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.
Quite disturbing to read.
Is it okay to assassinate scientists? How about tech CEOs and software engineers?
To me, the most troubling thing is that Iran seems to do nothing in response.
I don't understand these replies.
Anyways, lots of countries (Iran included) fund these type of spy groups. They do bad shit. That is their function. I imagine their masters think the ends justify means. Regardless, complaining that spy agencies are unethical is like complaining the mafia is unethical. Its just something that basically goes without saying.
In both cases it's mostly posturing, but killing scientists and saying we had to, it's self defense is especially disgusting to me.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
INTERPOL does come after you.
There are also extradition treaties.
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.
* 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.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abqaiq%E2%80%93Khurais_attack
That isn't to excuse anyone, but yes, Iran and Israel have effectively been at war for decades.
Burgas bus bombing is another: 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.
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...
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”.
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.
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.
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!
If you want to say that something being reported by the NYT and corroborated by another paper isn't enough, feel free to do so, but it's not relevant to my comment
As for the rest of your comment, it seems you need to do some preliminary reading: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_...
Cuba doesn't factor into this, they weren't a signatory.
> we used to have inspectors to do such thing
I understood it to mean that the inspectors would take care to prevent Iran nuclear weapons. Which I found to be a ridiculous claim but formally correct. The same way my claim that you should not trust NYT report in this case, before some due process is ridiculous.
For Cuba, I was referring to missile crisis between USSR and USA. It is always good to be well read thank you for your suggestion, but I think the quoted link to wikipedia is due to your misunderstanding ..
Beyond that, do we agree on this: Iran developes nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and openly threatens to destroy Israel and the scientist was a key figure in it.
If we agree to this, than we can move forward. Since my claim was that Israel thinks the scientist is an existential thread to its existence. Under such curcumstances, imo, in most cases any country would be willing to commit an act of war to eliminate the thread. The Cuba crisis is an example where US would be willing to start a nuclear war because it felt "uncomfortable" having USSR missiles near its borders. So I was asking when you say "We" who do you refer to?
Nukes are too serious to leave to the supervision of a political mission of scientists.
> 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.