regime and embarassing the pro-western opposition in the eyes of their own people such an attack would at least deserve consideration.
Possible implications like the Hisbollah opening a new front against Israel or Iran letting Iraq and Afghanistan blow up via their shiite buddies should also play a role.
But since Iran is under any estimation still far from having a nuclear arsenal ready to be launched ( and it is increasingly unlikely the current regime will last long enough to see that day in office) we should not help them to gain credibility and it makes far more sense to focus on real threats like to keep Pakistans nukes out of the hands of the Taliban or to bring the Israel/ Palestine conflict closer to a reasonable solution.
Because all sucessful efforts to calm the political temperature in the region will ultimately also have effects on Iran.

[gogFloark]

Don't look at us. Obama doesn't have the balls.

[jamemeveRhype]

somebody is targeting Iran's nuclear scientists.. that is not the first time

Iran accuses U.S. and Saudis of kidnapping a nuclear scientist - latimes.com

Mossad?

[drislerfottor]

If the US could make sure that the ENTIRE program would be destroyed by that and could do so without boosting the regime and embarassing the pro-western opposition in the eyes of their own people such an attack would at least deserve consideration.
Possible implications like the Hisbollah opening a new front against Israel or Iran letting Iraq and Afghanistan blow up via their shiite buddies should also play a role.
But since Iran is under any estimation still far from having a nuclear arsenal ready to be launched ( and it is increasingly unlikely the current regime will last long enough to see that day in office) we should not help them to gain credibility and it makes far more sense to focus on real threats like to keep Pakistans nukes out of the hands of the Taliban or to bring the Israel/ Palestine conflict closer to a reasonable solution.
Because all sucessful efforts to calm the political temperature in the region will ultimately also have effects on Iran.

uhm okay, wait please; so know the yardstick is 'launched' or launchable? I had not heard that new view as a benchmark or motivation for or against sanctions etc.

And how far away are they from a bomb, forget the rockets for a minute?

[Paul Bunyan]

And you guys have big brass ones...as long as they're somebody else's

All you guys want to attack Iran so much I vote we give you a gun and wish you luck. You can be 21st century filibusterers, howsabout it?

Riots against the government don't mean shit in that area, particularly not when the Great Satan is involved. The present regime probably did this themselves, in some sort of machiavellian machination to get us to attack them, which they are hoping for desperately. That would, of course, be utterly insane for us to do, but hey, we still have some Republicans in the government.[/QUOTE]

Congratulations on making absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

The suggestion was made that we couldn’t have been responsible for it because, frankly, your boy is a complete pussy. He doesn’t have it in him to kill our enemies.

Nothing was said about anyone wanting to attack Iran. Nothing.

That doesn’t stop ol’ Drake, though, who’s always Hell-bent on proving he’s the Golden Boy’s biggest cheerleader, no matter how fucking silly it makes him look…

[PefeFoesk]

In your opinion, would it be better for the U.S. to attack Iran, or would it be better for Iran to be nuclear armed?

Since you're making it an either/or. It would be better for Iran to be nuclear armed. Pakistan, China and North Korea are nuclear armed, so what?

The alternative is that we end up involved in yet ANOTHER Endless Quagmire War. Really, how many times do you think we can pay for 3x the ADJUSTED cost of WORLD WAR TWO?, not to even mention how many more dead and disabled can we deal with?

In any case, it's a false dichotomy. Iran is not close to getting a bomb and even if it were there are other ways to stop it rather than attacking. Indeed, attacking will probably guarantee they will get a bomb, and sooner than they would have otherwise.

[avarberickibe]

uhm okay, wait please; so know the yardstick is 'launched' or launchable? I had not heard that new view as a benchmark or motivation for or against sanctions etc.

And how far away are they from a bomb, forget the rockets for a minute?

So what are you suggesting as an alternative ?

[Kimeoffessyr]

Since you're making it an either/or. It would be better for Iran to be nuclear armed. Pakistan, China and North Korea are nuclear armed, so what?

Ultimately, it is an either/or question. Although the attacker may not be the U.S. alone, it may be Israel alone, or most likely, a joint U.S./Israeli venture.

"So what"? Do you really not see the significance? Are you of the position that "Pakistan, China and North Korea" being "nuclear armed" is a good thing? Especially Pakistan and North Korea?

The alternative is that we end up involved in yet ANOTHER Endless Quagmire War. Really, how many times do you think we can pay for 3x the ADJUSTED cost of WORLD WAR TWO?, not to even mention how many more dead and disabled can we deal with?

No, that is not really the alternative. We could simply bomb Iran back into the stone age without ever setting foot on the ground, if we chose to do so.

Considering that "money" is created from nothing nowadays, I would say that we could finance as many wars as we wish until the rest of the world wakes up and stops accepting dollars. And even then, if we had secured enough foreign oil (i.e. Iraq) prior to that point, we could probably still do so afterward.

In any case, it's a false dichotomy. Iran is not close to getting a bomb and even if it were there are other ways to stop it rather than attacking. Indeed, attacking will probably guarantee they will get a bomb, and sooner than they would have otherwise.

No, it is not a false dichotomy. Iran will not voluntarily stop their quest for a nuclear bomb.

You have no way of knowing how close Iran is to getting a nuclear bomb, but Israeli intelligence does. When they are deemed to have gotten too close, there will be attacks.

What other ways do you propose to stop Iran from becoming nuclear armed? Do you think that Uh-bama can just say pretty please? Finally, how would attacking Iran "guarantee they will get a bomb, and sooner than they would have otherwise"?

[VZF74G0M]

(Cue Andrewl to tell us this is impossible because Iran is a peace-loving land of puppies and rainbows....)

Matt

I don't recall ever saying anything of the sort about Iran. I simply don't care if they get nukes, do not feel any threat from them whatsoever, do not think there is much evidence they are making a nuke, and find it impossible to lower myself to the level of stupidity that thinks as soon as Iran potentially gets nukes they will 'wipe Israel' off the map. Not only would that be impossible, but it would guarantee their own destruction, something entirely contrary to the reason for being of the "revolution".

Andrew

[MarlboroCig]

A few things about this:

1) If the guy is a valuable nuclear asset for Iran it makes no sense for them to kill him.

2) If Israel (or the US) thinks this guy is a key asset of Iran's nuclear program and they believe this will be a setback then i would not at all be surprised if this was a 'hit'. These things happen.

3) I doubt Iran has there entire nuclear know-how invested in one individual. They must be smarter than that!

4) If he was not super important to the ongoing nuclear development in Iran, and he was indeed pro-reform it would not surprise me in the least if the revolutionary guards offed him.


Andrew

[Nakforappealp]

Since the names of those iranian scientists that are actually working on the nuclear program are beeing kept secret for obvious reasons it is not even clear if Mr. Mohammadi was a member of the program at all. The only thing that is without question is that he was teaching neutrone physics at Tehran university....