Israel kills Iranian General in Syria

[satimy]

I have no problem with the idea of Israel defending itself.

Niether do I, but its a stretch to claim bombing someone thats fighting a war against someone else in a different country is self defense.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is it ok for the US to bomb in Syria, but not israel? O.o

Well Israel just killed a guy that was trying to kill the guys that are enemy number 1 of the US ISIL.

[Nakura Chambers]

Niether do I, but its a stretch to claim bombing someone thats fighting a war against someone else in a different country is self defense.

- - - Updated - - -



Well Israel just killed a guy that was trying to kill the guys that are enemy number 1 of the US ISIL.

He was the general of a country that is actively seeking to destroy Israel.

[stabetha]

He was the general of a country that is actively seeking to destroy Israel.

they don't want to destroy Israel they want to hug it out (while wearing a suicide vest)

[Tierbook]

He was the general of a country that is actively seeking to destroy Israel.

Don't forget he was in charge of training Hezbollah.

[zephid]

Why is it ok for the US to bomb in Syria, but not israel? O.o

There is no difference, both are equally bad. It's only "ok" to bomb if you have UN mandate.

[satimy]

He was the general of a country that is actively seeking to destroy Israel.

if anything the presence of ISIL is a gift from god to get the Iranians and Israelis to stop hating each other and unite against a common enemy.

[Nathiest]

"Iran Says Israeli Strike in Syria Killed One of Its Generals"



I think the Israeli government and military have just stuck their foot in it. In addition to Iranian General Allahdadi, the Israeli strike also killed Jihad Mughniyeh, the son of (deceased) terrorist and Hezbollah founder Imad Mughniyeh. The members of the "Shiite crescent" are not going to forget this, even if they don't act on it right away.

And for those posters who are going to go, "Hey, they were a couple of bad guys, who cares?" Yes, they were arguably "bad guys". But, try considering what this looks like to the people on the other side. How would, say, the United States be reacting, if the news was "US General and Dick Cheney's daughter killed in Ukraine by Russia" and the Russian response was, "We didn't intentionally blow them up, but they were with a bunch of nazis and they were probably planning a terrorist attack on Russia anyway." I think "not well" would be an understatement.

This is sad, bad news for any hopes to lessen violence and tension in the Middle East.

Most American's are intelligent to ask "Why where they hanging out with Nazis?". As we hope that is the question these people are wondering about their General. Why where they hanging out with known terrorist?

[zephid]

That's largely what gives them the "right" to criticize it.

If they don't like what they do with it they should just stop funding it.

[Nakura Chambers]

There is no difference, both are equally bad. It's only "ok" to bomb if you have UN mandate.

Why should anyone be required to have a mandate from a useless organization which doesn't even remotely share our values and has human rights abusers on both it's Security Council and it's Human Rights Council?

[Tierbook]

Why should anyone be required to have a mandate from a useless organization which doesn't even remotely share our values and has human rights abusers on both it's Security Council and it's Human Rights Council?

You aren't required to have one, it just makes it look official.

[zephid]

Why should anyone be required to have a mandate from a useless organization which doesn't even remotely share our values and has human rights abusers on both it's Security Council and it's Human Rights Council?

Because having a UN mandate shows that you have support for your actions. US bombing without UN mandate is just as bad as Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel.

[Nakura Chambers]

Because having a UN mandate shows that you have support for your actions. US bombing without UN mandate is just as bad as Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel.

Do you honestly believe that?

[zephid]

Do you honestly believe that?

Sure, why not? Both are unsanctioned actions against sovereign nations.

[Jaxi]

Well Israel just killed a guy that was trying to kill the guys that are enemy number 1 of the US ISIL.

I'm not sure about that. The attack occurred in Quneitra, which is right on the border of the UN no-man's land part of the Golan Heights. There are rebel forces there, but not ISIL. It's a strange place for Hezbollah to be, actually. I can see why it would make Israel nervous.

[lakhesis]

With how weak the non-ISIS rebels are, how often they defect to ISIS, and how many supplies ISIS has already seized from the moderates, let's be honest, there are two real choices; ISIS or Assad.

And Assad is the only smart choice out of those two.

In that immediate warzone there are roughly three or four significant blocs as far as Western interests go atm:

Sunni Islamists - Largely represented by ISIS, with most of the more secular groups being rolled up into them. The one's everyone's got their knickers in a twist about atm. The more secular Suni groups didn't get much material support from Western groups, so the Suni organisations that are on the ascendance are the more Islamist organisations. Generally supported by the pro-Islamist portions of the Sunni regional powers (eg. factions within Saudi Arabia & Turkey, both of which are theoretical US allies). Some of the support is for ideological reasons, and some of the support is because the Suni states are more concerned about (Shiite) Iran than anything else.

Hezbollah - Shiite terrorists. An Iranian proxy, which was receiving support through Assad's Syrian regime. Following the Lebanese civil war & Syria's occupation of Lebanon, all the militias were required to disarm in the Taif agreement... Hezbollah was the only one who didn't, and the Syrians let them get away with it (they renamed them as a 'resistance' organisation dedicated to fighting the Jews/Israel). Hezbollah has been forced to get involved in Syria because it's part of their supply & support chain from Iran, so they can't afford to see a non-Shia aligned group in power (e.g. ISIS, the Kurds, any secular group - only Assad or Iranian-sponsored Shia militias keeps them supplied really).

Assad - Alawite, largely secular, who had been ruling a largely Suni country (Syria). When the French first moved out of the area the Alawites petitioned for their own separate region, worried that they'd be persecuted if they were a minority - that didn't happen. So they seized power & persecuted the Suni majority. Because Iran is non-Suni, they're allied (but are not really natural allies beyond the enemy's-enemy-is-friend level) - and so Assad is part of the Iran/Hezbollah bloc.

When things started going downhill, Assad was actually responsible for freeing Sunni Islamists from jail - because they undermined the secular Suni & led to the ascendance of groups like ISIS, which the West would never support. This meant his regime could be presented as the least-worst option for the West (or at the very least avoid a direct Western intervention similar to Iraq/Afghanistan). Assad & the Alawites are in a war for survival - either they win, or the winner will probably commit genocide against them.

Kurds - The most secular & naturally pro-Western group left on the field, ever since the weak support of the secular Suni groups led to the ascendance of Suni Islamists. Supported by Kurdish organisations in Iraq & Turkey (some of whom are terrorists - every bloc involved has some ). The least well funded, but also one of the only groups that Western interests have an established history record of actual materiel support for (albeit pretty anemic support).

The Kurds lost out in the carve up of the Ottoman empire - there was a natural Kurdistan, but it wasn't penciled in on the map. Which means the various establishment groups in Turkey, Iraq & Iran are very concerned about the idea of a new Kurdish state forming in the area & impinging on their territory/influence. So despite the Kurds being natural long term Western allies, that alliance is hindered by the Turks being more worried about Kurds than ISIS & the West try to play nice with Iran (and Shiite factions in Iraq).

...

So there is a natural Western ally in the region - the Kurds - but they don't have lily clean hands (much like everyone else) & groups the West is trying to play nice with are fundamentally opposed to them.

The various factions of the Iran bloc are not Western allys or even remotely sympathetic to any western interests (of any sort - from non-nuclear proliferation through to genuine democracy through to basic women's rights).

Most of the traditional Western allys are supporting the same bloc ISIS is in.

And regarding the actual air strike... Jihad Mughniyah was the son & ideological successor of Imad Mughniyah (the biggest terrorist 'superstar' prior to Osama, who organised of the Beirut marine barrack bombings & US embassy bombings). The son hadn't quite managed to equal daddy's achievements, but he was on precisely the same trajectory.

If Iranian government officials get burnt while hanging around with groups like that, then perhaps Iran should take the hint. Although they probably won't, because the conflict-inciting behavior of those groups is precisely why Iranian generals are there.

[Nakura Chambers]

Sure, why not? Both are unsanctioned actions against sovereign nations.

Unsanctioned? And do you really think the popular opinion of foreign countries should decide your country's foreign policy? Even if you wanted the UN to work this way (which would be insane), it doesn't and never has (veto powers). In addition, both the General Assembly and Security Council represent the views of national governments, not their people.

So let's say that Russia invaded Sweden (a bit of a stretch, but bare with me) and forced your family into slavery. Would you be opposed to NATO liberating your country?

[BananaHandsB]

Like fuck the US has no right to criticize Israel we fund their damned military....

That's largely what gives them the "right" to criticize it.

If they don't like what they do with it they should just stop funding it.

And that's what they'll do if other options don't work...criticizing is the first step in the process, which often can be the end if their criticism alone proves effective.

[Nakura Chambers]

And that's what they'll do if other options don't work...criticizing is the first step in the process, which often be the end if their if criticism alone proves effective

Why would the United States criticize Israel? We have no reason to, despite Obama being butthurt over "muh feels."

[BananaHandsB]

Why would the United States criticize Israel? We have no reason to, despite Obama being butthurt over "muh feels."

Why would they not? I think you're overestimating the severity of criticism. This isn't a sanction.

[Nakura Chambers]

I don't know. Their treatment of Palestinians seems blameworthy and something we shouldn't want to tacitly support.

In what way have Palestinians been mistreated? Israel is the only side that does everything it can to minimize civilian casualties. They're also the only side actually working towards peace. There would have been a Palestinian state decades ago if Hamas, Hezbollah and others would put aside their anti-Semitism and recognize Israel's right to exist.