Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace

Scott

Scott

Verified User
Just finished the article that shares the name of this thread from Matt Fitzpatrick, who is the Professor of International History at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia. Quoting the introduction and conclusion of his article:
**
In the late 1960s, the prevailing opinion among Israeli Shin Bet intelligence officers was that the key to defeating the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was to assassinate its then-leader Yasser Arafat.

The elimination of Arafat, the Shin Bet commander Yehuda Arbel wrote in his diary, was “a precondition to finding a solution to the Palestinian problem.”

For other, even more radical Israelis – such as the ultra-nationalist assassin Yigal Amir – the answer lay elsewhere. They sought the assassination of Israeli leaders such as Yitzak Rabin who wanted peace with the Palestinians.

Despite Rabin’s long personal history as a famed and often ruthless military commander in the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli Wars, Amir stalked and shot Rabin dead in 1995. He believed Rabin had betrayed Israel by signing the Oslo Accords peace deal with Arafat.

It’s been 20 years since Arafat died as possibly the victim of polonium poisoning, and 30 years after the shooting of Rabin. Peace between Israelis and the Palestinians has never been further away.

[snip]

In situations where finding a lasting negotiated settlement would mean painful concessions or strategic risks, assassinations prove simply too tempting. They circumvent the difficulties and complexities of diplomacy while avoiding the need to concede power or territory.

As many have concluded, however, assassinations have never killed resistance. They have never killed the ideas and experiences that give birth to resistance in the first place.

Nor have they offered lasting security to those who have ordered the lethal strike.

Enduring security requires that, at some point, someone grasp the nettle and look to the underlying issues.

The alternative is the continuation of the brutal pattern of strike and counter-strike for generations to come.
**

Full article:
theconversation.com

Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace

Far from having solved the issue of Middle East peace, assassinations continue to pour oil on the flames.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The agents of chaos are Evil.
Click to expand...

Sure, but "agents of chaos" is a pretty vague category of people. I like Fitzpatrick's article because it doesn't really focus that much on individuals but rather the mindset that you can achieve piece through assassinations and how history has shown that this simply doesn't work. Fitzpatrick actually references an article from Belén Fernández on the subject of assassinations, this one:
www.aljazeera.com

Israel’s assassinations can’t kill resistance

The long history of Israeli assassinations demonstrates their futility and counterproductive nature.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com

I'm skeptical of her final conclusion, that being that the whole point is to lay the "the ground for perpetual and ever more psychopathic warfare", but I certainly agree with her point, echoed by Fitzpatrick, that assassinations can't kill the resistance to Israeli occupation of arab lands.
 
Scott said:
Sure, but "agents of chaos" is a pretty vague category of people. I like Fitzpatrick's article because it doesn't really focus that much on individuals but rather the mindset that you can achieve piece through assassinations and how history has shown that this simply doesn't work. Fitzpatrick actually references an article from Belén Fernández on the subject of assassinations, this one:
www.aljazeera.com

Israel’s assassinations can’t kill resistance

The long history of Israeli assassinations demonstrates their futility and counterproductive nature.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com

I'm skeptical of her final conclusion, that being that the whole point is to lay the "the ground for perpetual and ever more psychopathic warfare", but I certainly agree with her point, echoed by Fitzpatrick, that assassinations can't kill the resistance to Israeli occupation of arab lands.
Click to expand...
The demented must be dealt with.
 






JonnyUtd

@Fx1Jonny


Iran - 45 years of sanctions israel - $7 Trillion of their sugar daddy And Iran has still whopped their fucking arses, so much so they are begging America to save them!Peak Humiliation.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Scott said:
Sure, but "agents of chaos" is a pretty vague category of people. I like Fitzpatrick's article because it doesn't really focus that much on individuals but rather the mindset that you can achieve piece through assassinations and how history has shown that this simply doesn't work. Fitzpatrick actually references an article from Belén Fernández on the subject of assassinations, this one:
www.aljazeera.com

Israel’s assassinations can’t kill resistance

The long history of Israeli assassinations demonstrates their futility and counterproductive nature.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com

I'm skeptical of her final conclusion, that being that the whole point is to lay the "the ground for perpetual and ever more psychopathic warfare", but I certainly agree with her point, echoed by Fitzpatrick, that assassinations can't kill the resistance to Israeli occupation of arab lands.
Click to expand...
The demented must be dealt with.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you're referring to the Israeli government?
 
Scott said:
I'm guessing you're referring to the Israeli government?
Click to expand...
I am speaking of the Evil Imperial Empire....some of the worst people to ever walk this particular planet....so stupid that they have no clue how badly they suck as human beings.
 
A good article on the escalating conflict from Simplicius:
simplicius76.substack.com

Iranian Abyss: Will US Take the Plunge?

The following premium paid article is a comprehensive discussion of all the possibilities for the upcoming Iranian-US conflict, including my personal predictions on what will happen. It is a whopping 5,000+ words in length and covers various aspects of the stand off, from the US ability—or lack...
simplicius76.substack.com simplicius76.substack.com
 
This is great......bottom line is that the Imperial Empire is weak, it knows it is weak, which is why we see it lashing out in desperation:

 
Hawkeye10 said:
This is great......bottom line is that the Imperial Empire is weak, it knows it is weak, which is why we see it lashing out in desperation:

Click to expand...

I'd say it's weak in soft power, but it still has more than enough nukes to render most of earth uninhabitable. The thing is, it's used the threat of force so often that it's lost its sting. Countries are challenging the U.S. based empire more than ever and I see it ending in only one of 2 ways:
Either the U.S. recognizes that nothing good can come out of countless escalations, or we end up in a nuclear apocalypse.
 
Scott said:
A good article on the escalating conflict from Simplicius:
simplicius76.substack.com

Iranian Abyss: Will US Take the Plunge?

The following premium paid article is a comprehensive discussion of all the possibilities for the upcoming Iranian-US conflict, including my personal predictions on what will happen. It is a whopping 5,000+ words in length and covers various aspects of the stand off, from the US ability—or lack...
simplicius76.substack.com simplicius76.substack.com
Click to expand...
Did you write it?
 
Scott said:
I'd say it's weak in soft power, but it still has more than enough nukes to render most of earth uninhabitable. The thing is, it's used the threat of force so often that it's lost its sting. Countries are challenging the U.S. based empire more than ever and I see it ending in only one of 2 ways:
Either the U.S. recognizes that nothing good can come out of countless escalations, or we end up in a nuclear apocalypse.
Click to expand...
These are the last days of a dying empire, which the people who run it are trying to save via brutality.

It wont work, whether any of us survive it we dont know yet.
 
Scott said:
I'd say it's weak in soft power, but it still has more than enough nukes to render most of earth uninhabitable. The thing is, it's used the threat of force so often that it's lost its sting. Countries are challenging the U.S. based empire more than ever and I see it ending in only one of 2 ways:
Either the U.S. recognizes that nothing good can come out of countless escalations, or we end up in a nuclear apocalypse.
Click to expand...
You know how to back a mob up? Ya drop a couple of 'em and let the rest know whoever steps up next is getting the same.
It works. 😐
I just thank God we have Trump for a president right now because this was going to pop off whether that was the case or not.
 
Another good article on Iran I just found:

The article is short and to the point, so I'll just quote most of it here:
**
Former CIA officer Larry Johnson opines:

I believe that Israel’s attack was part of a planned international intelligence and military operation, which included the participation and support of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. We got the first clue on May 31, when a UN watchdog issued two reports designed to create a narrative that Iran is a rogue nuclear state:
...
This tactic was employed in 2002/2003 to gin up a justification to attack Iraq, who the US insisted had weapons of mass destruction. We now know it was a lie, but the propaganda was effective in producing support in the US and Europe to invade Iraq. We’re seeing a similar effort today, only this time Iran is being falsely accused of enriching uranium to build a bomb. The Iraq WMD lie, like the current calumny against Iran, only has one purpose… justify military action in order to achieve regime change.
Click to expand...
I have previously detailed the current IAEA operation to blame Iran over some alleged nuclear contamination which were found more than two decades ago.

During the build-up to the 2003 war on Iraq there was another lie that famously used to 'justify' the attack.

It was alleged that Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al-Qaeda, a terrorist group that had been created by the U.S. in Pakistan to fight against the Soviet supported government of Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda was alleged to have committed attacks in the U.S. on 9/11 2001. Associating Iraq, which had fought against al-Qaeda inspired groups, with al-Qaeda itself was the second most cited lie used to justify the U.S. war on Iraq.

It is no wonder than that a similar narrative is now suddenly being build with regards to Iran.

David Ignatius, the unofficial CIA spokesman at the Washington Post, was told to publish this nonsense (archived):

But Iran has other means to hit back. One that has received little attention is its relationship with al-Qaeda affiliates. According to former U.S. counterterrorism officials, Tehran has built good relations with the new “de facto” al-Qaeda “emir,” Saif al-Adel, who took over in 2023 after Ayman al-Zawahiri was killed. These former officials say Adel helped manage WMD planning for Osama bin Laden.
The al-Qaeda affiliate in Yemen may pose a special danger. It’s headed by Saad bin Atef al-Awlaki, who posted a chilling video this month threatening U.S. officials. “Go after the scum of the earth and its greatest criminals,” he urged his followers, naming Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and former DOGE chief Elon Musk. “There are no red lines after all that has been happening to our people in Gaza,” he said. According to the Jerusalem Post, Awlaki urged Muslims in Europe and America to make sure there is “not a single safe place” for Jews.
Click to expand...
Who would be those "former U.S. counterterrorism officials"? Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, or some other notorious liars?

Saif al-Adel, the "de facto" never declared leader of Al-Qaeda has since 2001 been rumored to be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and Iran where he allegedly was once under house arrest and later exchanged against Iranian hostages held by al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Over more than two decades the Shia Iran has fought the Sunni al-Qaeda wherever it could. Its operations against Sunni extremist in Iraq and Syria were largely wars against al-Qaeda affiliated forces. In Yemen Iran is allied with the Houthi who are fighting against U.S. supported al-Qaeda aligned groups in the south of the country. A similar situation exists in Lebanon where Iran supported Hizbullah forces have for years feuded against al-Qaeda aligned radicals.

To claim that Iran is now somehow in cahoots with Saif al-Adel, an alleged but never declared leader of a more or less extinct al-Qaeda, is blatant nonsense.

David Ignatius is a much read 'opinion leader'. That he was told to trot out those nonsensical claims is a signal for others to pick up on them.

[snip]
**
 
Scott said:
Another good article on Iran I just found:

The article is short and to the point, so I'll just quote most of it here:
**
Former CIA officer Larry Johnson opines:


I have previously detailed the current IAEA operation to blame Iran over some alleged nuclear contamination which were found more than two decades ago.

During the build-up to the 2003 war on Iraq there was another lie that famously used to 'justify' the attack.

It was alleged that Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al-Qaeda, a terrorist group that had been created by the U.S. in Pakistan to fight against the Soviet supported government of Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda was alleged to have committed attacks in the U.S. on 9/11 2001. Associating Iraq, which had fought against al-Qaeda inspired groups, with al-Qaeda itself was the second most cited lie used to justify the U.S. war on Iraq.

It is no wonder than that a similar narrative is now suddenly being build with regards to Iran.

David Ignatius, the unofficial CIA spokesman at the Washington Post, was told to publish this nonsense (archived):


Who would be those "former U.S. counterterrorism officials"? Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, or some other notorious liars?

Saif al-Adel, the "de facto" never declared leader of Al-Qaeda has since 2001 been rumored to be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and Iran where he allegedly was once under house arrest and later exchanged against Iranian hostages held by al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Over more than two decades the Shia Iran has fought the Sunni al-Qaeda wherever it could. Its operations against Sunni extremist in Iraq and Syria were largely wars against al-Qaeda affiliated forces. In Yemen Iran is allied with the Houthi who are fighting against U.S. supported al-Qaeda aligned groups in the south of the country. A similar situation exists in Lebanon where Iran supported Hizbullah forces have for years feuded against al-Qaeda aligned radicals.

To claim that Iran is now somehow in cahoots with Saif al-Adel, an alleged but never declared leader of a more or less extinct al-Qaeda, is blatant nonsense.

David Ignatius is a much read 'opinion leader'. That he was told to trot out those nonsensical claims is a signal for others to pick up on them.

[snip]
**
Click to expand...
^Now do how many of those are still alive. :D
 
Matt Dillon said:
You know how to back a mob up? Ya drop a couple of 'em and let the rest know whoever steps up next is getting the same.
It works. 😐
Click to expand...

Iran isn't a mob, it's a country and it was Israel that started this, not Iran. Nothing good will come of the U.S. getting directly involved in this.
 
Scott said:
Another good article on Iran I just found:

The article is short and to the point, so I'll just quote most of it here:
**
Former CIA officer Larry Johnson opines:


I have previously detailed the current IAEA operation to blame Iran over some alleged nuclear contamination which were found more than two decades ago.

During the build-up to the 2003 war on Iraq there was another lie that famously used to 'justify' the attack.

It was alleged that Iraq's leader Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with al-Qaeda, a terrorist group that had been created by the U.S. in Pakistan to fight against the Soviet supported government of Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda was alleged to have committed attacks in the U.S. on 9/11 2001. Associating Iraq, which had fought against al-Qaeda inspired groups, with al-Qaeda itself was the second most cited lie used to justify the U.S. war on Iraq.

It is no wonder than that a similar narrative is now suddenly being build with regards to Iran.

David Ignatius, the unofficial CIA spokesman at the Washington Post, was told to publish this nonsense (archived):


Who would be those "former U.S. counterterrorism officials"? Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, or some other notorious liars?

Saif al-Adel, the "de facto" never declared leader of Al-Qaeda has since 2001 been rumored to be in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and Iran where he allegedly was once under house arrest and later exchanged against Iranian hostages held by al-Qaeda in Yemen.

Over more than two decades the Shia Iran has fought the Sunni al-Qaeda wherever it could. Its operations against Sunni extremist in Iraq and Syria were largely wars against al-Qaeda affiliated forces. In Yemen Iran is allied with the Houthi who are fighting against U.S. supported al-Qaeda aligned groups in the south of the country. A similar situation exists in Lebanon where Iran supported Hizbullah forces have for years feuded against al-Qaeda aligned radicals.

To claim that Iran is now somehow in cahoots with Saif al-Adel, an alleged but never declared leader of a more or less extinct al-Qaeda, is blatant nonsense.

David Ignatius is a much read 'opinion leader'. That he was told to trot out those nonsensical claims is a signal for others to pick up on them.

[snip]
**
Click to expand...

Scott said:
Iran isn't a mob, it's a country and it was Israel that started this, not Iran. Nothing good will come of the U.S. getting directly involved in this.
Click to expand...
Iran has been trying to build nukes as their #1 goal.
Israel has foiled them before..with Stuxnet. 😆
Yeah, that was a good one.
It made it to a large percentage of the world's computers and was only targeting Iran's centrifuges.
it had uh..oh what's the word I'm looking for here..firmware that revved the centrifuges up to the max to where they'd spin over full speed and burn out and not shut off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top