No Longer a Secret: How Israel Destroyed Syria's Nuclear Reactor
haaretz.com
haaretz.com
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVhQOhxb1Mc (at min 47, he starts talking about the hard parts)
The French demonstrate that it is perfectly practical to run reactors to both produce energy and breed plutonium.
Seems as though something big related to integrated intelligence and politicians about to happen.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/17/the-silent-str...
Or that they want to block Barak and his recent attempts to get back into politics. Interesting that the article paints Barak as a conspiracy minded crackpot. (Maybe one has to be a conspiracy theorist in order to survive office politics in Israel).
The only thing that was clear to me (in guarded vague language) was that Israel had bombed something in Syria, and that it might have been nuclear-related.
The way it was described precludes a Evil Maid Attack unless, of course, they had previous access to the same laptop. A lot of very interesting questions remain.
This title is actually fine.
But the other ones need to be more objective.
Considering that the modern use of “terrorist” and “terrorism” traced back directly to description of actors and actions associated with the Terror in Revolutionary France, that would be erroneous. It's true that much of the modern focus is on international terrorism (which necessarily excludes internal state terrorism, which is a form of intranational terrorism), state terrorism remains a significant thing (both internationally and internally.)
State-sponsored terrorism is broader than, but includes, direct government action. Direct actions by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Quds Force are often described as “state sponsored terrorism”.
The US government's support for anti-government organizations in the Middle East (e.g. in Syria, Libya, Sudan, etc) is characterized as terrorism by the Iranian government, and many others (Russia, etc).
(I'm not passing any judgement on the moral equivalency of these positions, just pointing out the fuzziness of the linguistics).
That is just some minor human bias which can be corrected. Let's not go into the unendable argument of accurate human language meaning.
That definition might have been true immediately after 2001-09-11, but now the term has been diluted and coopted to cover any anti-government military action. Arguably this is just double-speak; I consider this term to be borderline meaningless at this point.
See for example Russia/Georgia [1], or more recently the "terrorists" opposing the Syrian government [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russo-Georgian_diplomatic... [2]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/who-is-a-terrorist...
All people are free to define their own definitions. In fact, we all do, without exception: no two people hold identical definitions for the same words. The only thing that matters is the ability to be understood, ideally to a high degree. Elaboration on what you mean provides for that even in the case of widespread dilution.
There's no good reason to participate in it and make matters worse. We virtually universally denounce terrorism exactly because it is indiscriminately harming innocent people just to scare others, which is considered immoral by the majority of modern moral systems. Destroying military objects in the course of war, while being, as any part of the war is, regrettable course of events - does not carry nearly the same moral stigma.
Some people participating in Syria war are undoubtedly terrorists - ISIS and al-Qaeda make no secret of its adherence to the terrorist tactics, among other war crimes they commit - others are guerilla, or self-defence forces (e.g. Peshmerga). One should not confuse those if one wants to understand what is going on.
... by non-state actors. When a recognized government does it, it's generally called a war crime.
Or UK strategic bombing policy in WW2... the Nazis even called the allied bombing "terror attacks".
The Germans bombed the hell out of civilians indiscriminately all over Europe, including London and most other large cities in the UK years before the allies bombed German cities.
Retaliation-in-kind during open war isn’t the same thing as terrorism.
By any actor.
> When a recognized government does it, it's generally called a war crime.
That it is a war crime in the context of international armed conflict (or against humanity otherwise) doesn't stop it from being terrorism, just as a state actor committint genocide doesn't make it any less genocide, though that too is either a war crime or crime against humanity.
Are paywalls ok?
"It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic."