Right. On principle, I don’t have a problem with that.
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.” In that sense, attacking an embassy/Mossad base, isn’t that much different than targeting a military supply depot or something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
Your acknowledgement that there presently is no state of war is noted.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
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.