# Israel ready to attack Iran?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [February 3, 2012, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685 "2012-02-03T21:14:38Z")
**Posts on this page:** 9
**Page:** 28
### Author:  [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2012, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/542 "2012-02-15T22:27:15Z")
> [@Spoke](#):
>
> Do you understand what satire is? Please give me the definition of satire, as you understand it.
>
> Thanks.
Sure. I’ll be happy to do so.
First please explain to me why you see no difference between someone who is a Zionist and someone who isn’t and someone who supports the Balfour Declaration and someone who doesn’t.
---
### Author:  [@BordelDeMerde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BordelDeMerde)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2012, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/543 "2012-02-15T22:28:17Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#):
>
> Can you show where Article 51 states that
> “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations a_nd the UNSC has a resolution, minutes or proposal which equates the proxy forces of a nation with that nation._”
>
> Try as I might, I can’t find your qualifiers anywhere in the actual article and it certainly seem as if you invented them.
>
> As it is factually true that Iran uses Hezbollah and Hamas as its proxy force, what the UNSC has documented is somewhat immaterial. The UNSC is not the arbiter of reality, nor does Article 51 actually contain the metrics which you invented above. Besides, are you honestly contending that they are not Iranian proxy forces? What is your cite for that? Absent a cite for that, what UNSC document do you have to support it? Or will you admit that you have raised a spurious objection and just like your addition to Article 51, there is no actual requirement under Article 51 for the UNSC to “document and inform” any states of the status of proxy forces?
Sorry, I’m not willing to let any country be the ‘arbiter of reality’ and what is ‘factually true’.
---
### Author:  [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2012, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/544 "2012-02-15T22:32:17Z")
> [@Marley23](#):
>
> This is getting ridiculous, and I am pretty close to shutting down this thread. While you’re encouraged to attack the post and not the poster, that’s supposed to mean you offer something of substance instead of just posting a long description of how dumb you think another post is. Save that for the Pit.
My post was satire of Ibn Warraq’s posting style. My post was entirely within the rules. In fact, it was also a satire of the modding of these threads, and the way certain posters take advantage of being allowed to criticize “the post and not the poster” to hurl insults and scorn.
I have not violated a rule, therefore, your stepping in as a mod is frankly inappropriate.
Don’t feel obligated to respond every time Finn hits the “tattle” button. If you respond every time with a warning it makes it look like you are exercising favoritism. (I sincerely know that is not your intent.)
---
### Author:  [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/545 "2012-02-15T22:34:55Z")
> [@BordelDeMerde](#):
>
> Sorry, I’m not willing to let any country be the ‘arbiter of reality’ and what is ‘factually true’.
So noted. You have no actual answers to the demonstrated errors you have made regarding Article 51. You have no cites for the invented metrics which you created and applied to Article 51 but which do not appear in reality. You also attempt to dispute a fact that is not disputed by any reputable intelligence analysts, and you are attempting to do so sans any citations, at all.
You seem to be going the route of conceding that your point is unsupportable but not offering a retraction. Do you wish to support your argument and cite where the requirements you have claimed exist actually exist? Or will you accept that your position is wrong and remain silent on the topic?
> [@Spoke](#):
>
> Again, the purpose of the provision is as a stop-gap to allow states to defend themselves from actual attack pending taking the matter to the Security Council for resolution.
Despite your claims of “purpose”, the fact remains that armed attacks have occurred and the UNSC has not exercised an effective remedy. Therefore Article 51 still is in force and applies. Your desire to shift the actual topic when you are challenged on the facts will be taken to indicate that you tacitly admit you cannot actually defend your original position and have decided to abandon it without an explicit retraction.
> [@Spoke](#):
>
> This post demonstrates ignorance of (or disregard for) common legal principles. The burden is not on Iran to prove that it was not involved.
No, your argument, again, demonstrates an attempt to change the subject with spurious questions. The fact that Iran sponsors Hezbollah and Hamas is not in dispute by any honest, reputable intelligence analysts. You are providing a rationalization for your argument as it cannot be supported with reason. You are now actually attempting to deny that Hamas and Hezbollah are Iranian proxy forces, doing so without a cite, and claiming that not only do you not have to provide extraordinary evidence for such an extraordinary claim, but you are inventing busy work to attempt to fallaciously shift the burden of proof.
If you contend that Hezbollah and Hamas and not Iranian proxy forces, you need to cite a reputable source for such a claim. As it’s been proven, repeatedly to be true, this will admittedly be hard for you to do. In fact, it will be impossible. This is why I am blasphemously secure in my position. Being right on the facts and the logic tends to do that. As such, your pretense about “legal principles” is revealed to be so much misdirection given that the fact is proven beyond a reasonable doubt and you are only attempting to deny it since it reveals that your argument is unsupportable.
---
### Author:  [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2012, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/546 "2012-02-15T22:37:40Z")
> [@RedFury](#):
>
> Afraid I am not your assistant.
Let the record show that after claiming that one article supported the Conspiracy Theory that the recent assassination attempts were a “false flag”, despite the fact that said article didn’t even mention the claim, Red has now claimed that another cite offers proof. When asked to actually quote and discuss that proof, he has refused. This is because that proof does not actually exist.
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2012, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/547 "2012-02-15T22:40:24Z")
[QUOTE=BordelDeMerde]
The dozens of illegal incursions, coup d’etat, “regime changes”, and other violations by the US and other states which may have gone previously unchecked does not change my reading of the Articles or preclude the SC from acting responsibly now.
[/QUOTE]
Can you document anywhere that the US was ever charged (or whatever) with violations of the Charter in any of these cases? Because, if not, then YOUR reading of the Charter and your interpretation is on par with my dogs opinion on the matter. Whether it changes your reading really is about as irrelevant as it gets, unfortunately, unless you can demonstrate something to back up your opinion, it remains simply your opinion, without substantiation. Which brings us back to precedence, which pretty clearly shows that, in fact, Israel won’t be violating the Charter by using a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities. This won’t necessarily preclude individual countries making their displeasure felt, but it won’t be either ‘illegal’ OR ‘criminal’ for Israel to act.
-XT
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2012, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/548 "2012-02-15T22:43:40Z")
[QUOTE=BordelDeMerde]
Based on the article’s language, e.g., “…Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council…” The requirement for immediate reporting indicates the SC process in the earlier articles apply. Meaning no attacks without SC authorization.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I get that YOU think that. Some folks think Revelations in the Bible is a prophesy of the future, some think it’s allegorical, some think it’s just a stream of consciousness trip on acid. While all of their thoughts might be amusing or even thought provoking, it doesn’t mean that their thoughts on the subject really mean anything, unless they are Biblical scholar types, in which case their arguments might have a bit more weight behind them. Are you a specialist in international law and the UN Charter by chance?
-XT
---
### Author:  [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2012, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/549 "2012-02-15T22:44:11Z")
> [@xtisme](#):
>
> Can you document anywhere that the US was ever charged (or whatever) with violations of the Charter in any of these cases? Because, if not, then YOUR reading of the Charter and your interpretation is on par with my dogs opinion on the matter. Whether it changes your reading really is about as irrelevant as it gets, unfortunately, unless you can demonstrate something to back up your opinion, it remains simply your opinion, without substantiation. Which brings us back to precedence, which pretty clearly shows that, in fact, Israel won’t be violating the Charter by using a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear weapons development facilities. This won’t necessarily preclude individual countries making their displeasure felt, but it won’t be either ‘illegal’ OR ‘criminal’ for Israel to act.
Then I’m sure Israel wouldn’t mind the US withholding its veto protection and letting the chips fall where they may.
---
### Author:  [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)
#### Post date: [February 15, 2012, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685/550 "2012-02-15T22:47:18Z")
> [@Spoke](#):
>
> My post was satire of Ibn Warraq’s posting style.
Needs work.
> [@](#):
>
> I have not violated a rule, therefore, your stepping in as a mod is frankly inappropriate.
>
> Don’t feel obligated to respond every time Finn hits the “tattle” button. If you respond every time with a warning it makes it look like you are exercising favoritism. (I sincerely know that is not your intent.)
Complaining about moderation belongs in ATMB, not in the middle of the thread. Since you’re not just complaining about moderation but also taking potshots at another poster, I’m giving you a formal warning here. And I’m closing the thread because at best, it’s about a 50-50 mix of digs at other posters and actual content, and that isn’t good enough.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/israel-ready-to-attack-iran/611685.md?page=27)