Yes, it does. A military application is an application that’s military.
Something of a military character can have military dimensions as well as civilian.
No, that too is not true.
I actually pointed out that the “Israeli using MEK to kill Iranian scientists” is an unverified claim made anonymous officials and thus has no credibility. I pointed that out right at the beginning of the thread. Even if I had not already done so, using non-legal forces to kill valid targets does not make them invalid targets. It makes the means you used to kill valid targets, invalid.
Out of curiosity here, is anyone in this thread contending that the Iranians didn’t attempt these assassinations? I see a lot of handwaving going on, and lots of excuses and attempts to do the ole ‘well, Israel does it, so Iran should to’ thingy, but is anyone going on record stating categorically that Iran didn’t attempt the deed? Or are we just pushing on into excuse territory at this point and just going with the evidence that the crazy bastards did in fact try this incredibly stupid stunt? If it wasn’t the Iranians, what’s the thinking here? That Israel tried the ‘false flag’ thing, or that someone else is trying to set up the Iranians…or that aliens or mutant kittens tried it for their own inscrutable reasons? Are the Thia’s in on it as well, or just dupes?
Yet again, do you accept all anonymous, unsourced, unverified claims that US officials make, or only this one? Why or why not?
Even if it had the credibility it lacks, rather obviously the use of tu quoque fallacies is fallacious.
Why shouldn’t we trust US officials in this specific matter ? If anything, I’d expect US officials to be the first to deny or attempt to obfuscate any such connection. What’d be the US’s angle in attempting to spread disinformation in Israel’s disfavour ?
That is not what I’m arguing.
But this is, or at least the start of what I’m arguing.
So, assuming the MEK connection is true for the purpose of argument, would you classify Israel-using-MEK-to-bomb-the-shit-out-of-Iranian-personnel as a lawful military action ?
One cannot ignore a treaty they are not party to, Lucy. This is basic. One can only ignore the requirements of a treaty which they are bound to comply with. Otherwise they are simply not applicable. Are you ignoring the requirements of your annual pap smear? One would assume no, but perhaps that’s “rationalist verbal gymnastics” and you should get to an OBGYN?
As for claiming that it somehow evinced “rhetorical gymnastics” to state that a fallacy is fallacious, ah well.
Okay. What’s the problem? If I’m at war with country A and don’t give a crap about country B, and country B has country A’s embassy and military in it, they’re targets. That’s just my opinion though. I’m not saying that’s proscribed in an international treaty. The OP assumes this is expressly forbidden somewhere like Art. IV of the GC. It isn’t. I would like to see where it is expressly forbidden. Haven’t seen a cite yet other than “everyone knows that!” like the Earth is round or something. Anyway, what constitutes a legitimate target is different than how you classify someone you’ve captured.
Sure, why not? I wouldn’t recommend the New York thing without clearing it with Washington first, though.
I guess so. Personally I’d rather they played nice together.
So if you and I can see Iran developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, then we might think twice about assassinating their scientists, which would result in their attacking our embassies in other countries. Of course I’m not so naive to think they won’t eventually weaponize their nuclear technology. Most countries do. That’s not an excuse to assassinate their scientists now.
I’m not sure the US and Israel are the most credible witnesses when Iran is our mutual hated enemy and we just got done occupying Iraq based on made-up nuclear fear-mongering.
That is the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Besides, did you read the article? Two dudes said it’s the case, one said that in reality it’s not confirmed. Hardly a compelling argument even if your standard is that we should accept anonymous claims provided without proof.
Further, why assume that this is “the US”? We have two unnamed officials speaking out on their own. Maybe they’ve got an axe to grind. Maybe the Saudis, the French (etc…) were behind the bombings, and the political calculation was made that accusing Israel would hurt them much, and would take heat off of other nations. Maybe the US itself is involved and that’s part of why there’s a faction trying to get MEK off the list of terrorist organizations. Maybe they’re of only average intellect and read some briefings and decided to ignore caveats while the third guy the reporter spoke to said “well, there’s no confirmation of that but we’re kicking around the idea”. Who knows?
The fact is we have an anonymous report, gainsaid but one respondent in the inquiry anyways, that is immaterial to whether or not assassinating consular personnel is a good thing. Even during all out war, consular agents are sacrosanct.
Gah. Typos, migraine…
Gainsaid by one respondent, wouldn’t do much damage to Israel more damage to other countries if implicated. Probably others. Blargh.
Wonder if the thread will be locked when I check in tomorrow…
Unless one carries a fancy badge from a three letter agency, does proof ever get better than this when it comes to skunkworks ? Unless the skunkworkers are really not very good at it, of course
To clarify, I’m not vehemently insisting Israel did it and furthermore that it did it with MEK or anything of the sort. But ISTM that dismissing this particular story on the grounds that “it’s from a couple anonymous sources” would amount to also rejecting every last glimpse of information we ever get on what’s going on in the intelligence underworld, barring declassified documents decades after the fact.
ETA: also, saying it’s “not confirmed” is not gainsaying.
Yes, I think the attempted assassination of Hamas’ diplomatic mission in Jordan was a vastly better example of hypocrisy than knocking off some Iranian scientists.
Ironically enough, Israel’s failed assassination made him so popular that he rose through the ranks to become the head.
[QUOTE=Spoke]
Because I trust NBC News, which reported this story, and which is in a better position than you or I to evaluate the credibility of its sources.
[/QUOTE]
Seriously? Do you trust them in all things, or merely this one time?
[QUOTE=Kobal2]
Why shouldn’t we trust US officials in this specific matter ? If anything, I’d expect US officials to be the first to deny or attempt to obfuscate any such connection. What’d be the US’s angle in attempting to spread disinformation in Israel’s disfavour ?
[/QUOTE]
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but aren’t these unnamed sources? Or are you claiming this is the official position of the US government? Assuming I’m not missing something here, why SHOULD we trust unnamed sources? How would we know what angle they have, if we don’t know who they are or what exactly they are trying to spread?
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Wonder if the thread will be locked when I check in tomorrow…
[/QUOTE]
They should keep it open just for the entertainment value. I’ve rarely seen a more convoluted and wooly discussion on this board. It’s a bit bemusing and vaguely surreal (my irony meter has gone off the charts several times with trusting NBC and vague assurances from unnamed US officials regarding a hot button Middle Eastern country)…almost like an acid trip flash back after downing a half bottle of Níquel chased with a fifth of cheap scotch…
The article says “US officials”, which I assumed was meant to imply “speaking in their official capacity” but I suppose that assumption is not really justified. But once again, anonymous government sources is all we ever get when it comes to skunkworks so, eh. Trust it, don’t trust it, up to you, doesn’t really matter.
I think it’s fair to say that the Iranians are acting on the assumption that Israel did it, which is a pretty reasonable assumption all things considered, and one Israel hasn’t been in any haste to deny (or condemn) so far.
As a general proposition. Why? Do you think I should be watching Fox instead?
Besides which, in investigating a crime, you examine motive and modus operandi. NBC’s credibility is bolstered in this particular case both by the fact that Israel is the party with a (perceived) motive to kill Iran’s scientists, and by the fact that Israel has a history of using assassination as a policy tool.
