How about the engineer who designed the supercomputers used to do the simulations? How about their secretaries?

Yes, there is an argument to be made that these people do indeed contribute to our military strength, and I actually agree with that argument. But if we want to call terrorists evil, then we need a line that clearly puts us on one side, and the bad guys on the other.

Your input in valuable. Discussing these issues is what it’s all about.

I agree, where does it end, and where does it start? Rational discussion of what is and is not war in this modern world of ours needs to be discussed.

There are differences between Iran and Venezuela so perhaps one could be a war and one isn’t. Where do we draw the line?
If Iran supplies bombs and men to fight us in Iraq are we at war? If we then are at war who is a legitimate target? Is it better to assassinate certain people or drop bombs and kill somewhat innocent people?

I look forward to this conundrum being advanced and hashed over by people smarter than I.

While I would agree the we have an antagonistic relationship with Iran, I would find it a stretch to say that we are “at war” with them. That is a pretty loaded statement.n I don’t buy the notion of a “de facto war” here.

The Iranians have little ability to undermine or destroy our government, although we certainly have the potential to do so to theirs (which may explain why they are pursuing a nuke).

If we are in a “de facto war” with Venezuela is it legitimate in Reynolds’ world view to assassinate Venezuelan oil executives? Wouldn’t that be the most effective way to win the “war”? And, after all, there’s a “distinct possibility” these oil executives share Chavez’s politics.

Where does this madness end?

Yes, in Reynolds’ world view you are a legitimate target.

Moreover, if you follow the link to Dr. Joyner’s blog and read the comments you will see that I made a point very similar to yours.

In replay, Steve Verndon - a frequent guest blogger at OTB, and apparently an advocate of these sort of assassinations - argued that killing Iranian scientists is excusable in part because there is a “distinct possibility” that scientists may share the ideology of Osama Bin Laden.

I swear I am not making this up. Heaven help us.

To many we are at war with Iran and others. While it is not a declared war we and they are actively undermining the other through support of proxy organizations. We want to see the government of Iran gone and they want the same of us. Is it de facto war?

If it is de facto war can we then target certain individuals neccessary for the war effort? We killed civilians in other wars for far less involvement.

These are questions that need to be asked and then discussed rationally. War is just not like it used to be so it would be good for us to revisit how we wage war.

I see the big difference between Reynolds and Churchill not only as one of academic vs fraud but also one who support his own country more than the enemies of his country.

It seems to me that if one is to consider targetting assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, than it should matter whether or not the particular scientist is working on peaceful nuclear energy, or working on nuclear arms. Right?

I bring up this point because I’m not entirely certain that it has been indisputably established that Iran has scientists working on nuclear arms, as opposed to nuclear energy. In other words, I believe that the position of Iran is that they do not have a nuclear arms program. Am I wrong about this? Feel free to correct me if I am.