Israel: Murdering scientists?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The scientests are still civilians. Therefore it's still terrorism. Validated terrorism but terrorism none the less.

"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.

[Strike For The South]

"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.

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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was the bombing on the USS Cole terrorism? I was only 9 but remember those big red letters on CNN.

No. It was a covert military operation conducted against a declared enemy. The organization responsible AQ is also a terrorist organization.

Hell what about 9/11? I mean those people were feeding and economic machine which kept the arab man down.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Strike For The South]

No. It was a covert military operation conducted against a declared enemy. The organization responsible AQ is also a terrorist organization.

Then you disagree with slick willie? I agree with you, I'm just saying.

"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".

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.

Fair enough.

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.

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?

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.

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.

There are innocents but there is no universal innocent.

I do find Hobbes interesting, "Might makes right" is the historical truth isn't it?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Then you disagree with slick willie? I agree with you, I'm just saying.

Completely. It was vital to Pres. Clinton to characterize the action as "terrorism" so that it could be pursued/addressed as a criminal action by individuals and not as an act of war. I disagree completely with that attitude. Regrettably, it only takes one side to "declare" a war. Refusing to deal with military aggression as such is inaccurate at best.

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?

I never said I wouldn't have a problem with it. I said it wasn't terrorism. I actually dislike a lot of the stuff that gets done. I'm an old-fashioned enough type to wish they'd declare war and deal with it on the up-and-up, though I am well aware that it won't happen. Nobody declares war anymore, they just shoot and spin it in the media after shooting.

I do find Hobbes interesting, "Might makes right" is the historical truth isn't it?

All too often. I prefer Locke's approach to the Social Contract, though anyone who dismisses Hobbes outright is missing the boat.


Hax:

Who in this thread has been arguing about the USA having the right to dictate policy to other nations? I thought this was about Israel?

[lenin96]

I did not say i know, i said i am convinced.

So people are being killed because they are suspected but not proven of doing something "wrong".

i repeat:
you cannot leave something like this up to chance. fanaticism can make you do nonsensical things.

By that logic I can't leave America's foreign policy to chance.

The USA has used nuclear bombs in anger what, twice? When they were first developed, and arguably out of complete necessity. It sat through one of the most delicate situations in history without ever firing.

So it was necessary for all of those thousands of inoccent people had to die () for America?

It is a functioning democracy, not a fundamentalist regime. I would trust the USA with nuclear bombs more than any other country in the world - it is unfeasible that America would fire at anyone, whereas I can understand Israel being very scared of Iran.

Under Bush America seemed like a fudamentalist regime, and I would certainly not trust the one of the biggest inoccent killers in the world to have nuclear weopns.

It is a functioning democracy

And I assume America doesn't have a big difference between the upper and lower class.

[Furunculus]

So people are being killed because they are suspected but not proven of doing something "wrong".

yup, its a tough world, not every one gets their day in court before judgment is passed. sad.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So it was necessary for all of those thousands of inoccent people had to die () for America?

The necessity of Hiroshima has been debated in the Monastery.

Under Bush America seemed like a fudamentalist regime, and I would certainly not trust the one of the biggest inoccent killers in the world to have nuclear weopns.

I think Lenin has killed more than Bush. And a fundamentalist regime?

And I assume America doesn't have a big difference between the upper and lower class.

Which is an irrelevant statement whether it is true or not.

EDIT:

There are are two beautiful equations we must consider:

Iran = Not A Democracy
America = A Democracy

[Strike For The South]

Completely. It was vital to Pres. Clinton to characterize the action as "terrorism" so that it could be pursued/addressed as a criminal action by individuals and not as an act of war. I disagree completely with that attitude. Regrettably, it only takes one side to "declare" a war. Refusing to deal with military aggression as such is inaccurate at best.

Agreed

I never said I wouldn't have a problem with it. I said it wasn't terrorism. I actually dislike a lot of the stuff that gets done. I'm an old-fashioned enough type to wish they'd declare war and deal with it on the up-and-up, though I am well aware that it won't happen. Nobody declares war anymore, they just shoot and spin it in the media after shooting.

These kind of things have been going on forever though. All out war isn't always your best option. I would argue that killing scientists is an act of terrorism. I would be scared if tommorow I found my chem professor killed by Costa Ricans

All too often. I prefer Locke's approach to the Social Contract, though anyone who dismisses Hobbes outright is missing the boat.

The one who sees thing from afar can always afford to be an idealist.