8 ms·
So this is a public bragging about illegally putting a gun in a foreign country and assassinating a person, all the while being comfortably sure that no nationa
by kkoncevicius 5y ago
So this is a public bragging about illegally putting a gun in a foreign country and assassinating a person, all the while being comfortably sure that no national or international pushback will come.
Quite disturbing to read.
- BurningFrog 5y agoIran and Israel are at low level war since many decades.
- maweki 5y agoThough you don't see Iran going around killing the people responsible for Israel's nuclear arsenal.
- ceejayoz 5y agoI can't imagine it's for lack of trying.
- maweki 5y agoI rather not discuss the whole conflict. The fact is though, that modern Iran has little to no history of military intervention* and at least no history to suggest that any (if any really exists) ambition towards acquiring nuclear weapons is anything more than sabre-rattling. * Wikipedia comes up with the odd missile-strike against the islamic state. Edit: There's a difference between financing terrorism/freedom fighters, which about every country in the region (and basically everybody else) does, and preparing a pre-emptive nuclear strike.
- flyinglizard 5y agoYou can't be serious. Iran is one of the most militarily active players in the Middle East. They usually don't do this through the Iranian military itself (other than wanting to send a message like the attack on Saudi Abaqiq facilities with cruise missiles in 2019 [0]). They use proxies, which receive funding, weapons, training and orders from Iran. Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, various Iraqi and Syrian militas are all extensions of Iran itself and perform daily attacks. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abqaiq%E2%80%93Khurais_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abqaiq%E2%80%93Khurais_attack
- greenpeacemaker 5y agoAttribution is difficult if you're behind a VPN
- benbenbenjerry 5y agoTrying to assassinate non-existing nuclear scientists? Yeah that's hard to imagine. Israel already has access to pretty advanced nuclear technology it is not actively trying to develop one like Iran is.
- ceejayoz 5y agoYou think Israel has zero nuclear scientists? An arsenal requires maintenance, even if you aren’t actively making new warheads.
- LewisVerstappen 5y agoHow many Israeli scientists have Iran assassinated?
- benbenbenjerry 5y agoNone because Israel is not actively attempting to advance its nuclear technology capabilities. Because it already has access to advanced nuclear technology.
- pope_meat 5y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel
- neartheplain 5y ago"...because Israel is not actively attempting to advance its nuclear technology capabilities." Says who? >Retired in the 1990s, the Jericho-1, like its successors, was intended for nuclear delivery. >From the mid-1970s to the late 1980s, Israel developed a longer-range version by extending the Jericho’s length to 15m and increasing the diameter to 1.35m. Designated the Jericho-2, this system has an estimated range of 1,500–3,500km, with the same 1,000kg payload. >According to several analysts, Israel also has an intermediate-range missile, possibly called the Jericho-3. Reports of testing – in 2008, 2011, 2013, 2019 and (possibly) 2020 – related to a longer-range system support this assessment, but it has not been verified. https://www.iiss.org/blogs/analysis/2021/08/israel-ballistic-missile-programme https://www.iiss.org/blogs/analysis/2021/08/israel-ballistic...
- colpabar 5y agoThis question is out of pure curiosity: can you give me some examples of this "low level war" being fought? Specifically, what has Iran done that's along the same lines as murdering a nuclear scientist?
- neartheplain 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Conflict_with_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah#Conflict_with_Israel
- NovemberWhiskey 5y agoOngoing sponsorship of Hamas, Hezbollah and so on?
- zdragnar 5y agoIran openly finances Hezbollah and Hamas, who fire rockets and missiles indiscriminately into civilian areas of Israel. The Hamas charter in particular includes language calling for either the destruction or dissolution of the state of Israel itself. That isn't to excuse anyone, but yes, Iran and Israel have effectively been at war for decades.
- imachine1980_ 5y agoThe conflict involves threats and hostility by Iran's leaders against Israel, and their declared objective to dissolve the Jewish state, Israel and Iran doesn't share frontiers but Iran finance support is key for terrorist groups like Hezbollah
- flyinglizard 5y agoBombing of the AMIA is one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing#:~:text=The%20AMIA%20bombing%20was%20a,deadliest%20terrorist%20attack%20to%20date https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing#:~:text=The%20AMI.... Burgas bus bombing is another: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Burgas_bus_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Burgas_bus_bombing Arms, money and support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Islamic Jihad is another one (Hezbollah is practically an IRGC unit). Arming various militias in Iraq, Yemen and Syria against Israel and its allies.
- greenpeacemaker 5y agoThis question is out of pure curiosity: can you give me some examples of this "low level war" being fought? Specifically, what has Israel done that's along the same lines as funding Hezbollah and Hamas?
- sgregnt 5y agoThis is a leak like hundred of other leaks. But, it seems like you are trying to push a certain agenda and paint the info in a certain way. Here's another way to frame the same info: At least someone tries to prevent a war and prevent bad actors from obtaining nuclear weapons.
- ianleeclark 5y ago> Here's another way to frame the same info: At least someone tries to prevent a war and prevent bad actors from obtaining nuclear weapons. We used to have inspectors to do such a thing. Now we're just left with an incredibly convenient Schrodingers nuke to keep those not yet fatigued in a constant state of fear.
- flyinglizard 5y agoHave inspectors prevented the Syrian nuclear program (which Israel bombed in 2007), the Iraqi nuclear program (likewise, 1981), the North Korean one or the Pakistani one? Heck, not even the South African one which they willingly dismantled. Nukes are too serious to leave to the supervision of a political mission of scientists.
- ianleeclark 5y agoYou're missing the Israeli nuclear program, as well. > Nukes are too serious to leave to the supervision of a political mission of scientists. I don't care if a country has nukes. I'm much more afraid of what will happen to countries without them: you listed Iraq and we can see the hundreds of thousands of dead civilians.
- sgregnt 5y agoTwo things ... First, we used not to blaim anyone without a due process....before you take a stand and blaime Israel, instead maybe you should argue to send inspectors to examine if the article is true, maybe it is not Israel or this never happened, did you follow a due process before publically assigning guilt? Second, who are "we", in your srnyense? The West, China? Iran, Hizbollah, Americans? UN? I recall no inspectors during Cuban crisis, hmm... why threaten world with nuclear war, instead there could be annual inspections!
- koheripbal 5y agoThere is no world court or legal structure. The word "illegal" has no meaning in international affairs.
- kkoncevicius 5y agoThis action was performed in a specific country - Iran. I am sure it was illegal there. Isn't that enough?
- flyinglizard 5y agoThere are many things which are illegal in Iran yet practiced widely, like consuming alcohol or being attracted to your own gender. I wouldn't use the Iranian book of laws as a moral compass myself, but to each their own.
- benbenbenjerry 5y agoHow bizarre for you to sidestep the issue and go after issues with the laws of Iran! In what country is it legal to assassinate a scientist?
- flyinglizard 5y agoGP asked if the fact it's illegal in Iran is not enough, and I say the Iranian code of law has no implications on what I think is moral or not. Personally I think that it is not outside any moral boundaries to assassinate a scientist which is working on WMDs. In fact, I'll claim the opposite: if you are a leader of a country which you know is potentially targeted by WMDs and you have the strategic and tactical opportunity to assassinate the people working on that program, then you should. Going back to laws, being a scientist doesn't give you any kind of immunity to any law. It shouldn’t grant you immunity here. Once you work on military programs, it's all fair game.
- pinewurst 5y agoWe considered shooting Werner Heisenberg during WW2 if there was convincing evidence he was moving a Nazi atomic weapons program along. Certainly that would have been against German or Swiss (this was during a visit to Switzerland) law.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoPretty badass. Does it prevent more nuclear weapons? Yes? Win in my book.
- FridayoLeary 5y agoWhat's illegal about it?
- yyyk 5y agoIt's more disturbing to read complaints about a strike against a brigadier general, where two countries are at war with each other, a mere few days after we learnt the US droned 10 civilians in Kabul as a 'retaliation' for an IS strike. We at HN should look inwards on this one.
- coder583 5y agoApparently you can just throw around words like "terrorist" against the enemies of US and the genocidal state of "Israel", and then killing innocent civilians is now justified. Who are the real terrorists? It's just the same old story, a group of humans justifying murder for their own self-interest, and their brains coming up with the most bizarre nonsense to try and rationalize it. Some of the people even consider themselves "rationalists". The same justifications could be used to justify stuff like the holocaust, but who cares about logical consistency?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- oliwarner 5y agoSeems to be rather a bad faith argument to suggest that they're not also against that drone strike. Maybe you'd like to suggest they're advocating for the genocides of Uyghurs and Rohingyas because they didn't mention those either.
- yyyk 5y agoI'm not suggesting that the they are not against that strike. However, most of HN is American, this is an American site linking in this case to a story in American media. Complaining against the lesser 'offender' (if at all) in a site hosted in a greater 'offender' is unfortunate. Also, the ordering of the posts is affected by upvotes, and the GGP's post is first. I suspect that plenty of US people who do shrug their shoulders at that drone strike upvoted that post.
- zardo 5y ago
- joelbluminator 5y agoAh yes. Are you also this indignant about Iran's interference with the Syrian civil war? Who knows how many people were killed because of their involvement.
- refurb 5y agoAs others have said, there is no “illegal” when it comes to international relations because there is no global body to enforce it. Just like power within a nation, it’s violence that maintains order in the end. The US had the motto “might makes right”. Wikipedia seems to suggest that there is no agreed upon meaning to that statement, but I always viewed it as “being right doesn’t matter if you can’t back it up with force”.