106 thoughts on “Possible Mossad Role in Deadly Iran Revolutionary Guard Blast – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. Yediot did not call this an act of terror, neither did Yossi Melman according to your quote (no link?). Assuming for a moment that the Mossad had a hand in this, which is entirely likely, how is this an act of terror if a very dangerous and strategic military target was attacked and all the casualties were military as well. I’m not trying to be disingenuous, I am merely trying to understand where you place the line between act of terror and a legitimate military operation.

    1. It’s pretty obvious. Israel feels threatens by Iran’s rants. When a man fears for his life, he strikes back as self defense. No innocent people killed here, so who cares? Ahmadinejad has a big mouth, and should learn to shut up for a change – he’s only harming Iran.

      1. Sorry, Andre, but hitting someone for words he has spoken, no matter how provocative, is not self defense under the law, or under any system of logic I know. The party who strikes first is the aggressor no matter what the other guy said.

        And you don;t know how man innocent people were killed or permanently maimed in that incident, so don’t pretend you do.

        1. No, you’re wrong – in many jurisdictions (and certainly my own) self-defence can be pre-emptive. It’s commonsense really.

    2. Did so. Do you understand the meaning of the term chabala? ‘Terror.’ Sorry, your Hebrew needs some work. That’s what Melman called it & what I call it. You can call it whatever you like, but the only people here believing you will be AriJay, Roy & BarKochba, true believers all…

      I’m not trying to be disingenuous

      Sure you are. You can’t even face up to yr own intent.

      If you accept this attack by Israel inside Iranian territory, then you will have to accept a similar Iranian attack against an internal Israeli militar target. How ’bout a missile hitting Dimona? Legit? Of course not as far as you’re concerned. Only Israeli attack on Iran is legit, but not the other way around because all you are is disingenuous & hypocritical. Through & through.

      1. Mr. Silverstein: Your Hebrew is not as good as you think. Habalah has several meanings in Hebrew, one of which is terrorism. There is also a meaning used in regular military vocabulary, where it means demolition, as it is used, e.g., in the term Mashak Habalah which in the IDF means a non-commissioned officer in charge of demolition in a given unit. I am sure that this second meaning is what Yossi Melman used, and you can ask him. Habalah in this meaning is a legitimate military action against an enemy target. In contradistinction, deliberately targeting civilians to achieve indiscriminate death and fear is what terror is. Those who try erasing the line between these two types of acts are as evil as the terrorists whom by so doing they aim to implicitely legitimize.

        1. I am sure that this second meaning is what Yossi Melman used, and you can ask him. Habalah in this meaning is a legitimate military action against an enemy target.

          Since you’re so certain of what Yossi Melman intended, we’ll ask him whether he intended the word to mean that a Mossad inspired attack inside Iran would be a legitimate military action against an enemy target.” Shall we ask him? We don’t need to. You & I know that’s not what Yossi Melman believes & again there is no diff. bet. sabotage & terror in this context. It’s the reason why the one word in Hebrew can have both meanings in English. And it DOES in this context. Attacking Iran does NOT constitute a legitimate military target unless Israel is at war with Iran.

          And I swear despite my inclination not to want to see innocents killed, I’m getting to the point where I almost wish for Israel to attack Iran so we can finally get on with it and these moral imbeciles can see the result of all their bankrupt semantic/rhetorica sophistry. 10,000 dead Iranians and 2 or 3 thousand dead Israelis should make all the apologists here a little more sensitive to the empty logic of their sophistry.

          As others have said in this thread, an act of terror can hit a military target as well. You can be damn sure if an Iranian inspired explosion destroyed a U.S. missile base that we’d hear the word “terror” plenty often. And we’d hear it too if Israel was the victim. And you’re a hypocrite to claim otherwise.

          1. an act of terror can hit a military target as well.

            Not really, Richard. By definition terrorism is aimed at civilians. Therefore, an attack on a military target is by definition not terrorism.

            You can be damn sure if an Iranian inspired explosion destroyed a U.S. missile base that we’d hear the word “terror” plenty often. And we’d hear it too if Israel was the victim.

            Very true, and it would be an incorrect use of the word, almost surely in these cases for propaganda purposes. It is also incorrect to apply the word terrorism to an attack on an Iranian military target.

        2. Habalah in this meaning is a legitimate military action against an enemy target.

          While I agree with you that it is a misuse of the word to suggest that any attack on a military target is terrorism, no Israeli attack on an Iranian target is a legitimate military action.

      2. Simmer down there Richard. First of all חבלה in this context means sabotage not “terror.” Don’t believe me? Ask any native Hebrew speaker.

        Secondly, I don’t consider an attack on an Israeli military target an act of terror. An Iranian missile attack on Dimona may be foolish but it’s not an act of terror.

        1. in this context means sabotage not “terror.

          Don’t tell me what it means. The word chabalah is much more often used to connote “terror.” And it can easily fit in this context as well. Further, you’ll have to explain to me the diff. bet. sabotage & terror. They’re one & the same thing esp. in the context of this incident. When you sabotage a major Iranian military installation & kill 18 & wound 30 you’ve committed an act that is both sabotage & terror. Not only that, but you’ve dared the Iranians to respond in kind & don’t think they won’t. Keep yr hat on, something big is coming down the pike. Do you truly believe that Israel has no vulnerabilities? Does that not concern you that Israel may’ve sowed seeds that will cause the deaths of many Israelis?

          An Iranian missile attack on Dimona may be foolish but it’s not an act of terror.

          No, you don’t till it happens. Then we can be damn sure of what you’ll call it. You’re a hypocrite & I don’t believe a word of anything you’ve said here.

          I’m really tired of the semantical wasteland in comments such as this. So you’re done with quibbling on this subject. Done.

  2. few facts about the Imam-Ali base: (From Iran-Watch)

    “The site is situated 35 km away from Khorramabad on the road to Koohdasht. The base’s location is in the south of Mount Seffid Kooh in a mountain pass called Heroor Pass. Imam Ali base belongs to Al-Hadid Brigade, a subordinate unit of the IRGC Missile Force. The missile launching sites are mobile and hidden in the heights. There are medium and long range missiles in the base and the sites are guided outside the silo for launching the missiles and then retreated. The base was one of the sites that launched Scud missiles on the PMOI bases in Iraq on Apr. 18, 2001. The base’s buildings are built into the heights or under the ground. Imam Ali Base’s air distance from Khorramabad is 20 km.

    The base is highly protected by the IRGC and cannot be seen from outside. Sky Guard weapons and AA guided missiles are defending the base against any air attack. Two years ago, a Russian-made passenger plane carrying 120 people on board was shut down by the base’s automatic AA weapons while flying over the base. The plane faced a bad weather condition on its course to Khorramabad and had to change its course where it flew over the base and was shut down. It was announced in the news that the plane had hit the mountain.

    It is worthwhile mentioning that the personnel working in the base are completely replaced every 1.5 to 2 months and during this period no one is allowed to leave the base. The base’s personnel are not local people and are moved to the base with cars having smoked glass windows.

    In August 2003 the IRGC demanded a large amount of cement in last August for a secret project inside the base. The Governor’s Office in Lorestan Province gave the priority to the IRGC and supplied it with the cement. During the following months, the IRGC completed the project and in November 2003, 25 missiles were moved to the base.”

    seems to be a heavily guarded base, situated remotely inside the mountains, and i think it will take a raid of a unit to get the explosion of that kind that was being reported.
    if it was an act, it was most likely and act of the Kurds, who have their own set of issues with iran.

    1. What Melman points out & the Times reinforces is that it may be an act of the Kurds supported & financed by the Mossad. You omitted that last part conveniently. Or it could be an inside job in collaboration w. the Mossad.

      1. Or it could have been sponsored by the United States. We know they are arming, funding, and probably directing collaborators among various violent dissident groups in Iran.

  3. “that this may be an act of terror, and not an accident” ?? Well, I agree with Pea that we should question the language “act of terror”, because it was not aimed at civilians, but why not call it (if it be not an accident) an “illegitimate act of aggressive war” because, as far as I know, Israel and Iran are not at war (unless we adopt the view — which seems to capture much of what is called “de facto” — that Israel is, indeed, “at war” with all the world, all the time).

    As an American, I think it salutary to introduce the idea of “illegitimate war of aggression” as often as possible.

    1. I am not sure what you mean when you say “as far as I know, Israel and Iran are not at war”. Ahmedinajad is making threats and declarations that Israel will be wiped from the face of the earth almost on a daily basis. What more do you need to figure out that Iran is the agressor here? Every country has the right and obligation to protect its citizens,

      1. Ahmedinajad is making threats and declarations that Israel will be wiped from the face of the earth

        Not a precise translation. He quoted Ayatollah Khomeini, who expressed a wish (not threat) that Israel would ‘disappear from history.’ Does that constitute a sufficient threat that Israel has a right to commence a secret terror campaign against Iran? Not in my book.

        What more do you need to figure out that Iran is the agressor here?

        A little thing called evidence. Have you heard of it?

        Every country has the right and obligation to protect its citizens

        Engaging in sabotage & terror against another country doesn’t constitute “protecting its citizens.” Even at the height of the Cold War neither the Soviet Union or U.S. engaged in such direct attacks on ea. other. Yet somehow, we ea. managed not to directly attack ea. other or initiate a nuclear war. How did we do that? Our respective leaders were realistic enough not to push the envelope, something Israel rejects out of hand.

        1. Does Iran recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist (even if only within borders to which Israel will never agree to withdraw)?

          If not, then Israel is well within its rights to assume Khomeini’s eliminationist rhetoric is a threat, and act to neutralize that threat.

        2. While Khomeini and Ahmadinajad are often accused of threatening to “wipe Israel off the map” this is usually considered an incorrect translation of what was said. The comment (or threat if you will, since any rhetoric coming from Israel’s enemies seems to be construed by some here as practically an act of war ) referred to “the Zionist entity” and not to the state of Israel. There is a distinct and important difference. Many supporters of Israel would like to see the end of Zionism. Count me among them.

          1. The comment (or threat if you will, since any rhetoric coming from Israel’s enemies seems to be construed by some here as practically an act of war ) referred to ‘the Zionist entity’

            It was even more precise and limited than that, Mary. It referred specifically to the Zionist regime in Jerusalem, which given the context of the Jerusalem Day celebration almost certainly was a reference to the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, not Israel itself. Both Khomeini’s original statement, and Ahmadinajad’s quoting of it were part of speeches made for Jerusalem Day.

        3. Ayatollah Khomeini, who expressed a wish (not threat) that Israel would ‘disappear from history.

          Almost, Richard, but not exactly. Khomeini’s remark did not mention Israel, but Jerusalem. His wish was that the “Zionist regime in Jerusalem” would disappear from history. Since the statement was made during a celebration of Jerusalem Day it is most likely that he was referring to the Israeli occupation of the Holy City, not Israel itself.

      2. Ahmedinajad is making threats and declarations that Israel will be wiped from the face of the earth almost on a daily basis.

        OMG, not THIS canard again! 1) Ahmadinajad has not made such threats against Israel, and certainly not on a daily basis, 2) even if he were verbal threats do not constitute war, nor do they justify any level or kind of violent response.

        What more do you need to figure out that Iran is the agressor here?

        That kind of defense will get you laughed out of court every time. Words, no matter what they are, do not constitute aggression.

        Every country has the right and obligation to protect its citizens,

  4. Indeed terror is used to describe attacks on civilians. If Israel pulled this off it was very shrewd. It would have been idiocy to attack in Lebanon and arouse the world. It is more lilkely IMHO that Kurdish elements do not need Israel to encourage their struggle against all their oppressors, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, whomever.

    1. “If Israel pulled this off it was very shrewd.”

      Really? Tell me, how has this in any way advanced Israel’s cause?

      To me, it’s more like someone getting away with a childish prank that could have and might still have serious consequences. I don’t see any shrewdness in it whatsoever, since it doesn’t advance anything; it doesn’t garner sympathy for Israel; it doesn’t diminish Lebanon’s growing relationship Iran; it doesn’t make a dent in Iran’s armor. On the contrary, it just angers and provokes Iranians more.

      Actually, it’s foolhardy incidents like this that can trigger war. But then, you think it’s “clever”…go figure.

      Oh, and regarding the Kurdish group: desperate pawns are easy to play, especially wearing a sympathetic disguise.

      The only statement you made that makes sense is: “It would have been idiocy to attack in Lebanon and arouse the world.”

      But then, why should the consequence of “arousing the world” matter at all? Aren’t the more salient and tragic consequences a better reason to avoid such a stupid move? How shallow.

      1. Lebanon’s growing relationship Iran…

        While I agree with your comment strongly, I suggest that you and others who make this kind of reference should study the history of this relationship. You will discover that there has been a very, very strong relationship between Iran and Lebanon’s Shi`a population that goes back many, many centuries and has always existed. The fact that the West has only recently become aware of a relationship between Iran and Lebanon does not mean the relationship has not always been there.

    1. That’s ludicrous. Destroying a military base of a country with which you are not directly at war is an act of terror. Frankly, I’m shocked given yr political views that you’re defending Israel’s actions. Simply dumbfounded.

      1. Destroying a military base of a country with which you are not directly at war is an act of terror.

        Not at all. Richard, here is the definition of terrorism under US law. Most official definitions as well as dictionary definitions follow this one.

        premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.

        Here are the four key elements of terrorism according to former deputy chief of the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center, Paul Pillar:

        1. It is premeditated-planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage
        2. It is political-not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.
        3. It is aimed at civilians-not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
        4. It is carried out by sub national groups-not by the army of a country.

        These four elements form the basis for most defnitions.

        1. So the US cannot, by its own words, claim that the attack on the US Cole or on the Marine base in Beirut were acts of terror.

        2. Not to defend my usage of the word, but rather to explain it. I guess I’m talking more about how the act would be perceived psychologically by the victims, who I think would be justified in feeling they’d experienced an act of terror. If you are not at war with a country, and it attacks you but your own country doesn’t respond immediately or engage in counter hostilities, considering such an attack an act of war is difficult for the victim to fathom.

          Also, I think this goes to Israel’s reputation of engaging in acts of terror & being labelled a terror state. But yes, I concede that technically I may not be using the term correctly.

          1. I am not merely being pedantic about it. It is really important that we be very strict in how we use loaded words like terrorism, and that we do not begin to adopt the distorted and dishonest usages of the propagandists. When we do that we are not only spreading their lies for them, we are incorporating them into our own way of thinking about the issues. We really, really, really need to guard against that tendency.

  5. In my opinion, this act of aggression would be in the category of preventative war, on Israel’s part.
    A preventive war is launched to destroy the potential threat of an enemy, when an attack by that party is not imminent or known to be planned.
    A preemptive war is launched in anticipation of IMMEDIATE enemy aggression.

    1. At last someone who grasps the distinction between preemptive and preventive war, which are routinely confused.
      Let’s add that preEMPTION may be justified as legitimate self-defence while preventive war is not.

      1. “Let’s add that preEMPTION may be justified as legitimate self-defence while preventive war is not.”

        So then fiddler, you must have really been against the Gaza Invasion (or rather “Massacre”), right?

        This move in Iran was pre-emptive…..reeeeeaaaallly? You must be watching a different move-y; you see to me, it looks pretty provocative.

        Let’s see, Israel helps the enemy of its enemy blow up military installations and kill a dozen or more of its military guards, and if Iran succeeded in proving Israel staged this; Iran couldn’t call this an act of war, huh?

        Try again.

        1. Huh? Where did that come from?

          Yes, I was against the Gaza invasion/massacre, even “really” so.

          Sue called this incident “preventive” (from Israel’s POV, of course), not preemptive, and I concurred, adding that this makes it illegal. So where’s your problem? To paraphrase yourself, have you been reading a different blog?

    2. There IS no war. Can’t you people get this through yr thick skulls? If there’s a war let’s get on w. it & have ea. side attacking ea. other directly until both have blown ea. other to Kingdom Come. Then you’ll know what a real war is. Till then, you’re bloviating & not very intelligently I might add.

      Your email address includes the word “Peace Leader.” Surely you jest?

      1. If there’s a war let’s get on w. it & have ea. side attacking ea. other directly until both have blown ea. other to Kingdom Come.

        So if there’s a war, its sides should kill as many people as possible?

        I don’t think there’s a war with Iran, but there’s definitely a conflict, and I find your approach rather childish. These acts, while aggressive, are not about trying to play it cool and test limits. Sue’s got it right. There IS a potential threat, even with no evidence whatsoever. It may not be “justified” to carry out a preventive act, but I don’t know a single conflict which is universally seen to be so.

        1. So if there’s a war, its sides should kill as many people as possible?

          Listen, and once again, don’t parse my words for meaning or attempt to insinuate yr own interpretation of what I said. My words mean precisely what I choose them to mean, nothing more & nothing less. If I needed you to parse or interpret & ornament my meaning I’d hire you. Till I do, don’t bother w. such nonsense.

          There IS a potential threat, even with no evidence whatsoever.

          Now, you’ve defied logic and the bounds of reality. The only way there can be a threat w. no evidence whatsover is if you and the Israeli leadership are delusional fantasists who make reality out to be precisely whatever they wish it to be. Do they?

    3. A “preventive” war by any other name is a war of aggression, and is the ultimate war crime.

      A “preemptive” attack is an act of aggression under international law unless it is in response to a threatened attack that real, imminent, and inevitable unless preempted.

  6. A note regarding Iran-Watch website:

    The site belongs to Mojahedin Khalgh Organization, the group listed by the State Department as terrorist, and despised by most Iranians inside Iran for its collaboration with Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. It has a habit of grandly exaggerating things.

    1. Nice one, AriJay, quoting from Mujahadeen al-Khalq & attempting to pass this off as credible reporting. You owe yrself some due diligence on the sources you choose to quote. Do tell us where you came up w. this source? Surely you didn’t just happen on it. Get it fr. Rotter or some other anti-Iranian propaganda shmateh? C’mon ‘fess up.

      1. Oh please..
        It could have been the Queen of England who wrote those two and half sentences and it would still be utter garbage. As in “un-based proof-lacking agenda-serving empty reporting”.
        As for the “Israel’s most distinguished military security correspondent” – That’s your opinion.
        I think its time for you to grow up an realize that your opinions are not facts, but merely opinions.
        And I suppose you do know the saying about opinions?
        And a finishing touch.. Even Melman doesn’t say in his report that there’s any evidence to support the claim of Israeli involvement. Its simply a ‘possibility’.
        And to be honest, the fact that the Iranians themselves don’t cry out ‘The Zionists did it!’ kinda makes this claim even more far fetched.

        1. It could have been the Queen of England who wrote those two and half sentences and it would still be utter garbage.

          There is garbage in your comment but it isn’t in Yossi Melman’s statement. But rather in yr own smelly discharge. And btw, Melman isn’t the Queen of England, who knows nothing about Israeli intelligence exploits inside Iran. He’s actually a well informed Israeli correspondent w. deep sources inside Israeli military, intelligence & the foreign media. As such, a far more trustworthy source than you I’m afraid.

          the fact that the Iranians themselves don’t cry out ‘The Zionists did it!’ kinda makes this claim even more far fetched.

          Isn’t it funny that the fact that Iran has supposedly not said something somehow makes yr claim that Israel wasn’t involved credible. But were Iran to say anything on any other subject you’d claim it was a tissue of lies. A tad hypocritical don’t you think?

          BTW, the NY Times article I quoted explicitly notes that Iran blamed the last terror attack in its Kurdish region on Israel. They’re undoubtedly investigating the incident & want to be sure of Israeli involvement before they make further statements.

  7. It would be interesting to see what time those white and blue balloons were launched when Mr. Warmth from Iran was giving his diatribe against Zionists….didn’t he know that the Zionist entity are Jews from Zion that were forced into exile first by a country called Persia. One of the first Zionists was a King of Persia who converted to Judiasm and sent the Jews back to Zion. I guess Zionism was born in ancient Persia, thousand of years before Mohammed….isn’t that ironic.

  8. @ Muhammad
    i have no idea who’s behind iranwatch.org (which is the site on which i found the information) but a simple whois query will find that it is operated by something called the wisconsin project, an organization operated out of Washington DC.

    and just FYI usually when the legal agencies declare on an organization that it is related to terror they shutting down their websites as well.

    so where did you get your info from ?

    1. Not nice to quarrel w. Prof. Muhammad Sahimi, one of the foremost experts in the U.S. on Iran’s nuclear program. And someone who is very, very familiar w. Mujahadeen al-Khalq. Don’t tangle w. him. He’ll wipe the floor w. ya.

      The website could easily be housed on a foreign server.

    2. Yeah, well, the U.S. relationship with the Muhaheddin-e-khalq is a complicated one. Despite the fact that the group is on the official list of terrorist organizations, and was allowed by Saddam to set up and maintain a base of operations inside Iraq, so could be said to be friendly with Saddam, the United States has found it quite convenient to allow them to remain armed and active during its occupation of Iraq, and if I remember correctly, even gave them some support.

      And by the way, the MEK is a rather kooky cult in addition to being a rather violent lot.

  9. No doubt that Israel is seeking ways to slow down and sabotage the Iranian effort to erase Israel and it’s citizens.No doubts that a direct Israeli attack is the last option that will turn the region (quote) to a ball of fire. So the war is now between the brilliant minds of both sides.

        1. I hope you are also being facetious in your reference to “the Iranian effort to erase Israel and it’s citizens”, for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

    1. A sovereign state has the right to defend itself. Especially if it is threatened the way Israel is.The rest is semantic

      1. Good, then expect the missiles to begin raining down on Dimona in the next few hrs. Are you prepared for that? Ready to cower in yr bomb shelter for the next month or so? Don’t be an utter fool. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

        1. Lol! Simple but effective.

          Just as truth is the first casualty of war; logic is the first casualty when planning to secure power through aggression.

        2. WEll Richard, I myself expect the Iranian rockets every day. I read the writing on the wall. I hear the Israeli air force training day and night and I guess that the gun we see in the first act will finally shoot in the third act…It is just a matter of time. ON the other hand,History teaches us that only major catastrophes bring a lasting stability and peace (Europe…)

          1. I myself expect the Iranian rockets every day

            And the Iranians expect the Israeli ones every day as well. A pox on both of you because you’ll both end up getting the entire region in a disastrous war.

            I read the writing on the wall.

            Written in invisible ink only you can read.

            I guess that the gun we see in the first act will finally shoot in the third act

            Yeah, & that gun will shoot as many of you as it will of the other guy.

            History teaches us that only major catastrophes bring a lasting stability and peace (Europe…)

            Oh yeah, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo w. several hundred thousand dead…need I say more? You sound like a true fascist (or are you just a proto-fascist?) & remind me of Dr. Strangelove. Be sure to preserve yr “precious bodily fluids.”

    2. I called it “terror” because it’s a term to use short of “war.” If we want to call it an act of war it seems we’re getting into very dangerous territory because it means that Iran is entitled to retailiate. Now, I’m not saying this because I want this to happen. And if it does I fully blame Israel for the provocation. But in this context it’s hard to figure out the proper term to use.

      1. If North Korea ordered a strike at one of our nuclear weapons sites, what would it be called? “Terror” or an “act of war”?

        Just asking.

  10. What a bunch of silly comments to this thought-provoking blog, except perhaps for Muhammad’s comment which is closer to reality.

    Acts of terror can be directed at civilians AND military installations. Example: In Spain, ETA (a home-grown resistance/separatist group) targets mostly the military police and police and their acts are considered TERRORIST acts by Spanish authorities and the EU community.

    Let’s be clear, this Iranian group, which could be either Kurdish or an extension of a group associated with Iraqi Sunni Ba’athists IS a home-grown terrorist group functioning within Iran and therefore it doesn’t matter whether it targets military or civilian installations as all these are terrorist acts!

    Now, whether Mossad is somehow involved aiding and abetting terrorist groups is irrelevant to the fact that the actual act itself IS a terrorist act committed by a terrorist group whose intention is to cause destruction, and destabilize and undermine the Iranian government. But what’s really important here is not the definition of this act; but the reason why this installation was targeted…who cares about the semantics!

    I find this article extremely credible for this reason: I imagine that a terrorist group would feel emboldened to risk targeting a high-level target only IF they were receiving logistical intelligence and financial and weapons assistance. Perhaps Mossad infiltrated this terrorist group in the guise of powerful assistance from Iraq.

    But the goal appears to be very transparent. It was definitely meant to embarrass Ahmedinejad and shatter whatever illusions the Lebanese have of Iran’s power and ability to defend them against Israel, and therefore the goal appears to be more Israeli-linked.

    One thing seems clear: Israel is on the warpath. And this threat should be foremost in everyone’s mind.

    Israel seems to care less whether it offends Palestinians, or undermines Palestinian leadership with preposterous ultimatums for extending negotiations for Palestinian statehood. Israel offended its only ally in the region, Turkey, by going as far as committing piracy and murder of foreign civilians in International waters. Israel is offending its own Arab civilians with “loyalty oaths” and two-tier justice. Israel is creating a situation on the ground in the West Bank that constitutes ethnic cleansing which Jordan fears might provoke another exodus and an even more unsustainable refugee situation in that small country. Israel refuses to even talk about the Golan Heights and is undermining all efforts by Obama to exercise some diplomacy with Syria.

    Israel is suffocating all peaceful resistance by imprisoning, injuring and killing protesters with total disregard for the integrity of its own democracy. And finally, Israel is goading the U.S. and Iran and by exerting undue influence in the politics of the former and dangerously meddling inside the territory of the latter.

    We should ALL be asking ourselves WHY-why is Israel slamming doors, burning bridges and inciting everyone in the region? Why is Israel refusing to permanently freeze settlement expansion and instead moving ahead with the most provocative element of conflict in the region even at the expense of some Israelis who see this expansion as detrimental to their security and future in this state?

    Finally why is Israel goading Iran and the U.S. into war?

    There is only one answer to all these questions: Israel does not want peace! Israel wants war, and it seems that only full-blown war will satisfy Israel, because perhaps it imagines that when the dust settles on the ruins it will be the only one left standing.

    You mark my words: Israel wants war because it imagines that not only will it win because of its fire power, but it will get the sympathy vote of the world and perhaps then, will be able to LEGITIMATELY exist as an apartheid state, because it imagines that the world will see this as a small price to pay for stability. (Although in my opinion, this is already the world’s excuse for silence on what is already an apartheid state, but nevery mind, Israel wants the world’s acquiesence written in stone!).

    And Israel would rather sacrifice the well-being of everyone and pay the price of WAR than sacrifice 200,000 acres of land it stole from the Palestinians!

    The outcome Israel expects is delusional of course, because what will really happen is that the U.S. will be dragged into a massive war, with devastating economic consequences for the entire world, and the Middle East will be reduced to rubble and ashes INCLUDING Israel and everyone will pay a terrible price.

    So, please do me a favor, stop quibbling over semantics. This was an act of terror by a terrorist group that was bold enough to go after a high-level target and we shouldn’t give a damn about the semantics of this act. We should be focusing on the larger picture that is looming in the background and all the warning signs that could not scream louder.

    We should be asking ourselves instead: What are we doing to avoid this disaster in the making that Israel is set to make INEVITABLE?? Is any protest being heard over this insignificant quibbling?

    This does not boil down to a game of semantics and petty biases, this boils down to collective responsibility for the well-being of everyone on this planet!

      1. Let me rephrase my question. If North Korea aided a US anti-government militia in attacking one of our weapon’s bases, would that be “terror” or an “act of war”? Who would be the ones responsible for the definition and would they be the same ones responsible for the decision in reacting? Would it not be the US and not North Korea?

    1. Acts of terror can be directed at civilians AND military installations

      No. By definition acts of terror are NOT directed at military installations.

      1. The definition of terrorism in US Law:

        (d) Definitions
        As used in this section—
        (1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
        (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
        (3) the term “terrorist group” means any group, or which has significant subgroups which practice, international terrorism;
        (4) the terms “territory” and “territory of the country” mean the land, waters, and airspace of the country; and
        (5) the terms “terrorist sanctuary” and “sanctuary” mean an area in the territory of the country—
        (A) that is used by a terrorist or terrorist organization—
        (i) to carry out terrorist activities, including training, fundraising, financing, and recruitment; or
        (ii) as a transit point; and
        (B) the government of which expressly consents to, or with knowledge, allows, tolerates, or disregards such use of its territory and is not subject to a determination under—
        (i) section 2405(j)(1)(A) of the Appendix to title 50;
        (ii) section 2371 (a) of this title; or
        (iii) section 2780 (d) of this title

  11. I just wanted you to comment on the Iranian proxies (Hizballah, Hamas, maybe even the Lebanese army now)
    As to their role in this discussion of terror. It’s almost extremely rare to see their attacks hit military targets and are very often targeting civilians. It is no secret that Iran supports, encourages and even funds these groups,see if you can find a way to justify these actions…

    1. Iranian proxies (Hizballah, Hamas, maybe even the Lebanese army now)

      If you want to comment here & come across, at least initially, as a fair balanced commenter you might want to reconsider telegraphing yr biases & prejudices by accusing the Lebanese army of being an Iranian proxy. Such nonsense discredits anything else you might have to say–even if it’s something substantive & legitimate (unlikely in yr case though).

      See if you can find a way to justify murdering 2,000 civilians in Lebanon & Gaza fr. 2006-2009. Let me know when you’ve figure that out.

      1. forget about the lebanese army, it is irrelevant to my question which you didn’t even attemp to answer. Give me some of your beliefs on the the ideologies of these groups (hezbollah, hamas). I ask this because I find the comparison of Israel to Iran quite a rediculous one. Left unchecked, do you really believe that these groups would do better for our world, our safety, our freedom if we agree with their beliefs and accept them as legitamate? Why support these groups by placing them on the same level in discussions as democracies that support personal freedoms. I would gladly compare the Human rights record of Israel with Iran’s and Id be especially happy to compare it to either of its proxies….that would be an easy one

        1. do you really believe that these groups would do better for our world, our safety, our freedom if we agree with their beliefs and accept them as legitamate?

          The current Israeli gov’t represents just as much danger to the world as these movements do. And no, Israel is not a “democracy that supports personal freedoms” unless you happen to be Jewish (& even then it’s questionable if you support human rights & related Israeli NGOs). Israel doesn’t have a human rights record, certainly not one to be proud of. For every flaw in Iran’s human rights record I can point you to more than one in Israel’s. So what does this tit for tat prove? Nothing. They’re both miserable failures when it comes to human rights.

          And before you go off the deep end, stay on topic in yr future comments. I have absolutely no interest in going on & on about the comparative evils of Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, etc. You can do that elsewhere online.

          1. I think that you are not being realistic. The differences between these groups and counties is huge when it comes to targeting civilians. Where Israel will target military facilities, insurgents (sends out warning leaflets before attacks in civilized areas) Hezbollah and hamas will send rockets over the border hoping to make it to the civilian population and show no regard for human life. I don’t think we would have to worry about Israel turning on the western world and it ideologies of freedom and security while the Islamist militaries will target anyone that does is contrary to their beliefs. You are just thinking like a reporter and not a world leader. Try to solve theories these problems fully in your head and see where your beliefs would leave our world be you a world leader. I would also like to know if you prefer to live in westernized countries or would like to live in those based from Islam. Understand that we are very lucky to have this kind of society and we should not support lunatics who would make terrible neighbors and force their aggressive religion on everyone…..u are truly high if you see no danger from these movements (I’m talkin crack high by the way, gotta be pretty delusional to want to live in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, or gaza right now ( remember how high u must be when answering, or I will buy u a ticket and a house to one of these great places of justice and ofcourse u will get a Koran – must be memorized so that militants will not execute u on the road when you cannot recite it) so please would like to live in the middle east? What countries peak your interest? Would you live in an Islamic country? (question assumes your are not a Muslim (mr silverstien), let me know if you are)

          2. Look, we’ve been over this ground in the comment threads here 50 times already. Not going there again. This is yr last comment on this subject. Honor my request or face moderation.

            Where Israel will target military facilities, insurgents (sends out warning leaflets before attacks in civilized areas)

            False. Israel targets civilian & military targets & admits that it does.

            Hezbollah and hamas…show no regard for human life.

            Nor does Israel. And Israel is worse because its weapons are far more lethal.

            I don’t think we would have to worry about Israel turning on the western world and it ideologies of freedom and security

            Interesting that of all the wonderful values of western democracy you choose the ones beloved of the neocons: freedom & security. Not a mention of liberty, democracy, etc. I guess you don’t see those as values of the western world; or is it just that Israel doesn’t observe these values?

            As for your overall statement, Israeli policy often makes a mockery of the values of the western world.

            I would also like to know if you prefer to live in westernized countries or would like to live in those based from Islam.

            What a nonsensical question.

            we should not support lunatics who would make terrible neighbors and force their aggressive religion on everyone

            Wait, are you talking about Israel or Islamists? I thought for a second you were referring to Israel!

            u are truly high if you see no danger from these movements (I’m talkin crack high by the way…

            Wow, I’ve been slimed by being accused of many things, but this is the 1st time any idiot has accused me of smokin’ crack. Roofus, you’ve just earned yrself the honor of being moderated.

  12. Richard, you are like always wrong.
    1. i never claimed that Gabi askenazi used the word retaliation, i stated that that’s what he meant.

    2. your arrogance has really no leg to stand on when it comes to Hebrew translation , from the Walla dictionary
    the term חבלה =
    nf. sabotage, destruction, mischief making, obstruction, obstructionism
    nf. bruising, injury, bruisscathe, contusion

    the term is not related to terror in any way, what will be related to terror is מטען חבלה and even that is related by association and not by translation.

    talking of modesty, it is one of the most admirable appreciative midot, you need to work on this one, you are falling short in that arena.

    3. i guess that if you were alive you would have supported negotiating with Germany (pre WWII of course)
    there is a point after which negotiation is irrelevant. With Iran, it’s pass that point.

    4. your entire post is based upon other people speculation, you don’t leave it at the speculation level, you actually pass blame. you are skewing reality, you are being irresponsible, and you are adding fuel to an high fire.

    5. i have been reading your blog for some time know, and i read a lot of judgment against Israel policies, but let me ask you this, do you think that Iranian policies has any blame in the horrifying situation we are facing ? and if you do what is their part exactly.

    1. you are like always wrong.

      I’ll like make a deal with you. If you stop attempting to insert American slang, like, into your posts (& awkwardly so), I won’t attempt to insert Israeli slang into my posts.

      You did not say that was what he meant. You said that was what he said.

      You know as well as I that the word for terrorist is mechabel deriving fr. the same root, ch-b-l. And you yrself noted the term mitan chabalah, which translates as “terror device.” And again, it a distinction with no meaning as the act of bombing the base was an act of terror and sabotage.

      Being an apologist for the Netanyahu gov’t & its terror unit otherwise known as the Mossad I’d say is an act of audacity & presumption that prohibits you from speaking with any authority about the quality of humility in yrself or anyone else.

      if you were alive you would have supported negotiating with Germany (pre WWII of course)

      1938=2010 Teheran=Munich. That’s about the size of it, isn’t it? That’s about the extent of yr historical knowledge. You know one major Jewish historical tragedy & the rest of your existence is refracted through it. Again, how sad.

      your entire post is based upon other people speculation

      Yes, that’s what journalists often do. They base their writing on the thoughts, ideas, & learned discourse of others. Nothing wrong w. that as long as those people are authorities in their field & base their own thinking on credible premises, which all of these people have in my opinion. Actually, it is many other Israel apologists here who’ve accepted that Israel did the deed. The title of my post which you seem to have missed is that it is POSSIBLE that the Mossad was responsible. Do you understand the meaning of this word? I actually think it’s likely Israel was involved. But I never claimed I had incontrovertible evidence of Israel’s involvement. But hey, Smadar has excellent MOssad sources & I’m sure they wanted to brag publicly about what they were about to pull. And I have little doubt that this is what they were referring to. But no, I can’t prove it. THe Mossad isn’t stupid enough (not yet at least) to leave fingerprints or send me a personal note bragging of its authorship.

      i have been reading your blog for some time know

      You’ve been reading my blog for about a month, two max. How does that equate to “some time now.”

      do you think that Iranian policies has any blame in the horrifying situation we are facing

      I’ve written thousands of words on this subject & if you’d been reading my blog for as long as you falsely claim you would’ve read my views on precisely this subject. So again do some homework, do a Google search in the blog for all my posts about Iran & read what I’ve said about Iran. It’s all there. And don’t waste my time asking me to write what I’ve already written to the tune of thousands of words.

    1. There is a minor problem w. yr logic. If Israel can do whatever it wants to to Iran, then the reverse is also true & Iran can do whatever it wants to Israel. Then you have the situation MLK spoke about when he said:

      An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth leaves us toothless and blind.

  13. Global Security raised the distinct possibility that this may be an act of terror…

    Acts of terror are by definition committed against civilian, not military targets. Therefore, this cannot have been an act of terror. It IS interesting, though, that they are now extending this misuse of the term terrorism to attacks on Iranian military targets. Formerly an attack on a military target only got labeled as terrorism if it was an attack on a U.S. or Israeli military target.

  14. As an Iranian, I will give you my take on this event

    1- This event was not an accident

    2- The attack could not have been carried out by ground for many reasons

    3- The attack could not be carried out by infiltration

    4- There is only one way to attack that site: AIR

    5- Israel is taking credit for something it is not entirely responsible for.

    6- The attack was carried out by a stealth American drone, and dropped a single satellite GPS guided bunker busting munition from very high altitude.

    7- This attack comes as a warning from USA/NATO for Iran’s increasing weapons supply and rising western casualties in Afghanistan

    8- Iran has no means to retaliate, due to the brazen nature of the warning, an act in kind will amount to a decleration of war

    9- Iran will cover up this embarrasing attack until the end of the year, until the nuclear fuels are loaded in the bushehr reactor, and the reactor is officially activated

    10- once the reactor is activated, it can not the attacked

    11- when the reactor is active, iran will PATIENTLY wait until a lapse of guard occurs in Iraq/afghanistan/kuwait or Israel, and will strike back will a deadly massive explosion

    one more thing

    this was a very good lesson for the IRGC commanders for them to remember, going against the USA is suicide and total annhilation of Iran. Iran is no match for USA and must stop all stupid provocation. Iran has no means of meaningfull retaliation.

    1. And were supposed to buy all this off the cuff.

      Where are your links? How do you know it was the U.S.? Honestly, methinks you presume much too much.

  15. As to the definition of “terrorism”, this article from Salon last year is fascinating. The podcast at the bottom is well worth the time it takes to listen to. Surprise surprise, Israel has had more to do with the definition of the term than anyone besides the US

    http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/radio/2010/03/14/terrorism

    Here is the definition per US law

    http://terrorism.about.com/od/whatisterroris1/ss/DefineTerrorism_5.htm

    (1) the term “international terrorism” means terrorism involving citizens or the territory of more than 1 country;
    (2) the term “terrorism” means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents;
    ******************
    A military base is definitely NOT noncombatant. It’s purpose solely is to combat, either by defense or offense.

    1. Yeah, the settler right & their supporters use this verse religiously. But it’s a red herring. When someone is sleeping in his bed he’s not coming to kill anyone. And just in case you hadn’t noticed Israel wasn’t ruled by the Talmud or Bible, but rather by the laws of a modern state. It’s characteristic in most societies that observe the rule of law to arrest & prosecute someone suspected of murder or being an accessory to murder. But I guess that means you’re conceding Israel isn’t a state the does observe the rule of law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *