Israel: Murdering scientists?

[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.

[tibilicus]

the most dangerous thing in the world is to underestimate the capability of your enemies.

They simply are years behind in nuclear capability though.

And as for the capability of their army, sure they have numbers but the IAF would still whoop them with their fancy modern day fighters.

What jet does the Iranian military even have, some cold were derelict from the Russians or the US?

[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.

[Hooahguy]

They simply are years behind in nuclear capability though.

And as for the capability of their army, sure they have numbers but the IAF would still whoop them with their fancy modern day fighters.

What jet does the Iranian military even have, some cold were derelict from the Russians or the US?

its easier to chop the head off the snake while its young then to wait before its grown.

[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.

[tibilicus]

its easier to chop the head off the snake while its young then to wait before its grown.

True, just remember it has to be the right snake though..

[Hooahguy]

True, just remember it has to be the right snake though..

and the people who are researching for iran the nuclear info arent the snake? i mean, killing the wacko in teharan would cause a war, so.....

[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?

[CrossLOPER]

and the people who are researching for iran the nuclear info arent the snake? i mean, killing the wacko in teharan would cause a war, so.....

Kill them all just to be sure?

[Furunculus]

You seriously believe Iran will get even remotely close to developing a nuclear weapon? Phuuleeezeeee..
The fact is they are years away from even having the remote capability of nuclear weapons and even then a nice bombing run over their facilities should sort it.

Israel's wasting money paying people to knock other people of, they could be in and out of Iran in minutes with Iran facilities in tatters, because lets be honest Irans air force quite frankly sucks compared to the IAF.

the north koreans managed it with their peasant kingdom, so why not iran?

if it were that easy i would be the first to cheer them on.

[Furunculus]

Kill them all just to be sure?

if they're working on a nuclear program that you nation fears will be fired at it then yes. kill all the scientists and technicians necessary to halt the program.

we bombed ball-bearing factories in WW2 to stop german tank production.

[Furunculus]

If whacking some top Iranian nuclear scientists delays Tel Aviv from turning into a radioactive glass-lined crater by a few years, it's well worth it. Iran has no need for "peaceful" nuclear energy, its energy needs are covered by other means. So any nuclear scientist working for Ahmajenidad or the mullahs is knowingly accepting the risk of being associated with production of weapons of mass destruction.

They're just getting what they deserve, only it's too quick for my tastes. Slow and painful would be more appropriate, IMHO.

iran has every peaceful 'need' for nuclear energy.

gas/oil will run out.
and it is far better to sell it on the international market at market prices than it is to burn it in your own state subsidised power stations. the revenue potential is enormous.

however, we arn't worried about irans 'peaceful' nuclear potential.

[CrossLOPER]

we bombed ball-bearing factories in WW2 to stop german tank production.

So Israel and Iran are in an official state of war?

[Hooahguy]

techincally. its well known that iran funds hezbollah and such, so i guess they are... in a way....

[Hax]

techincally. its well known that iran funds hezbollah and such, so i guess they are... in a way....

Interesting that you should bring this up. Even though Iran did fund Hizbollah, when Iran sent a delegation to Lebanon to ask that the party hand over some western hostages, Hezbollah responded by throwing a handgrenade into the room of the Iranian diplomat.

Also, what the hell makes you think Iran is so stupid that they would risk to send a nuke towards Israel. It's really nonsensical. I remember president Chirac saying; "where would this missile go to? Before it'd reached 100 metres into the sky Tehran would be a big pile of rubble". What's this fear coming from? Does the US have a right to control everything every nation is doing?

It's pretty much sickening how the foreign policy of the United States works. Back in 2001 Iran, under the leadership of Mohammad Khatami, supplied the United States with information on the Taliban. In 2003 Khatami actually sent a letter to president Bush with a list of unresolved problems between Iran and the United States? And what happened?

The US didn't respond. They had bombed Afghanistan and Iraq to hell and they probably expected Iran would be next.

[Hooahguy]

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Interesting that you should bring this up. Even though Iran did fund Hizbollah, when Iran sent a delegation to Lebanon to ask that the party hand over some western hostages, Hezbollah responded by throwing a handgrenade into the room of the Iranian diplomat.

According to the CFR, Hamas and Hezbollah both receive extensive support from Iran. It isn't any kind of a secret.

Also, what the hell makes you think Iran is so stupid that they would risk to send a nuke towards Israel. It's really nonsensical. I remember president Chirac saying; "where would this missile go to? Before it'd reached 100 metres into the sky Tehran would be a big pile of rubble". What's this fear coming from?

Who says that it would go in missile form? Perhaps it would be smuggled in with a terrorist organization to be detonated in Israel. Who knows?

Does the US have a right to control everything every nation is doing?

I'll let someone else respond rather than evoking the standard anti-American chorus from the left. But in short form, the standard "they have the right to have nukes, leave them alone" argument is absurd. Firstly, why would be allow another nation to have nuclear bombs? Secondly, why would we allow an unfriendly nation to have nuclear bombs? We shouldn't, and it is laughable to suggest otherwise.

It's pretty much sickening how the foreign policy of the United States works.

[Hax]

Firstly, why would be allow another nation to have nuclear bombs? Secondly, why would we allow an unfriendly nation to have nuclear bombs? We shouldn't, and it is laughable to suggest otherwise.

What gives us the right to decided who can have nuclear technology?

An unfriendly nation? As I stated, Iran has supplied the United States from 2001 up to 2003 with information about the Taliban.

[Scurvy]

What gives us the right to decided who can have nuclear technology?

An unfriendly nation? As I stated, Iran has supplied the United States from 2001 up to 2003 with information about the Taliban.

I'm not sure the US is partiularly fussed about other countries rights, and so they should'nt be, the safety of their own country surely takes priority

Having said that, it would be interesting to see how Israel would react if Palestinians or Iranians started killing off their scientists...

The only way to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons is for Israel the US etc. to all relinquish them, but clearly the risk is too great for that to ever happen

[tibilicus]

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

I would put just as much a bet on Israel launching a nuke at some one. Lets make a scenario here. Are you telling me that some how if Israelis neighbours managed to muster up a military force to enter Israels borders that Israel wouldn't use nukes and thus start a world wide nuclear war?

lets look at the two countries here, Israel, a country founded on religion heavily influenced by Religion, home to some religious fanatics although not be it like their suicide bombing neighbours but on top of this a country with a stockpile of 150 nuclear weapons.

Now, lets look at Iran. A country deeply dominated by religion after the Islamic revolution, a country heavily influenced by religion and a country full of religious fanatics but, unlike Israel, it isn't capable of nuclear warfare.

You see some similarities? Now, I'm not saying Iran should have nukes but what I'm saying is killing scientists isn't the right way to stop a nuclear Iran. As mentioned Iran will never get the chance to have nuclear weapons as their facilities will most likely be bombed by then. Killing people trying to make a living although be it a dubious one in their country isn't it.

What I am saying however is how can you be comfortable with a nuclear Israel? I know I'm not. For a country that believes it has the right to a land area because their people are "chosen by God" I find it worrying that so many people support them and their stockpiles.

Now tell me, if I walked up to you and said my country had a stockpile of nukes and that I'm prepared to use them to defend the land God gave me what would you say? Loonie? Fanatic?

Double standards isn't it.

[Hooahguy]

theres a critical difference between iran and israel:
first of all the fanaticsm in israel is nowhere NEAR the amount in iran. while it can be said that israel was founded on religion, most of the founding members werent very religious. the courts in israel are secular, and few of the laws are based on the bible. i mean, you cans still drive and work on the sabbath (though many buisnesses are closed on that day anyhow). its a pretty secular country.
but the most important thing is that israel isnt preaching to wipe iran off the map. iran is.

about your statement

if I walked up to you and said my country had a stockpile of nukes and that I'm prepared to use them to defend the land God gave me what would you say? Loonie? Fanatic?

theres a critical difference in the underlined word. if iran have been saying all they want to do is use them for defense and never mentioned wiping israel off the map, i would be ok with iran having nukes.

i feel very comfortable with israel having nukes, because as of yet israel hasent used them.
now iran, i cant feel comfortable, because they have preached to destroy israel and im not so sure if they will live up to your claims that they wont.

also,

Now, lets look at Iran. A country deeply dominated by religion of the Islamic revolution

AFAIK, the Islamic revolution was a big fanatiscm movement.

also, while they may not have nukes, they do have a capability of an EMP strike.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I wonder if murdering their scientists will fuel a siege mentality, especially among the Iranian middle class that is probably the most likely to be supportive of the US?

/leave them alone and let them coup their insane leaders in a few years.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What gives us the right to decided who can have nuclear technology?

In foreign policy, Realism and Pragmatism > Idealism.

America has the right because of precisely what Scurvy said.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

EMFM, isn't that the attitude that's got us into nasty situations like Vietnam and Iraq in the first place?

[tibilicus]

theres a critical difference between iran and israel:
first of all the fanaticsm in israel is nowhere NEAR the amount in iran. while it can be said that israel was founded on religion, most of the founding members werent very religious. the courts in israel are secular, and few of the laws are based on the bible. i mean, you cans still drive and work on the sabbath (though many buisnesses are closed on that day anyhow). its a pretty secular country.
but the most important thing is that israel isnt preaching to wipe iran off the map. iran is.

about your statement

theres a critical difference in the underlined word. if iran have been saying all they want to do is use them for defense and never mentioned wiping israel off the map, i would be ok with iran having nukes.

i feel very comfortable with israel having nukes, because as of yet israel hasent used them.
now iran, i cant feel comfortable, because they have preached to destroy israel and im not so sure if they will live up to your claims that they wont.

also,

AFAIK, the Islamic revolution was a big fanatiscm movement.

also, while they may not have nukes, they do have a capability of an EMP strike.

Fair points, and I understand that Iran have said they want to wipe Israel of the map. The point is though that even if they did have the capability to do that by launching nukes at Israel they would ultimately secure their own downfall.


That's not the case at the minute though, the case at the minute is Israel is heavily armed with nukes and it would take just one nation strong enough to challenge it and try and enter its borders before it kicked of.

I'm just personally troubled by a country which is so small yet sits in a hotbed of religious and regional tension but has the nuclear capacity to destroy the world over probably.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

EMFM, isn't that the attitude that's got us into nasty situations like Vietnam and Iraq in the first place?

In my opinion, pragmatism involves proper planning. Realistic and practical goals work.

That's not the case at the minute though, the case at the minute is Israel is heavily armed with nukes and it would take just one nation strong enough to challenge it and try and enter its borders before it kicked of.

I'm just personally troubled by a country which is so small yet sits in a hotbed of religious and regional tension but has the nuclear capacity to destroy the world over probably.

So you are troubled by a country possessing nuclear bombs in a defensive manner, a country that has been repeatedly attacked by surrounding nations which happen to hate it, and yet you are either not troubled by Iran and/or don't mind if they expand their arsenal?

[Hooahguy]

well, i think its good that israel has the nukes b/c its a deterrent, obviously.
id imagine that thered me a lot more wars if israel didnt have them.

[Strike For The South]

Fair points, and I understand that Iran have said they want to wipe Israel of the map. The point is though that even if they did have the capability to do that by launching nukes at Israel they would ultimately secure their own downfall.


That's not the case at the minute though, the case at the minute is Israel is heavily armed with nukes and it would take just one nation strong enough to challenge it and try and enter its borders before it kicked of.

I'm just personally troubled by a country which is so small yet sits in a hotbed of religious and regional tension but has the nuclear capacity to destroy the world over probably.

Israel doesn't have enough nor powerful enough nukes to destroy the world.

[Scurvy]

well, i think its good that israel has the nukes b/c its a deterrent, obviously.
id imagine that thered me a lot more wars if israel didnt have them.

Its not Israel's nukes Iran and co are worried about, its the US's

[Strike For The South]

Its not Israel's nukes Iran and co are worried about, its the US's

The USA will not go nuclear over Israel.