No Longer a Secret: How Israel Destroyed Syria's Nuclear Reactor(haaretz.com)
haaretz.com
No Longer a Secret: How Israel Destroyed Syria's Nuclear Reactor
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-no-longer-a-secret-how-israel-destroyed-syria-s-nuclear-reactor-1.5914407
41 comments
i.e. a reactor that is not meant to produce energy but breed plutonium.
The French demonstrate that it is perfectly practical to run reactors to both produce energy and breed plutonium.
The French demonstrate that it is perfectly practical to run reactors to both produce energy and breed plutonium.
Well yes in terms of Plutonium in general, but not the weapon grade P239 kind of material that is very pure... For those you need a specific reactor dedicated to one cause.
One rogue state with undeclared nuclear weapons bombing another rogue state to prevent them building undeclared nuclear weapons...all kept secret for 10 years...Israeli intelligence gathering has amazing penetration and sophistication...
https://youtu.be/ca-C3voZwpM
It's been public since at most 2012, nevertheless for a country of their size -I agree- their intelligence organizations are incredibly impressive.
Google q anon posts but skip the dot com on mobile.
Seems as though something big related to integrated intelligence and politicians about to happen.
Seems as though something big related to integrated intelligence and politicians about to happen.
The New Yorker has a much better article that came out 6 years ago.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/17/the-silent-str...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/09/17/the-silent-str...
I've read both, Haaretz's it's more in depth, It give us an insight of what happened at Olmert's cabinet and his conversations with Nethanyu.
I don't know what to make of it: there seems to be a media campaign going with the aim to make Olmert look good: he is back on the front pages - he got out of jail recently and his memoirs are being published by Yediot Ahronot; Now go figure what is for real and what is part of the media campaign.
Or that they want to block Barak and his recent attempts to get back into politics. Interesting that the article paints Barak as a conspiracy minded crackpot. (Maybe one has to be a conspiracy theorist in order to survive office politics in Israel).
Or that they want to block Barak and his recent attempts to get back into politics. Interesting that the article paints Barak as a conspiracy minded crackpot. (Maybe one has to be a conspiracy theorist in order to survive office politics in Israel).
I remember when this event was an active news story. At the time, it seemed like you'd learn something new every time you refreshed the page, and get a different ambiguous take on events depending on which news source you were reading,
The only thing that was clear to me (in guarded vague language) was that Israel had bombed something in Syria, and that it might have been nuclear-related.
The only thing that was clear to me (in guarded vague language) was that Israel had bombed something in Syria, and that it might have been nuclear-related.
The part that really got me is the one regarding the photos that Israeli agents captured from Othman's laptop in Vienna. This looks like the surface of a deeper story -- why was a top diplomatic agent carrying highly classified information lacking basic training on data security? Or why did his staff let him use an unsecured/unencrypted computer? Assuming he had no use for these pictures in Vienna, why was he carrying them to a place where attacks from foreign agents are expected? Why weren't top diplomatic agents and people trusted with state secrets issued clean (and secured) laptops before traveling abroad?
The way it was described precludes a Evil Maid Attack unless, of course, they had previous access to the same laptop. A lot of very interesting questions remain.
The way it was described precludes a Evil Maid Attack unless, of course, they had previous access to the same laptop. A lot of very interesting questions remain.
So in some other context, such activities are labeled "terrorism", now this becomes more neutral.
This title is actually fine.
But the other ones need to be more objective.
This title is actually fine.
But the other ones need to be more objective.
Terrorism is untargeted violence against civil population, with the aim to instill fear and influence policy. Destruction of a military or military-related object by a warring country is not terrorism, it is an act of war. In war, objects that can have military significance - bridges, roads, factories, warehouses, etc. - are routinely attacked. This has nothing to do with terrorism. Note that Israel and Syria is in the state of war since 1948, when Syria was one of the states that tried to destroy the nascent Jewish state. Unlike some other Arab countries, Syria never made peace with Israel and never really wanted to.
Terrorism is untargeted violence against civil population, with the aim to instill fear and influence policy
... by non-state actors. When a recognized government does it, it's generally called a war crime.
... by non-state actors. When a recognized government does it, it's generally called a war crime.
Well, you could argue that if the state did it, it's a technicality not to call it terrorism and the definition could be extended. But here the picture is completely different - the target is a legit militarily significant object (and not just some shoe factory or ration storage, but a whopping nuclear center), and the goal is to destroy the object, not to indiscriminately harm civilian population in order to scare them and achieve a political goal.
> .. by non-state actors.
By any actor.
> When a recognized government does it, it's generally called a war crime.
That it is a war crime in the context of international armed conflict (or against humanity otherwise) doesn't stop it from being terrorism, just as a state actor committint genocide doesn't make it any less genocide, though that too is either a war crime or crime against humanity.
By any actor.
> When a recognized government does it, it's generally called a war crime.
That it is a war crime in the context of international armed conflict (or against humanity otherwise) doesn't stop it from being terrorism, just as a state actor committint genocide doesn't make it any less genocide, though that too is either a war crime or crime against humanity.
"it's generally called a war crime."
Or UK strategic bombing policy in WW2... the Nazis even called the allied bombing "terror attacks".
Or UK strategic bombing policy in WW2... the Nazis even called the allied bombing "terror attacks".
That’s quite a bit of historical revisionism.
The Germans bombed the hell out of civilians indiscriminately all over Europe, including London and most other large cities in the UK years before the allies bombed German cities.
Retaliation-in-kind during open war isn’t the same thing as terrorism.
The Germans bombed the hell out of civilians indiscriminately all over Europe, including London and most other large cities in the UK years before the allies bombed German cities.
Retaliation-in-kind during open war isn’t the same thing as terrorism.
> Terrorism is untargeted violence against civil population
That definition might have been true immediately after 2001-09-11, but now the term has been diluted and coopted to cover any anti-government military action. Arguably this is just double-speak; I consider this term to be borderline meaningless at this point.
See for example Russia/Georgia [1], or more recently the "terrorists" opposing the Syrian government [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russo-Georgian_diplomatic... [2]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/who-is-a-terrorist...
That definition might have been true immediately after 2001-09-11, but now the term has been diluted and coopted to cover any anti-government military action. Arguably this is just double-speak; I consider this term to be borderline meaningless at this point.
See for example Russia/Georgia [1], or more recently the "terrorists" opposing the Syrian government [2].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Russo-Georgian_diplomatic... [2]: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-lauria/who-is-a-terrorist...
> but now the term has been diluted
There's no good reason to participate in it and make matters worse. We virtually universally denounce terrorism exactly because it is indiscriminately harming innocent people just to scare others, which is considered immoral by the majority of modern moral systems. Destroying military objects in the course of war, while being, as any part of the war is, regrettable course of events - does not carry nearly the same moral stigma.
Some people participating in Syria war are undoubtedly terrorists - ISIS and al-Qaeda make no secret of its adherence to the terrorist tactics, among other war crimes they commit - others are guerilla, or self-defence forces (e.g. Peshmerga). One should not confuse those if one wants to understand what is going on.
There's no good reason to participate in it and make matters worse. We virtually universally denounce terrorism exactly because it is indiscriminately harming innocent people just to scare others, which is considered immoral by the majority of modern moral systems. Destroying military objects in the course of war, while being, as any part of the war is, regrettable course of events - does not carry nearly the same moral stigma.
Some people participating in Syria war are undoubtedly terrorists - ISIS and al-Qaeda make no secret of its adherence to the terrorist tactics, among other war crimes they commit - others are guerilla, or self-defence forces (e.g. Peshmerga). One should not confuse those if one wants to understand what is going on.
When words get diluted like that, you can easily counter through elaboration and specificity, as the parent did. In doing so, you can retain the meaning as you see fit.
All people are free to define their own definitions. In fact, we all do, without exception: no two people hold identical definitions for the same words. The only thing that matters is the ability to be understood, ideally to a high degree. Elaboration on what you mean provides for that even in the case of widespread dilution.
All people are free to define their own definitions. In fact, we all do, without exception: no two people hold identical definitions for the same words. The only thing that matters is the ability to be understood, ideally to a high degree. Elaboration on what you mean provides for that even in the case of widespread dilution.
If a government directly does it, it's not called terrorism. I don't think I've ever seen a headline that contradicts that.
> If a government directly does it, it's not called terrorism.
Considering that the modern use of “terrorist” and “terrorism” traced back directly to description of actors and actions associated with the Terror in Revolutionary France, that would be erroneous. It's true that much of the modern focus is on international terrorism (which necessarily excludes internal state terrorism, which is a form of intranational terrorism), state terrorism remains a significant thing (both internationally and internally.)
Considering that the modern use of “terrorist” and “terrorism” traced back directly to description of actors and actions associated with the Terror in Revolutionary France, that would be erroneous. It's true that much of the modern focus is on international terrorism (which necessarily excludes internal state terrorism, which is a form of intranational terrorism), state terrorism remains a significant thing (both internationally and internally.)
It's not erroneous, terms evolve. There's no formal definition of terrorism, so we're just talking about how it's used in common conversation and media. Maybe it's just me, but in modern usage I've only ever seen references to non-governmental terrorism and "state sponsored terrorism", which is different than a direct government action. When a government does it it's just modern warfare.
> Maybe it's just me, but in modern usage I've only ever seen references to non-governmental terrorism and "state sponsored terrorism", which is different than a direct government action.
State-sponsored terrorism is broader than, but includes, direct government action. Direct actions by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Quds Force are often described as “state sponsored terrorism”.
State-sponsored terrorism is broader than, but includes, direct government action. Direct actions by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Quds Force are often described as “state sponsored terrorism”.
I think the more nuanced point would be "If _our_ government directly does it, it's not called terrorism."
The US government's support for anti-government organizations in the Middle East (e.g. in Syria, Libya, Sudan, etc) is characterized as terrorism by the Iranian government, and many others (Russia, etc).
(I'm not passing any judgement on the moral equivalency of these positions, just pointing out the fuzziness of the linguistics).
The US government's support for anti-government organizations in the Middle East (e.g. in Syria, Libya, Sudan, etc) is characterized as terrorism by the Iranian government, and many others (Russia, etc).
(I'm not passing any judgement on the moral equivalency of these positions, just pointing out the fuzziness of the linguistics).
Ok, that's a good example. I agree that an article like you're describe would be inconsistent, and further dilutes the modern meaning of terrorism.
Wow. I just wanted the news outlets to be more objective.
That is just some minor human bias which can be corrected. Let's not go into the unendable argument of accurate human language meaning.
That is just some minor human bias which can be corrected. Let's not go into the unendable argument of accurate human language meaning.
The root word is 'terror'. If terror (mass fear, intimidation, panic) was the intent, I would agree.
The Ynet article has a really interesting short video documentary in which they interview many of the people involved in the decision making. Also no paywall.
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5182507,00.html
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5182507,00.html
Is there any way to find this article not behind a paywall?
For me the Google cache loaded the full article: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WXaVey...
https://archive.is/UY1Lv has the virtue of working with Instapaper, if you need that.
Here it is on archive.is: https://archive.is/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.prem...
You can read a short article about it on Time.com, but it's a short article not an investigation like Haaretz had done.
http://time.com/5208531/israeli-airstrike-syrian-nuclear-sit...
For those down-voting this question, keep in mind the FAQs mention that stories can be posted from paywall sites that have work arounds:
Are paywalls ok?
"It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
Are paywalls ok?
"It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
In comments, it's ok to ask how to read an article and to help other users do so. But please don't post complaints about paywalls. Those are off topic."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html
This brings up the challenge that it is hard to ask a person to pay for a subscription to a site to read one article. I know a million startups have tried to tackle this, but none have done it right yet.
Googling the title from an incognito mode browser session appears to work.
click the 'web' link under the link that has enabled my ability to view.
The CSS popups on this page are annoying.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVhQOhxb1Mc (at min 47, he starts talking about the hard parts)