Was the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh self defense?

[Zaroku]

***in A, why is this even a question. What's worse is the high ups at the CIA are asking this ****** arse question. Like bin laden when we had a couple chances to take him up and did nothing.
Wake the *** up you sissy ass Americans.

Scratch one rag head! I don’t actually mean this.. Iran, pre islam, under Cyrus The Great feed all captives and many ***s chose to stay. Cyrus was truly great and let all practice their own religion freely. Magnificent and Beneficent, he gave his ***s money to go back home and rebuild their temple and walls.

***s always speak his praises as being a wise and fair king.

Islam took over, and they converted under the sword and changed their names to Arabic from Farci.

Farci is a very ancient and poetic language..

Urdu is what Pakistani people speak.

The days of good kings are over! We got politicians who never seen battle, who never broke a sweat working and make decisions that benefit them and their supporters.

Cyrus would hang them all publicly for fiscal malfeasance and corruption.

[Citizen Koba]

Unless we consider the normalisation of assassination as a tool of state policy to be a good thing then I suggest it's probably not a good idea to define it as such. If we consider it acceptable to assassinate foreign nationals who we consider a threat, on what grounds do we object to other countries returning the favour?

Typically you'd need there to be an immediate and definite threat - a 'clear and present danger' if you like - to even consider an argument of self defense.

A kinda nebulous claim about some future existential threat can can be used to rationalise or justify almost any act no matter how grotesque... that's a particular pandora's box we probably be better off trying to keep shut.

[4truth]

Unless we consider the normalisation of assassination as a tool of state policy to be a good thing then I suggest it's probably not a good idea to define it as such. If we consider it acceptable to assassinate foreign nationals who we consider a threat, on what grounds do we object to other countries returning the favour?

Typically you'd need there to be an immediate and definite threat - a 'clear and present danger' if you like - to even consider an argument of self defense.

A kinda nebulous claim about some future existential threat can can be used to rationalise or justify almost any act no matter how grotesque... that's a particular pandora's box we probably be better off trying to keep shut.

A ****** fundamentalist led state developing nuclear weapons is hardly a “kinda nebulous claim about some future existential threat?

[Zaroku]

Many in the Middle East consider the us government to be *********s...it’s all in the eye of the beholder. With all the havoc that’s been perpetrated over there, one could even argue that assessment to be correct from their point of view.

Could you imagine the mayhem that would ensue if Iran assassinated an America scientist on US soil? I’m not so quick to justify assassinations on foreign soil when it’s someone who’s part of a sitting government’s regime...this guy was not some rogue ********* like Baghdadi.

This post is excellent.. ^^

But, the ***ish people have a long history of being attacked, killed and hated.

Christians got a *** Jesus, ******s have
Mohammed who seems to have had literate ***s write his koran(or so some said)

In religious circles some ***s say, we ***s lost our temple and land because if disobedience

Other ***s say, no more holocaust let’s go home.

Many will say Israel isn’t a ***ish home land.. they are ill informed

Targeted assignations vs all out war?

If a countries stated goals are to kill all ***s, and I ain’t a white boy ***.

How many presidents in the US of A have been assisted?? How many monarchs have been assassinated ?

Who cares what sovereign soil it happens on and whose to say there wasn’t a tacit agreement in place?

I’m not privy to such information. I don’t know who or why he was gotten rid of?

If a bomb and well placed bomb got rid of a guy who wanted to wipe out other human beings
It’s a good thing.

If Hitler got killed early in his career it would be a good thing?!? Yes or No?

I tend to err on the side of caution..

Let’s say this nuke scientists didn’t get killed and he creates a bomb that’s dropped on Israel. Then from submarines Israel drops a lot of nuke bombs on Iran and nobody wins.

The guy who got assinated stated his goals publicly

[The Big Dunn]

It wasn’t self defense. It was just a ********* scientist being killed. I don’t see what the big deal is. No need to try to make it morally justifiable or acceptable.

This is how America deals with our enemies.

[Citizen Koba]

A ****** fundamentalist led state developing nuclear weapons is hardly a “kinda nebulous claim about some future existential threat?

They ain't got the capacity to do anything here and now, man. Iran ain't about to nuke Jerusalem and for all their posturing for the domestic audience nor are they likely to, because they would get effing annihilated and contrary to what you might think very few ******s really got any desire to meet Allah just yet.

Massive contravention of international norms here, not only is it illegal to go around assassinating people it's also dramtically escalatory and makes the whole pile of **** that much more likely to go up in flames. Effing crazy frankly, at least IMO.

How about China decides nuclear armed India is an existential threat and starts taking out Indian scientists or government officials... you support that too? Point is you excuse this and you can excuse pretty much anything, just cos you decided one side is the goodies and the other is the baddies doesn't mean the rest of the world gonna see things the same way.

Anyways, worth considering that much of the world perceives the US as an major threat too... basically a murderous class bully. And given the track record of Iran and the US most would be forgiven in thinking the US is the greater existential threat. What you gonna say if they use the pre-emptive self defensive argument or is it just a case of might makes right?

Besides Israel actually already does have Nuclear weapons already and the ability to obliterate Iran, metaphorically they have a knife to Iran's throat... take away your ideological blinkers and you could fairly argue that Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons were themselves an act of self defense. Just depends how far down that track you want to go I guess.


EDIT: FWIW you might want to read the timeline of Iranian involvment in the NPT and the actions of the US and the ***** administration in particular which have actually massively escalated an issue that was on it's way to being fairly amicably resolved.

[man down]

Unless we consider the normalisation of assassination as a tool of state policy to be a good thing then I suggest it's probably not a good idea to define it as such. If we consider it acceptable to assassinate foreign nationals who we consider a threat, on what grounds do we object to other countries returning the favour?

Typically you'd need there to be an immediate and definite threat - a 'clear and present danger' if you like - to even consider an argument of self defense.

A kinda nebulous claim about some future existential threat can can be used to rationalise or justify almost any act no matter how grotesque... that's a particular pandora's box we probably be better off trying to keep shut.

Who's this we chit? Do you live here, in the US?

[Citizen Koba]

Who's this we chit? Do you live here, in the US?

Us... you and me, and anyone else reading this. It's an international forum, man. It's an appropriate use of the term in context whether we live in the same country or not. We are all citizens of the planet man, and international norms are just that.. international.

Besides if I'm understanding right the discussion is about a probable Israeli assassination of an Iranian citizen... if folk from the US are allowed an opinion why ain't folk from the UK or anywhere else?

Since the late 20th century, the legal status of targeted killing has become a subject of contention within and between various nations. Historically, at least since the mid-eighteenth century, Western thinking has generally considered the use of assassination as a tool of statecraft to be illegal.

Some twenty-six members of United States Congress,[10] with academics such as Gregory Johnsen and Charles Schmitz, media figures (Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald,[11] James Traub), civil rights groups (i.e. the American Civil Liberties Union)[12] and ex-CIA station chief in Islamabad, Robert Grenier,[13] have criticized targeted killings as a form of extrajudicial killings, which may be illegal under both United States and international law

[man down]

Us... you and me, and anyone else reading this. It's an international forum, man. It's an appropriate use of the term in context whether we live in the same country or not. We are all citizens of the planet man, and international norms are just that.. international.

Besides if I'm understanding right the discussion is about a probable Israeli assassination of an Iranian citizen... if folk from the US are allowed an opinion why ain't folk from the UK or anywhere else?

It's as simple as this. If you're a proven ********* then you have no rights. End of story.

[Citizen Koba]

It's as simple as this. If you're a proven ********* then you have no rights. End of story.

I wish I could see the world in terms that straightforward my man, but I'll leave it there. My aim ain't to upset anyone, or poke at any deeply held narratives, just to provide a different perspective.

"if we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil."[6]