4 ms·

Let's be honest though, had Iran carried out such attack we would have called it a terrorist attack. I know you're about to go on about how awful Iranian regime

Let's be honest though, had Iran carried out such attack we would have called it a terrorist attack. I know you're about to go on about how awful Iranian regime is and they SAY they want Israel gone. But remember, Israel actually DOES carry out associations.

Zhenya 5y ago
Terror attacks are against civilian targets - hence terrorizing civilians. An attack like this is military - which could be carried out by terrorists or a govt. The difference is important.
- cyberscientist 5y ago
  Like your mental gymnastics. If Iran carries out such attacks on Israeli installations, who do have nuclear weapons. We would be framing it as terrorist attack. I think the narrative build that Iran is evil and Israel is devine only allows one side to do what they want till full blown out war breaks out.
- whimsicalism 5y ago
  Both Iran and Israel carry out rogue bombing and assassinations targeting civilians. This is in contrast to the MO of most of Europe and even the United States.
- pcbro141 5y ago
  Are nuclear scientists civilians? Would it be acceptable for Iran to assassinate Israeli nuclear scientists in Israel?
  - ars 5y ago
    Nuclear scientists are not civilians, unless their work is entirely theoretical, without connection to actually building something. > Would it be acceptable for Iran to assassinate Israeli nuclear scientists in Israel? Acceptable? No. Terrorism? Also no. A military attack is a thing you know. Not everything is terrorism.
    - pcbro141 5y ago
      I think it's a little murky given that they're not officially at war. Anti-terrorism conventions define terrorism as explicitly including unlawful killings with the intent to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.
      - ars 5y ago
        Terrorism always involves an attack on civilians. An attack on a military facility could be an act of war, but never terrorism.
        pcbro141 5y ago
        The scientist I'm referring to (Mohsen Fakhrizadeh) was not killed as part of a legitimate strike on a military facility, he was killed in his car with his wife sitting in the seat next to him, on a road with many civilians around. I am doubtful that Iranian agents doing these same actions to scientists in the US or Israel on the street would be considered a legitimate military action and not terrorism.
        ars 5y ago
        > The scientist I'm referring to (Mohsen Fakhrizadeh) was not killed as part of a legitimate strike on a military facility, he was killed in his car with his wife sitting in the seat next to him, on a road with many civilians around. What are you talking about "facility"? The human, named Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was a military target, since he was the head of the nuclear weapons program in Iran. I'm unclear what the relevance of "many civilians around". Do you imagine military targets are always isolated with never any civilians near them? > I am doubtful that Iranian agents doing these same actions to scientists in the US or Israel on the street would be considered a legitimate military action and not terrorism. A scientist in the US or Israel working on developing a nuclear weapon would be a military target. Why does this surprise you? There's a reason you don't know the names of any scientists in the US or Israel working on nuclear weapons: They would instantly become targets. Do you imagine war is some kind of game where everyone is like "it's my turn now", and there's a referee?
- dagenleg 5y ago
  What about the assassinations of Iranian scientists? Are they also "military" targets?
  - nullserver 5y ago
    Yes absolutely.
    - cyberscientist 5y ago
      Not if Iran does it. If they do it, it's a cowardly act of terrorism.
fastball 5y ago
Huh? I don't know how an attack on a military base could be less of a terrorist attack.
- dmurray 5y ago
  The 2001 attack on the Pentagon is usually cast as a terrorist attack in the West. Words change: terrorism is now really more about who committs the attacks, and how much you like them, than the mode of attack or the target.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Pretty sure that is more due to conflation with the WTC than it is a double standard.
hpcjoe 5y ago
I assume you mean "assassinations". Iran funds and supports groups who have declared, and continue to make war on Israel as a proxy for themselves doing it. They are happy to expend every single one of their proxy armies and munitions if they can avoid the direct consequences of action. The groups that Iran supports carry out assassinations. Kidnappings. Mass murder. Direct attacks on non-combatant populations, aka war crimes. They cyber attack where they can. They physically attack where they can get their cannon fodder to do the wet work. So, what's your point? That Israel is "evil" for demonstrating dangerous teeth behind its deterrence?
- cyberscientist 5y ago
  I'm not defending iran.im just saying we build a narrative against one side. Look at your comment, everything you said about Iran usa, Britain and Israel does too. But you highlighted Iran's evil while we excuse "our own" side awful actions.
  - hpcjoe 5y ago
    "your own side" is quite revealing. There's a game siblings sometimes play. One hits another. The injured party responds in kind. The first, the aggressor, calls their parents and complains that the second hit the first and was the aggressor. The second is then punished by the parent for aggression. This has been the rhetorical, and effectively actual history of the conflicts since prior to the founding of Israel. Iran was a "friend" until they ... changed direction ... in 1979. Israel is defending itself, actively, against existential threats. If the act of defending itself and its people causes you to label it as evil, that's your business. Iran is not defending itself against existential threats. It is actively on the offense along multiple fronts. Its activities directly and indirectly cause death of non-combatants. That is, IMO, a very basic and simple definition of evil. This isn't defense. This is offense. For the express purpose of achieving the goals they have enthusiastically repeated for decades. If you don't think that is evil, that is your business as well.
    - cyberscientist 5y ago

Zhenya 5y ago

Terror attacks are against civilian targets - hence terrorizing civilians. An attack like this is military - which could be carried out by terrorists or a govt. The difference is important.

cyberscientist 5y ago
Like your mental gymnastics. If Iran carries out such attacks on Israeli installations, who do have nuclear weapons. We would be framing it as terrorist attack. I think the narrative build that Iran is evil and Israel is devine only allows one side to do what they want till full blown out war breaks out.
whimsicalism 5y ago
Both Iran and Israel carry out rogue bombing and assassinations targeting civilians. This is in contrast to the MO of most of Europe and even the United States.
pcbro141 5y ago
Are nuclear scientists civilians? Would it be acceptable for Iran to assassinate Israeli nuclear scientists in Israel?
- ars 5y ago
  Nuclear scientists are not civilians, unless their work is entirely theoretical, without connection to actually building something. > Would it be acceptable for Iran to assassinate Israeli nuclear scientists in Israel? Acceptable? No. Terrorism? Also no. A military attack is a thing you know. Not everything is terrorism.
  - pcbro141 5y ago
    I think it's a little murky given that they're not officially at war. Anti-terrorism conventions define terrorism as explicitly including unlawful killings with the intent to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.
    - ars 5y ago
      Terrorism always involves an attack on civilians. An attack on a military facility could be an act of war, but never terrorism.
      - pcbro141 5y ago
        The scientist I'm referring to (Mohsen Fakhrizadeh) was not killed as part of a legitimate strike on a military facility, he was killed in his car with his wife sitting in the seat next to him, on a road with many civilians around. I am doubtful that Iranian agents doing these same actions to scientists in the US or Israel on the street would be considered a legitimate military action and not terrorism.
        ars 5y ago
        > The scientist I'm referring to (Mohsen Fakhrizadeh) was not killed as part of a legitimate strike on a military facility, he was killed in his car with his wife sitting in the seat next to him, on a road with many civilians around. What are you talking about "facility"? The human, named Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, was a military target, since he was the head of the nuclear weapons program in Iran. I'm unclear what the relevance of "many civilians around". Do you imagine military targets are always isolated with never any civilians near them? > I am doubtful that Iranian agents doing these same actions to scientists in the US or Israel on the street would be considered a legitimate military action and not terrorism. A scientist in the US or Israel working on developing a nuclear weapon would be a military target. Why does this surprise you? There's a reason you don't know the names of any scientists in the US or Israel working on nuclear weapons: They would instantly become targets. Do you imagine war is some kind of game where everyone is like "it's my turn now", and there's a referee?
dagenleg 5y ago
What about the assassinations of Iranian scientists? Are they also "military" targets?
- nullserver 5y ago
  Yes absolutely.
  - cyberscientist 5y ago
    Not if Iran does it. If they do it, it's a cowardly act of terrorism.

fastball 5y ago

Huh? I don't know how an attack on a military base could be less of a terrorist attack.

dmurray 5y ago
The 2001 attack on the Pentagon is usually cast as a terrorist attack in the West. Words change: terrorism is now really more about who committs the attacks, and how much you like them, than the mode of attack or the target.
- fastball 5y ago
  Pretty sure that is more due to conflation with the WTC than it is a double standard.

hpcjoe 5y ago

I assume you mean "assassinations". Iran funds and supports groups who have declared, and continue to make war on Israel as a proxy for themselves doing it. They are happy to expend every single one of their proxy armies and munitions if they can avoid the direct consequences of action. The groups that Iran supports carry out assassinations. Kidnappings. Mass murder. Direct attacks on non-combatant populations, aka war crimes. They cyber attack where they can. They physically attack where they can get their cannon fodder to do the wet work. So, what's your point? That Israel is "evil" for demonstrating dangerous teeth behind its deterrence?

cyberscientist 5y ago
I'm not defending iran.im just saying we build a narrative against one side. Look at your comment, everything you said about Iran usa, Britain and Israel does too. But you highlighted Iran's evil while we excuse "our own" side awful actions.
- hpcjoe 5y ago
  "your own side" is quite revealing. There's a game siblings sometimes play. One hits another. The injured party responds in kind. The first, the aggressor, calls their parents and complains that the second hit the first and was the aggressor. The second is then punished by the parent for aggression. This has been the rhetorical, and effectively actual history of the conflicts since prior to the founding of Israel. Iran was a "friend" until they ... changed direction ... in 1979. Israel is defending itself, actively, against existential threats. If the act of defending itself and its people causes you to label it as evil, that's your business. Iran is not defending itself against existential threats. It is actively on the offense along multiple fronts. Its activities directly and indirectly cause death of non-combatants. That is, IMO, a very basic and simple definition of evil. This isn't defense. This is offense. For the express purpose of achieving the goals they have enthusiastically repeated for decades. If you don't think that is evil, that is your business as well.
  - cyberscientist 5y ago