Is that because Israel is bad? Or is it because the UN has a lot of member states which hate Israel?
How many diplomats has Israel assassinated? If your answer is “zero,” what would you say is the worst incident of Israel-sponsored state terrorism in the last 12 months?
Yes, assuming that one of the children (Iran) wants to kill the other child. And the other child (Israel) just wants to be left alone.
But civilian scientists are ? :dubious:
How, exactly, do you factor in the foiled assassination of the Saudi ambassador to the US?
You also seem to have missed two questions on your position:
Would you uncritically accept any and all anonymous, unsourced, unverified reports from the US government? If not, why would you accept [ the one you ust posted] and not others? In the future if someone posted a link to nameless US officials voicing unverified claims about Iran, would you cite it as gospel as you have done here with a similar report about Israel? Why or why not?
Do you not agree that nations have traditionally avoided attacking ambassadors and attacks on nuclear personnel represent a valid military target while attacks against ambassadors do not? Do you truly not understand why a reasonable response would include attacking Israeli military targets, but attacking civilians, and consular civilians to boot, is not in fact equivalent to attacking military targets?
As the IAEA has certified that Iran’s nuclear program contains undeniable military aspects, the claim that its nuclear scientists are “civilian” targets is gainsaid.
I would say yes, if they are working for the military.
As an example, suppose that it’s World War II and Japanese agents assassinate Richard Feynman. I wouldn’t condemn them any more for that than for attacking the naval base at Pearl Harbor. A civilian scientist working for the Manhattan project is a legitimate military target.
That sounds like a schoolyard fight between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It was foiled, and should never have been brought onto US soil. I think the US has responded appropriately (i.e., with restraint).
Killing a diplomat seems like a more legitimate war target than a scientist. Or at least just as legitimate. Why are diplomats off-limits?
According to US intelligence, Iran has not yet decided to embark on a nuclear weapons program.
So yes, the scientists were civilian.
It seems to me that diplomats are not part of the military nor are they directly supporting the military effort.
Also, as a practical matter if diplomats were seen as legitimate military targets, wars would spill out all over the world.
Let me ask you this: Let’s suppose that tomorrow, for whatever reason, Iran formally declares war against Israel.
And let’s suppose that a week later, Mossad agents in New York City blow up Iran’s mission to the UN and kill Iran’s ambassador; Iran’s diplomatic personnel there; and all of its mission staff.
And let’s suppose that a week after that, an IDF submarine launches a couple cruise missiles into downtown Bucharest, Romania and blows up the Iranian embassy there along with the Iranian ambassador and all of the embassy staff.
Would you shrug these things off as attacks on legitimate military targets? Or would Israel’s conduct trouble you?
Were they wearing uniforms ? Did they say “sir yes sir” a lot ? Did they carry weapons ? No ? Then they’re civilians. It doesn’t matter what they’re working on - the workers at McDonnell Douglas’s Tomahawk factories are civilians too.
This is one of those issues where the nations or people that are still on the fence are either completely unaware or unconcerned. So I don’t see why there would be any leverage gained by these apparently Iranian-initiated assassinations/terrorist attacks. Even if perfect evidence was obtained that Iran did it, most nations on their side would simply respond by saying “Who cares?” and be done with it.
Anyone who is for air strikes will not be more for them. Anyone against them not be less opposed. The more I think about it, Israel and Iran have a lot of freedom to do this kind of stuff to each other without any threat of consequences because each has their major power willing to say “who cares?”.
I am unimpressed with the Iranian ability to keep their important people alive and their enemy’s people dead. It would seem simple to blow somebody up but I guess it’s harder than I thought. I think it proves we have little to fear from them.
“Hey stop that!”. That’s it.
You appear to be taking this particular accusation (fabrication) as Gospel, while in the real world its got more holes than Swiss cheese.
I see what you’re saying. To me, the opposing government is the real enemy, not the military, per se. Although, the line between government and military can get blurry in the ME, I guess.
I’m against conducting war missions in other people’s countries, if they’re not involved. I think in the case of Iran, aren’t they basically “at war” with anyone friends with the US, Europe, The West, Israel, etc? I can sort of see Iran considering Thailand to be guilty by association or something.
No, I don’t morally agree with much of this, on either side.
As far as the nuke stuff though, as long as the US, UK, France, Israel etc. still push nuclear energy/weaponry, I can’t blame anyone, or everyone else for pursuing it.
Or how about this? Atlanta Jewish Times Owner Calls for Assassination of Obama to Protect Israel
Not as hypothetical as your scenario, but just a tad more troubling is it not?
True, but generally speaking it is those with power that write the rules. Looking at it dispassionately, I don’t see anything morally worse about attacking diplomats than civilian scientists.
Rationalization.
No, of course not. This is different because it’s Da Jooz being killed.
Well what do you think the rules should be? If two countries are at war, should there be any moral limit on the kinds of attacks each side can engage in? Or is it pretty much all the same to you?
You do realize, don’t you, that Israel could easily just push a button and end this problem at the cost of 50 million Iranian lives?
In that case, do you have a problem if next week Mossad agents blow up Iran’s mission to the UN in New York City and kill the Iranian ambassador and the entire diplomatic staff? And if the week after that, an IDF launches a similar attack by way of cruise missile against the Iranian embassy in Bucharest?
Readers will note that you have provided absolutely zero evidence that the assassination plot was “fabricated”. They will also note that you have provided nothing but a link and have provided zero quotation or analysis, at all. Readers will also note that just recently you also linked to a cite claiming that the substantiated Iranian assassination attempts were likewise ‘full of holes’ and were likely a “false flag” operation. Readers would be wise to note that your metric for determining “holes” in a story and its correlation with the factuality of the story is perhaps not totally reliable.
Cite the appropriate manual on international law where it states that consular agents are legitimate targets. Or retract.
This is oversimplified to the point of factual error. It does indeed "matter what they’re working on "
Citizens working on military projects are valid military targets according to the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Precedent has long held that dual-use work still qualifies under “military character”.
Likewise, removing the capability for wage nuclear war obviously falls under Protocol 1, Article 52:
So noted by your silence, you have absolutely no answer as to why you will uncritically cite anonymous, unve rified reports from US officials when they are negative to Israel but no reason why you will not uncritically accept all other such anonymous, unverified reports from US officials.
Yet again, will you uncritically accept all reports coming out of the US intelligence community, or only those which you find favorable? Likewise, you are distorting what was actually said. The quote is that Iran had not “made the decision to proceed with developing a nuclear weapon.” Not that they had not decided to “embark” on one.
How do you reconcile your selective citations with the fact that the 2007 NIE certified that Iran had indeed embarked on a nuclear weapons program but had probably held it in reserve after a halt in 2003? How do you reconcile your distortion of Panetta’s words with the actual intelligence estimates that have been conducted by the US? How do you reconcile even the correct statement from Panetta with the fact that there is divergence within the US intelligence community on the status of Iran’s nuclear program?
So noted, you have no actual answer to the logical inconsistency in your position (or you actually have no inconsistency and do support civilian-targeted military actions) and will only respond with nonsense about “Da Jooz”.
I don’t think there are black and white rules. It depends on the justification for the war and how horrendous the acts are.
I’d prefer they not blow up part of my country.
Let me ask you, are the Iranians justified in attacking workers and facilities in the U.S. providing weapons to Israel?
The view that Iran and Israel are just having a playground squabble and the U.S. should but out (apart from wringing its hands and asking the combatants to play nice) overlooks not just our strategic concerns in the region, but the fears of other nations in the area, including some who are still our close allies.
There’s a great deal of historic suspicion and enmity of other Arab nations towards Iran and its ambitions.
“The centuries of acrimony have led to a healthy distrust of Iranian intentions–especially when it comes to the safety and security of Iran’s nuclear facilities. Tehran’s nuclear program relies on Russian technology, and its Arab neighbors fear another Chernobyl. Therefore, the location of the Bushehr nuclear reactor, less than 2 miles from the Persian Gulf and closer to six Arab capitals (Kuwait, Riyadh, Manama, Doha, Abu Dhabi and Muscat) than it is to Tehran, is a serious problem. Any nuclear accident would be an ecological disaster. The Persian Gulf, the only source of water for Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, would be contaminated, leaving those countries without drinking water.”
Recent disclosures suggest Iran’s Arab neighbors would not be displeased if its nuclear program got derailed.
This does not mean that a military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is now justified, but retreating into isolationism on this issue would be at least as foolish.
Iran booooo, hisssssss!
LOL.