Iran’s Top Nuclear Scientist Killed in Attack

Both sides thought what they were doing was right and there is always a way to justify the means.

Disclaimer: I am from a country which was neutral during the WW2.

Edit: Here is the thing, I do not want this to become a "Who is the most evil?" thread, so I will not be responding except for this edit (I suggest everyone to do the same).

The point of this comment was that, public perspective is something that can easily be manipulated. The phrase "History is written by the victors." means exactly that. I just wanted to mention that Germany would use the example I gave to justify their actions "Wow they are evil. see what they did?". One should always be mindful where they are standing and check if they are being manipulated or not.

If this comment starts a flame war, dang, please feel free to delete the whole thread.

Israeli politicians have said enough very questionable statements to fill a book. But everybody sorts of understands them to be targeted at a domestic audience for pandering. Why is Iran supposedly different here?

Well, I think all reasonable minds see that the intent of the US is to stay as the world's power and it is a bad intent to have a nuclear weapon for!

There is no deal if the signatories pull out. Prior to America pulling out, international inspectors were allowed access.

That happened in 41, the bombs were dropped in 45.

Hardly any civilians died at Pearl Harbor, it was a military target. Hundreds of thousands civilians died after U.S. launched the bombs.

This was not a proportional response to Pearl Harbor or any other attack by the Japanese. There was no need for nukes to "defend" yourselves. In fact the U.S. was one of the least impacted countries of WWII among the major powers.

Statements at the time by U.S. officials indicate this was deliberate aggression to show the power of the bomb to the world as not to challenge U.S. dominance.

Technically that's true of the Iranians too. You can't credibly say that Israel or the U.S. hasn't been 'messing with them' for ages, can you?

Like armenians?

I'd argue Cuba suffered worse sanctions than Iran and yeah, their government is much more humane than Iran's.

> Is that evidence fabricated, and if so how do we know that?

It is generally up to the party offering evidence to prove its authenticity, not the other way around.

1 - https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/netanyahu-s-info-iran-n...

Has it ever occurred to you the Iranians might be interested in such a weapon because Israel already has one?

This is not without precedent. We know for example that Pakistan developed its nukes to deter India when they demonstrated they have nuclear weapons.

> But some American officials argued that the death of Mr. Fakhrizadeh, the latest in a string of such mysterious killings of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, would send a chilling message to the country’s other top scientists working on that program: If we can get him, we can get you, too.

What kind of logic is that? By then logic is it legal for Russian mercenaries to break into your house?

It's illegal in the same way 9/11 was illegal - purposefully targetting civillians is a breach of international law, and, of laws and customs of war. It is not onyl about laws of the host country where attack happens.

The argument that he was warking on a military project could apply if there was an official declaration of war, but that isn't the case.

It's always a question of perspective.

Regarding your second point, there is obviously a part of intimidation in doing something like that. It's even mentioned explicitly off the record in the article:

"But some American officials argued that the death of Mr. Fakhrizadeh, the latest in a string of such mysterious killings of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, would send a chilling message to the country’s other top scientists working on that program: If we can get him, we can get you, too."

'Terrorism' is a term always used against others, the bad guys. We are the good guys we never do that. Some people have bought this line so much that it's difficult to accept that everyone does terrorism to a varying degree, at least certainly from the perspective of those on the receiving end.

The nature of sovereignty is that sovereign jurisdiction has only those territorial limits that the sovereign chooses; extraterritorial jurisdiction in law is common as is it's practical exercise.

More to the point, Israeli agents acting on Iranian territory are subject to Iranian jurisdiction without extraterritorial jurisdiction entering the picture.

> any international conflict could be considered "terrorism"

The proper crime is “aggression”, and, yes, almost every international conflict involves that on at least one side. (You can construct artificial scenarios where there is a plausible argument that both sides are exercising legitimate response to an apparent imminent threat, but they don't tend to arise in reality.)

A completely stable and peaceful region is very much NOT in the interest of Israeli right-wing politicians (currently in power) hell-bent on expanding illegal settlements. Israel is the only modern nation in the world without a fixed border. This can only be maintained by denying Palestine statehood, and the only moral way to do that is by selling this image of "our savage, uncivilized neighbors will destroy us if we grant them statehood. We're in an extraordinary circumstance, so that's why we're taking the extraordinary measure of denying millions of people their human rights for 70 years."

Btw, 2014 Gaza war killed 5 Israeli civilians vs around 1500 Palestinian civilians (UN). It amazes me how Israel still manages to play the victim card in the western world.

There were people who lived in a place and they were kicked out of their homes by the UN mandate.

I don't think whether Palestine had been incorporated into the Western westphalian system is really relevant to the moral claims at hand.

> It was always part of Syria, Iraq, Egypt or something else.

Syria (1946) and Iraq (1933) were also never distinct sovereign countries until decolonialization of British and French Mandatory territories in the 20th Century, either, and neither ever included Palestine.

I don't get the point here. Whether it was named Palestinian or not, it doesn't change the fact that Israel occupied those territories! We are talking about land, not names.

Well, in those books that you read, was it mentioned why Hezbollah was created and what it is doing now? Would you say they are terrorists but Israeli government is not? And what would you say if someone acts directly in a terror operation or via proxies? Does it matter?