Israel Teams With Terror Group to Kill Irans Nuke Scientists

[Flagg]

NBC

Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC News
Rock Center with Brian Williams
-
Thu Feb 9, 2012 6:16 AM EST

Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.
ROCK CENTER EXCLUSIVE

The group, the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, has long been designated as a terrorist group by the United States, accused of killing American servicemen and contractors in the 1970s and supporting the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran before breaking with the Iranian mullahs in 1980.

The attacks, which have killed five Iranian nuclear scientists since 2007 and may have destroyed a missile research and development site, have been carried out in dramatic fashion, with motorcycle-borne assailants often attaching small magnetic bombs to the exterior of the victims’ cars.

U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign but has no direct involvement.

The Iranians have no doubt who is responsible – Israel and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, known by various acronyms, including MEK, MKO and PMI.

“The relation is very intricate and close,” said Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, speaking of the MEK and Israel. “They (Israelis) are paying … the Mujahedin. Some of their (MEK) agents … (are) providing Israel with information. And they recruit and also manage logistical support.”

Moreover, he said, the Mossad, the Israeli secret service, is training MEK members in Israel on the use of motorcycles and small bombs. In one case, he said, Mossad agents built a replica of the home of an Iranian nuclear scientist so that the assassins could familiarize themselves with the layout prior to the attack.

Much of what the Iranian government knows of the attacks and the links between Israel and MEK comes from interrogation of an assassin who failed to carry out an attack in late 2010 and the materials found on him, Larijani said. (Click here to see a video report of the interrogation shown on Iranian televsion.)

The U.S.-educated Larijani, whose two younger brothers run the legislative and judicial branches of the Iranian government, said the Israelis’ rationale is simple. “Israel does not have direct access to our society. Mujahedin, being Iranian and being part of Iranian society, they have … a good number of … places to get into the touch with people. So I think they are working hand-to-hand very close. And we do have very concrete documents.”

Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News the MEK’s role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, “All your inclinations are correct.” A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet.” All the officials denied any U.S. involvement in the assassinations.

As it has in the past, Israel’s Foreign Ministry declined comment. Said a spokesman, "As long as we can't see all the evidence being claimed by NBC, the Foreign Ministry won't react to every gossip and report being published worldwide."

For its part, the MEK pointed to a statement calling the allegations “absolutely false.”

The sophistication of the attacks supports the Iranian claims that an experienced intelligence service is involved, experts say.

In the most recent attack, on Jan. 11, 2012, Mostafa Ahamdi Roshan died in a blast in Tehran moments after two assailants on a motorcycle placed a small magnetic bomb on his vehicle. Roshan was a deputy director at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility and was reportedly involved in procurement for the nuclear program, which Iran insists is not a weapons program.

Previous attacks include the assassination of Massoud Ali-Mohammadi, killed by a bomb outside his Tehran home in January 2010, and an explosion in November of that year that took the life of Majid Shahriari and wounded Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, who is now the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.

In the case of Roshan, the bomb appears to have been a shaped charge that directed all the explosive power inside the vehicle, killing him and his bodyguard driver but leaving nearby traffic unaffected.

Although Roshan was directly involved in the nuclear program, working at the huge centrifuge facility between Tehran and Qom, Iran’s religious center, at least one other scientist who was killed wasn’t linked to the Iranian nuclear program, according to Larijani.

Speaking of bombing victim Ali-Mohammadi, whom he described as a friend, Larijani told NBC News, “In fact this guy who was assassinated was not involved in the nitty-gritty of the situation. He was a scientist, a physicist, working on the theoretically parts of nuclear energy, which you can teach it in every university. You can find it in every text.”

“This is an Israeli plot. A dirty plot,” Larijani added angrily. He also claimed the assassinations are not having an effect on the program and have only made scientists more resolute in carrying out their mission.

Not so, said Ronen Bergman, an Israeli commentator and author of “Israel’s Secret War with Iran” and an upcoming book tentatively titled, “Mossad and the Art of Assassination.”

Bergman said the attacks have three purposes, the most obvious being the removal of high-ranking scientists and their knowledge. The others: forcing Iran to increase security for its scientists and facilities and to spur “white defections.”

He explained the latter this way: “Scientists leaving the project, afraid that they are going to be next on the assassination list, and say, ‘We don't want this. Indeed, we get good money, we are promoted, we are honored by everybody, but we might get killed. It isn't worth it. Maybe we should go back to teach … in a university.’”

There are unconfirmed reports in the Israeli press and elsewhere that Israel and the MEK were involved in a Nov. 12 explosion that destroyed the Iranian missile research and development site at Bin Kaneh, 30 miles outside Tehran. Among those killed was Maj. Gen. Hassan Moghaddam, director of missile development for the Revolutionary Guard, and a dozen other researchers. So important was Moghaddam that Ayatollah Khamenei attended his funeral.

Unlike the assassinations, Iran claims the missile site explosion was an accident; the MEK, meanwhile, trumpeted it but denied any involvement.

Indeed, there may be other covert operations carried out either by Israel acting alone or in concert with others, according to Bergman.

“Two labs caught fire,” said Bergman, enumerating the attacks. “Scientists got blown up or disappeared. A missile base and the R&D base of the Revolutionary Guard exploded some time ago, with the director of the R&D division of the Revolutionary Guard being killed along with … his soldiers.”

Bergman added, “So, a long series of … something that was termed by an Israeli (Cabinet) minister … as ‘mysterious mishaps’ happening and rehappening to the project. Then the Iranians claim, ‘This is Israeli Mossad trying to sabotage our attempts to be a nuclear superpower.’”

Dr. Uzi Rabi, director of the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University, said the supposed accidents could all be part of “psychological warfare” conducted against Iran. “It seems logical. It makes sense,” he said of possible MEK involvement, “and it’s been done before.”

Rabi, who regularly briefs Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, on Iran also said the ultimate goal of the range of covert operations being carried out by Israel is “to damage the politics of survivability … to send a message that could strike fear into the rulers of Iran.”

For the United States, the alleged role of the MEK is particularly troublesome. In 1997, the State Department designated it a terrorist group, justifying it with an unclassified 40-page summary of the organization’s activities going back more than 25 years. The paper, sent to Congress in 1998, was written by Wendy Sherman, now undersecretary of state for political affairs and then an aide to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

The report, which was obtained by NBC News, was unsparing in its assessment. “The Mujahedin (MEK) collaborated with Ayatollah Khomeini to overthrow the former shah of Iran,” it said. “As part of that struggle, they assassinated at least six American citizens, supported the takeover of the U.S. embassy, and opposed the release of the American hostages.” In each case, the paper noted, “Bombs were the Mujahedin's weapon of choice, which they frequently employed against American targets.”

“In the post-revolutionary political chaos, however, the Mujahedin lost political power to Iran's Islamic clergy. They then applied their dedication to armed struggle and the use of propaganda against the new Iranian government, launching a violent and polemical cycle of attack and reprisal."

U.S. officials have said publicly that the information contained in the report was limited to unclassified material, but that it also drew on classified material in making its determination to add the MEK to the U.S. list of terrorist organizations.

The MEK and its sister organizations have since the beginning been run by Massoud and Maryam Rajavi, a husband-wife team who have maintained tight control despite assassination threats and internal dissent. Massoud Rajavi, 63, founded the MEK, but since the U.S. invasion of Iraq has taken a backseat to his wife.

The State Department report describes the Rajavis as “fundamentally undemocratic” and “not a viable alternative to the current government of Iran.”

One reason for that is the MEK’s close relationship with Saddam Hussein, as demonstrated by this 1986 video showing the late Iraqi dictator meeting with Massoud Rajavi. Saddam recruited the MEK in much the same way the Israelis allegedly have, using them to fight Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq War, a role they took on proudly. So proudly, they invited NBC News to one of their military camps outside Baghdad in 1993.

“The National Liberation Army (MLA), the military wing of the Mujahedin, conducted raids into Iran during the latter years of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War,” according to the State Department report. The NLA's last major offensive reportedly was conducted against Iraqi Kurds in 1991, when it joined Saddam Hussein's brutal repression of the Kurdish rebellion. In addition to occasional acts of sabotage, the Mujahedin are responsible for violent attacks in Iran that victimize civilians.”

“Internally, the Mujahedin run their organization autocratically, suppressing dissent and eschewing tolerance of differing viewpoints,” it said. “Rajavi, who heads the Mojahedin’s political and military wings, has fostered a cult of personality around himself.”

The U.S. suspicion of the MEK doesn’t end there. Law enforcement officials have told NBC News that in 1994, the MEK made a pact with terrorist Ramzi Yousef a year after he masterminded the first attack on the World Trade Center in New York City. According to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Yousef built an 11-pound bomb that MEK agents placed inside one of Shia Islam’s greatest shrines in Mashad, Iran, on June 20, 1994. At least 26 people, mostly women and children, were killed and 200 wounded in the attack.

That connection between Yousef, nephew of 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, and the MEK was first reported in a book, “The New Jackals,” by Simon Reeve. NBC News confirmed that Yousef told U.S. law enforcement that he had worked with the MEK on the bombing.

In recent years, the MEK has said it has renounced violence, but Iranian officials say that is not true, that killings of Iranians continue. Still, through some deft lobbying, the group has been able to get the United Kingdom and the European Union to remove it from their lists of terrorist groups.

The alleged involvement of the MEK in the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists provides the U.S. with a cloak of deniability regarding the clandestine killings. Because the U.S. has designated the MEK as a terrorist organization, neither military nor intelligence units of the U.S. government, can work with them. “We cannot deal with them, “ said one senior U.S. official. “We would not deal with them because of the designation.”

Iranian officials initially accused the Israelis and MEK of being behind the attacks, but they have since added the CIA to the list. Three days after the Jan. 11, 2012, bombing in Tehran that killed Roshan, the state news agency IRNA reported that Iran’s Foreign Ministry had sent a diplomatic letter to the U.S. claiming to have “evidence and reliable information” that the CIA provided “guidance, support and planning” to assassins directly involved in the attack.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton immediately denied any connection to the killings. “I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” Clinton told reporters on the day of the attack.

But at least two GOP presidential candidates have no problem with the targeting of nuclear scientists. In a November debate, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich endorsed “taking out their scientists,” and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum called it, ”a wonderful thing.”

The MEK’s opposition to the Iranian government also has recently earned it both plaudits and support from an odd mix of political bedfellows.

A group of former Cabinet-level officials have joined together to support the MEK’s removal from the official U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organization list, even taking out a full-page ad last year in the New York Times calling for the removal of the MEK from the U.S. terrorist list. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton; former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former FBI Director Louis Freeh and former Rep. Patrick Kennedy were among those whose signatures were on the ad.

“There’s an extraordinary group of bipartisan or even apolitical leaders, military leaders, diplomats, the United States … the United Kingdom, the European Union, even a U.S. District Court in Washington, said that this group that was put on the foreign terrorist organization watch list in 1997 doesn’t deserve to be there,” Ridge said in November on “The Andrea Mitchell Show” on MSNBC TV.

U.S. politicians also have been pushing the U.S. government to protect the 3,400 MEK members and their families at Camp Ashraf in Iraq, about 35 miles north of Baghdad. With the departure of U.S. troops, the MEK feared that Iraqi forces, with encouragement from Iran, would attack the camp, leading to a bloodbath. At the last minute, however, agreement was brokered with the United Nations that would permit the MEK members’ departure for resettlement in unspecified democratic countries. As of this week, there’s been little movement on the planned resettlement.

The Iranians see what’s happening as terrorism and hypocrisy by the United States. They have forwarded documents and other evidence to the United Nations – and directly to the United States, they say.

“I think this is very cynical plan. This is unacceptable,” said Larijani. “This is a bad trend in the world. Unprecedented. We should kill scientists … to block a scientific program? I mean this is disaster!”

Daniel Byman, a professor in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University and also a senior fellow with the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said that if the accounts of the Israeli-MEK assassinations are accurate, the operation borders on terrorism.

“In theory, states cannot be terrorist, but if they hire locals to do assassinations, that would be state sponsorship,” said Byman, author of the recent book, “A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism.” “You could argue that they took action not to terrorize the public, the purpose of terrorism, but only the nuclear community. An argument could also be made that degrading the program means that you don’t have to take military action and thus, this is a lower level of violence and that really these are military targets, where normally terrorist targets are civilians.”

But ultimately, Byman said, there is a “spectrum of responsibility” and that Israel is ultimately responsible.

Ronen Bergman, while not speaking on behalf of the Israeli government, suggests that there is a justification, citing an oft-repeated but disputed quote in which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s said that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth.

“Meir Degan, the chief of Mossad, when he was in office, hung a photograph behind him, behind the chair of the chief of Mossad,” notes the Israeli commentator. “And in that photograph you see -- an ultra-orthodox Jew -- long beard, standing on his knees with his-- hands up in the air, and two Gestapo soldiers standing -- beside him with guns pointed at him. One of -- one of them is smiling.

“And Degan used to say to his people and the people coming to visit him from CIA, NSA, et cetera, ‘Look at this guy in the picture. This is my grandfather just seconds before he was killed by the SS,’” Bergman said. “’… We are here to prevent this from happening again.’"

Richard Engel is NBC News' chief foreign correspondent; Robert Windrem is a senior investigative producer.

Wow.

[Haruko]

This is just business as usual for Israel. I suppose there are no flotillas in international waters for their military to attack at the moment.

[Simon_Jester]

I have to say that the Israelis' actions here at least make sense, in a way the flotilla attack didn't.

You don't have to be a big fan of Israel to understand why they'd be really nervous about the Iranian nuclear program. Some major Iranian leaders take every opportunity to say Israel shouldn't exist. When people who think your country shouldn't exist are about to get ahold of weapons with which you really can make a country cease to exist, it's a frightening thing.

So I actually understand why they would try to assassinate Iranians connected to the 'Tehran Project' or whatever they're calling their nuclear program. I don't approve when there's collateral damage or killings of scientists involved in non-nuclear research. But compared to things like blockading Gaza and keeping modern medical treatment out of the place, this is a smaller thing with a more reasonable justification.

EDIT TO CLARIFY: I don't approve of the strict Gaza blockade, it's hurting a lot of innocent people. But I don't think people working on a nuclear bomb program can call themselves "innocent bystanders" from the point of view of a country that's the most likely possible target for those bombs.

[gigabytelord]

What the... I can't believe it, you're telling me that for the first time in a very long time, we're not backing the Israeli government up on something?

Something tells me that this may be the only way for the Obama administration to get out from under the control of AIPAC, let the people know what their doing, and then step back and let the people get pissed off and do something about it.

Because we all know the best way to get rid of your political opponents, is to dig up dirt about them, just, in this case it's true.

[PeZook]

The BEST dirt is the kind that's true. Except this...this is what intelligence agencies do all the time.

People get outraged of course, because of the usual double standard: it's an awesome realpolitik technothriller way to go around things if it's "us" who are doing it, but when it's "them" doing it it's vile terrorizationing. The US dronekilling people = good. Israel blowing up scientists = good. Suicide bombers attacking US Navy warships = TERRORIFICATION!!!

[Sarevok]

Double standard ? This is Israel we are talking about, the same nation that popularized the term "homicide bomber".

[Simon_Jester]

PeZook, you're right, and I try not to be hypocritical about it.

Al Qaeda bombing American embassies was terrorism. Al Qaeda bombing USS Cole was not terrorism, it was guerilla warfare- or morally equivalent to guerilla warfare even if it wasn't an overall guerilla campaign.

Israel bombing meetings of the civilian Iranian government would be terrorism. Israel assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, even with explosives- I don't consider that to be terrorism.

We're too quick these days to shout "terrorism" whenever any nonstate group tries to fight a state. "Terrorist" has become a word with a thousand mutually exclusive meanings, much as "fascism" or "democracy" was in Orwell's day. I at least try to stick to a consistent definition that we can all agree is always a bad thing no matter who does it to whom.

[PeZook]

PeZook, you're right, and I try not to be hypocritical about it.

Al Qaeda bombing American embassies was terrorism. Al Qaeda bombing USS Cole was not terrorism, it was guerilla warfare- or morally equivalent to guerilla warfare even if it wasn't an overall guerilla campaign.

Yeah, I didn't mean that you did it, just a certain subset of people, who are willing to excuse everything their country does while condemning every action of another country/group.

We mostly see it with Americans, but I have no doubt this is simply due to the sheer...vocality...of this group.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, yes.

I mean, you can easily find intellectuals in Western Europe during the 1920s, '30s, and '40s who would say things like "the Soviet press is the most free in the world." It's meretricious trash, but you can find people who said it. By the same token you can find people who call attacks on military targets "terrorism."

[Thanas]

Israel assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, even with explosives- I don't consider that to be terrorism.

Why not? What else is it?

Especially considering Israel seems to be targeting every nuclear physicist, no matter if they are involved in the program or not.

[Zaune]

Why not? What else is it?

An act of war, perhaps?

[Thanas]

Why not? What else is it?

An act of war, perhaps?

True, but lots of things are acts of war. State-sponsored-terrorism however more aptly describes the real act.

[Simon_Jester]

Israel assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, even with explosives- I don't consider that to be terrorism.

Why not? What else is it?

Especially considering Israel seems to be targeting every nuclear physicist, no matter if they are involved in the program or not.

"Terrorism" is not the same thing as "violence." And an action can be wrong- violent, aggressive, and unjust- without being "terrorism."

Terrorism aims at responses from the state as a whole and the general civilian population- attacks against crowds, highly visible landmarks, political figures, things like that. Secured targets are avoided, because the point of the exercise is to cause a lot of visible damage, not to pick a fight with the enemy's security forces. Common goals are things like spreadin fear and confusion, setting off a hostile government crackdown that will work in the terrorists' long-term interests, or undermining a political idea the terrorists oppose. In a terrorist attack, collateral damage is usually a bonus, not a downside- terrorists will use indiscriminate bombs, spray gunfire, take and execute hostages, and so on.

Not every terrorist action fits exactly into the short lists in that description, but if an act doesn't fit somewhere in or near that pattern, it shouldn't be called "terrorism."

Blowing up American patrols in Iraq with remote-controlled bombs is not terrorism. Blowing up a US warship in harbor with a boat full of explosives isn't terrorism either. Those are military targets, presumably able to defend themselves. Calling people "terrorists" for going after a strong military target makes the word "terrorist" so vague that it becomes meaningless- anyone who isn't part of a national military and who tries to fight a nation could be called a "terrorist."

More generally, if an action is aimed at the nation's security forces- its military, its intelligence agencies, its weapons development labs- I don't think that's terrorism either. The military-industrial-security complex is the heart of a nation's strength; it can defend itself against attack and can be a real threat to other nations. If some other country decides the threat is too big, and starts blowing up bits of it, then that's not "terrorism" in my eyes. It doesn't have the political agenda of terrorism, it doesn't have the love of collateral damage terrorism does, and it isn't going after 'soft' targets like crowds in a marketplace or airline passengers or political leaders.

About the only thing it has in common with clearcut acts of terrorism is that it involves the use of force by a nonstate organization, against the interests of a state.

The line blurs when nuclear physicists not involved in weapon research get involved- I'd have to know a lot more about Dr. Ali-Mohammadi's activities, but if he's really not involved (I have no reason to doubt it), then that becomes at best on the borders of terrorism, and probably on the wrong side of those borders.

Him aside, though- Israel assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists is certainly an act of aggression. If the Iranians want to consider it an act of war, as far as I'm concerned they're well within their rights to do so. It was a huge, violent provocation. I think any reasonable person would allow that the Iranians have a right to fight over it. But that doesn't mean it was terrorism, even if the people who did it also commit terrorist acts against Iran at other times and places.

Again, a thing can be wrong without being terrorism.

[eyl]

Him aside, though- Israel assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists is certainly an act of aggression. If the Iranians want to consider it an act of war, as far as I'm concerned they're well within their rights to do so. It was a huge, violent provocation. I think any reasonable person would allow that the Iranians have a right to fight over it. But that doesn't mean it was terrorism, even if the people who did it also commit terrorist acts against Iran at other times and places.

Of course, if it's viewed as an act of aggression or war (or, for that matter, state-sponsered terrorism) then Iran has already committed such acts multiple times against Israel in the past, given the degree of Iranian support of Hizbullah and various other anti-Israeli terrorist organizations.

BTW, maybe I didn't read it carefully enough, but where do US officials actually state that Israel is linked to MEK in this matter? The first sentence says

Deadly attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists are being carried out by an Iranian dissident group that is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service, U.S. officials tell NBC News, confirming charges leveled by Iran’s leaders.

But when we get to the actual quotes of the "US officials", we have

Two senior U.S. officials confirmed for NBC News the MEK’s role in the assassinations, with one senior official saying, “All your inclinations are correct.” A third official would not confirm or deny the relationship, saying only, “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet.” All the officials denied any U.S. involvement in the assassinations.

No mention of Israel anywhere. It would have been useful if NBC News had bothered to specify what their "inclinations" were, and given the phrasing it seems the third official is talking about MEK involvement, not Israeli (I'm basing this on the fact that the article specifically says the first two confirmed MEK involvement, while the third did not confirm or deny). The only ones actually making a link between Israel and MEK are Larijani and what ultimately amount to talking heads.

[Thanas]

I think it is pretty easy to define whether an act is terrorism or not. Assume the US would be the victim of the attacks and the perpetrators Al-Quida. Think that is going to be classified as anything other than terrorism?

I think your definition of terrorism is completely out of touch with what is labelled terrorist activities these days. These days, terrorism seems to simply involve non-recognized/non-state actors attacking non-military targets. This is of course exactly what happened in Iran.

[Simon_Jester]

I think it is pretty easy to define whether an act is terrorism or not. Assume the US would be the victim of the attacks and the perpetrators Al-Quida. Think that is going to be classified as anything other than terrorism?

If Al Qaeda killed a scientist working on nuclear weapons at Los Alamos? No, I don't think that would be terrorism. It will be classified as terrorism, but that's because the US likes to call everything it doesn't like "terrorism."

As far as state propaganda (any state) is concerned, the word "terrorism" isn't a real word with a real definition. It's an insult, almost as meaningless as calling your opponent a motherfucker.

So I don't use it that way- earlier I compared it to the habit some left-wing intellectuals of mid-century got into of calling everything they didn't like "fascism" and trying to pretend that Soviet-style communism was "democratic." Now the right calls everything they disapprove of "terrorism."

I'm not bound to respect such usages in my own conversations.

[Thanas]

I think it is pretty easy to define whether an act is terrorism or not. Assume the US would be the victim of the attacks and the perpetrators Al-Quida. Think that is going to be classified as anything other than terrorism?

If Al Qaeda killed a scientist working on nuclear weapons at Los Alamos? No, I don't think that would be terrorism. It will be classified as terrorism, but that's because the US likes to call everything it doesn't like "terrorism."

As far as state propaganda (any state) is concerned, the word "terrorism" isn't a real word with a real definition.

Yes it is. It means the opponent is not honouring the laws of war, is a non-state actor and is not recognized to be a legitimate party.

[Sarevok]

History question.

Has there been so much actions by non state actors,working independently or backed by another state, at any point in history ? It seems to me much of the most pivotal conflicts of last 20 years were initiated by groups that are not national armed forces. Even Israel which had been victim of terrorism sees it kosher (no pun intended) to turn to such groups.

[Sea Skimmer]

History question.

Has there been so much actions by non state actors,working independently or backed by another state, at any point in history ? It seems to me much of the most pivotal conflicts of last 20 years were initiated by groups that are not national armed forces. Even Israel which had been victim of terrorism sees it kosher (no pun intended) to turn to such groups.

You go all that far back in history and modern concepts of the nation state don't apply very well in the first place, and yeah we've had other periods like this, and even far more so. Just look at the British East India Company.. it wasn't formally a nation state and yet it had heavy warships (think about blackwater if it had destroyers and occupied half of Somalia to fight pirates), many tens of thousands of troops and ruled large tracts of India which were also garrisoned by regular British forces. They got into all kinds of wars. Italy had a whole period in which warfare was completely dominated by mercenary groups prior to unification in the 1860s. In fact I think you could likely made a good argument that it was only the growth of massed conscript and then mechanized warfare in the mid to late 19th century through mid 20th century that got us away from that kind of thing, and now that massed warfare is fading to the backburner we see a resurgence in the importance of mercenary and sub national groups. They couldn't mean much when people had 10 million man armies fighting over entire continents, but obviously the smaller the conflict the more influence such groups can have.

[Darth Wong]

I think it is pretty easy to define whether an act is terrorism or not. Assume the US would be the victim of the attacks and the perpetrators Al-Quida. Think that is going to be classified as anything other than terrorism?

If Al Qaeda killed a scientist working on nuclear weapons at Los Alamos? No, I don't think that would be terrorism. It will be classified as terrorism, but that's because the US likes to call everything it doesn't like "terrorism."

As far as state propaganda (any state) is concerned, the word "terrorism" isn't a real word with a real definition.

Yes it is. It means the opponent is not honouring the laws of war, is a non-state actor and is not recognized to be a legitimate party.

I thought the definition of terrorism was the systematic use of fear as a means of coercion. That's what it says in the dictionary, anyway.

[Flagg]

If Al Qaeda killed a scientist working on nuclear weapons at Los Alamos? No, I don't think that would be terrorism. It will be classified as terrorism, but that's because the US likes to call everything it doesn't like "terrorism."

As far as state propaganda (any state) is concerned, the word "terrorism" isn't a real word with a real definition.

Yes it is. It means the opponent is not honouring the laws of war, is a non-state actor and is not recognized to be a legitimate party.

I thought the definition of terrorism was the systematic use of fear as a means of coercion. That's what it says in the dictionary, anyway.

Yeap, and I think this qualifies as it has the intentions of not just killing Iranian nuclear scientists but intimidating others who would take their place.

[Simon_Jester]

By that argument, every use of violence anywhere is terrorism. Any time you make anyone nervous because they don't want to run into what happened to the next guy, it's "terrorism."

That's ridiculous.

[Flagg]

By that argument, every use of violence anywhere is terrorism. Any time you make anyone nervous because they don't want to run into what happened to the next guy, it's "terrorism."

That's ridiculous.

ter·ror·ism
   [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

[Simon_Jester]

Here, there's no political purpose. Israel isn't trying to make the Iranian government change its policy, or to make the Iranian people change their minds about the policy. They're just trying to make it harder to do something Israel doesn't want Iran to do.

And I don't see any convincing evidence that the use of violence is aimed at intimidating other nuclear scientists. Sure, the scientists are intimidated, who wouldn't be? But any act of violence will cause intimidation. Not all acts of violence are terrorism.

If I shell a machine-gun nest and kill the crew, then shell the nest again when a new crew moves in, and keep doing it until the enemy isn't willing to keep manning that gun when it'll just get them all killed... is that terrorism? It's violent intimidation, that's for sure.

[Flagg]

Here, there's no political purpose. Israel isn't trying to make the Iranian government change its policy, or to make the Iranian people change their minds about the policy. They're just trying to make it harder to do something Israel doesn't want Iran to do.

And I don't see any convincing evidence that the use of violence is aimed at intimidating other nuclear scientists. Sure, the scientists are intimidated, who wouldn't be? But any act of violence will cause intimidation. Not all acts of violence are terrorism.

If I shell a machine-gun nest and kill the crew, then shell the nest again when a new crew moves in, and keep doing it until the enemy isn't willing to keep manning that gun when it'll just get them all killed... is that terrorism? It's violent intimidation, that's for sure.

You're a moron. By murdering Iranian nuclear scientists Israel is directly attempting to change Irans political ambitions of aquiring nuclear weapons by force. That's called terrorism, dumbshit. Moreover they are allying with Iranian terrorists to do so.