Diplomatic Irony

[Begoner]

I found this to be quite hilarious. American troops recently raided the Iranian consulate in Arbil, Iraq. In this foray, they employed helicopters and armored vehicles to achieve their objectives. They also detained as many as six Iranian diplomats and absconded with computer equipment and several documents. In the process, international law was broken. Here's a link to the story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/middl eeast/12raid.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=world

In itself, such an unlawful act would be par for the course in regards to the continuing American military presence in Iraq, but it gets better. In Athens, a far-left political group through an anti-tank grenade into the empty American embassy (it was just before dawn and not a single employee was inside the building). The aim of this particular "attack" was to deface a giant American seal. The damage incurred as a result of the attack was minimal, as the explosive missed its intended target. Nonetheless, Charles Ries, the American ambassador, said, “We treat it as a very serious attack. There can be no justification for such a senseless act of violence.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/world/europ e/12cnd-greece.html?ref=world

How ironic is that? After using helicopters and armored vehicles for an incursion into an Iranian consulate (with many employees inside), in the process abducting several Iranians, the US claims that there is "no justification" for the "senselessly violent act" of lobbing a grenade into an empty embassy. This seems like quite the double standard.

[Altarus]

At 1/12/07 05:48 PM, Begoner wrote: How ironic is that? After using helicopters and armored vehicles for an incursion into an Iranian consulate (with many employees inside), in the process abducting several Iranians, the US claims that there is "no justification" for the "senselessly violent act" of lobbing a grenade into an empty embassy. This seems like quite the double standard.

There is a difference between police officers unlawfully arresting you and your family and police officers unlawfully lobbing a grenade through your window to blow up your family.

Also, we know for a fact that Iran is helping insurgents in Iraq, an act itself which violates international law. Sure, invading their consulate might also raise some legal issues, but they honestly had it coming.

[Altarus]

Also, I like how you left this part out:

"[A senior State Department official] said that American officials believed that the Iranians intended to turn the office into a consulate at some point, but that had not yet happened. Therefore, he said, the State Department does not consider the office to be Iranian territory."

Therefore, it was American forces, which BTW are responsible for managing security in Iraq at the moment, performing a raid on Iraqi terrority. Where is the problem?

[Begoner]

At 1/12/07 05:53 PM, Altarus wrote: There is a difference between police officers unlawfully arresting you and your family and police officers unlawfully lobbing a grenade through your window to blow up your family.

No, there is a difference between US police officers crossing over into Mexican territory and arresting Mexican diplomats and US police officers waiting until your house was vacated and then performing an act of vandalism (without the intent to injure you or your family).

[Begoner]

At 1/12/07 05:57 PM, Altarus wrote: Also, I like how you left this part out:

Yes, because it's one of the stupidest explanations which I have ever heard the military give. The building was the Iranian consulate -- the Kurds know it, the Iranians know it, the world knows it, but the American military denies it. Real original. Here's an article stating that both the Iraqis and the Iranians said that the building was a diplomatic one. Also, note how the US didn't inform the Iraqis about its actions (I wonder why).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/625116 7.stm

[SyntheticTacos]

At 1/12/07 05:48 PM, Begoner wrote: This seems like quite the double standard.

You are too easy to make fun of. There are so many things I could say about your views and double standards.

You're bitching about Americans illegally detaining Iranian officials. If you were Iran and denounced the Iranian govt. like you do the American, you would also be illegally detained. How many people do you think Iran detains for unjust causes? And the Greek terrorists, they threw a grenade in an embassy. A grenade. you mind if I go to an Iranian embassy and throw in a grenade to deface one of Iran's symbols? Of course you do, Iran is such a wonderful country and is taking part in the glorious struggle to destroy the evil Israel. >:( You complain about Israel causing collateral damage yet you support Hezbollah even when they directly target civilians.

If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to stand up for the Iranian government. The American government is fucked up but I think Iran is a liiiitle bit worse eh? Considering it would be par for the course for them to completely block Newgrounds if you lived there.

[SyntheticTacos]

Sorry I didn't mean to be too hostile in my last post. But really, I disagree with a lot the American government does (I'm not a republican or anything) but I think you should consider the terrible things Iran does as well as what the U.S. does in wartime.

[Memorize]

At 1/12/07 05:57 PM, Altarus wrote:

Therefore, it was American forces, which BTW are responsible for managing security in Iraq at the moment, performing a raid on Iraqi terrority. Where is the problem?

I never use these General Forum words but...

Begoner just got PWN'd by a technicality.

[Begoner]

At 1/12/07 06:58 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: The American government is fucked up but I think Iran is a liiiitle bit worse eh?

I live in America, not in Iran. There are numerous government which are much more oppressive than that of the US; a few even are more disrespectful of international law than the US (Sudan and Israel to name two). However, you cannot excuse America's faults by claiming that other countries are worse; it is not a valid defense. If you're on trial for rape, you can't say, "Well, at least I didn't murder her." Perhaps some of America's transgressions pale in comparison to those of Iran; that doesn't justify America's actions nor does it extenuate America's deeds.

[Begoner]

At 1/12/07 07:05 PM, Experimental wrote: Begoner just got PWN'd by a technicality.

Actually, as I previously stated, both the Iraqi government and the Iranian government recognized the building as a consulate. Just because the US is attempting to justify its grave breach of international law breach of international law through transparent prevarications does not mean it is correct. The building was a consulate -- period.

[Memorize]

At 1/12/07 07:50 PM, Begoner wrote:

Actually, as I previously stated, both the Iraqi government and the Iranian government recognized the building as a consulate. Just because the US is attempting to justify its grave breach of international law breach of international law through transparent prevarications does not mean it is correct. The building was a consulate -- period.

You're going to have a real hard time getting that one thru the people. Espeically after they hear the other explaination.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 1/12/07 07:47 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 1/12/07 06:58 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: The American government is fucked up but I think Iran is a liiiitle bit worse eh?

I live in America, not in Iran. There are numerous government which are much more oppressive than that of the US; a few even are more disrespectful of international law than the US (Sudan and Israel to name two). However, you cannot excuse America's faults by claiming that other countries are worse; it is not a valid defense. If you're on trial for rape, you can't say, "Well, at least I didn't murder her." Perhaps some of America's transgressions pale in comparison to those of Iran; that doesn't justify America's actions nor does it extenuate America's deeds.

Nor does it change the fact that Iran is a hostile nation to the U.S.; its /government/ holds rallies chanting "Death to America". And I wouldn't say just a "few" nations are more disrespectful to international law; look at the freedomhouse map of the world and how many of them are listed as "not free" and violate the Geneva Convention. And your trial metaphor makes absolutely no sense. And why do you keep picking on Israel? Is it no longer allowed to pursue terrorists attacking your country and civilians when the government that hosts them will do nothing to stop them?

[Begoner]

At 1/12/07 08:23 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Nor does it change the fact that Iran is a hostile nation to the U.S.; its /government/ holds rallies chanting "Death to America".

I thought that free speech was protected under the US Constitution. Is Iran a "hostile" nation because its government invites its citizens to exercise their freedom of (this particular type of) speech and vent their anger towards a nation which has created innumerable suffering in the world?

And I wouldn't say just a "few" nations are more disrespectful to international law; look at the freedomhouse map of the world and how many of them are listed as "not free" and violate the Geneva Convention.

First of all, being "not free" is not equivalent to violating the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, although many countries have authoritarian styles of government and oppress their people, at least they do not unlawfully invade other countries and, in the process, contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of individuals. Such an act is infinitely worse than almost any other breach of international law.

And your trial metaphor makes absolutely no sense.

Sure it does. You were committing the logical fallacy of attempting to defend the US by pointing out that other nations such as Iran were responsible for similar, if not worse, transgressions.

And why do you keep picking on Israel? Is it no longer allowed to pursue terrorists attacking your country and civilians when the government that hosts them will do nothing to stop them?

No, but it has never been allowed to unlawfully occupy the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and Sheba Farms. It has never been allowed to slaughter Arab civilians and refugees. It has not been allowed to kill UN troops. It has not been allowed to raze Arab houses to make way for Israeli settlements. It has not been allowed to systematically and indiscriminately destroy the infrastructure of certain nations. It has not been allowed to wage economic warfare against Palestine by freezing tax revenue, imposing roadblocks, and blockading the country.

[JakeHero]

Begoner, quick question: how many people on this board ever agree with you?

[Begoner]

At 1/12/07 08:33 PM, BanditByte wrote: Begoner, quick question: how many people on this board ever agree with you?

Few; posting here is quite an unrewarding pursuit, I must say.

[JakeHero]

At 1/12/07 08:37 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 1/12/07 08:33 PM, BanditByte wrote: Begoner, quick question: how many people on this board ever agree with you?

Few; posting here is quite an unrewarding pursuit, I must say.

Perhaps you should try politicalcrossfire.com or something more your speed.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 1/12/07 08:37 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 1/12/07 08:33 PM, BanditByte wrote: Begoner, quick question: how many people on this board ever agree with you?

Few; posting here is quite an unrewarding pursuit, I must say.

I'd think it would be rewarding in itself to learn about each others' political views and discuss them. :)

"Furthermore, although many countries have authoritarian styles of government and oppress their people, at least they do not unlawfully invade other countries and, in the process, contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of individuals."

Yes, they do. There's war in the world and you know it. -_-; What exactly makes a war lawful or unlawful? And I never said I was supporting the war for Iraq; I was just questioning your support of totalitarian theocracies like Iran and terrorist groups like Hezbollah.

Also, since this seizure was a military operation I doubt we really know everything the army knows about the facility; so I think I'll withold judgement since I don't know whether or not they really were involved in what the Army says they are.

Also:
"It was unclear whether the Iranians who were arrested carried diplomatic passports and whether the office was supposed to share some of the immunities enjoyed by embassies and consulates."

Don't mistake me for a Bush supporter, mkay? :)

[SyntheticTacos]

At 1/12/07 08:31 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 1/12/07 08:23 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Nor does it change the fact that Iran is a hostile nation to the U.S.; its /government/ holds rallies chanting "Death to America".

I thought that free speech was protected under the US Constitution. Is Iran a "hostile" nation because its government invites its citizens to exercise their freedom of (this particular type of) speech and vent their anger towards a nation which has created innumerable suffering in the world?

If only free speech wasn't violated so often (see censorship practiced by the FCC). And it's not because its citizens protest; it's because its government itself makes these hateful statements towards America. Don't tell me Ahmedinejad and other higher-ups are friendly to the U.S. :)

" You were committing the logical fallacy of attempting to defend the US by pointing out that other nations such as Iran were responsible for similar, if not worse, transgressions."

Yet I remember you defending the hostage-taking at the U.S. embassy by pointing out transgressions of the U.S.

[cellardoor6]

This whole thread was created based on false information and out-of-context facts. Its a bright, gleaming example of the standard, commonly held ignorance of reality that people have when they want to validate their bias somehow.

Begoner, you're an imbecile.

The Iranian building was NOT a consulate, nor has it been proven that it had diplomatic status of any kind. And even if it did (which it doesn't), do you expect the US military to refuse to go after Iranians that are actively supporting segments of the insurgency in Iraq just because they claim that in the future the buildings they use were 'intended to become consulates'?

And, in times of war, even official embassies are not considered immune in the Geneva Convention if they are used by their respective governments to attack the host government.

Honestly, why don't you just once take a step into the realm of reality?

[Durin413]

At 1/12/07 07:47 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 1/12/07 06:58 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: The American government is fucked up but I think Iran is a liiiitle bit worse eh?

I live in America, not in Iran. There are numerous government which are much more oppressive than that of the US; a few even are more disrespectful of international law than the US (Sudan and Israel to name two). However, you cannot excuse America's faults by claiming that other countries are worse; it is not a valid defense. If you're on trial for rape, you can't say, "Well, at least I didn't murder her." Perhaps some of America's transgressions pale in comparison to those of Iran; that doesn't justify America's actions nor does it extenuate America's deeds.

What the hell is your problem with Israel. All you do is bitch and moan about them and say they break international law, then support their enemies who also break international law. And who the hell gives a damn about international law. Who is going to enforce it? Apparently all the strong countries don't adhere to it accotding to you, so it is meaningless. It is garbage. Yet you use it never-ending in you hatred towards Israel. Are you like, Hitlers nephew or something? Heil Begoner!

[Draconias]

Begoner, what you are completely omitting is some of the key information that they found in one or two recent raids. Top Iranian generals have been caught colluding with top Shi'ite leaders on specific plans to attack American forces. Iran has already committed an Act of War on the United States-- the focus of this raid was additional information.

Iran knows they can't afford to go to war with us, and if they try to protest this action they will be dragged into a fight they can't possibly win, and we will be in the right internationally. We're tired of letting terrorists and enemies hide behind laws and innocents, so we acted.

[Togukawa]

At 1/13/07 10:52 AM, Draconias wrote: Begoner, what you are completely omitting is some of the key information that they found in one or two recent raids. Top Iranian generals have been caught colluding with top Shi'ite leaders on specific plans to attack American forces. Iran has already committed an Act of War on the United States-- the focus of this raid was additional information.

Evidence acquired from illegal means is not admissible. It's a basis in most justice systems. Oh looky, the raid was justified, because we found evidence that these people were indeed insurgents! Whether or not there was reason to invade it doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is if the building was technically a consulate. If it is, the raid was a violation of international law.

Iran knows they can't afford to go to war with us, and if they try to protest this action they will be dragged into a fight they can't possibly win, and we will be in the right internationally. We're tired of letting terrorists and enemies hide behind laws and innocents, so we acted.

In any case, this raid was a slap in the face to both the Iraqis and the Kurds you are supposedly "protecting". The Iraqis decide to allow a government building from their neighbours, and then the US forces unilaterally invade it, after a standoff with the Kurdish troops protecting it. It's basically saying "shut the fuck up, we're the ones making the decisions". You've got to decide whether you want to treat the Iraqi government as a blossoming democracy you are trying to protect from insurgents, or as a mute puppet regime.

Not discussing, not even INFORMING them of the action does not show any sort of respect whatsoever.

[Memorize]

At 1/13/07 11:54 AM, Togukawa wrote:

If it is, the raid was a violation of international law.

Looks like someone missed this...

What's this? Left something out and it's Iraqi territory, oh my.

Interesting what a little reading can do.

At 1/12/07 05:57 PM, Altarus wrote:

"[A senior State Department official] said that American officials believed that the Iranians intended to turn the office into a consulate at some point, but that had not yet happened. Therefore, he said, the State Department does not consider the office to be Iranian territory."

Therefore, it was American forces, which BTW are responsible for managing security in Iraq at the moment, performing a raid on Iraqi terrority. Where is the problem?

[Togukawa]

At 1/13/07 12:03 PM, Experimental wrote:

At 1/13/07 11:54 AM, Togukawa wrote: If it is, the raid was a violation of international law.

Looks like someone missed this...

What's this? Left something out and it's Iraqi territory, oh my.

Unless it's an Irani consulate, in which case it's Irani territory, oh my.

So it depends on whether it was a consulate at the time or not, which is what I said
Interesting what a little reading can do indeed.

As for the Americans saying that there raid was justified, that comes as a major incredible shock to me. I was expecting them to say: "yeah, we raided a consulate and are in violation of international law. Oops, it was an accident."

I expect Iraqis or Kurds to make a statement whether or not it was a consulate soon. I should hope they have a better idea of the diplomatic relations of their own government than the Americans do. Even if they don't have a lot of information about what the Americans are doing on their soil, considering that it was deemed unneccessary to consult with them on this raid.

So a raid and an attack are grouped in one with you?

[SyntheticTacos]

At 1/13/07 11:54 AM, Togukawa wrote:

So it depends on whether it was a consulate at the time or not, which is what I said
Interesting what a little reading can do indeed.

As for the Americans saying that there raid was justified, that comes as a major incredible shock to me. I was expecting them to say: "yeah, we raided a consulate and are in violation of international law. Oops, it was an accident."

Iran's Government: "Oops, we don't allow our citizens basic rights and jail and torture them for supporting Israel or saying even minor bad things about our government. it wasn't an accident and you all can suck our balls."

I don't see why allowing your citizens basic rights isn't part of "international law". I'm less concerned about "international law" and more about what's right. =\

If the American military had adequate proof that the consulate was being used to help the people who are murdering their soldiers I don't see the problem in them taking appropriate action. But we don't know the full story about the consulate so I'll withold judgement.

[Togukawa]

At 1/13/07 01:52 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote:

As for the Americans saying that there raid was justified, that comes as a major incredible shock to me. I was expecting them to say: "yeah, we raided a consulate and are in violation of international law. Oops, it was an accident."

Iran's Government: "Oops, we don't allow our citizens basic rights and jail and torture them for supporting Israel or saying even minor bad things about our government. it wasn't an accident and you all can suck our balls."

Hehe, no doubt that Iran's current government is worse. And Turkmenistan used to be even worse than Iran still. And Saddam was Satan incarnate.
I was just referring to the fact that very little people will just admit that they knowingly did something illegal.

I don't see why allowing your citizens basic rights isn't part of "international law". I'm less concerned about "international law" and more about what's right. =\

Well, that's what you get when not every country signs a treaty or deems it necessary to interpret it at its own discretion. I see international law as the bare essentials, the things everyone can agree on. Like it's forbidden to cover entire cities in blankets of flame. Or that torturing is forbidden. The latter can easily be fixed by changing the definition of torture though.

If the American military had adequate proof that the consulate was being used to help the people who are murdering their soldiers I don't see the problem in them taking appropriate action. But we don't know the full story about the consulate so I'll withold judgement.

No argument there. Appropriate action should have been taken, the question is whether a nightly raid on a government building without informing anyone, not even the Kurdish soldiers protecting it, is appropriate action.
As a sign for respect for the Iraqi government that the US is supposedly protecting, they should have asked for consent from the Iraqi government for this operation. It was to be expected that Iran would be very angered at an invasion of an official government building, whether it was technically a consulate or not.
Things like that are not good for Iraq, eventually America is going to pull back, and halfway decent diplomatic relations with neighbouring countries might not be a bad idea when that happens.

[Memorize]

At 1/13/07 01:41 PM, Togukawa wrote:

So it depends on whether it was a consulate at the time or not, which is what I said
Interesting what a little reading can do indeed.

You don't know how to read do you? It says that it wasn't yet. Here, this might help you: hooked on phoics

Who knows, maybe it may help. Be sure to grab a coloring book.

[Denta]

At 1/12/07 05:57 PM, Altarus wrote: Blah blah blah managing security in Iraq at the moment zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

OH YES, FUCKING A, MAN!!!

This one is so happy, aww so cute!

And this one is sleeping in his fathers arms. (NSFW)

And this one seems to be sleeping aswell (NSFW)

You happy now? Everyone is joyfull and happy!

[Memorize]

At 1/13/07 02:36 PM, Denta wrote:

You happy now? Everyone is joyfull and happy!

People like you make me laugh.

It's good knowing there are idiots out there so I can feel better about myself.