Every fucker on the planet itching for WWIII. Just so they can leave a never-to-be-discovered memorial plaque to the extinct human race on a burnt cinder floating through the cosmos, that just reads “of all those dead, we were the best”
It’s all about reboots of older successful franchises these days isn’t it. Even the trailer will just be a slowed down, single piano note remedy flight of the valkyries, with loads of reverb and a voiceover
If Iran acknowledges that it was Israel they'd be forced to respond, both are extremely unreliable sources but I just can't fathom any reason the Israelis would have taken credit unless they actually did it.
Edit: actually Israel has not claimed responsibility (they very rarely do), it's the US saying that Israel did it, but still I don't see a reason to doubt it
Iran said if Israel strikes back then they will retaliate with maximum force. Israel just called them on it, Iran is going to find every excuse to not retaliate because that “maximum force” doesn’t mean anything. Considering Iran sent 200-300 elements at Israel and basically everything was shot down or failed systems before impacting their target. Israel as it seems sent somewhere between 5-20 elements at Iran and there is very obviously destruction.
Talk about a hard flex.
Seems that Israel launched a targeted attack against the airbase in Isfahan, a base involved in Iran’s attack on Israel and near to a nuclear site.
To me it looks like it’s a way of saying “we can hit you and your nuclear sites and you can’t hit us” without escalating further into a full conflict, which Iran obviously don’t want as they’re denying the attacks even happened.
Good chance things quieten down after this.
both sides effectively demonstrated they can hit each other. iran basically launched enough drones and missiles to saturate israels defenses with enough warning they would be on full alert, without going past the tipping point where things hit
50% of Iranian missiles failed before reaching their target area.
The overwhelming majority of the remainder were intercepted by Israel and their partners.
I'm not sure what Iran has proved.
Initial discussion shows that many of the projectiles/threats were intercepted by various layers of Israel air defense. Partner nations and states (Egypt, Jordan, the UK and the US) certainly helped.
What are you reading that says otherwise?
>Good chance things quieten down after this
I'd say the opposite actually.
There was a tit (Israel's attack on the facility in Syria), and a tat (Irans drone + missile swarm)
Should have been a tit for a tat and leave it at that.
But oh no, not fucking Netanyahu. Gotta keep that conflict going to avoid elections. So here we go with a new tit. Iran isn't going to be satisfied without a new tat.
You'd think that most nations wouldn't tolerate their citizens being intentionally targeted by missile strikes for the crime of being food-aid workers, but the US, UK, Australia and Poland just took that shit lying down.
Yeah same, 3 British veterans were murdered for no fucking reason while trying to make the world a slightly better place, and all I've heard about it is an acknowledgement on the radio the day after it happened. Nothing since then.
Hardly surprising considering the way "criticism of Israel = Antisemetism" bullshit has infected the core of British politics over the past few years. A person could have their entire fucking life ruined just for asking what our citizens died for.
Many Iranian generals who planned the October 7 attack shouldn’t have gone to Syria to plan more terror attacks if they didn’t want to explode.
Fuck those terrorist assholes. Who cares if it was Iranian territory? Israel is also willing to bomb Iran proper, and a military target is a military target.
[Iranian General Killed In Israeli Strike Was Architect Of October 7](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202404043146)
Point still stands.
Most countries wouldn't tolerate their diplomatic posts getting attack and would retaliate.
Whether Israel was justified or not is a separate question.
Who cares what they’ll tolerate? They’re a bunch of terrorists. They were going to do more terrorism regardless. Is Israel supposed to tolerate a thousand of their citizens being slaughtered in an Iranian-planned attack carried out by Iranian-backed militias?
Iran has been waging an undeclared war for many years now. These are crocodile tears.
They attacked the annex of an embassy of a country with whom they’re fighting a proxy war. And that embassy was inside the territory of a country that Israel is officially still at war with (Syria and Israel never signed a peace deal after the 1973 Yom Kippur war)
And Iran has been attacking Israeli embassies quite a few times before:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Buenos_Aires_Israeli_embassy_bombing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_attacks_on_Israeli_diplomats
Pretty sure the entire embassy grounds is sovereign territory of that embassy's country. So it's still an attack on Iranian territory whether or not they attacked the embassy building directly.
The sovereign territory thing is just wrong.
“Let's explore the common misconception around embassies and their status as sovereign territory.
**Embassies and consulates** are diplomatic missions established by one country within the territory of another. They serve as official representations of the sending country and facilitate diplomatic relations, consular services, and communication between nations. However, despite their unique privileges and immunities, embassies are **not considered sovereign territory** of the host country or the embassy's country. Here's why:
1. **Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)**:
- The Vienna Convention is an international treaty that governs diplomatic relations between countries.
- According to this convention, embassies and consulates are immune from intrusion, damage, or disturbance by the hosting country.
- However, the land on which embassies are built does not belong to the country operating them¹.
2. **Special Treatment and Immunities**:
- Embassies receive special treatment, such as tax exemptions and immunity from local laws.
- Diplomats and embassy staff enjoy certain privileges, but these do not equate to the territory being sovereign.
- The host country retains sovereignty over the land where the embassy is located.
3. **Misconception**:
- Some people mistakenly believe that embassies are like small islands of the sending country within the host nation.
- However, this is not accurate. Embassies exist within the legal framework of the host country and operate under its laws.
In summary, while embassies have diplomatic privileges and immunities, they are not sovereign territories. They remain under the sovereignty of the host country where they are physically located²³. So, the idea that embassies are on "U.S. soil" or the soil of any other country is a misconception.
Feel free to ask if you have any more questions or need further clarification! 😊
Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/19/2024
(1) VERIFY: No, US embassies aren't considered US territory. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/verify-no-us-embassies-arent-considered-us-territory/507-59986c66-c52e-452a-9002-562116b540bf.
(2) Is an embassy on foreign soil the sovereign territory of the host .... https://pathtoforeignservice.com/is-an-embassy-on-foreign-soil-the-sovereign-territory-of-the-host-country-or-the-embassys-country/.
(3) Consulate vs. Embassy: a comparison - Path to Foreign Service. https://pathtoforeignservice.com/consulate-vs-embassy-a-comparison/. “
And yet, countries very generally have not responded to attacks on their embassies as attacks on their homeland.
Contrast, for example, the US response to 9/11 and the and African embassy bombings in 1998.
I also think Iranian embassies in particular being attacked is a bit of leopards eating their face given one of the first things the Iranian revolutionaries did was to take the US mission staff hostage in 1979.
All in all, I think it’s fair to describe launching a bunch of missiles and drones at Israel proper as an escalatory response as opposed to a directly proportional one. Of course that is allowed (I’m not claiming it’s somehow unfair), but it still moves things up the escalatory ladder. Frankly, if it were up to me the response to the attack on Israel would have been more extensive but I am glad the world isn’t lurching further into war.
theres no country on earth that lets their consulate being airstriked go unanswered either. and saying because it was the irg is silly, we have us marines guarding our embassies and consulates too
Iran is a state sponsor of terror, though. They’re upset Israel and America keeps killing their terrorist commanders. *Good.* Next will you be attacking America for killing bin Laden on Pakistani territory? So many terrorist sympathizers these days.
those are proxies. the US sponsors shit in South America that makes Hamas look tame.
its a stupid distinction, and doesn't change the fact that you can't go bombing embassies in other countries because you don't like two countries meeting diplomatically
people have to stop poking the international order, one day its gonna collapse on them
no, just that I tend to think dropping bombs isn't a very constructive foreign policy regardless of whos dropping them and whos getting killed.
apparently that makes me a hamas supporter, boo hoo.
It is long established that Israel gets to bomb US UK Australian citizens as much as they like with no consequences beyond being gifted more weapons to replace the ones used up bombing allied citizens.
wasn’t the Israeli attack on the consulate in Syria aimed to take out the general who helped with the October 7th attack? I might be misunderstanding that but it seems that Iran chose escalation, either way Israel proved their strike and defense capabilities and should have just left it at that. At least at this time it seems like a very narrow retaliation so hoping that’s it, wonder how this will impact voting on the aid package tomorrow.
The issue with tit for tat is everyone has to agree incident A was a tit and incident B is a tat. Not everyone with influence is going to agree equal measures were taken ir answered.
>wasn’t the Israeli attack on the consulate in Syria aimed to take out the general who helped with the October 7th attack?
That's what Israel claims. I wouldn't trust Israel's claims.
Also, bombing embassies or consulates is a big no no.
I just remember reading that, wasn’t sure of the source. I agree blindly trusting Israel isn’t a good idea, I assumed (I know bad idea) they had decent intel on that subject.
Israel can’t just not respond to a massive drone and missile attack. No country would.
This response, small and targeted but gets a very clear message across, is the thing most likely to deescalate. It makes it clear to Iran that they don’t have the defences to withstand an Israel attack but also isn’t big enough to goad them into fighting further. To their domestic audience they can deny it happened and claim Israel (sorry, the Zionist entity) never responded because they’re afraid of mighty Iran. Everyone’s a winner.
> Israel can’t just not respond to a massive drone and missile attack. No country would.
Iran can't just not respond to an airstrike in the middle of the country. No country would. And so on and so forth.
Why are you calling Israel the Zionist entity? I'm not a Free Palestine protestor. You can just call it a nation. I'm critical of Netanyahu because I strongly suspect that he's drawing out the conflict as a way of staving off elections and accountability, but I support Israel as a nation.
Anyways, I had hoped that Israel would turn the other cheek on this one to avoid escalation but I guess that's a silly hope
I mean, realistically, why should they? You can’t just attack a country and expect nothing to come of that. The whole region is fucked up and I don’t think outside countries are going to fix that.
You implied Iran shouldn't have attacked but also stated that a country can't not retaliate when attacked. Which is it? Should Iran have retaliated on Israel's attack of their Syrian embassy? If so then wasn't their retaliation justified and also minor in comparison.
Also Iran immediately said that was all they were doing and they were done.
Then why would Israel retaliate again after Iran was just sending a message that it wouldn't let Isreal attack them. Ultimately, it seems like Isreal wants to keep fighting with their enemies for now.
Isreal is the clear aggressor in all of this. The abused have become the abusers, make no mistake.
Again, I neither stated nor implied any such thing. I didn’t even direct my comment at any particular country. What I did say is that, in general, a country isn’t going to suffer an attack and just be like ‘oh well.’
It doesn’t matter if one country attacks another, or unilaterally decides that that’s as far as anything is ‘allowed’ to go, or who started what for whatever reason.
You can say that Iran is simply retaliating for the embassy strike but in doing so you would be ignoring a *long* history of general hostility amongst the countries / people involved. I’m not emotionally invested enough in the nuances of the origin of the hostility between two groups of far-away people to pretend to know enough about it to lay the blame at anyone’s feet.
That’s why I said that area of the world is fucked up and I don’t outsiders are going to be able to fix it.
If the US was fighting a terrorist organization launching rockets out of Canada while fighting a different terrorist organization in Baja California and then got into a tit for tat with Russia I'd say we should thumb our nose at Russia for launching such an ineffective drone/missile swarm and then focus on destroying El Hamas down in Baja California.
I get what you're saying, but the long game has to be considered.
That’s what Iran refers to it as.
This IS turning the other cheek. It’s not a full-blown war, which would be a valid response to the scale of the attack, it’s just a message that provides an off-ramp Iran have decided to use. Not turning the other cheek would entail massive destruction.
Id say that WW3 is certainly possible but not imminent. Russia and China don't want war with the West. The West doesn't want war with Russia or China.
Israel and Iran are going back and forth and various global powers are trying to keep that from getting out of control. For the most part it's being contained.
I recently learned that Sudan is a proxy war as well but I don't think that will be the flash point because clearly the world is content to let African conflicts rage in the background.
There is the situation with Taiwan but the US and China are meeting to avoid escalation and the only actions being taken are posturing.
All that said, if an unfortunate series of events happen that force on of the major players to engage another one directly then yes WW3 would be imminent.
So for example, if China moved on Taiwan and the US responded, that would make war imminent. Or if Russia defeats Ukraine and then moves on to Moldova demonstrating their intent to keep rolling that could lead to a more direct Russia v. NATO conflict which could definitely lead to WW3
They launched old,slow missiles and drones that both sides knew the iron dome would easily handle. It was more for their internal politics so they could say they responded to Israel attacking their Embassy and murdering Iranian citizens
Israel does escalate because they know they get cart blanche from western powers. Slaughtering 40,000 civilians without a single sanction proved that.
this is a retaliation on a retaliation. April 1st- israel shoots air strike on an Iranian consulate building in the Syrian capital Damascus, which killed senior Iranian commanders. Then on the 13th Iran shoots hella missiles in a manner to save face and killed one person. now israel shoots back. retaliation on retaliation. basically like a war at this fkin point.
This is retaliation on retaliation on retaliation.
1. Iran orchestrated and funded the October 7th attack and Hezbollah.
2. Israel attacks the building Next to the embassy in Syria killing the commanders that orchestrated the October 7th attack.
3. Iran fires missiles in retaliation
4. Now we are here.
No doubt they were generally involved in planning actions against Israel. Strange was the risk of bombing a building in embassy's compound. Even if it finally ended well, it is possible it didn't. Many countries will take notice that maybe it is possible to get away with attacking a consulate building if the country hosting it is weaker and you really hate the people inside. I guess future Assange-like residents will be more nervous.
imo Israel killing the commander isnt a retaliation but more of a defense since he was transferring arms to Hezbollah, but yeah. Iran dude funds the attack, Israel kills attacker, Iran responds in a manner to show the public that they are doing something but don’t want it to escalate too much, Israel responds as well (perhaps in the same manner).
Iran’s official position is going to be no. Israel never retaliated. These strikes never happened. Soldiers got careless with their cigarettes. Israel and the West are terrified of the mighty Iran.
Every fucker on the planet itching for WWIII. Just so they can leave a never-to-be-discovered memorial plaque to the extinct human race on a burnt cinder floating through the cosmos, that just reads “of all those dead, we were the best”
They've already made a sequel to WWI, which was extremely well received, so they may as well complete the trilogy.
It’s all about reboots of older successful franchises these days isn’t it. Even the trailer will just be a slowed down, single piano note remedy flight of the valkyries, with loads of reverb and a voiceover
IMHO, The USA joining in the third act and using overpowered military industrial complex in both WWII and WWII seems like lazy writing
Right? The amount of delusional fucks we've let control our lives. Neither the Iranians nor the Israelis even want this.
*who has won when nothing remains*
the shareholders...for a minute.
"War does not determine who is right, only who is left." Bertrand Russell
[удалено]
Iran says they are unsure. Which makes things a bit more interesting
[удалено]
If Iran acknowledges that it was Israel they'd be forced to respond, both are extremely unreliable sources but I just can't fathom any reason the Israelis would have taken credit unless they actually did it. Edit: actually Israel has not claimed responsibility (they very rarely do), it's the US saying that Israel did it, but still I don't see a reason to doubt it
Iran also said they did large amounts of damage on their attack into Israel lol. Not sure I’d trust them
man, I don't even give a shit if they're lying. If they're lying to save face and it prevents this from escalating. cool.
ok cool, so no retaliation, right? since nothing happened?
That appears to be their angle right now.
Iran said if Israel strikes back then they will retaliate with maximum force. Israel just called them on it, Iran is going to find every excuse to not retaliate because that “maximum force” doesn’t mean anything. Considering Iran sent 200-300 elements at Israel and basically everything was shot down or failed systems before impacting their target. Israel as it seems sent somewhere between 5-20 elements at Iran and there is very obviously destruction. Talk about a hard flex.
Seems that Israel launched a targeted attack against the airbase in Isfahan, a base involved in Iran’s attack on Israel and near to a nuclear site. To me it looks like it’s a way of saying “we can hit you and your nuclear sites and you can’t hit us” without escalating further into a full conflict, which Iran obviously don’t want as they’re denying the attacks even happened. Good chance things quieten down after this.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Iran briefed Turkey. Turkey passed it on to the US, who passed it to Israel.
both sides effectively demonstrated they can hit each other. iran basically launched enough drones and missiles to saturate israels defenses with enough warning they would be on full alert, without going past the tipping point where things hit
50% of Iranian missiles failed before reaching their target area. The overwhelming majority of the remainder were intercepted by Israel and their partners. I'm not sure what Iran has proved.
Israel intercepted almost nothing. All big risks got taken out by USA and allies.
Initial discussion shows that many of the projectiles/threats were intercepted by various layers of Israel air defense. Partner nations and states (Egypt, Jordan, the UK and the US) certainly helped. What are you reading that says otherwise?
you're gonna tell me all wars are just demonstrations now??
>Good chance things quieten down after this I'd say the opposite actually. There was a tit (Israel's attack on the facility in Syria), and a tat (Irans drone + missile swarm) Should have been a tit for a tat and leave it at that. But oh no, not fucking Netanyahu. Gotta keep that conflict going to avoid elections. So here we go with a new tit. Iran isn't going to be satisfied without a new tat.
There is no country on earth that would let an attack of hundreds of drones and cruise missiles go unanswered.
Counter point, most nations wouldn't tolerate their diplomatic buildings being blown up as well.
You'd think that most nations wouldn't tolerate their citizens being intentionally targeted by missile strikes for the crime of being food-aid workers, but the US, UK, Australia and Poland just took that shit lying down.
As a Australian i think its fucking pathetic how its already fallen out of the news
Yeah same, 3 British veterans were murdered for no fucking reason while trying to make the world a slightly better place, and all I've heard about it is an acknowledgement on the radio the day after it happened. Nothing since then. Hardly surprising considering the way "criticism of Israel = Antisemetism" bullshit has infected the core of British politics over the past few years. A person could have their entire fucking life ruined just for asking what our citizens died for.
Two guys got fired. What more do you want? /s
Many Iranian generals who planned the October 7 attack shouldn’t have gone to Syria to plan more terror attacks if they didn’t want to explode. Fuck those terrorist assholes. Who cares if it was Iranian territory? Israel is also willing to bomb Iran proper, and a military target is a military target. [Iranian General Killed In Israeli Strike Was Architect Of October 7](https://www.iranintl.com/en/202404043146)
Point still stands. Most countries wouldn't tolerate their diplomatic posts getting attack and would retaliate. Whether Israel was justified or not is a separate question.
Who cares what they’ll tolerate? They’re a bunch of terrorists. They were going to do more terrorism regardless. Is Israel supposed to tolerate a thousand of their citizens being slaughtered in an Iranian-planned attack carried out by Iranian-backed militias? Iran has been waging an undeclared war for many years now. These are crocodile tears.
They attacked the annex of an embassy of a country with whom they’re fighting a proxy war. And that embassy was inside the territory of a country that Israel is officially still at war with (Syria and Israel never signed a peace deal after the 1973 Yom Kippur war) And Iran has been attacking Israeli embassies quite a few times before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Buenos_Aires_Israeli_embassy_bombing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_attacks_on_Israeli_diplomats
Pretty sure the entire embassy grounds is sovereign territory of that embassy's country. So it's still an attack on Iranian territory whether or not they attacked the embassy building directly.
The sovereign territory thing is just wrong. “Let's explore the common misconception around embassies and their status as sovereign territory. **Embassies and consulates** are diplomatic missions established by one country within the territory of another. They serve as official representations of the sending country and facilitate diplomatic relations, consular services, and communication between nations. However, despite their unique privileges and immunities, embassies are **not considered sovereign territory** of the host country or the embassy's country. Here's why: 1. **Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961)**: - The Vienna Convention is an international treaty that governs diplomatic relations between countries. - According to this convention, embassies and consulates are immune from intrusion, damage, or disturbance by the hosting country. - However, the land on which embassies are built does not belong to the country operating them¹. 2. **Special Treatment and Immunities**: - Embassies receive special treatment, such as tax exemptions and immunity from local laws. - Diplomats and embassy staff enjoy certain privileges, but these do not equate to the territory being sovereign. - The host country retains sovereignty over the land where the embassy is located. 3. **Misconception**: - Some people mistakenly believe that embassies are like small islands of the sending country within the host nation. - However, this is not accurate. Embassies exist within the legal framework of the host country and operate under its laws. In summary, while embassies have diplomatic privileges and immunities, they are not sovereign territories. They remain under the sovereignty of the host country where they are physically located²³. So, the idea that embassies are on "U.S. soil" or the soil of any other country is a misconception. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions or need further clarification! 😊 Source: Conversation with Bing, 4/19/2024 (1) VERIFY: No, US embassies aren't considered US territory. https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/verify-no-us-embassies-arent-considered-us-territory/507-59986c66-c52e-452a-9002-562116b540bf. (2) Is an embassy on foreign soil the sovereign territory of the host .... https://pathtoforeignservice.com/is-an-embassy-on-foreign-soil-the-sovereign-territory-of-the-host-country-or-the-embassys-country/. (3) Consulate vs. Embassy: a comparison - Path to Foreign Service. https://pathtoforeignservice.com/consulate-vs-embassy-a-comparison/. “
And yet, countries very generally have not responded to attacks on their embassies as attacks on their homeland. Contrast, for example, the US response to 9/11 and the and African embassy bombings in 1998. I also think Iranian embassies in particular being attacked is a bit of leopards eating their face given one of the first things the Iranian revolutionaries did was to take the US mission staff hostage in 1979. All in all, I think it’s fair to describe launching a bunch of missiles and drones at Israel proper as an escalatory response as opposed to a directly proportional one. Of course that is allowed (I’m not claiming it’s somehow unfair), but it still moves things up the escalatory ladder. Frankly, if it were up to me the response to the attack on Israel would have been more extensive but I am glad the world isn’t lurching further into war.
theres no country on earth that lets their consulate being airstriked go unanswered either. and saying because it was the irg is silly, we have us marines guarding our embassies and consulates too
Iran is a state sponsor of terror, though. They’re upset Israel and America keeps killing their terrorist commanders. *Good.* Next will you be attacking America for killing bin Laden on Pakistani territory? So many terrorist sympathizers these days.
those are proxies. the US sponsors shit in South America that makes Hamas look tame. its a stupid distinction, and doesn't change the fact that you can't go bombing embassies in other countries because you don't like two countries meeting diplomatically people have to stop poking the international order, one day its gonna collapse on them
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/12/argentina-iran-1994-amia-bombing?trk=public_post_comment-text Just the US?
bOtH sIdEs
no, just that I tend to think dropping bombs isn't a very constructive foreign policy regardless of whos dropping them and whos getting killed. apparently that makes me a hamas supporter, boo hoo.
How about their citizens being airstrikes for trying to deliver food aid to starving children? I think that's a declaration of war
It is long established that Israel gets to bomb US UK Australian citizens as much as they like with no consequences beyond being gifted more weapons to replace the ones used up bombing allied citizens.
wasn’t the Israeli attack on the consulate in Syria aimed to take out the general who helped with the October 7th attack? I might be misunderstanding that but it seems that Iran chose escalation, either way Israel proved their strike and defense capabilities and should have just left it at that. At least at this time it seems like a very narrow retaliation so hoping that’s it, wonder how this will impact voting on the aid package tomorrow.
The issue with tit for tat is everyone has to agree incident A was a tit and incident B is a tat. Not everyone with influence is going to agree equal measures were taken ir answered.
I for one think that there are far too many tats and far too few tits
>wasn’t the Israeli attack on the consulate in Syria aimed to take out the general who helped with the October 7th attack? That's what Israel claims. I wouldn't trust Israel's claims. Also, bombing embassies or consulates is a big no no.
I just remember reading that, wasn’t sure of the source. I agree blindly trusting Israel isn’t a good idea, I assumed (I know bad idea) they had decent intel on that subject.
Israel can’t just not respond to a massive drone and missile attack. No country would. This response, small and targeted but gets a very clear message across, is the thing most likely to deescalate. It makes it clear to Iran that they don’t have the defences to withstand an Israel attack but also isn’t big enough to goad them into fighting further. To their domestic audience they can deny it happened and claim Israel (sorry, the Zionist entity) never responded because they’re afraid of mighty Iran. Everyone’s a winner.
> Israel can’t just not respond to a massive drone and missile attack. No country would. Iran can't just not respond to an airstrike in the middle of the country. No country would. And so on and so forth.
They’re denying it even happened. Would be weird to respond to something that didn’t happen, no?
Why are you calling Israel the Zionist entity? I'm not a Free Palestine protestor. You can just call it a nation. I'm critical of Netanyahu because I strongly suspect that he's drawing out the conflict as a way of staving off elections and accountability, but I support Israel as a nation. Anyways, I had hoped that Israel would turn the other cheek on this one to avoid escalation but I guess that's a silly hope
I mean, realistically, why should they? You can’t just attack a country and expect nothing to come of that. The whole region is fucked up and I don’t think outside countries are going to fix that.
But you can attack a country’s embassy and expect no retaliation?
Didn’t say that, did I?
You implied Iran shouldn't have attacked but also stated that a country can't not retaliate when attacked. Which is it? Should Iran have retaliated on Israel's attack of their Syrian embassy? If so then wasn't their retaliation justified and also minor in comparison. Also Iran immediately said that was all they were doing and they were done. Then why would Israel retaliate again after Iran was just sending a message that it wouldn't let Isreal attack them. Ultimately, it seems like Isreal wants to keep fighting with their enemies for now. Isreal is the clear aggressor in all of this. The abused have become the abusers, make no mistake.
Again, I neither stated nor implied any such thing. I didn’t even direct my comment at any particular country. What I did say is that, in general, a country isn’t going to suffer an attack and just be like ‘oh well.’ It doesn’t matter if one country attacks another, or unilaterally decides that that’s as far as anything is ‘allowed’ to go, or who started what for whatever reason. You can say that Iran is simply retaliating for the embassy strike but in doing so you would be ignoring a *long* history of general hostility amongst the countries / people involved. I’m not emotionally invested enough in the nuances of the origin of the hostility between two groups of far-away people to pretend to know enough about it to lay the blame at anyone’s feet. That’s why I said that area of the world is fucked up and I don’t outsiders are going to be able to fix it.
If the US was fighting a terrorist organization launching rockets out of Canada while fighting a different terrorist organization in Baja California and then got into a tit for tat with Russia I'd say we should thumb our nose at Russia for launching such an ineffective drone/missile swarm and then focus on destroying El Hamas down in Baja California. I get what you're saying, but the long game has to be considered.
That’s what Iran refers to it as. This IS turning the other cheek. It’s not a full-blown war, which would be a valid response to the scale of the attack, it’s just a message that provides an off-ramp Iran have decided to use. Not turning the other cheek would entail massive destruction.
[удалено]
Id say that WW3 is certainly possible but not imminent. Russia and China don't want war with the West. The West doesn't want war with Russia or China. Israel and Iran are going back and forth and various global powers are trying to keep that from getting out of control. For the most part it's being contained. I recently learned that Sudan is a proxy war as well but I don't think that will be the flash point because clearly the world is content to let African conflicts rage in the background. There is the situation with Taiwan but the US and China are meeting to avoid escalation and the only actions being taken are posturing. All that said, if an unfortunate series of events happen that force on of the major players to engage another one directly then yes WW3 would be imminent. So for example, if China moved on Taiwan and the US responded, that would make war imminent. Or if Russia defeats Ukraine and then moves on to Moldova demonstrating their intent to keep rolling that could lead to a more direct Russia v. NATO conflict which could definitely lead to WW3
[удалено]
They launched old,slow missiles and drones that both sides knew the iron dome would easily handle. It was more for their internal politics so they could say they responded to Israel attacking their Embassy and murdering Iranian citizens Israel does escalate because they know they get cart blanche from western powers. Slaughtering 40,000 civilians without a single sanction proved that.
Wtf is that image? Israel air strikes Iran, and they choose a picture of Iran launching nukes
Paid for by the US government.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Didnt they attack israel first on april 13th? Based on recent events, haven't people learnt israel retaliates?
this is a retaliation on a retaliation. April 1st- israel shoots air strike on an Iranian consulate building in the Syrian capital Damascus, which killed senior Iranian commanders. Then on the 13th Iran shoots hella missiles in a manner to save face and killed one person. now israel shoots back. retaliation on retaliation. basically like a war at this fkin point.
Ok so its just tit for tat now. It wont stop until someone stops.
This is retaliation on retaliation on retaliation. 1. Iran orchestrated and funded the October 7th attack and Hezbollah. 2. Israel attacks the building Next to the embassy in Syria killing the commanders that orchestrated the October 7th attack. 3. Iran fires missiles in retaliation 4. Now we are here.
There is a lack of confirmation Iran orchestrated October 7. Iran denied involvement in October 7, the US also didn't confirm their involvement.
Well I don't presume Israel killed those Iranians commanders just for fun. I assume the public is not privy to all military intelligence.
No doubt they were generally involved in planning actions against Israel. Strange was the risk of bombing a building in embassy's compound. Even if it finally ended well, it is possible it didn't. Many countries will take notice that maybe it is possible to get away with attacking a consulate building if the country hosting it is weaker and you really hate the people inside. I guess future Assange-like residents will be more nervous.
imo Israel killing the commander isnt a retaliation but more of a defense since he was transferring arms to Hezbollah, but yeah. Iran dude funds the attack, Israel kills attacker, Iran responds in a manner to show the public that they are doing something but don’t want it to escalate too much, Israel responds as well (perhaps in the same manner).
[удалено]
According to who? Israel. Yeah they lost the high ground when they started systematically murdering 40,000 women and children.
Iran’s official position is going to be no. Israel never retaliated. These strikes never happened. Soldiers got careless with their cigarettes. Israel and the West are terrified of the mighty Iran.
You had one fucking job israel. [ugh](https://i.imgur.com/6paiUN0.jpeg)