4 ms·

I really struggle to be impressed by this as it’s a gross violation of national sovereignty, similar to US aggression in the Middle East. Imagine the other way

I really struggle to be impressed by this as it’s a gross violation of national sovereignty, similar to US aggression in the Middle East. Imagine the other way around - headline: Iranian military shoot Israeli nuclear scientists on way home from work. It would likely cause WW III! This kind of intervention is wrong and should be condemned by the international community, not celebrated.

ethbr0 5y ago
I mean, Israel and Iran have both been quietly blowing holes in each other's ships for the last several years, and there's been no war. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/world/middleeast/israel-iran-ship-mine-attack.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/world/middleeast/israel-i...
- oliwarner 5y ago
  Does that mean it's okay? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but it feels like you're saying the rest of the world isn't allowed to care because this is what they do. We sanction Iran for aggressive behaviour in the region. Our national reactions to this seem a little one-sided.
  - mc32 5y ago
    >We sanction Iran for aggressive behaviour in the region. You're making their actions out to be equivalent. Iran is fomenting unrest in a whole region. Israel is trying to neutralize (not eliminate) an enemy that has vowed repeatedly to eliminate it from the planet.
    - uncomputation 5y ago
      Arguably, Israel has fomented unrest in the ME as well with a continued history of genocide against Palestinians. I do not understand how assassination will in any way “neutralize” an enemy. I guarantee if Iran assassinated a high-ranking Israeli or American official, the response would be far from neutral. Just look at the inciting incident for WWI.
    - azth 5y ago
      > an enemy that has vowed repeatedly to eliminate it from the planet. Ah, just like how Israel is doing that to the Palestinians.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
Protostome 5y ago
The middle east is a jungle. If I had to make a choice between living close to a nuclear Iran - a fundamentalist regime commits horrendous acts, like public hangings of gay men *or* violating international law, I would choose the latter without hesitation. Laws are great when there's someone who enforces them. When there's no entity that makes sure those rules are obeyed they mean nothing.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  One wonders how Iran would be today if the US had not eliminated the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in favor of religious monarchy, and whether they would've continued their progressive trajectory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
- azth 5y ago
  > The middle east is a jungle I wonder why? It couldn't have anything to do with Western colonialism and meddling could it? Nah.
jkaptur 5y ago
I've been noticing the framing "imagine if the roles had been reversed... the reaction would be totally different!" more and more, especially around contentious issues. I've never found it compelling. The argument seems like a variant of begging the question: we just saw that X caused Y reaction, but the argument asserts (generally without any evidence) that if the roles were reversed, then X' would cause a massively different Y'. Would it? Why? If we agree that it would, what does that demonstrate?

ethbr0 5y ago

I mean, Israel and Iran have both been quietly blowing holes in each other's ships for the last several years, and there's been no war. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/world/middleeast/israel-iran-ship-mine-attack.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/06/world/middleeast/israel-i...

oliwarner 5y ago
Does that mean it's okay? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but it feels like you're saying the rest of the world isn't allowed to care because this is what they do. We sanction Iran for aggressive behaviour in the region. Our national reactions to this seem a little one-sided.
- mc32 5y ago
  >We sanction Iran for aggressive behaviour in the region. You're making their actions out to be equivalent. Iran is fomenting unrest in a whole region. Israel is trying to neutralize (not eliminate) an enemy that has vowed repeatedly to eliminate it from the planet.
  - uncomputation 5y ago
    Arguably, Israel has fomented unrest in the ME as well with a continued history of genocide against Palestinians. I do not understand how assassination will in any way “neutralize” an enemy. I guarantee if Iran assassinated a high-ranking Israeli or American official, the response would be far from neutral. Just look at the inciting incident for WWI.
  - azth 5y ago
    > an enemy that has vowed repeatedly to eliminate it from the planet. Ah, just like how Israel is doing that to the Palestinians.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

Protostome 5y ago

The middle east is a jungle. If I had to make a choice between living close to a nuclear Iran - a fundamentalist regime commits horrendous acts, like public hangings of gay men *or* violating international law, I would choose the latter without hesitation. Laws are great when there's someone who enforces them. When there's no entity that makes sure those rules are obeyed they mean nothing.

threatofrain 5y ago
One wonders how Iran would be today if the US had not eliminated the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in favor of religious monarchy, and whether they would've continued their progressive trajectory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
azth 5y ago
> The middle east is a jungle I wonder why? It couldn't have anything to do with Western colonialism and meddling could it? Nah.

jkaptur 5y ago

I've been noticing the framing "imagine if the roles had been reversed... the reaction would be totally different!" more and more, especially around contentious issues. I've never found it compelling. The argument seems like a variant of begging the question: we just saw that X caused Y reaction, but the argument asserts (generally without any evidence) that if the roles were reversed, then X' would cause a massively different Y'. Would it? Why? If we agree that it would, what does that demonstrate?