Centerfield

Hook 'em horns. This one gives me that Yogi Berra deja vu all over again feeling. The poop thowing will fly in identical directions as the torture debate. I can't wait for someone to bring up a hypothetical ticking bomb. Yah-fricken-hoo!

So for whoever joins in, here's how such dilemmas work. They have 2 horns. If you take John's horn, you'll be called an unpatriotic coward unwilling to face hard real-world choices. If you take Reynolds horn, you're a souless monster who doesn't understand the fundamentals of civilization and why we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Me? I'm grapping a bag of kettle corn and a coke, (and an umbrella) and doing my best to sit it out.

Option 5 doesn't work. I suggest you see Strafor's comments at the end of Tully's thread. The Mossad has indeed set back Iran by taking out a scientist or two. Hell, Saddam killed scientists setting back Iran’s program years. Pre-emption is illegal? Now that is a good question. India, Japan, Russia, Israel and others do not think so. Why is this terror in the same way Iraq beheading's are? Church stopped political assassinations, but Iran has declared it will wipe Israel off the map. Sniper rifles Iran's government bought are assassinating our troops. I am hardly suggesting civilian terror, but I disagree that targeting the very people who seek WMD, support terror and kill US troops is terror. When Iran realizes it cannot feel safe, it will pick option 5 and allow for verification. The recent Sunni attacks in Iran might have been enabled by the US. Is that wrong? The attackers killed the very group supplying weapons to Iraq insurgents. I think we have to be very careful of the moral corner we paint ourselves into. Sadr is hiding in Iran. This didn’t happen because he thought we were going to send him flowers.

Bad Guys better be looking over their shoulder.

North Korea had better know we are watching their terrorism support. If their regime tries to secretly help others attack us, they are fair game. It is absurd to think Iran, NK and others seek negotiations when they have nothing to fear. We fear, our allies fear. Let's be fair and share the fear. I don't think we are talking about killing innocent civilians, which in Iran's case, do not hate America.

So sorry. The post seemed to fail without viewing, so I tried again. Weird. Suddenly three copies appeared.
And to top it off my last links should have been this.

[Admin note: Admin Fairy waves wand--three posts enter, two posts leave...]

”Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals.[1] Most definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are: intended to create fear or "terror," are perpetrated for a political goal (as opposed to a hate crime or "madman" attack), and deliberately target "non-combatants". Some definitions exclude acts committed by "legitimate" governments, however this exclusion is not universally accepted. In many cases the notion of "legitimate" and the definition of "combatant" is disputed, especially by partisans to the conflict in question”

I certainly would not condone terror directed at the civilian population, unless it was critical smoke screen for military operations. One could disrupt a port by frightening the population. This might be a way to reduce casualties preceding military action.

It seems “terrorism” hinges on a criteria for self-defense based on verifiable evidence. Pre-emption, Prevention and Intervention, flow out of a criteria of self-defense. Whether a particular action is reasonable self-defense or terrorism is in the application of the criteria. It is usually expressed as our NSS and the precedents already established by both Democrats and Republicans. There seems to be a clear line over what types of actions the US will not condone. A civilian who directs attacks against US interests and citizens, civilans who aid a regime to aquire WMD are "fair game". The terrorists do target our bases, 9/11 targeted what? These people were not "killing" Muslims like Bin Laden claims. Iranian nuclear scientists working on WMD programs are not like those who died on 9/11.

If a regime supports terror, seeks WMD, supplies terrorists with weapons, publicly declares to defeat other nations and mocks sanctions, then key strategic assets of that regime become targets. If civilians participate directly to the threatening behavior, then they must watch their backs. One reason Saddam fell behind was the targeting of his scientists. Saddam tried to assassinate President Bush. Bin Laden would love to nuke the White House. Terrorists are fair game as well as individuals working in the intelligence/terrorist network. If Khan was eliminated decades ago, the world would look a bit different. If the CIA could get a robotic high explosive into an Iranian military nuclear facility, we would. Just like they bombed our barracks. Not to defeat Iran, but force them to negotiate and step back from the edge before a tripwire is pulled. We certainly aren’t going to let Iran expand its network and technologies until we are at seriously at risk. There have been many reports over the years of Iranian military transports going down, or setbacks at installations. Iran must know that two can play their game. It would be nice if our guys had rail sniper rifles that can’t miss at twenty miles, or robotic exploding vultures that could level a military installation. Who did it? Maybe AQ. We don’t know.

I know this sounds a bit extreme, but unless you want a full scale slugfest, the small war, might bring negations less painfully than the other way. This is a full court press. First NK and now Iran. One unanimity does not mean a one-rule police state. America could not do this alone. Japan, India, China, Israel, Germany, Russia, all have their self-interests. Common values and common threats trump competition in a rational world. Sometimes extreme measures are the only counter-point to unacceptable threats. But even this too, should be guided by some reasonable criteria that is consistent with the way we live our lives.

Is it terrorism when adversaries hide among civilians?

And what protection should arm dealers have, or regimes that fuel the fire directed at US soldiers?

Terrorism is attacks on civilian targets for the purpose of inspiring fear. Nuke plants and nuke developers aren't "civilians." Reynolds has expanded his post to include some of the reaction to it, and added the following:

But to be clear, I think it's perfectly fine to kill people who are working on atomic bombs for countries -- like Iran -- that have already said that they want to use those bombs against America and its allies, and I think that those who feel otherwise are idiots, and in absolutely no position to strike moral poses.

I agree with Glenn's expanded comments, particularly the bit Tully cites.

I've reposted StratFor's insightful analysis of the covert activities being done by and to Iran at Stubborn Facts.

Great link. I will save myself some Googling and subscribe to Strafor. Tully talked about Iranian "options" long ago and intelligence is the name of the game. Perhaps it is time for Iran to experience some of the effects of a chaos it inspires and denies. There is a huge chess game going on the Middle East and I find it surreal that our political discourse is so disconnected from it. This what makes comments like "we've already lost", or "our soldiers have died in vain" so disturbing. It is hardly lost or in vain unless we lose our sense of foresight. That's half my rant right there.

Some Sunnis would love to drop one right on a Mullah. Shall we help them? Certainly, Iran will think about retaliation. Unfortunately, we may have no other recourse than to press the end game, before America throws in the towel. I doubt an Iranian sweatshop is cranking out copies of US military uniforms without the Revolutionary Guard providing the UPS. I don't doubt advanced anti-aircraft missiles are next. The EU is starting to feel the squeeze. Perhaps, Obama and Clinton need to reflect on the world as it will be in 2008 and the real fight we are in now. I think Giuliani is taking that approach. Anti-war will not be the mantra 0f 2008.

You're right, BK. I was feeding the cycle of righteousness rather than convincing anybody of anything. You'd think I'd learn. Why DO I have a brain if I can't learn?

Both radical mullahs and atomic scientists are civilians. If you want to legitimize terrorism against strategically important civilians, then you legitimize half the deaths on 9/11: The Pentagon'd be legit because it was all military and civilian military employees. Many who died on 9/11 were big in our strategic financial industry - after all, our money is really what gives us our superiority.

You're going down the right road here, but you're going backwards. I could argue that they are civilians in the same respect that military officers who only order missions, as opposed to those pulling the triggers, are civilians (ie. it doesn't fly). 9/11 was both a terrorist and military attack... only when we acknowledge that can we truly begin to fight the proper war.

New bombing in Tehran . As usual. AP with the slant presuming a US plot. What else are those arrested going to be tortured into saying?

I say supply anti-Iranian insurgents with Iranian weapons. What are Mullahs going to say when elite troops are killed by Iranian IEDs?

I wonder what Obama has to say about this? We should negotiate with a government that supports such groups and declarations? Giuliani might get more of the Jewish vote than Clinton if this domestic dynamic plays out. See link in above thread concerning cutting DoD funding.

Rice surprise