# (Iranian) attempts to assassainate ambassadors **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 18, 2012, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262 "2012-02-18T18:29:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/61 "2012-02-18T22:07:46Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > If those other countries are hosting legitimate military targets, then they are involved. For example, if the US were at war with Country X, and Country X attacks the US military base in Bahrain, I don’t see any special problem with it and I doubt you would either. Right. On principle, I don’t have a problem with that. > [@](#): > > Your own hypothesis is that diplomats are legitimate military targets, so by your hypothesis, why should diplomats be treated any differently? > > Ahhh, but you probably think diplomats are different. When a country accepts diplomats from Country X, it’s completely different from hosting a military base of Country X. We want countries to receive diplomats without fear that they are entangling themselves with other countries. We don’t want diplomatic personnel from two warring countries to get in a gun battle in the streets of a third country. And I would agree with all of that. Which is why diplomats should not be seen as legitimate military targets. I’m not sure I understand your first question. Diplomats, ambassadors, consulates, embassies etc. are generally there for communication, and it doesn’t make sense to shoot the messenger, as it were. I agree they should be off-limits sort of the same way Red Cross should be off-limits. OTOH, diplomats, consulates and embassies are usually full of intelligence agents up to who knows what. The ambassador and his/her staff are supposed to be squeaky clean, but I don’t think they usually are. The Iranians for instance, refer to the former US embassy in Tehran as the [“den of espionage.”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_the_United_States,_Tehran) In that sense, attacking an embassy/Mossad base, isn’t that much different than targeting a military supply depot or something. > [@](#): > > Israel could take the same view of countries associated with Iran and engage in the same rationalization. Israel could easily send a few F-16s to Damascus and reduce the Iranian embassy to a heap of smoldering ruin. And they could park a truck bomb in front of the Iranian embassy in Azerbaijhan. Well, Israel and Mossad do operate anywhere they feel like, and do whatever they feel like. I don’t know what their rationalization for that is. > [@](#): > > I would say it’s not a matter of blame so much as pragmatics. A nuclear-armed Iran is bad news. True, and I don’t think anyone wants them to have nukes. I don’t. But, I can see why they would. Any country looking into nuclear energy is going to have to figure out how to enrich uranium, and that’s not grounds for invading. We made up some shit about yellow cake and invaded Iraq. It was all bullshit. I’m really sensitive to anything that sounds like the US & Israel making up some bullshit imminent nuclear terrorism threat from Iran that isn’t really there, or is decades away, if ever. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/62 "2012-02-18T22:07:47Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Alternatively, they may have actually read the OP and its citations and noted that such proof was provided and quoted. > > Readers will note that you have yet again provided a link with zero quotes or analysis. Readers will also note that your cite does not prove what you claim it does, which may be the reason you have only provided a fetch-quest and have not actually done the work of holding up your side in a debate. Readers will also note that your author is not a poster on the Straight Dope and that in Great Debates of all places, one is expected to actually debate. Readers may further note that providing a 5000+ word article and refusing to quote, discuss or analyze\* a single particular \*contained therein strongly suggests that the person providing it is unable to support it. Readers will note that GD rules are not set forth by Mr \*\*Finn. \*\*Moreover, they will also not that both cites given do at the very least, cast a looong shadow of doubt over the alleged plot – again, not up to me to read them. One more. Spoon-fed even. [**Significant Holes in U.S. Legal Case Against Alleged Iran Plotte** r](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/significant-holes-in-us-legal-case-alleged-iran-plotter/246780/) > [@](#): > > …In the complaint against Arbabsiar, the government has described four pieces of evidence to support its allegations (it undoubtedly has more intelligence that it doesn’t describe in the complaint): > > ``` > Taped conversations and phone calls between the informant and Arbabsiar > > Details about a $100,000 bank transfer described as a down payment for the assassination > > Taped conversations Arbabsiar had with his alleged co-conspirator, Quds Force member Gholam Shakuri, while Arbabsiar was in FBI custody > > A confession Arbabsiar made after he was arrested on September 29 > > ``` > > Two of the conversations between Arbabsiar and the informant, on July 14 and July 17, include very damning comments. Arbabsiar tells the informant, “he wants you to kill this guy” and goes on to say that it is “no big deal” if the informant kills hundreds of civilians and some Senators in the course of the assassination. > > But there is a problem with each of these four key pieces of evidence. > > Take the recorded calls between Arbabsiar and the informant. Whenever the government uses confidential informants, it is a good idea to pay attention to which conversations get taped and which don’t (in one terror case in Oregon, for example, the FBI had a recorder malfunction on precisely the day when, their informant claims, the accused person first agreed to participate in a terror plot). If no tape is made, then the only evidence to the substance of a conversation comes from someone paid by the government to produce evidence of criminal activity… Again, if readers would like to get to the bottom of this I invite them to read the arguments from both sides…as opposed to taking Mr **Finn’s** condescending wrath for proof and/or evidence. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/63 "2012-02-18T22:08:02Z")
> [@treis](#): > > That runs into the same problem. You can’t conduct war and/or commit crimes in a country without it getting pissed off. You can’t do anything aggressive anywhere without getting somebody pissed off. Anyway, the issue is about what’s moral and what’s not – not about what will piss people off. > [@](#): > > Assuming that Israel’s war to stop Iran from getting nukes is just, then yes, if their best option for success was to blow up a bunch of embassies, then they are justified in doing so. Is there any limit to this principle? If Israel reasonably believes that it has a better chance of stopping Iran from getting nukes by carpet-bombing civilian areas in Tehran, with special care to target hospitals and schools, is that also morally equivalent to assassinating nuclear scientists? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/64 "2012-02-18T22:13:30Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Not only does exactly it say exactly what I said it did, you are ignoring that civilians lose their protection if they are engaged in military work. You can not simply handwave away cites you not like. Again, it says nothing whatsoever regarding military targets. It concerns the mutally agreed setting up of protected areas in zones of conflict. There is no zone of conflict here, as there is no conflict. There are no mutually agreed zones of protection either. > [@](#): > > The citation about objects proves that one can indeed attack targets if they have military use. Your parsing is also spurious, as the allowance is not to attack targets _so long as one does not harm the inhabitants of said targets._ There is a significant difference between attacking military objects and regrettably killing everyone inside, and deliberately targeting the humans when they are nowhere near said military objects. Bombing Raytheon’s Tomahawk factory is not the same thing as sending goons with handguns to bushwhack Raytheon workers in their homes. I must also confess to being highly amused that you of all people, who usually are the “logic and reasoning doesn’t apply, \*this \*is the letter of the law” guy when it comes to international law and Israel, are now the one trying to use fuzzy definitions and "well it stands to reason that"s > [@](#): > > And yes the Geneva Convention applies. Even if we were to ignore your claim that no war is involved, if a nation were to _start_ a war their actions would be governed by the GC. Your acknowledgement that there presently is no state of war is noted. > [@](#): > > Further, of course there’s a state of war given that Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas. Please cite either the Israeli or the Iranian government declaration that a state of war exists between the two countries. A communiqué from the UN recognizing an open conflict would also be acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/65 "2012-02-18T22:13:41Z")
Who are all these readers noting things? And are they literally taking notes? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/66 "2012-02-18T22:17:05Z")
Keep in mind, there are people out there who hate both Iran and Israel, who would like nothing better than a war between them. Al Queda, for instance, which springs from a virulently anti-Shia cult of Islam, and sees Iran as a center of heresy and apostasy. Is there anything easier than convincing the belligerent and self-righteous that they have a justifiable cause for slaughter? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/67 "2012-02-18T22:26:10Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Is there any limit to this principle? If Israel reasonably believes that it has a better chance of stopping Iran from getting nukes by carpet-bombing civilian areas in Tehran, with special care to target hospitals and schools, is that also morally equivalent to assassinating nuclear scientists? The morality of an action largely depends on whether the justification is correct. For example, I don’t hesitate saying that you are morally right using deadly force to stop a rape, but that doesn’t mean I think shooting anyone trying to shake hands with ZPG Zealot is right. So yeah, if Israel is justified in believing that Iran will attack them with nukes and the only way to stop them is bombing hospitals and schools, then they are justified in doing so. The moral problem comes from the legitimacy of the reasoning behind that justification. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/68 "2012-02-18T22:28:28Z")
> [@RedFury](#): > > cast a looong shadow of doubt Readers will note that Red’s original claim was not that the assassination plot was disputed but that it was “fabricated”. Readers will also note that he has yet to provide any evidence of this fact. Readers will note that Red refused to quote or discuss the evidence in his first cite and when challenged on that fact, has instead switched to a second cite. Readers will further note that Red has yet to substantiate even his lesser claim. The quote he has provided which he claims is “spoon feeding” does not, in fact, support his claim. What it does is call into doubt the US government’s claims with the fact that not all conversations were recorded. It is, thus, an accusation of conspiracy on behalf of the FBI. Charges such as that require far more proof than mere innuendo. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Again, it says nothing whatsoever regarding military targets. Not only does it, I quoted it. It discusses protected persons, including civilians. The opposite of protected persons is military targets. It specifically stated that those working on military projects are to be excluded from the class of protected persons. Your claim that it is about “zones of conflict” is again simplified to the point of factual error. It stated that zones may be set up to shelter protected persons, among whom those who work with the military (i.e. nuclear scientists) are explicitly excluded. You have already been corrected on the “no conflict” claim (and as such should not be repeating it) as even if there had not been before violence begun, once it does it’s obviously a situation of “conflict”. Further as Iran has been using proxy forces to attack Israel for decades, rather obviously a “conflict” already exists. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Bombing Raytheon’s Tomahawk factory is not the same thing as sending goons with handguns to bushwhack Raytheon workers in their homes. Claimed by you and supported without evidence. I, however, have shown that civilians working on military projects are valid targets. Please cite for how military targets may be attacked in certain buildings but not if they step outside or go home. Nor am I using “fuzzy” reasoning or claiming that the law doesn’t apply. Nor have I ever done such. > [@me](#): > > Further, of course there’s a state of war given that Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Your acknowledgement that there presently is no state of war is noted. Offered without comment. I will, however, briefly touch on the idea that wars must be declared. Calling a war a “police action”, or refusing to openly declare war does not mean, in fact, that a war is not going on. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/69 "2012-02-18T22:47:23Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > You have already been corrected on the “no conflict” claim (and as such should not be repeating it) as even if there had not been before violence begun, once it does it’s obviously a situation of “conflict”. Further as Iran has been using proxy forces to attack Israel for decades, rather obviously a “conflict” already exists. Considering the proxy forces in question are illegal terrorist organizations not under the direct supervision of states in both cases, I fail to see how they would be bound by the Geneva Convention. They are \*already \*international outlaws, by definition. BTW, how would you go about justifying Israel’s use of Iranian terrorists in the pursuit of its (according to you) internationally legal military operations ? > [@](#): > > Claimed by you and supported without evidence. I, however, have shown that civilians working on military projects are valid targets. Please cite for how military targets may be attacked in certain buildings but not if they step outside or go home. Nor am I using “fuzzy” reasoning or claiming that the law doesn’t apply. Nor have I ever done such. It’s supported by your own cite. Persons and objects are not interchangeable terms. That’s the fuzzy definition you’re using. To cite yourself, you can’t handwave away the bits of cites you don’t like. > [@](#): > > Offered without comment. > I will, however, briefly touch on the idea that wars must be declared. Calling a war a “police action”, or refusing to openly declare war does not mean, in fact, that a war is not going on. Still waiting for an official declaration by Israel, Iran or the UN that a conflict, war, police action, peace keeping effort, kinetic operation or any other vague euphemism for war you could come up with is going on between the state of Iran and the state of Israel. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Ayebaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darth_ayebaw/32/9870_2.png) [@Darth\_Ayebaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Ayebaw)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/70 "2012-02-18T22:48:38Z")
> [@BordelDeMerde](#): > > When Israel is consistently sanctioned with vote totals like 97-4 (where Israel, the US, and island nations like Nauru are the only countries vetoing), I’d rely on Occam’s Razor to guide you to the answer. > > There is an old Yiddish saying: “If one person calls you a donkey, ignore him; if two [or 97?] people call you a donkey, buy a saddle.” Yes, because when it comes to stuff like Resolution 3379, the UN has proven its ability to spot donkeys unequivocally. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/71 "2012-02-18T22:51:21Z")
Most Yiddish folks sayings make sense. If I were a donkey, the last thing I would want would be a saddle. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/72 "2012-02-18T22:59:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Most Yiddish folks sayings make sense. If I were a donkey, the last thing I would want would be a saddle. But that’s because you’re a lazy soshulist hippie, ' **luci**. Not a hardworking, job creating, all-American donkey. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/73 "2012-02-18T23:01:52Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Civilian scientists, when working hand-in-hand with the military, should be targeted because they are basically military by proxy. The nuclear advance just announced by Iran was the ability to make uranium sufficiently enriched to be used as fuel in a reactor that is used to create medical treatments. Something like (don’t quote me) 19% purity, versus 90+% purity required for weapons grade. So where do you get that they are military scientists? If the criterion is only that what someone is working on could conceivably be converted to a military use some years in the future, then there is no real distinction between military and civilian industry. Seriously, Iran has had IAEA inspectors observing every step of the way, in accordance with the nonproliferation treaty. Israel has refused to sign the treaty, and actively developed nukes. How is Iran the bad guy in this? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/74 "2012-02-18T23:02:26Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Considering the proxy forces in question are illegal terrorist organizations not under the direct supervision of states in both cases, I fail to see how they would be bound by the Geneva Convention. They are \*already \*international outlaws, by definition. This is a non sequitor. Using “outlaw” forces does not mean a state is not using them. You’re switching topics too rapidly. The fact is, firstly, that a war does not have to already be in progress for someone to launch a war and have valid military targets. The second fact is that, of course, there has been an ongoing war between Iran and Israel for quite some time now. The third is that, as there is a conflict under discussion, the 4th GC holds sway. the fourth is that as the GC holds sway, scientists involved in a nuclear program with military dimensions are indeed valid targets of war. The fifth is that, despite assertions made by some in this thread, consular staff are not valid targets of war. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Persons and objects are not interchangeable terms. That’s the fuzzy definition you’re using. I have never claimed that persons and objects are interchangeable. In fact, i just explained your error to you and your re-statement of your original error is odd. On the nature of protected persons, among whom nuclear scientists are not counted, I pointed out “It discusses protected persons, including civilians. The opposite of protected persons is military targets. It specifically stated that those working on military projects are to be excluded from the class of protected persons. Your claim that it is about “zones of conflict” is again simplified to the point of factual error. It stated that zones may be set up to shelter protected persons, among whom those who work with the military (i.e. nuclear scientists) are explicitly excluded.” On why allowance to attack military targets also grants the ability to kill civilians involved in military projects: “The citation about objects proves that one can indeed attack targets if they have military use. Your parsing is also spurious, as the allowance is not to attack targets so long as one does not harm the inhabitants of said targets.” > [@Kobal2](#): > > Still waiting for an official declaration As was just pointed out to you and you are ignoring, no such “official declaration” is required. You have, in short, invented it as a metric. In fact, not only have you invented it, the 4th GC explicitly rejects it as a valid metric. > [@](#): > > the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/75 "2012-02-18T23:10:04Z")
> [@TonySinclair](#): > > The nuclear advance just announced by Iran was the ability to make uranium sufficiently enriched to be used as fuel in a reactor that is used to create medical treatments. [20% HEU can be used in nuclear weapons.](http://www.nti.org/e_research/official_docs/norway/HEU_as_Weapons_Material.pdf) (emphasis mine) > [@](#): > > 1. HEU and nuclear weapons. > All nuclear weapons require a fissile material such as HEU or plutonium. Due to its relatively low background of spontaneous fission neutrons, HEU is considered much more suitable than plutonium for use in an improvised nuclear device (IND). The low spontaneous fission rate facilitates the IND design by the fact that the probability of a predetonation is relatively low. This allows for the use of a gun-type IND, which is far easier to design and build than an implosion type device. The latter requires for example a high quality explosive lens (made of conventional explosives) and more sophisticated detonation equipment. HEU appears in many forms, including gas (UF6), uranium oxides and uranium metal. Making uranium-based IND requires casting of highly enriched uranium metal into proper shapes. For that reason, the most attractive form of HEU for the purpose of nuclear terrorism is metallic HEU. Other forms of HEU would necessitate difficult chemical processing in order to convert the material into uranium metal. The Hiroshima bomb (“Little Boy”, as seen in Figure 1) was a crude, gun-type nuclear weapon based on 64 kg of 80 % enriched uranium. The yield of this weapon was about 13 kt.It is reasonable to assume that a terrorist, aiming to construct an > HEU-based IND, would pursue a design somewhat similar to, or equally crude as this first nuclear weapon. Note that even a not very “successful” IND may lead to very serious consequences. For example, just 1 % of 13 kt would constitute an enormous explosion. > […] > Uranium enriched to 80% or greater might be considered weapons quality. However, nuclear weapons can be made with enrichment levels as low as 20%; higher enrichment levels are preferable because far less material is required to obtain critical mass > [@TonySinclair](#): > > So where do you get that they are military scientists? Perhaps from the recent IAEA report which stated that Iran’s nuclear program undeniably has military aspects? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/76 "2012-02-18T23:13:48Z")
By that reasoning, Japan would have been justified in assassinating Einstein. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/77 "2012-02-18T23:16:13Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > But that’s because you’re a lazy soshulist hippie, ' **luci**. Not a hardworking, job creating, all-American donkey. I want it noted, for the record, that I am firmly eschewing a wide array of “ass” jokes. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/78 "2012-02-18T23:20:24Z")
Define your understanding of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Do you believe that jus in bello automatically creates jus ad bellum? If you do not believe that, then a much better analogy would be the assassination of Heisenberg. Of course that would have been just. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/79 "2012-02-18T23:23:18Z")
Murder Heisenberg? Well, I’m not sure about that. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2012, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262/80 "2012-02-18T23:26:13Z")
No, you’re unsure if you should murder Schrodinger and the only way to be sure is to give it a go. You’re sure that you should murder Heisenberg, but you haven’t decided where you should do it or what method to use, and as soon as you figure out one of those you’ve decided that either the location or method probably needs to change a bit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-attempts-to-assassainate-ambassadors/613262.md?page=5)