Revealed : how US marines massacred 24

[Billy Pilgrim]

i wouldn't really consider them madmen per se...

the real question is, do you consider them to be comparable threats?

Is this in a literal "the definition of a madman as I see it does not apply to this particular genocidal dictator, even though he committed atrocious and heinous acts" kind of way or a "they are not madmen because I at least partly agree with their philosophies" kind of way?

i wouldn't really consider them madmen per se...

the real question is, do you consider them to be comparable threats?

there's no reason not to take Ahmadinejad at his word (as people didn't take hitler in the 30s).  so yes, they are comparable threats.  not identical, of course, but comparable.

so iran having nukes is comparable to hitler dominating all of europe?

well its because he has expressed a dislike for israel

which is unique among the muslims of the world apparently

to respond, or not.  threatening genocide is expressing dislike.  thanks for reminding me why I will never vote for a democrat to statewide office.  knowing you might support them is enough.  idiot.

ya, having nukes and threatening to use them is quite comprabable to hitler's statements in the 1930s.  and nobody cared then, since it didn't seem like an imminent threat, ya know, he was just rounding up Jews...

Not sure if this is necessarily true, however, it does present an interesting point-of-view.

[Billy Pilgrim]

i wouldn't really consider them madmen per se...

the real question is, do you consider them to be comparable threats?

Is this in a literal "the definition of a madman as I see it does not apply to this particular genocidal dictator, even though he committed atrocious and heinous acts" kind of way or a "they are not madmen because I at least partly agree with their philosophies" kind of way?

Also, to add to the first part of this question - the definition of madman in the popular sense or the definition of madman in a more clinical sense (although the term itself is not the best choice for the latter option)?

[redemption]

Y'all have an unhealthy obssession with Iran, and the logic of your positions is all over the place.

[H4CS]

Y'all have an unhealthy obssession with Iran, and the logic of your positions is all over the place.

I have an unhealthy obsession with compulsion.

[redemption]

Meta-compulsion? Nice.

[H4CS]

Meta-compulsion? Nice.

Faux insincerity?  Ouch.

[Alamo]

Iran getting nukes is a big problem.  It's a given they wouldn't use them in a conventional manner, as the results would be suicidal.  It'd be more akin to a terrorist al Queda style attack.   

you think that the iranians would PURPOSELY give a terrorist group nuclear weapons given that if said terrorists used such weapons, so many fingers would be pointing at them?

I heard something over the past few years about there being a lot of unaccounted-for nukes left in the old Soviet republics - nuclear material from a terrorist attack could just as easily come from there.  I sleep pretty well at night, largely because from what I understand it's incredibly difficult to actually deliver a nuclear attack.  Does anybody know the logistical feasibility of a suicide bomber delivering a nuke into the heart of a major city?  Can you fit enough material in a backpack and rig it to work?  Would it require a truck?  Or is it really impossible to make an effective nuclear attack without a bomb or missile? 

[redemption]

A dirty bomb is unsophisticated but could kill you with radiation.

A real bomb will erase a city.

The current fear is of a dirty bomb delivered by backpack, rather than a clean bomb delivered by missile.

And yes, the former Soviet republics have real nuclear missiles layiing around.

[Billy Pilgrim]

there is a long history of using terrorist / rebel groups as shell covers in the middle east, so the possibility of transferring weapons in general is already established, but your point is specifically on nukes.  I'm saying it's a reasonable risk, not an inevitable event.  Part of the reason why, is the same question of 'them' in your post. Is 'them' Iran or the terrorist group?  weapons proliferation and trade is difficult to find an actionable culprit.  For example, if an Iranian agent 'allowed' a terrorist group to acquire nukes, would we be equally justified in nuking Pakistan who originally allowed Iran to acquire said nuke technology?  obviously attacking Pakistan is unreasonable at best, so an issue becomes how an alleged proliferation/transfer with Iran occurs, and to what extent the US would be justified attacking Iran assuming said transfer occured.

if a terrorist group used nuclear weapons on the west, i think it's a given that we would go after iran.  i mean come on, we're just looking for an excuse right now.

In my humble experience, those looking for an excuse will usually find one.

A dirty bomb is unsophisticated but could kill you with radiation.

A real bomb will erase a city.

The current fear is of a dirty bomb delivered by backpack, rather than a clean bomb delivered by missile.

And yes, the former Soviet republics have real nuclear missiles layiing around.

Thanks.

[Julie Fern]

iran, iran, iran.

let's talk about italy.