(Iranian) attempts to assassainate ambassadors

[levdrakon]

@FinnAgain

I have provided citations and proof of the fact that civilians involved in military projects are legitimate targets of war.
You have not and now refuse to provide citations or proof that consular agents are legitimate targets of war, and you refuse to retract your claim despite lack of supporting proof and presence of counter evidence.
So noted.

You know, I don’t think the onus is on me to prove embassy personnel are legitimate targets of war. The onus is on you to prove they aren’t.

You’re calling them civilians, but I can just as easily call them combatants linked indirectly to the organizing, planning, and researching of future acts of violence against Iran, just by virtue of the fact they’re on the Israeli payroll. They’re as culpable as a nuclear scientist who may or may not have anything at all to do with a hypothetical Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.

[TonySinclair]

@FinnAgain

20% HEU can be used in nuclear weapons. (emphasis mine)

Yes, the emphasis certainly is yours, because reputable scientists say the opposite:

“David Albright, a nuclear physicist and former international weapons inspector in Iraq, said in an interview that the fuel plates aren’t hard to produce and have no military implications.”

Not being a nuclear expert, I would guess that your cite is saying that low-grade uranium can theoretically start a chain reaction if a few tons are accumulated, but it is not practical for a weapon small enough to be transported even by truck. I would also guess that even lower quality uranium could be used in a dirty bomb, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

Perhaps from the recent IAEA report which stated that Iran’s nuclear program undeniably has military aspects?

There is no such report, and although the NYT recently had a Judy Milleresque article claiming that there was, I’m surprised someone like you, who prides himself on being well informed on the subject, missed all the denials and retractions of that false claim. For example:

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/01/10/401758/nyt-public-editor-iaea-iran-nuke-program/?mobile=nc

The same article says that US intelligence also denies that Iran is “undeniably,” to use your term, pursuing military objectives with its nuclear program.

But even if it were, I repeat, why is Iran the bad guy in comparison with Israel, who ignores the non-proliferation treaty and has built a large nuclear arsenal?

[Kobal2]

@FinnAgain

This is a non sequitor.
Using “outlaw” forces does not mean a state is not using them. You’re switching topics too rapidly.

Yes, I do do that. I’m sorry - I tend to reason things up in my head then proffer the end result without detailing the whole train of thought. I need to work on that.

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.

First is granted, second isn’t. Yes, de facto there has been a war between them, but not de jure which is what we’re focusing on right now. The whole point of having a proxy war is that it’s not a war war.

The third is that, as there is a conflict under discussion, the 4th GC holds sway.

It only holds sway on the actual belligerents, which in this case would be Hamas/Hezbollah and that Iranian terrorist group. Which are outlaws anyway.
The fact that they’re partially funded and/or equipped by nation-states is immaterial in the eyes of the law - they’re not part of their militaries, or ordered around by them.

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’d say that since the forces perpetrating the assassinations are outlaws not recognized by any government, any target they hit is invalid by definition.

I have never claimed that persons and objects are interchangeable.

You did when you claimed that a clause specifying that hitting objects defined as military valuable was fair game constituted a backing cite for the notion that hitting persons involved in military projects anywhere, any time was fair game too.

On the nature of protected persons, among whom nuclear scientists are not counted,

They are if they’re not working on military applications. Do you have any proof that each of the 5 (I think ?) Iranian scientists who got carbombed were specifically working on military applications of nuclear technology ? Or does working under the broad nomenclature of “the Iranian nuclear project” constitute enough proof for you, and if so is the guy putting up drywall at the Iranian nuclear plant a valid military target as well ?

I pointed out "It discusses protected persons, including civilians. The opposite of protected persons is military targets.

Actually, it isn’t. The US has been hard at work eeking out a third category of people who aren’t military targets per se, but aren’t protected either.

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.

Again, there is no indication that those dead scientists were specifically working on military stuff. Not that it matters one bit since they were killed outside of any legal framework.

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.

You seem to have missed the “between two or more High Contracting parties” bit. As far as I know, neither Hamas/Hezbollah nor that Iranian terrorist group are contracting parties. Which admittedly doesn’t matter since by now the Geneva Convention has been ruled to apply even between non-signatory parties. But then once again, those organization are terrorists and international criminals to begin with so I don’t really see why they’d give a shit about these particular laws.

I do note you ducked the more embarrassing question I asked of you, though. It’s a shame, because the partisan pretzel you’d have to turn yourself into to answer it would have been highly amusing.

[Kobal2]

@TonySinclair

But even if it were, I repeat, why is Iran the bad guy in comparison with Israel, who ignores the non-proliferation treaty and has built a large nuclear arsenal?

Israel never signed the NNPT.

[TonySinclair]

@Kobal2

Israel never signed the NNPT.

I know that, and I said that. My question is, how does that make them the responsible party, and Iran the crazy war-mongers, when it is Iran who signed the treaty and is allowing the IAEA to inspect and observe its nuclear program, and Israel who is accumulating nuclear weapons in secret?

[FinnAgain]

@levdrakon

You know, I don’t think the onus is on me to prove embassy personnel are legitimate targets of war. The onus is on you to prove they aren’t.

No, that’d be the fallacies of Shifting the Burden of Proof and Proving a Negative.
I take it that you still can’t provide any proof for your claim that consular agents are legitimate targets of war, then?

@TonySinclair

Yes, the emphasis certainly is yours

Yet again: 20% is the threshold at which nuclear weapons become possible.

@TonySinclair

There is no such report

Other than, of course, the actual report which anybody can read. An actual report, of course, which says exactly what I stated. Your reliance on a NY times secondary source is bizarre.

@TonySinclair

The same article says that US intelligence also denies that Iran is “undeniably,” to use your term, pursuing military objectives with its nuclear program.

You are, of course, shifting the goalposts. I did not say that Iran was undeniably currently pursuing military objectives. The report you claim does not exist, however, says “44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons”

I will refrain from answering your tu quoque for obvious reasons and will point out that in any case a nation cannot “ignore” the NPT if it is not bound by it in the first place.

@Kobal2

Yes they’re not part of their militaries, or ordered around by them.

Most of your argument is nonsense and you’ve veered far, far beyond the actual topic but I’ll provide a brief factual refutation here: not only do we have proof that Iran directs Hezbollah, we have a 250 man, five year long FBI investigation that proved that the level of control goes all the way up to the top of the Iranian government. I’ll also address a few things you’ve invented.

@Kobal2

They are if they’re not working on military applications.

There is no requirement that they must be working on “military applications”, you have invented that. There is a requirement that they be working on application of a “military character”. The IAEA has certified that Iran’s nuclear program has an undeniable military dimension. They, they are involved in work of a military character. QED.

@Kobal2

You seem to have missed the “between two or more High Contracting parties” bit. As far as I know, neither Hamas/Hezbollah nor that Iranian terrorist group are contracting parties.

First it was pointed out that even if no war already existed, initiating one would be bound by the GC. You’ve ignored that. Now you’re trying to handwave the fact that Iran and Israel are indeed involved in a military conflict and trying to state that because Iran uses proxy forces which aren’t contracting parties that, well… you’re not particularly cogent on that point. You are, for some odd reason, dedicated to trying to argue that the GC would not apply to the targeting of valid military targets if one of the nations involved happens to be using proxy forces which fall outside the scope of the GC. This is, to put it mildly, absurd and invented.

@Kobal2

I do note you ducked the more embarrassing question I asked of you, though.

If by “note” you mean “invent”, then yes.
You are however free to imagine as many unrefuted questions as you want.
I will, however, note that back in reality you did not actually address the fact that your metric of “declared wars” is 100% invented. Nor did you retract your claim.

[BordelDeMerde]

@TonySinclair

But even if it were, I repeat, why is Iran the bad guy in comparison with Israel, who ignores the non-proliferation treaty and has built a large nuclear arsenal?

If the majority of the American media was either led, owned, or strongly influenced by Persians since 1930 or so, do you think we’d be discussing why Israel is always the bad guy compared to Iran?

[brazil84]

@elucidator

Not assuming that your analogy is factual, but a reason could easily be a desire to retain victim status.

Then why undermine its victim status by assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists?

[FinnAgain]

@BordelDeMerde

If the majority of the American media was either led, owned, or strongly influenced by Persians since 1930 or so, do you think we’d be discussing why Israel is always the bad guy compared to Iran?

Conspiracy Theories about ethnic groups dominating the US media are not the topic of this thread.

[TonySinclair]

@FinnAgain

I did not say that Iran was undeniably currently pursuing military objectives.

Then you didn’t say anything of substance, because any significant nuclear program can be construed to have possible military aspects. As can repairing potholes.

The “damning” evidence in the IAEA report is on the order of the possible possession of outdated literature regarding nuclear devices. Big whoop, anyone can find stuff like that on the internet, often from US sources.

And I’ll ask you, again, how you construe as laudatory the fact that Israel did not sign the NNPT, and continues to pursue a secret program of nuclear weapons accumulation, while jumping all over any hint of Iran’s program having any possible military aspects?

Are you trying to tell us that if Iran announced that it was withdrawing from the NNPT and expelling the IAEA observers, you would get off its case? If not, why are you not criticizing Israel?

[brazil84]

@levdrakon

Right. On principle, I don’t have a problem with that.

Ok, fine.

I’m not sure I understand your first question.

The point is that your distinction between countries which are “involved” or not doesn’t make any sense.

If you start from the assumption that a diplomat is a potentially legitimate military target, it follows that a diplomat is a legitimate military target wherever he may happen to be. In the same way, a military base or an arms shipment is a legitimate military target wherever it may happen to be.

By your reasoning, allowing a foreign country to establish a military base on your soil is essentially the same as allowing a foreign country to establish an embassy on your soil.

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 you can’t have it both ways. If diplomats are legitimate military targets, then it’s just as legitimate for Israel to bomb an Iranian military base as it is for Israel to blow up Iran’s embassies in Bucharest and New York.

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.

Fine, and I will assume that you would regard an Israeli attack on an Iranian embassy as being at least as proper as an Iranian attack on an Israeli diplomat.

But, I can see why they would.

I do too. So what?

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.

Well that’s a different issue. Probably there’s no way for you or I to really know how close Iran is to developing nuclear weapons. I do tend to trust Israel on this point.

[levdrakon]

@FinnAgain

No, that’d be the fallacies of Shifting the Burden of Proof and Proving a Negative.
I take it that you still can’t provide any proof for your claim that consular agents are legitimate targets of war, then?

It’s your OP. You premised it on the attacking of ambassadors as being “a big ol’ no-no.” Then you cite Art. IV.

Art. IV of the GC doesn’t address ambassadors. It addresses civilians.

[FinnAgain]

@TonySinclair

any significant nuclear program can be construed to have possible military aspects. As can repairing potholes.

You’re evidently neither reading my posts nor the IAEA report. Rather obviously I will take the IAEA’s word about military dimensions of a nuclear program above your bombast about “repairing potholes”. For instance, you are evidently not noting that they explicitly excluded dual-use activities and focused on military-only activities.

Yet again, your tu quoque fallacies, besides being absurd, are well beyond the scope of this thread.

[Ibn_Warraq]

I’m a bit surprised none of the Israel-bashers have brought up the affair of Khalid’s ear.
I’m genuinely surprised that so many people who care about the Palestinians, their cause, and what has happened to them don’t bring it up.

That said, while I’m not a fan of the idea of assassinating scientists working for the enemy to build weapons, we had no compunctions about going after Nazi Germany’s nuclear scientists and no one objected to Israel killing East German scientists building rockets for Egypt in the 1950s.

Moreover, while in an ideal world, the killing diplomats is to be avoided I’m not sure what the Israelis could say to Khanenei.

"Who do you think you are?! Yitzhak Shamir!!!???

[tomndebb]

@BordelDeMerde

If the majority of the American media was either led, owned, or strongly influenced by Persians since 1930 or so, do you think we’d be discussing why Israel is always the bad guy compared to Iran?

Is this supposed to be some sort of backhanded way to repeat the old canard that “the Jews” “control the media”?

Good grief, this thread already has enough silliness.

[XT]

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
It’s your OP. You premised it on the attacking of ambassadors as being “a big ol’ no-no.” Then you cite Art. IV.
[/QUOTE]

Seriously? The proscription from attacking other countries ambassadors predates the GC by, oh, a few thousand years at least. It’s the same concept in effect for a countries embassy being the territory of the country sponsoring it.

So, the only real question is are scientists working on military projects valid targets, since it’s pretty much ridiculous to try and claim that ambassadors are valid targets. Unless you have some sort of cite showing that by international convention and law that ambassadors are, in fact, fair game. I can see why you might be a bit reluctant to bring out what is probably a really good proof of this, since it would basically bring down all international interaction immediately, but since this IS GD and all, we are going to have to see the proof, painful as it will no doubt be. Would you or one of the seemingly myriad others on your side please do the dirty deed and cite that proof?

[QUOTE=TonySinclair]
And I’ll ask you, again, how you construe as laudatory the fact that Israel did not sign the NNPT, and continues to pursue a secret program of nuclear weapons accumulation, while jumping all over any hint of Iran’s program having any possible military aspects?
[/QUOTE]

Why you think this point is scoring you points, or whatever you think it’s doing for your case is a mystery to me. Israel did not sign the NNPT. They didn’t sign it. What part of that do you NOT understand? They aren’t bound by it, seeing as, you know, they didn’t sign it. No signature. So, they are pretty much free to pursue nuclear weapons if they so choose…sort of like the other countries that didn’t sign before they developed nuclear weapons. Like say, India and Pakistan. See, they didn’t sign either, and they now HAVE nuclear weapons…openly. It’s a debate whether Israel does or doesn’t…most seem convinced of this ‘fact’, but it’s speculation until there is hard evidence. If there IS hard evidence, however, it will, you know, mean nothing, because THEY DIDN’T SIGN THE TREATY. It’s a dead parrot. It’s shuffled off this mortal coil. It’s an EX-PARROT. Seems easy enough to me, but you seem to be having some trouble grasping this point for some reason.

Iran, on the other hand, did. So, you know, having signed it, they ARE bound by the limitations and specifications of the treaty. That’s why they have to allow UN inspectors in. And that’s why it’s a big deal that the IAEA report indicated the possibility that they are in fact developing nuclear weapons. Because, again, they signed the treaty. Their signature is on it. It’s NOT a dead parrot. It’s live. Iran HAS to come clean and bend over backwards to make sure the UN is satisfied that they aren’t developing nuclear weapons. They aren’t doing that, obviously, since the UN in fact DOES think the possibility exists. Thus, the report indicating that said possibility exists.

Hopefully this has cleared everything up for you and you will stop bringing this up, since, to be honest, it’s a pretty silly point.

-XT

[Ibn_Warraq]

@tomndebb

Is this supposed to be some sort of backhanded way to repeat the old canard that “the Jews” “control the media”?

Good grief, this thread already has enough silliness.

Of course not.

He’s implying that the American media is controlled by people with last names like Greenberg and Goldman and who had Bar Mitvahs when they were 13.

Besides, Persians do run the media. Look at Christine Amanpour.

[Kobal2]

@FinnAgain

There is no requirement that they must be working on “military applications”, you have invented that. There is a requirement that they be working on application of a “military character”.

Well gosh darn, that’s a staggeringly meaningful distinction ! It undermines everything I was saying and…wait, no, actually, that’s a load of hot air. My mistake.

First it was pointed out that even if no war already existed, initiating one would be bound by the GC. You’ve ignored that. Now you’re trying to handwave the fact that Iran and Israel are indeed involved in a military conflict and trying to state that because Iran uses proxy forces which aren’t contracting parties that, well… you’re not particularly cogent on that point. You are, for some odd reason, dedicated to trying to argue that the GC would not apply to the targeting of valid military targets if one of the nations involved happens to be using proxy forces which fall outside the scope of the GC. This is, to put it mildly, absurd and invented.

I’m arguing that whether or not the Iranian scientists were valid military targets according to the GC doesn’t matter one bit because the people who bombed them up were not lawful combatants, which regrettably for your thesis is also something the GC goes at lengths to define. Nothing invented about that.
As such, the bombing of Iranian scientists cannot constitute a lawful military operation by Israel, which you seemed very determined to assert. And if you’re not asserting it, then what does it matter that Iranian civilian nuclear scientists are or are not valid military targets according to the GC ?

If by “note” you mean “invent”, then yes.

Well, I still haven’t seen you legally justify the use of Iranian terrorists in Israel’s military operations. Maybe I invented your silence. And that second attempt to dodge the question. Jeez, my imagination is just running wild tonight.

[tomndebb]

And, having stumbled into this Pit-lite thread, I have to say that I am unimpressed with the level of “discourse.”

EVERYONE: There will be no more references to other posters in this thread.
If anyone has a factual observation to make or logical conclusion to draw, they are welcome to do so, but any references to any other poster (particularly, but not limited to, disparaging comments about that poster’s contributions), and any link or quote that is not used in support of an actual observation by a poster will draw a Warning.

Take the insults and the drive-by links to The BBQ Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

[XT]

[QUOTE=Kobal2]
As TonySinclair notes, building roads has an undeniable military dimension. Collecting taxes has an undeniable military dimension. The term is meaningless. You also didn’t address the status of the Iranian drywall up-putter.
[/QUOTE]

Except that civilian institutions that effect military operations, logistics or simply give a boost to the military have pretty much been attacked as valid military targets in every war that’s been fought in modern times (not to mention those fought before modern times). Note that in both Iraq and Afghanistan roads and infrastructure were heavily targeted for military strikes.

As such, the bombing of Iranian scientists cannot constitute a lawful military operation by Israel, which you seemed very determined to assert.

Cite?

-XT