What Israel is doing is terrorism.
What Israel is doing is terrorism.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
How is it terrorism? They're not going in with the objective to cause terror to anyone - they're going in with the objective to target individuals. Trust me, if they were terrorizing people, people would, you know, be terrorized. This is accepting that article as fact, of course.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Probably not, Strike, as there is no "terror" component. Now, if assassinations were done in some "splashy" manner, or relatives were being killed to force compliance/leaving the program, then you would clearly have a terrorism scenario. So far, Israel (assuming this article is accurate) is not targeting the innocent, only those actively involved in a program that threaten's Israel's existence. Now, you can attack the morality of such actions on a number of levels without using the T word -- and many here will.
Note: I am well aware that absent, or even in the event of, a declared war between Iran and Israel, the targeting of these scientists would be viewed by many as criminal.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
The scientests are still civilians. Therefore it's still terrorism. Validated terrorism but terrorism none the less.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
"Terrorism" has as its goal the specific targeting of innocents as a means of creating fear and repugnance in order to effect a political agenda.
Israel takes the stance that these individuals are NOT innocents, but actively engaged in a war against Israel and therefore legitimate military targets. Israel is not seeking to inculcate fear or generate repugnance on the part of Iran. It is trying to kill key personnel. In their eyes, it is little different from a sniper singling out an officer on the battlefield.
Please note, I am ONLY disputing your use of the term terrorism, which I believe gets too watered down. I am setting aside the morality or immorality of Israel's alleged actions in this as a separate question.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Was the bombing on the USS Cole terrorism? I was only 9 but remember those big red letters on CNN. Hell what about 9/11? I mean those people were feeding and economic machine which kept the arab man down.
There is now declared state of war b'twn either country and Israel is killing Iranai citizens in Iran. These men are not armed nor are they doing anything illegal. Thats terrorism.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
IRIAF Fighter aircraft
20 F-14A Tomcat [11] 40 Mig29A/UB (35+5)[11] 47 F-4D/E Phantom II [11] 11 Dassault Mirage F1 [11] 50 F-5A/B/E/F [11] 24 Sukhoi Su-24 [11] 13 Sukhoi Su-25[11] 24 F-7M Airguard
From Wiki by way of aviation weekly.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
No. It was a covert military operation conducted against a declared enemy. The organization responsible AQ is also a terrorist organization.
I suspect many at AQ share that sentiment. However, unlike the Cole, the NYC buildings targeted were not part of the government apparatus nor did they have any great number of persons working on projects/areas of interest that were any conceivable threat to AQ. The weapons used were, themselves, full of comparative innocents. The Pentagon would obviously constitute a legitimate military target by almost any definition.Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Correct on all points, save the label terrorism. Israeli actions, if they are as described, would only be viewed as criminal by almost any court. Most would find such actions immoral. They are certainly casus bellum, and according to accepted standards of international law, Iran would be fully justified in attacking Israel in response.Originally Posted by Strike For The South
If, however, you persist in labeling any killing of civilians save during a declared conflict as terrorism, then virtually all states save, perhaps, Costa Rica are ALL terrorists. Terrorism therefore loses and special meaning and, by implication, you accept the basic tenet of the terrorists that there are no innocents and that any and all who do not share you views are legitimate targets. That's Hobbesianism at its worst.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Then you disagree with slick willie? I agree with you, I'm just saying.No. It was a covert military operation conducted against a declared enemy. The organization responsible AQ is also a terrorist organization.
"If, as it now appears, this was an act of terrorism, it was a despicable and cowardly act. We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable".
Fair enough.I suspect many at AQ share that sentiment. However, unlike the Cole, the NYC buildings targeted were not part of the government apparatus nor did they have any great number of persons working on projects/areas of interest that were any conceivable threat to AQ. The weapons used were, themselves, full of comparative innocents. The Pentagon would obviously constitute a legitimate military target by almost any definition.
Which was why I first posted here. So if Iran killed Israeli scientist who were working on say tanks you would have no problem with it? What if Iran gave a DOW?Correct on all points, save the label terrorism. Israeli actions, if they are as described, would only be viewed as criminal by almost any court. Most would find such actions immoral. They are certainly casus bellum, and according to accepted standards of international law, Iran would be fully justified in attacking Israel in response.
Innocence is really in the eye of the beholder isn't it? Some people see American civilians as collateral damages just like we talk of the Palestinian or Iraqi children here.If, however, you persist in labeling any killing of civilians save during a declared conflict as terrorism, then virtually all states save, perhaps, Costa Rica are ALL terrorists. Terrorism therefore loses and special meaning and, by implication, you accept the basic tenet of the terrorists that there are no innocents and that any and all who do not share you views are legitimate targets. That's Hobbesianism at its worst.
There are innocents but there is no universal innocent.
I do find Hobbes interesting, "Might makes right" is the historical truth isn't it?
Last edited by Strike For The South; 02-18-2009 at 21:51.
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Bookmarks