Israel teamed up with terrorists

[Winehole23]

If these senior U.S. officials are telling the truth, there are a number of vital questions and conclusions raised by this. First, it would mean that the assurances by MEK’s paid American shills such as Howard Dean that “they are unarmed” are totally false: whoever murdered these scientists is obviously well-armed. Second, this should completely gut the effort to remove MEK from the list of designated Terrorist groups; after all, murdering Iran’s scientists through the use of bombs and guns is a defining act of a Terror group, at least as U.S. law attempts to define the term. Third, this should forever resolve the debate in which I was involved last month about whether the attack on these Iranian scientists cons utes Terrorism; as Daniel Larison put it yesterday: “If true, the murders of Iranian nuclear scientists with bombs have been committed by a recognized terrorist group. Can everyone acknowledge at this point that these attacks were acts of terrorism?”

same

[Agloco]

this is downright silly, IMHO.

lol greatest enemy

I understand that the largest threat is regional proliferation, regardless of what Iran may or may not opt to do with their new toys. Error margins shrink quite a bit with more players at the table. While I am obviously against the killing of scientists (imagine that) or anyone for that matter, I do tend to take quite a conservative view on Iran and how to handle the situation.

Really? what is your basis for that? Did this happen in Pakistan? Pakistan also funds terrorist organizations and has nuclear weapons, as well as an archenemy(India). Why has this not happened?

Why are you invoking Pakistan? Similar political/social forces at work?

Because this is the real world. Not neoconland.

It's not even physically possible to hand someone a nuclear weapon so they can go and use it as a terrorist weapon without massive repercussions. this aint 24

The Bauer, McCoy, Bourne, Rambo, and Dutch dream team. We could get some things done......

[Winehole23]

btw, what is the "conservative" approach to Iran?

[Wild Cobra]

btw, what is the "conservative" approach to Iran?

I got a chuckle out of McCain's response:

[Winehole23]

Preemptive war against a country that has not attacked us, poses no military threat to the US mainland and would only delay Iran's nuke program for a few years -- and could tip the whole world back into recession by causing energy prices to e -- is conservative how?

[Agloco]

btw, what is the "conservative" approach to Iran?

For my part, it's erring on the side of caution as it pertains to its nuclear programme (ie finding a way to halt it). Engaging Iran directly in dialogue would be my preferred method of dealing with them. It's quite difficult to gauge intent in these matters, especially running through a middle man. As such, context tends to guide us to our conclusions however right or wrong they may be. Currently, the context is one of clandestine high-uranium enrichment on the part of the Iranians. I know of only one purpose for that.

True board "conservatives" may tend to advocate stronger measures: airstrikes, or possibly even tacit approval of these killings.

Either way, I do think that turning a blind eye to the matter today invites greater troubles down the road.

[Winehole23]

Has someone suggested turning a blind eye toward Iran?

[Agloco]

Has someone suggested turning a blind eye toward Iran?

Ron Paul?

His views have a few supporters on this board as well. There appears to be a schizophrenic component to "conservative" foreign policy.

One would think that negotiation should play a key part regardless of which lens we view this through.

[Winehole23]

Too bad the USA refused the overtures of Brazil and Turkey earlier, just as it now dismisses the possibility of further negotiations in the 5+1 framework.

[Winehole23]

And the NATO action in Libya showed the world the just desserts for compliance, normalization and forswearing nuclear weapons. We didn't think that one all the way through, tbh.

[Winehole23]

Jonathan Tobin answers the criticisms of his defense of alleged Israel-MEK cooperation:

All seem to agree Israel’s alleged use of the MEK to kill Iranian scientists is an act of terrorism, and this makes Israel a state sponsor of terrorism. They also believe it is terribly hypocritical of those of us who denounce terrorist attacks on Jews and Israelis to think it is okay to knock off those working on Iran’s nuclear program.

As Paul Pillar wrote the other day, assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists are acts of terrorism whether the MEK is involved or not:

With or without confirmation of details of this story, the assassinations are terrorism. (The official U.S. government definition of terrorism for reporting and statistic-keeping purposes is “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.”)

The attacks also fit the legal definition of international terrorism according to U.S. law. If true, the alleged use of the MEK for these attacks removes all doubt that these are acts of terrorism. If Israel has sponsored these attacks, it has sponsored acts of terrorism. The question is whether it is acceptable to employ terrorist tactics and terrorist groups against certain states. Should we apply one moral standard that condemns terrorism in all its forms without exception, or do we say that there is one standard for our government, allies and clients, and another for other states? Tobin comes down clearly in favor of a double standard. That was Greenwald’s point from the beginning.


It isn’t true that Tobin’s critics are setting up a moral equivalence between the governments of Israel and Iran. Tobin makes the charge that the other critics and I are indulging in such moral relativism for the purpose of “delegitimizing” Israel, but it is Tobin who wants one standard for judging Israeli behavior and a very different one for judging Iranian behavior. What all of us are saying is that there is a moral and legal equivalence between different acts of terrorism, and that the victims of terrorist attacks are equally human. The lives of Iranian civilians have just as much value as the lives of Israeli civilians. The former don’t become more expendable because their government is authoritarian, abusive, and supports Hamas. If it is wrong and illegal for one group or state to commit acts of terrorism, it must be wrong and illegal in all cases. The reasons for the acts shouldn’t matter, and neither should the justifications. Either we reject the amoral logic that the ends justify the means, or we endorse it.

http://www.theamericanconservative.c...efensible-iii/

[Spurs da champs]

As far as I see it Iran has never attacked anyone & who honestly are we to tell them if they can have a nuke or not? And I love how Israel has over 300 nukes but yet no one gets on them talk about double standard.

Also they've started many wars, if they strike Iran let them suffer the consequences not our troops.

Another funny thing about Israel is the fact that they started these little 'terrorist' attacks but when Iran retaliates they get all pissed off.

[NewcastleKEG]

As far as I see it Iran has never attacked anyone & who honestly are we to tell them if they can have a nuke or not? And I love how Israel has over 300 nukes but yet no one gets on them talk about double standard.

Also they've started many wars, if they strike Iran let them suffer the consequences not our troops.

Another funny thing about Israel is the fact that they started these little 'terrorist' attacks but when Iran retaliates they get all pissed off.

I wouldn't blame extremist from striking in America

[mercos]

As far as I see it Iran has never attacked anyone & who honestly are we to tell them if they can have a nuke or not? And I love how Israel has over 300 nukes but yet no one gets on them talk about double standard.

Also they've started many wars, if they strike Iran let them suffer the consequences not our troops.

Another funny thing about Israel is the fact that they started these little 'terrorist' attacks but when Iran retaliates they get all pissed off.

Iran has attacked Israel by funneling money and weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah who have in turn launched repeated attacks against Israeli citizens. It is fine if you are against the use of force to handle the nuclear problem, but let's not pretend Iran is some innocent country that is getting picked on.

[Spurs da champs]

Iran has attacked Israel by funneling money and weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah who have in turn launched repeated attacks against Israeli citizens. It is fine if you are against the use of force to handle the nuclear problem, but let's not pretend Iran is some innocent country that is getting picked on.

Zionist Israel kicked Palestinians out of their state & is a racist state with apartheid. Please dont act like Israel is some innocent country that is getting picked on.

[Nbadan]

Israel has a Neocon problem that would give Cheney a woody....

[Winehole23]

a Massachusetts resident, Tarek Mehanna, is being prosecuted now ”for posting pro-jihadist material on the internet”

On April 12, Mr. Mehanna was sentenced to 17 and a half years in prison. Hearing this, most Americans would probably assume that the F.B.I. caught a major homegrown terrorist and that 17 and a half years is reasonable punishment for someone plotting to engage in terrorism. The details, however, reveal this to be one of the most important free speech cases we have seen since Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969..

...Because Mr. Mehanna’s conviction was based largely on things he said, wrote and translated. Yet that speech was not prosecuted according to the Brandenburg standard of incitement to “imminent lawless action” but according to the much more troubling standard of having the intent to support a foreign terrorist organization.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/op...ewanted=1&_r=3

[Winehole23]

There is no real doubt that Mehanna is an al Qaeda supporter, traveled to Yemen to try to get some Jihad on (failed), translated al Qaeda do ents to spread propaganda and clearly hates his own country's foreign policy to a degree that allowed him to want to see hi fellow citizens incinerated, like "BBQ," in his analogy. But I see no tangible, direct, organizational links with al Qaeda as in the Awlaki case; and mere translation and abhorrent, treasonous views. I can see why some conspiracy charges might have been salient, but a 17 year sentence? That seems unduly punitive to me.

Part of the problem is that Mehanna's backers really don't believe we are at war (hence the fact that both sides can talk past each other). But if we are at war, enemy propagandists have not historically been treated as untouchable. A reader writes:

I have no idea why anyone thinks that the propagandists for our military enemies should be afforded freedom of speech. Here’s a quick list of Axis propagandists tried, imprisoned, and in some cases executed after World War II:
* William Joyce – Lord Haw-Haw, British propagandist for the Germans
* Fred W. Kaltenbach – Lord Hee-Haw, American propagandist for the Germans
* Iva Toguri D’Aquino – Tokyo Rose, American propagandist for the Japanese
* Mildred Gillars – Axis Sally, American propagandist for the Germans
* Rita Zucca – Axis Sally, American propagandist for the Italians
These individual did not take up arms in the field of battle, but they all betrayed their native lands in their attempts to destroy Allied morale and extol the virtues of fascism during wartime. It is uncontroversial that they were guilty of treason. How is it controversial when the enemy is Al-Qaeda?

We have aired both sides of the argument and after reading more, I feel less confident in my previous position. But I wonder if, say, Glenn Greenwald, believes that treason itself is a crime. Or should be. And if Mehanna is not a traitor, who would be?

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast....ech-ctd-1.html