1984Echoes Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 More details, if anyone cares: Argentina court blames Iran for 1990s terror attacks on Israeli embassy, AMIA center Branding Islamic Republic a ‘terrorist state,’ ruling says Hezbollah carried out deadly bombings on Tehran’s orders, calls 1994 bombing of Jewish center a crime against humanity By AFP 12 April 2024, 6:37 am BUENOS AIRES — Over three decades after deadly attacks in Buenos Aires targeted Israel’s embassy and a Jewish center, an Argentine court placed the blame Thursday on Iran and declared it a “terrorist state,” according to local media. The ruling, cited by press reports, said Iran had ordered the attack in 1992 on Israel’s embassy and the 1994 attack on the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) Jewish center. The court also implicated the Iran-backed Lebanese Shiite terror movement Hezbollah and called the attack against the AMIA, the deadliest in Argentina’s history, a “crime against humanity,” according to court documents cited by media reports. “Hezbollah carried out an operation that responded to a political, ideological and revolutionary design under the mandate of a government, of a state,” Carlos Mahiques, one of the three judges who issued the decision, told Radio Con Vos, referencing Iran. In 1992, a bomb attack on the Israeli embassy left 29 dead. Two years later, a truck loaded with explosives drove into the AMIA Jewish center and detonated, leaving 85 dead and 300 injured. The 1994 assault has never been claimed or solved, but Argentina and Israel have long suspected Hezbollah carried it out at Iran’s request. Prosecutors charged top Iranian officials with ordering the attack. Tehran has denied any involvement. Argentina has the largest Jewish community in Latin America, with some 300,000 members. It is also home to immigrant communities from the Middle East, in particular from Syria and Lebanon. The judges ruled Thursday that the AMIA attack was a crime against humanity, and blame then-president Ali Akbar Hashemi Bahramaie Rafsanjani as well as other Iranian officials and Hezbollah members. The decision was welcomed by the president of the Delegation of Israelite Associations of Argentina (DAIA), Jorge Knoblovits. He told Radio Mitre the ruling “is very important because it enables the victims to go to the International Criminal Court.” Former Argentine president Carlos Menem, who died in 2021 and was the president at the time of both attacks, was tried for covering up the AMIA bombing, but ultimately acquitted. His former intelligence chief, Hugo Anzorreguy, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail for his role in obstructing the probe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 I'd argue Israel taking a small crew into Iran and killing this general in his home would be less of a line crossed then killing him in an embassy in a different country altogether. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 13 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: More details, if anyone cares: I'm going to go out on a limb and say Iran probably sanctioned both of those. But if Iran tortures prisoners of war, does that mean we should do the same to their troops? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 16 Author Share Posted April 16 (edited) 37 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I certainly don't want to get into moral high ground statements when we're talking Iran, but Israel bombed an embassy in an entirely different sovereign nation. That just doesn't sit right with me, even if I'm not sad about the loss of life of the Iranian military members and acknowledge their sins. I don't argue that a certain set of protocols have existed in the Western World about things that 'weren't done' because of a longer term realization that as bad as war is, things could be worse with no rules at all. The problem is that the your garden variety Islamic radical has already thrown all those rules out the window with the use of civilian terror, civilian hostages, non-uniformed combatants, human shield warfare, drilling military capability into civilian infrastructure, etc, etc. There is a paradigm in game theory where the best course is to hold to the rules when your adversary first violates them, but if the behavior continues, you win by meeting fire with fire. The US has pretty much always followed that course in wartime, so we are in no position to criticize Israel for doing the same. Edited April 16 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 9 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I'd argue Israel taking a small crew into Iran and killing this general in his home would be less of a line crossed then killing him in an embassy in a different country altogether. But it's OK for Iran to kill Israelis in their Argentinian embassy? Isn't an embassy in a different country altogether? And.. Iran has ZERO qualms about crossing that line... Because it's just SO simple for an Israeli team to waltz into Syria and kill an IRGC general in his home (with NO guards? Doubt it. Is his FAMILY at that home? Wouldn't there be an outcry if...?) The IRGC (Iranian general/ ARCHITECT of the Oct 7th BUTCHERY) is HANDS OFF because... he's in an embassy in a different country? Like Bin Laden was in that Pakistani compound? So the U.S. just can NOT go "into a different country altogether" to try to take him out... correct? You're not thinking this through. Just sayin' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 31 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: You're not thinking this through. Just sayin' You're just looking at this as black and white....just sayin' I am not upset about who was killed by Israel in that attack, simply felt it crossed a line. I have no qualms with anyone saying they think it was worth it, but if the way it was carried out doesn't at least give you pause, I won't put much value in your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 1 hour ago, ewsieg said: You're just looking at this as black and white....just sayin' I am not upset about who was killed by Israel in that attack, simply felt it crossed a line. I have no qualms with anyone saying they think it was worth it, but if the way it was carried out doesn't at least give you pause, I won't put much value in your opinion. I would have ABSOLUTELY ZERO pause killing Bin Laden in an Iranian embassy in Iran, or Syria, or Pakistan... And I think most Americans would be upset if any President said: "Sorry, we had a chance at Bin Laden in an embassy annex primarily occupied by Al Qaeda personnel, including Bin Laden, .... but we passed because it was a military annex of an embassy in a different country." In fact... I think you would be upset about that too. But if not... If you would just pass because of the reasons you have given: then I would put zero value in your opinion that a terrorism architect need only hide in plain sight and be safe from retribution because... reasons. I have no tolerance for terrorists. None. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 16 Author Share Posted April 16 1 hour ago, ewsieg said: You're just looking at this as black and white....just sayin' I am not upset about who was killed by Israel in that attack, simply felt it crossed a line. I have no qualms with anyone saying they think it was worth it, but if the way it was carried out doesn't at least give you pause, I won't put much value in your opinion. Israel has always said that if you kill our people, there is nothing we care about you hiding behind that will stop us from coming after you. This is a basic premise of the position they take in a hostile neighborhood. It's a piece of their deterrence posture, just like a Trident submarine is for us. We can express our own scruples about it but we shouldn't be surprised by it or think it represents any change in long standing Israeli policy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 9 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: Israel has always said that if you kill our people, there is nothing we care about you hiding behind that will stop us from coming after you. This is a basic premise of the position they take in a hostile neighborhood. It's a piece of their deterrence posture, just like a Trident submarine is for us. We can express our own scruples about it but we shouldn't be surprised by it or think it represents any change in long standing Israeli policy. This is what I can respect. Not... quibbling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted April 16 Author Share Posted April 16 (edited) 33 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: This is what I can respect. Not... quibbling. and if you look at the logic, once Iran sent Hamas into such an outright act of war against them, what practical difference does it make to Israel to do something that does nothing more than put them into state of war with Iran they are already in by virtue of Oct 6? I think we tend make more distinction between Hamas and Iran than does Israel, who sees Hamas as a direct extension of Iran. As the ineffective missile attack showed, Iran doesn't have capabilities to strike Israel directly that are more effective that what they already have unleashed in the form of Hamas so the idea that a more outright state of war between Israel and Iran would be any 'wider' than it already is more a Western Media concept than a reality on the ground. Edited April 16 by gehringer_2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 Bingo! You win! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said: Israel has always said that if you kill our people, there is nothing we care about you hiding behind that will stop us from coming after you. This is a basic premise of the position they take in a hostile neighborhood. It's a piece of their deterrence posture, just like a Trident submarine is for us. We can express our own scruples about it but we shouldn't be surprised by it or think it represents any change in long standing Israeli policy. Is this an example of this "follow all of the rules once" thing that you seem to be arguing Israel is currently attempting to do? Seems like it's not. Quote There is a paradigm in game theory where the best course is to hold to the rules when your adversary first violates them, but if the behavior continues, you win by meeting fire with fire. The US has pretty much always followed that course in wartime, so we are in no position to criticize Israel for doing the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 If you're saying they're now playing by the terrorist rules since they tried to not play by terrorist rules once then I'm really glad I'm not here arguing relative morality of either Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 Israel is NOT playing by terrorists rules. They are playing by the international rules of engagement. A hospital is no longer granted sanctuary if combatants are shooting at enemy soldiers from a hospital. That hospital is no longer a hospital, it is a military compound. An architect of a terrorist act against my country, such as 9/11, or Oct 7th for Israel, cannot hide behind the Taliban in a foreign country. Cannot hide behind the sanctuary of an enemies country. Cannot walk the streets with impunity. My country will declare war against a foreign country that provides sanctuary for said terrorist. This has already been established as precedent. And it is internationally accepted as a nation's duty to protect its citizens. A terrorism architect cannot hide in a foreign country's compound, in any location that an assassin (IE: Mossad) can get to him, cannot hide inside of a military annex to an embassy... Without retribution. If you (general "you" to the world, not a "you" to anyone specifically here...) commit an act of terrorism against my country, I will (or my countries military forces or secret agents...) will kill (general... terrorist) you. There is no moral relativity here. Murder my citizens and there will be retribution. Where is the moral relativity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 IDK, I didn't argue that nations like the US and Israel follow the rules for a little while and then "meet fire with fire" if their opponents don't follow the rules. In fact, not only did I not argue that - you agreed with that argument! Quote There is a paradigm in game theory where the best course is to hold to the rules when your adversary first violates them, but if the behavior continues, you win by meeting fire with fire. The US has pretty much always followed that course in wartime, so we are in no position to criticize Israel for doing the same. Now I'll admit I don't know for sure if he's saying they're still currently trying to follow the rules, or if they've decided to "meet fire with fire". That's why I addressed both potentialities. I tend to think this rule here seems invented by Israel so I'm not sure that means they're currently attempting to follow rules: Quote Israel has always said that if you kill our people, there is nothing we care about you hiding behind that will stop us from coming after you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 32 minutes ago, pfife said: ... and then "meet fire with fire" if their opponents don't follow the rules... Trying to equate a nation going to war against the perpetrators of a terrorist act, With the terrorist act... Is pretty heinous. IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 (edited) 15 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said: Trying to equate a nation going to war against the perpetrators of a terrorist act, With the terrorist act... Is pretty heinous. IMO. I also didn't think the game theory was applicable either and stated why. Edited April 17 by pfife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 I don't think the comparison is heinous though. I just don't agree with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1984Echoes Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 That's fine. No worries... You have your ideas and I have mine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 1 minute ago, 1984Echoes said: That's fine. No worries... You have your ideas and I have mine... Why would either of us be worried? We both agree that we disagree with a statement I did not make: Quote There is a paradigm in game theory where the best course is to hold to the rules when your adversary first violates them, but if the behavior continues, you win by meeting fire with fire. The US has pretty much always followed that course in wartime, so we are in no position to criticize Israel for doing the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 Noting that the massive attempt by Iran to attack Israel on Saturday (shomer shabbos!) involved a large segment of missiles that aimed into the Negev desert. Apparently they were trying to take out Israel's F-35s. Welp, Iran is putting out pictures of a bunch of MIG-29s destroyed at a Ukrainian airbase in 2022 saying that these were Israel's F-35s -- not understanding that there are no bigger and more tiresome nerds in the world than airplane recognition nerds. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 2 hours ago, romad1 said: Noting that the massive attempt by Iran to attack Israel on Saturday (shomer shabbos!) involved a large segment of missiles that aimed into the Negev desert. Apparently they were trying to take out Israel's F-35s. Welp, Iran is putting out pictures of a bunch of MIG-29s destroyed at a Ukrainian airbase in 2022 saying that these were Israel's F-35s -- not understanding that there are no bigger and more tiresome nerds in the world than airplane recognition nerds. The folks in Iran and their buddys will see those old pics and not question the authenticity and will quick step line up to die for Allah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 3 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said: The folks in Iran and their buddys will see those old pics and not question the authenticity and will quick step line up to die for Allah. they want them to be authentic. that's just as good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 Heroes? Or vigilantes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.