Is it because at times the CIA have supported foreign terrorist organizations?


My point is, political killings are quite common in countries ran by dictators. If it was a Trump ordered attack, what is the benefit?

The United States and Iran obviously occupy very different positions in the global hierarchy. When you analyze the situation from the perspective of a child (it's not fair that the Islamic theocracy doesn't get nuclear toys!), you reach child-like conclusions.

Good!

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

I have trust in American institutions.

it's funny how your failure to distinguish between two different arguments, made your post a projection masterpiece, lol.
ok, let me give you the crayon (or sharpie) version: murdering a rich woman (american general) would probably get you the chair (sanctions, international condemnation, declaration of war - even if it wasn't your country that was responsible), while murdering a poor woman (iranian general) would likely just result in a transfer to a different department (some newspaper articles, some minor nations that no american has ever heard of speak up at the UN), but from a moral perspective (international law) both are still equally wrong. can you follow me so far?

it's not that i don't understand why american generals aren't killed in the streets (i mean it's not like the iranian leadership are good guys or anything), it's that i question the morals and critical thinking ability of people who cheer for / condone / normalise / try to justify such murders, especially if you keep in mind what they lead to.

i don't want iran to have nukes. i don't want the UK, france, or india to have any. i certainly don't want israel or the US to have them - and i sure as hell don't want china, russia, north korea, and pakistan to have nukes, but that's not the point here. if you like it or not, iran's efforts to obtain them make a lot of sense, if you look at it from their perspective - and indiscriminately murdering their generals sure won't help to convince them otherwise, quite the opposite.
here's the thing though: western / israeli intelligence is obviously well aware of that, so i think it'd be a fair conclusion to draw that escalation is their actual agenda here.

so looking at the trump crew cheering for murder either means they are simply too dumb to realise that, or their alleged opposition to military interventionism is fake.



apparently more than in history books.

This post was edited by fender on Nov 28 2020 02:46pm

I understand exactly what you are saying. The metaphors are unnecessary.

This is international politics in action. Iran is a subversive regime whose regional ambitions are unacceptable to the broader international community. The United States has been the bedrock of the current international order for 75 years, and the United States is powerful. It goes without saying that the United States is going to be able to protect its generals to a far greater degree, and with far more serious consequences, than a weak state like Iran.

Iranian leadership needs to run their own calculations and determine whether the pursuit of nuclear weapons is a reasonable aim. If Iran is serious, they are going to need to weather the inevitable consequences of existing as a pariah state. There are good reasons for us all to prefer that Iran does not have nukes, and there's no need to engage in the sort of child-like equivalence that if Iran cannot have nukes, no one can, or if others can, then so can Iran. The international community has the ability to punish Iranian ambitions insofar as it negatively impacts their interests. Iran needs to recognize that their place in the world is small, and that their interests need to be in line with their limited means and capabilities.

first of all, the "child-like equivalence" you mention there is one that no one, except you, has made. you either intentionally misread my post, or simply misunderstood it. my point was not that it's 'fine' for them to want nukes because other shit countries have nukes too, or that if THEY can't have any, nobody should - you're being obtuse. what i'm saying is that it makes a lot of SENSE for them to want them because of the position they are in, which brings me to my next point: the US under trump already made them a 'pariah state', put crushing sanctions on their whole population (including vital medication), and cornered them in a way that it makes absolutely no sense for them to abandon their nuclear ambitions. from their perspective, being a nuclear power is the only thing that'd protect them from an invasion and occupation like in iraq for example.

in the recent past they had proven that given a reasonable alternative, there were enough moderate forces in the country willing to try that. the iran deal demonstrably stopped their nuclear program in exchange for a relief of sanctions and normalisation of diplomatic relations with the west. trump's unilateral decision to abandon it, something that not only the whole international community (with the exception of israel's right wing government and US neocons), but even many of his own advisors implored him not to do, has significantly strengthened the radical forces in iran and severely (and somewhat understandably) undermined the public's trust in the west - which makes it questionable if they would ever agree to a similar deal, when adults return to the negotiating table, in the forseeable future.
this administration has offered them no alternative, no way out of their economic and political isolation, so it's a bit rich to act like their only logical next step (as predicted by everyone even remotely familiar with the matter) was some risky 'calculation' they made while dismissing other, reasonable paths...

most importantly, no matter to which degree you concur with this very basic analysis of the situation, i don't think there is ANY scenario in which murdering one of their generals or scientists every couple of months would advance the alleged goal of stopping their nuclear program, weaken their hardliners, or sway public opinion in iran in favour of diplomatic solutions. again, escalation is the point here, and it's not that hard to see.

Women in Iran are thrown in jail if they don't wear a Hijab while driving. You don't even want to know what happens to gays. Those barbaric fucks don't deserve to have nuclear capabilities.

Iran needs to be taken apart, no real place in this world for theocratic dictatorships.