Panetta: Israel could attack Iran as early as April

[C0ckney]

to be fair this threat does mention israel in the title.

[Al B. Sure!]

A "declaration of war" isn't really what you said. If there had been, this whole discussion would be moot and the topic entirely different.

What the hell are you talking about?

Yes, if there had been a formal declaration of war by either side, **** would be straight-forward. But there hasn't been which is my point! Which gives Israel no right to kill civilians working for the Iranian government anymore than Iran has the right to kill civilians working for the Israeli or American governments.

The fact that these civilians work for the military is not relevant because killing even uniformed military without formal hostilities violates international law.

[DinoDoc]

Try to set up a meeting for your 2 braincells. A spark might be created.

Be moar creative. You are one step above grade school taunts here when dismissing inconvenient question. You were trying (emphasis on try) to make a moral point about supposed moral equivalence between Iran and Israel. I was merely asking of what use comparing numbers of civilian dead is to your argument as it does nothing to advance it.

[dannubis]

DD is going to explain how Israel firing a rocket into a densely populated area is any different from Hamas shooting into a densely populated area without invoking unproven intent.

[regexcellent]

DD is going to explain how Israel firing a rocket into a densely populated area is any different from Hamas shooting into a densely populated area without invoking unproven intent.

It's not hard to explain. The Israelis shoot people who shoot at them, whereas Hamas shoots at people for being Jews.

I have no idea why this is such a controversial topic on this board. It certainly isn't controversial among anyone I know in person.

[DaShi]

DD is going to explain how Israel firing a rocket into a densely populated area is any different from Hamas shooting into a densely populated area without invoking unproven intent.

I loled.

[Az]

ah the old, if you have a have view which isn't like mine, you're not rational. that one never wears out.

and the last scientist killed wasn't a member of the military, according to his wiki. he was a civilian, like the israeli ambassador.

military-industrial complex has two parts of it. He was clearly a high-post at the natanz nuclear enrichment facility - he doesn't have to have a rank in order to make bombs. That's how it goes in a war.

The israeli ambassador otoh.... now say they'd shoot up a member of the IDF, or one of the defense industries, I wouldn't have a moral griping with that.


come on, you are seriously equating the attempted assassination of an ambassador, with one of a person directly making bombs?
wait, Iran doesn't REALLY try to get bombs.... and if they did that would be ok anyway because Israel....

[dannubis]

It's not hard to explain. The Israelis shoot people who shoot at them, whereas Hamas shoots at people for being Jews.

I have no idea why this is such a controversial topic on this board. It certainly isn't controversial among anyone I know in person.

Funny, I thought I was talking about civilian casualties. You know, the ones that weren't shooting into israel.
I don't give a damn about those other mother****ers.

[Zevico]

Why do civilian casualties die when fighters are targeted? Because the Israelis can only act on the basis of the information they have and the resources in their possession. In war civilian casualties can only, and ought to be, minimised. The fact that Palestinian civilians die is not proof of a deliberate plan to kill them, unless you define any action taken to attack Hamas, whether via air strikes or ground incursions, as ipso facto deliberate plans to kill Palestinian civilians. By that definition every war, and every war tactic, is a war crime, which makes nonsense of the entire discussion.

[C0ckney]

military-industrial complex has two parts of it. He was clearly a high-post at the natanz nuclear enrichment facility - he doesn't have to have a rank in order to make bombs. That's how it goes in a war.

The israeli ambassador otoh.... now say they'd shoot up a member of the IDF, or one of the defense industries, I wouldn't have a moral griping with that.


come on, you are seriously equating the attempted assassination of an ambassador, with one of a person directly making bombs?
wait, Iran doesn't REALLY try to get bombs.... and if they did that would be ok anyway because Israel....

what about someone who makes convential bombs? an aircraft mechanic? someone who sells spare parts for tanks? the guy who cleans the floor at a munitions factory? how far does your definition of military target go? by your logic all of these people are legitimate targets because they work, in some capacity or other, for the military. in fact if you stretch it far enough you can probably justify killing most people on that basis (why did you bomb those farmers? - well clearly the iranian army needs food to function, so it was entirely legitimate to kill them as they're 'military targets'). i think reasonable people draw the line between military and civilian at, you know, people who are actually in the military and those who are not.

when you target civilians it's terrorism and murder. israel has targeted civilians and so has iran, and so neither can claim the moral high ground. no self-serving justifications can change that.

[Zevico]

Pausing for a moment, we don't actually know who perpetrated the attacks inside Iran. Information in Iran does not move around freely. It is constrained and censored. Rumours are the best we have. It could be Israel; it could be the Iranian regime purging itself of people it thought were talking to the press, or likely to (its paranoia knows no bounds); it could be the Iranian opposition; it could be the Saudis, for all we know. And that's the point: we don't know. We have no clue. All we have are rumours.

[Zevico]

yran has at various times fought against the taliban (and by this i mean the original pashtun taliban which emerged in 1998), funding its own warlords in the west of the country and supporting shia groups (mostly the hazara). it has more recently supplied weapons and funding to the 'taliban'. the tendency in the western media is to call all groups opposed to the NATO occupation and karzai government 'taliban', as if they are some monolithic entity. the real situation is considerably more complex. once the karzai government falls the various factions of the 'taliban' will break up along ethnic and tribal lines.

The analysis put forward was, to reiterate:
1. Taliban aims to destabilise and destroy Karzai;
2. Iran funds Taliban to present itself as the destroyer of Karzai/vanguard of the resistance against the West/etc.

None of which is inconsistent with the Taliban breaking up to some extent following Karzai's fall. My analysis didn't discuss the post-breakup era because that era comes circa 2014, and frankly, a lot can happen by then. Civil war and tribal bloodshed is predictable, and the possibility that the Taliban will rise again throughout the country is a strong possibility. It is possible that a strike may occur in 2014 so perhaps the post-breakup era was worth discussing.

Perhaps the Iranians will move to support the Hazara, perhaps not; but the question is whether their priorities will shift in Afghanistan if their nuclear facilities are struck. Suppose at the time of the strike the Iranians support the Hazara or the majority-Pashtun Taliban (as the case may be), or neither. Will they change their policy in some way or change that policy? If your contention is that a change will occur and that it will be adverse to a broader Western, American, or for that matter Israeli interest, then state as much and explain why you think it may occur.

what is happening at the moment is that the various regional powers are positioning themselves for the post-NATO/karzai afghanistan. the pakistanis will continue to fund and support the taliban, the saudis as well as some gulf states will join them. the iranians will back their allies in the west of the country and try to support the shia minority. i would guess that the various former soviet republics will back the northern alliance or some successor group.

No argument there.

[dannubis]

Why do civilian casualties die when fighters are targeted? Because the Israelis can only act on the basis of the information they have and the resources in their possession. In war civilian casualties can only, and ought to be, minimised. The fact that Palestinian civilians die is not proof of a deliberate plan to kill them, unless you define any action taken to attack Hamas, whether via air strikes or ground incursions, as ipso facto deliberate plans to kill Palestinian civilians. By that definition every war, and every war tactic, is a war crime, which makes nonsense of the entire discussion.

I can't help but notice how you conveniently sidestep the entire issue of disproportional use of force. Firing rockets into a crowd to kill a target is not mimizing casualties, it is maximizing your chance to get your target, whatever the consequences may be. I don't want to imply that legally this type of war tactics are criminal, but they should be used as a last resort and not on a recurring basis. So moral high ground my ass.

[MOBIUS]

what about someone who makes convential bombs? an aircraft mechanic? someone who sells spare parts for tanks? the guy who cleans the floor at a munitions factory? how far does your definition of military target go? by your logic all of these people are legitimate targets because they work, in some capacity or other, for the military. in fact if you stretch it far enough you can probably justify killing most people on that basis (why did you bomb those farmers? - well clearly the iranian army needs food to function, so it was entirely legitimate to kill them as they're 'military targets'). i think reasonable people draw the line between military and civilian at, you know, people who are actually in the military and those who are not.

when you target civilians it's terrorism and murder. israel has targeted civilians and so has iran, and so neither can claim the moral high ground. no self-serving justifications can change that.

Well, technically all Israeli citizens, including women and children and babies, are military targets, because ultimately at some point they will all end up conscripted into the Israeli war machine…

I always find it funny how Israel happily engages in terrorism and murder by gunning down innocent civilians around the world, but then throws its toys out of its pram whenever there’s any retaliation.

It is inevitable that Iran will get nukes (if only to protect itself from Israel’s nukes!) and there’s nothing that Israel can do about it apart from becoming even more of a pariah state in the eyes of the world!

[SlowwHand]