Iran

[Müle]

That's not actually genocide, though.

A genocide would be if I had an army, went to every house, took everyone with red hair and freckles, and specifically only those people, and murdered them.

That would be a ginger genocide. Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't targeting a specific group of people. Hitler did target specific groups (Jews, Gypsies, gays, etc.).

If Iran did manage to get a nuke and bomb Israel, I don't think that would be genocide, either. Terrorism, yeah probably. But not genocide.

 

[Ardius]

Yes, actually I do speak about it. In fact, it is on my resume because it is a huge draw to employers in Computer Sciences. I received my clearance in 2007, it is good for 10 years; but you wouldn't know that.

I didn't use an excuse, I stated facts. If you deny the inability to hand out classified documents on a forum, then you are even more ignorant than I was led to believe.

But, since you have now been proven wrong you decide to attack my integrity; well played child, well played.

Now, move along.

You don't find it odd that people don't believe you? If you do indeed have security clearance, then you've gone and done a very silly thing by actively stating you have it and getting involved in discussions on the very subject you have sworn secrecy. Pretty obviously, it becomes a security risk for you to take part in such discussions, even if you don't reveal anything, you have a much higher emotional involvement on the subject created by the fact you know more than the rest of us do - but because you can't prove it, it becomes frustrating.

Simply stating you have security clearance is proof of nothing, it doesn't make your opinion any more valid than any other anonymous user without proof.

There are several subjects on this forum that I'm actually involved with and I'd signed NDA's (non-disclosure agreements) on. I hence avoided getting involved in discussions on such subjects because I knew it was far too easy to accidentally say something or get too emotional trying to convince people about things. Its not worth it.

Genocide as in the mass killing of citizens surrounding military targets of a particular nation as a means of psychological debilitation. NOT in the sense of ethnic, racial, etc. cleansing.

I view any type of nuclear warfare as genocide; there is little selective capability resulting in the mass murder of innocents just because they belong to that nation.

No, genocide is commonly understood to mean the complete extinction of a race of people. There is never a good reason for genocide.

How on earth is nuclear warfare genocide - you say yourself there is "little selective capability"....erm yes, so how is that genocide? Genocide by definition is selective elimination. Dropping a nuclear bomb is not genocide unless you somehow ensured that it was dropped in a certain area that included an entire race.

You're agreeing with me Like I said, only when genocide results in fewer lives lost than the alternative do I support it. That's why I brought up Nagasaki specifically. Hiroshima had training barracks and they might have manufactured weapons there as well (been awhile since I studied and I'm too lazy to google) . Regardless, in either case casualties were overwhelmingly civilian. And I agree that it was justified. But, back to Iran.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not genocide.

 

[DK]

That court ruling is complete political BS, only used to pour more gas in the fire. I mean, while parts of it is true (Al Qaeda and the Taliban most likely have people in Iran), Iran didn't have a direct involvement in 9/11.

I don't think the Taliban and *Al-Qaeda would want anything to do with the Iranian government - the Taliban and AQ* are Sunni, while the Iranian government is Shia.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

You don't find it odd that people don't believe you? If you do indeed have security clearance, then you've gone and done a very silly thing by actively stating you have it and getting involved in discussions on the very subject you have sworn secrecy. Pretty obviously, it becomes a security risk for you to take part in such discussions, even if you don't reveal anything, you have a much higher emotional involvement on the subject created by the fact you know more than the rest of us do - but because you can't prove it, it becomes frustrating.

Simply stating you have security clearance is proof of nothing, it doesn't make your opinion any more valid than any other anonymous user without proof.

There are several subjects on this forum that I'm actually involved with and I'd signed NDA's (non-disclosure agreements) on. I hence avoided getting involved in discussions on such subjects because I knew it was far too easy to accidentally say something or get too emotional trying to convince people about things. Its not worth it.

No, genocide is commonly understood to mean the complete extinction of a race of people. There is never a good reason for genocide.

How on earth is nuclear warfare genocide - you say yourself there is "little selective capability"....erm yes, so how is that genocide? Genocide by definition is selective elimination. Dropping a nuclear bomb is not genocide unless you somehow ensured that it was dropped in a certain area that included an entire race.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not genocide.

Quite frankly I don't care who does or does not believe me on a Gran Turismo forum... . Seeing as how I have not disclosed any currently classified information or information I handled, I have not broken my NDA. You might want to double check the NDA and see what it actually entails. And it is far from silly considering I tell every employer I reach out to that I have one. It's on my resume, my Linkedin profile, and I bring it up because it is a selling point to employers. If it was illegal or 'silly' to disclose your clearance then how do you think any company could know you have one?

Silly thing...

I signed an NDA not to disclose classified information; not to never talk about having a clearance. Again, you need to check what it entails before you tell me what I can and cannot talk about.

The reason it was brought up was to stop the ridiculous 'US intelligence fails' arguments from individuals who have no idea what they are talking about. Not to prove that my opinion is any more valid than anyone else's.

Genocide does not mean the complete extinction of a race. You might want to grab a dictionary. Google Nagasaki genocide. I am done stating my opinion on the matter; especially since I have already covered it thoroughly and this is the 'Iran' thread not the genocide thread.

 

[Scaff]

Genocide does not mean the complete extinction of a race. You might want to grab a dictionary. Google Nagasaki genocide. I am done stating my opinion on the matter; especially since I have already covered it thoroughly and this is the 'Iran' thread not the genocide thread.

Sorry but the definition of Genocide (by the legal entity that is responsible for prosecuting such cases) does clearly define it as the complete or attempted extinction of a race. I have already linked to that definition and body in regard to the definition.

The vast majority of the results of a google on Nagasaki genocide are debates about if it is a genocide or not.

Given that many people may have a differing view on it, I would suggest that the legal definition of it would be the one best suited to this thread, as it defines the internationally agreed standard by which one can be tried for the crime.

You are however quite right that this is now getting off-topic and as such would agree that it needs to get back to Iran. As such as far as this thread is concerned the legal definition of Genocide stands, anyone wishing to debate is free to start a thread on the subject.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

I don't think the Taliban and *Al-Qaeda would want anything to do with the Iranian government - the Taliban and AQ* are Sunni, while the Iranian government is Shia.

What I meant was that they just probably have people in Iran to do drug trafficing/money laundering etc.

 

[Ardius]

I signed an NDA not to disclose classified information; not to never talk about having a clearance. Again, you need to check what it entails before you tell me what I can and cannot talk about.

I didn't say it did - I just said its unwise to get involved in discussions on the very subject you have sworn secrecy on. You are much more likely to break your NDA if you get involved in discussions related to it..than if you avoided them. Or at the very least didn't go about telling people you've signed an NDA on the subject and then go on to berate people for not knowing better.

I don't know why you have a problem understanding why people have the reaction they do, surely you must realise how it reads when someone says "I know better than you, but I can't tell you why". Obviously not your exact words, but thats the impression you get reading things like that.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Well, it looks like the Rial is so worthless now that my sources aren't listing it.

Rial to CAD rates: 3400/1

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

What I meant was that they just probably have people in Iran to do drug trafficing/money laundering etc.

It is quite more than that:

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2011/195547.htm

Training, weapons supply, funding, etc.

I didn't say it did - I just said its unwise to get involved in discussions on the very subject you have sworn secrecy on. You are much more likely to break your NDA if you get involved in discussions related to it..than if you avoided them. Or at the very least didn't go about telling people you've signed an NDA on the subject and then go on to berate people for not knowing better.

I don't know why you have a problem understanding why people have the reaction they do, surely you must realise how it reads when someone says "I know better than you, but I can't tell you why". Obviously not your exact words, but thats the impression you get reading things like that.

I am an adult and quite capable of understanding the regulations surrounding my clearance; if the government didn't believe this then I wouldn't have one. I am not your child and you are not my superior. I don't need you to tell me whether or not I am remotely close to breaching the NDA. I know exactly what I am allowed to talk about. Seeing as I have not even disclosed the subject on which my clearance was granted I find it odd that you are saying " telling people you've signed an NDA on the subject and then go on to berate people for not knowing better."

If you intend to continue your unwanted advisement I suggest you take it to PM, as this thread is already off topic enough.