Alleged US raid on Iranian Consulate

[Bruce Monkhouse]

rmaqueen,
You expect that we should use boxing gloves while our enemies bare-fists us then go right ahead..........I mean YOU jump on a plane and go right ahead, but DO NOT expect our brave men and women to throw away their lives cause you've seen and idolized too many 1960 style WW2 movies.

 

[rmacqueen]

At bottom I do think it comes down to what I-6 suggests: your world view.  Unfortunately that probably goes to the heart of the matter for you and many Westerners.  You don't see this as an existential struggle on par with World War 2. 

You may be right. I may be wrong.  You may honestly hold your opinions from honour. You may equally hold your opinions from fear - a fear that I may be right and the world is not a safe place where teenage Canadians with Maple Leafs on their backs can get drunk in foreign lands.  (My sister-in-law and my wife can both give the lie to that tangent).

The other side however, doesn't see it in the same vein.  They haven't seen it that way since 632 AD if not 2003, 2001, 1993, 1991, 1967, 1947, 1922.......1683......1571......1492...the Reconquista ....the Crusades...732... And that is just their European adventures - no mention of India, China, Africa and even Arabia.

And our fathers and forefathers fought to rise above such behavior and to hold others accountable for violating these rules.  The Nuremberg trials, the world court, international law, all were created with the ideal that there are certain behaviors that we, as a civilized society, find unacceptable and expect everyone, including ourselves, to abide by.  Because others behave in a barbarous fashion should not give us the right to toss aside the very ideals that have made our society what it is today.

 

[GAP]

I think what you are referring to are actions that involved state vs state. International law prevails when states contravene international law and stuff like the Geneva convention....what we are dealing here with are terrorists that recognize no state, convention, or rule. If a state joins the frey in the guise of an insurgent they should be dealt with in a like manner.

 

[rmacqueen]

As much as I would like to continue a debate on the subject, I realize that this has become a hijack and we should probably carry on with the subject at hand ;D

 

[KevinB]

I think the thread title should be changed to US raid an alledged Iranian Consulate...

  FWIW I dont think the discussion of this in a hijack, I view your (rmac) viewpoint as typical of the underinformed, warm an fuzzy feelers out there, who for the sake of political face saving/asskissing would rather let let state terrorisim go unopposed (which is how I read your argument). 
  This is not a slippery slope, its very cut and dried.
IF Iran would stop sending Revolutionary Guards into Iraq (and to a lesser point Afghanistan) and setting up terrorist cells, then there would be no problems.  Keep in mind the IRG wrote the book on current insurgency warfare techniques -- they have exploited it to great effect outside of Iran. 

Even IF that building had been a duly authorized Consulate (and it was not) the actions by the IRG would have nulified the protection given to them.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

And our fathers and forefathers fought to rise above such behavior and to hold others accountable for violating these rules.  The Nuremberg trials, the world court, international law, all were created with the ideal that there are certain behaviors that we, as a civilized society, find unacceptable and expect everyone, including ourselves, to abide by.  Because others behave in a barbarous fashion should not give us the right to toss aside the very ideals that have made our society what it is today.

Are you freakin' daft?

Our fathers and forefathers fought with a blunt honesty about the evil of their enemies so that at home their wives and children could live by higher ideals amongst people who believed the same things secure that the evil men were locked outside and had no access to harm them.

Extending your hand to some dirtbag who wants you and your family dead based on the fact in his religion you're an infidel and will use rocks, a bat, a gun, a grenade or whatever he can get his hands on to end your life and pretending his views are just as valid and worthy of respect as yours, is absolutely positively nuts.



Matthew.  :

 

[GO!!!]

And our fathers and forefathers fought to rise above such behavior and to hold others accountable for violating these rules.  The Nuremberg trials, the world court, international law, all were created with the ideal that there are certain behaviors that we, as a civilized society, find unacceptable and expect everyone, including ourselves, to abide by.  Because others behave in a barbarous fashion should not give us the right to toss aside the very ideals that have made our society what it is today.

....which was all fine and dandy when the bad guys wore uniforms and fought in national armies.

This is no longer the case. Iranian agents and soldiers are operating in Iraq in civilian garb. To clear that up for you, according to your much vaunted Geneva Convention, and international law, the two senior operatives captured could be executed as spies IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

They were not carrying arms openly, wearing rank, insignia or recognised uniform, and were carrying out operations in a covert manner in a nation with which they are not at war. That makes them spies agitators or fifth columnists if they claimed some sort of patriotic connection to the territory they may or may not claim to be protecting.

Do you advocate their execution? International law does.

 

[tomahawk6]

Back to the topic for a moment. One of the captured Iranian's is wanted for murder in Austria of Kurdish leader Andol Rahman Ghassemlu in 1989

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.377268905&par

Abdol Rahman Ghassemlu, the historic leader of Iranian Kurds, was killed in an apartment in the outskirts of the Austrian capital Vienna where he was scheduled to meet a delegation sent by then Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

However, shortly after the start of the meeting between a delegation of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI) and Tehran's delegation, a special unit of the Pasdaran is believed to have stormed the apartment and killed Ghassmlu and his aides.

 

[Kirkhill]

When considering the "local Kurdish outrage" over this event it is important to recall that while the Kurds in Iraq are united with respect to Iraqi Shia and Sunni  the Kurds themselves are not homogeneous. 

They are a clannish/tribal society like all the others in the area.  They include Syrian-Kurds, Turkish-Kurds, Armenian-Kurds, Iranian-Kurds as well as Iraqi-Kurds.  There are even Russo-Turkmen-Irani-Afghan-Kurds way out to the east of Iran where all those national borders coincide.  There are democratic, fascist, socialist and communist Kurds represented by the PPK, PSK, PUK and PKK with political organizations crossing National borders.

So it is not at all unlikely that the Iranians could find a "local" faction willing to accept them and then even non-supportive Kurds and Baghdad being forced to deal with the "intervention" with care.

 

[geo]

Back to the topic for a moment. One of the captured Iranian's is wanted for murder in Austria of Kurdish leader Andol Rahman Ghassemlu in 1989

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.377268905&par

Abdol Rahman Ghassemlu, the historic leader of Iranian Kurds, was killed in an apartment in the outskirts of the Austrian capital Vienna where he was scheduled to meet a delegation sent by then Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

However, shortly after the start of the meeting between a delegation of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PDKI) and Tehran's delegation, a special unit of the Pasdaran is believed to have stormed the apartment and killed Ghassmlu and his aides.

Justice delayed ..... justice served......or pending

 

[brihard]

....which was all fine and dandy when the bad guys wore uniforms and fought in national armies.

This is no longer the case. Iranian agents and soldiers are operating in Iraq in civilian garb. To clear that up for you, according to your much vaunted Geneva Convention, and international law, the two senior operatives captured could be executed as spies IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW.

They were not carrying arms openly, wearing rank, insignia or recognised uniform, and were carrying out operations in a covert manner in a nation with which they are not at war. That makes them spies agitators or fifth columnists if they claimed some sort of patriotic connection to the territory they may or may not claim to be protecting.

Do you advocate their execution? International law does.

<criminology student>

Point of note: The collected body of international law does not 'advocate' their execution, it merely permits it. Read through the National Defence Act or the Criminal Code and you'll find numerous offences where a life imprisonment or other serious terms may be handed down for what could still be a relatively minor offense. Section 83 of the NDA, for instance. Very few instances of 'disobedience of lawful command' would justify life in prison, but it could be done.

While spies may be executed subject to the laws of the nation in which the offense was committed, no where is it written that they shall be executed. As Canadians, for instance, we're bound by our own domestic law on this, and we've not had capital punishment in the criminal code since 76, or the NDA since '98. Other countries have their own laws. I'm not aware of any international court with jurisdiction governing the prosecution and sentencing of espionage suspects, so this will always vary in accordance with domestic laws.

</criminology student>

 

[GO!!!]

OK, "advocate" was the wrong word.

A more accurate statement would be;

Iran, Iraq and the United States all have laws permitting the execution of foreign agitators and espionage suspects, a point they share in common with varying articles of other bodies of collected international law. I would then extrapolate that mcqueen would then find it perfectly acceptable for the Iraqis to have executed these two on their identification, as is permitted by both national and international law.

 

[rmacqueen]

OK, "advocate" was the wrong word.

A more accurate statement would be;

Iran, Iraq and the United States all have laws permitting the execution of foreign agitators and espionage suspects, a point they share in common with varying articles of other bodies of collected international law. I would then extrapolate that mcqueen would then find it perfectly acceptable for the Iraqis to have executed these two on their identification, as is permitted by both national and international law.

You are assuming a lot on my behalf

 

[KevinB]

You are assuming a lot on my behalf

Like common sense...

 

[rmacqueen]

Like common sense...

:brickwall:

 

[GO!!!]

:brickwall:

What, so the collected body of international law is correct and virtuous when applied against the US, but when it actually supports american actions then I assume too much?

 

[rmacqueen]

What, so the collected body of international law is correct and virtuous when applied against the US, but when it actually supports american actions then I assume too much?

And our fathers and forefathers fought to rise above such behavior and to hold others accountable for violating these rules.  The Nuremberg trials, the world court, international law, all were created with the ideal that there are certain behaviors that we, as a civilized society, find unacceptable and expect everyone, including ourselves, to abide by.  Because others behave in a barbarous fashion should not give us the right to toss aside the very ideals that have made our society what it is today.

Considering what I wrote, and following your line of reasoning, then we can also extrapolate that I support the US being put on trial in Nuremberg.:brickwall: