Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Jimmy Higgins]

You are mistaken. The building was on the grounds of the Iranian embassy. That makes it part of the embassy whether anyone likes it or not. My understanding is that the April 1 bombing a direct attack on Iran according to international law.

International law has been so thoroughly weaponized against the Middle East's only multi-ethnic, secular, democracy I don't care about it anymore.
It seems that Likud came to that conclusion awhile ago.

This is correct. Although, I think that Iran and Israel have essentially been at war for a long time.

But have you seen any consequences for Iran or any other violent Muslim neighbors, like Hamas? I haven't. Because international law has become a Muslim weapon.

Biden stated that he will not join Israel in a potential attack against Iran at this time.

I sincerely hope he's just saying that for domestic consumption. That he would help Israel with an attack on Gulf shipping ports, pipelines, and commandeering enemy oil cargo ships.
Who knows?
Tom

Of course he would. Biden was being very strategic in his Iranian comments yesterday. He dosn't approve hitting the embassy. But he does support Israel. Biden is in a tough spot in the ME because he supports Israel; supports two state solution; and supports stability there.

BIden's position with Israel has been very nuanced. And generally reasonable. Warhawks and the peacenik naive haven't been happy, but Biden has managed this very well so far. The next steps are going to be critical. Obvioualy a tit for tat won't work. An air strike will be near impossible.

 

[bilby]

I'm pretty sure that they killed a few in the initial attack. Not many, but some. Maybe 3.

You are exemplifying everything that is wrong with modern political discourse.

Fucking Wikipedia was able to tell me in two fucking seconds that the only US fatalities during this affair were the eight servicemen whose helicopter crashed during the botched rescue attempt.

Yet you, with access to the Internet and therefore the ability to check the facts at almost zero effort, instead decided to continue to believe something completely untrue, and (worse) to proclaim it to be true to a wider audience.

They killed nobody "in the initial attack". Not "a few", not "maybe 3" - and you have no excuse whatsoever for being ignorant of this fact, nor for attempting to pass it off as a truth.

You can do better, at almost zero effort. Please do so.

 

[bilby]

Nevertheless, they attacked a building marked "US Embassy". There's absolutely no doubt about that.

Sure. But then, as a wise man once said:

You can't weaponize your embassy then complain that it's been treated like a weapon.

Unless, apparently, you're a violent Muslim outfit, or the United States of America.

 

[TomC]

I'm pretty sure that they killed a few in the initial attack. Not many, but some. Maybe 3.

You are exemplifying everything that is wrong with modern political discourse.

Fucking Wikipedia was able to tell me in two fucking seconds that the only US fatalities during this affair were the eight servicemen whose helicopter crashed during the botched rescue attempt.

Yet you, with access to the Internet and therefore the ability to check the facts at almost zero effort, instead decided to continue to believe something completely untrue, and (worse) to proclaim it to be true to a wider audience.

They killed nobody "in the initial attack". Not "a few", not "maybe 3" - and you have no excuse whatsoever for being ignorant of this fact, nor for attempting to pass it off as a truth.

You can do better, at almost zero effort. Please do so.

It was not worth that much effort because it was a long time ago and is unimportant now. I qualified my statement about this utterly unimportant aspect of Iran and it's hypocrisy.
But somehow, you just ignored the part that is important and wrote a post about how many people Iran killed in the attack on the embassy, without mentioning anything more important than that.
So, how about you do better? Actually discuss what I am talking about, instead of going off on a completely unimportant tangent.
Oh wait, I'm pretty sure I know why not. It doesn't suit your narrative so you want to talk about something else.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If bombing an embassy counts as a direct attack on a country, then no essentially about it -- Iran started its war with Israel in 1992.

Iran started it's war against the USA in 1979 by attacking the US embassy in Teheran.

Yep.

Well, we did kind of accidentally blew up that Iranian Airbus, so maybe we're even on that level?

Arguably one could consider this The Fifty (plus) Year War and the US has inserted its nose into it several times. This region has been meddled with relentlessly. The meddled grew tired of it, and fought back. Sadly, the revolutionaries were themselves quite dickish. And so we've had several small to large to huge skirmishes in the area since the late 70s. The US just helped potentially prevent a large number of Israeli casualties. So at least we are on the right there.

But who started it is a bullshit argument to once again justify violence. Violence has done nothing but beget violence in the Middle East. Cooler heads must prevail. We need the lost on October 7th to be the victims, not the tip of the iceberg.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm pretty sure that they killed a few in the initial attack. Not many, but some. Maybe 3.

You are exemplifying everything that is wrong with modern political discourse.

Fucking Wikipedia was able to tell me in two fucking seconds that the only US fatalities during this affair were the eight servicemen whose helicopter crashed during the botched rescue attempt.

Yet you, with access to the Internet and therefore the ability to check the facts at almost zero effort, instead decided to continue to believe something completely untrue, and (worse) to proclaim it to be true to a wider audience.

They killed nobody "in the initial attack". Not "a few", not "maybe 3" - and you have no excuse whatsoever for being ignorant of this fact, nor for attempting to pass it off as a truth.

You can do better, at almost zero effort. Please do so.

It was not worth that much effort because it was a long time ago and is unimportant now. I qualified my statement about this utterly unimportant aspect of Iran and it's hypocrisy.
But somehow, you just ignored the part that is important and wrote a post about how many people Iran killed in the attack on the embassy, without mentioning anything more important than that.

Opinions based on fact are more interesting and therefore mor likely to be discussed.

Opinions based on ignorance are not so interesting and are less likely to be discussed.

If one is too lazy to ascertain the facts does not merit serious consideration.

So, how about you do better? Actually discuss what I am talking about, instead of going off on a completely unimportant tangent.
Oh wait, I'm pretty sure I know why not. It doesn't suit your narrative so you want to talk about something else.
Tom

Your confidence is unwarranted.

 

[TomC]

Opinions based on fact are more interesting and therefore mor likely to be discussed.

Opinions based on ignorance are not so interesting and are less likely to be discussed.

If one is too lazy to ascertain the facts does not merit serious consideration.

I stand by my assessment based on your continuing to talk about the minutea rather than the reality.

Among the very first actions of the current government of Iran was an attack on an embassy. That's an unambiguous fact.

I understand why that doesn't fit your preferred narrative and so prefer to avoid that reality.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You already showed your position, there's no straw man involved. But once again you claim "babbling" because you don't want to admit that there is no good answer.

WTF are you babbling about now? Of course there is no good answer. Just because I don’t swallow your bigoted paranoid propaganda doesn’t mean I think there us a good answer .

If you agree there is no good answer then you are admitting that showing an answer to be bad isn't saying it's the wrong thing to do. To show that it's wrong you have to show that it's worse than other answers, not merely that it's bad.

Or you can turn your back on morality and pretend that it's whether you do something or not rather than whether it happens that matters. "Good" men who do nothing are not actually good.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe.

Bullshit.
The disaster in Gaza right now is because Hamas lead Gazans forced Israel into battle on October 7 2023. There's no maybe about it.

Perhaps English is not your language if you really think Israel was forced into battle.

Israel is a democracy. If the current government had refused to go into battle it would have been quickly replaced with one that would.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here we go folks, Iranian drones are reported on the way to Israel as retaliation for attacking a diplomatic mission in Syria killing officers.

Israel did not attack any "diplomatic mission". They attacked a building adjacent to the embassy which housed military personnel involved in attacking Israel from Lebanese territory. The strike killed two IRGC generals and several other IRGC and Hezbollah officers.

More notably, there are no claims of non-combatant deaths. If you drop a bomb in a city and kill only combatants your targeting was very good.

We did not learn from Afghanistan and Iraq. Our overwhelming military superiority did not lead to any good outcomes for us.W are still playing whack-a-mole in the region.

So what is your solution? Do nothing while the new Axis of Evil grabs more and more territory. Iran is attacking Israel. Russia is attacking Ukraine. China is looking hungrily in the direction of Taiwan. Do you think that's good for world peace?

Of course we are playing whack-a-mole! To actually win would trigger a nuclear war. Thus we play a game of puppet-whacking. It's better than giving the world over to the Jihadists.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Stop shifting the goalposts. You wrote "..because Hamas lead Gazans forced Israel into battle" (bold-faced and italics are added). Israel was not forced into anything. Israel choose how a course of action from numerous possible courses.

In the same sense that US was not forced into WWII after Pearl Harbor and had "numerous possible courses" of action. Technically true, but not true in any meaningful sense. Again, you employ your trademark deflection and hair splitting. Are you perchance a lawyer?

Your analogy is the result of sloppy thinking. The Japanese declared war on the US and had the means to continue attacking. That is not the case with Hamas.

Hamas can't sustain a continued attack. They most certainly can attack in wave after wave, though.

 

[TomC]

Hamas can't sustain a continued attack. They most certainly can attack in wave after wave, though.

Hamas couldn't sustain a water pistol rampage without the support of everyone from the Gazans to Iran to the international community and UN.
But they've got that and will doubtless continue the fight as long as Israel doesn't prevent it.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Opinions based on fact are more interesting and therefore mor likely to be discussed.

Opinions based on ignorance are not so interesting and are less likely to be discussed.

If one is too lazy to ascertain the facts does not merit serious consideration.

I stand by my assessment based on your continuing to talk about the minutea rather than the reality.

Among the very first actions of the current government of Iran was an attack on an embassy. That's an unambiguous fact.

I understand why that doesn't fit your preferred narrative and so prefer to avoid that reality.
Tom

Your babbling about my “ preferred narrative” is epically ironic. I don’t know my preferred narrative, so would you please tell me it?

 

[laughing dog]

Maybe.

Bullshit.
The disaster in Gaza right now is because Hamas lead Gazans forced Israel into battle on October 7 2023. There's no maybe about it.

Perhaps English is not your language if you really think Israel was forced into battle.

Israel is a democracy. If the current government had refused to go into battle it would have been quickly replaced with one that would.

“Battle” allows for a wide range of options.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Striking an Embassy is normally out of bounds.

1) No. Embassies are considered part of the country they are from. To strike an embassy is to strike the territory of the country whose embassy it is. Under normal conditions an embassy will not exist when a condition of war exists between the two parties. Thus to strike an embassy in your territory is wrong. However, this is a different case. A state of de-facto war exists between Israel and Iran--striking Iran is permitted. Likewise, a state of de-facto war exists between Israel and Syria but this is not quite a shooting war--Syria prefers to not try to meaningfully engage the Israeli forces rather than have Israel destroy their forces. So long as Syria doesn't shoot at Israeli planes Israel is content to leave the Syrian defenses alone. Thus, likewise, Israel isn't breaking the rules by hitting a target in Syria.

This is a very unusual situation but it would be equivalent to the Allies hitting the German embassy in Italy in WWII.

2) Something is wrong here. It's reportedly a consulate, adjacent to the embassy. Except you never find consulates adjacent to embassies. Consulates are about expanding coverage and will always be dispersed. Almost always the capital will have only embassies, no consulates and other cities will have consulates and no embassies. Occasional exceptions can arise if a country moves it's capital--the embassies aren't obligated to relocate.

3) Note that we have only combatants dead. That's not the result you would expect from hitting an embassy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If bombing an embassy counts as a direct attack on a country, then no essentially about it -- Iran started its war with Israel in 1992.

Iran started it's war against the USA in 1979 by attacking the US embassy in Teheran.

Yep.

They took everyone that they didn't kill hostages. Then used the hostages to influence the USA election the following year.

AFAIK they didn't kill anyone from the embassy. Tortured them though.

Irrelevant.

The attack on the embassy actually wasn't an act of war because it wasn't done by the government. It became an act of war when the government supported the people who had done it rather than arresting them. And, likewise, taking over the hostages rather than freeing them.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If bombing an embassy counts as a direct attack on a country, then no essentially about it -- Iran started its war with Israel in 1992.

Iran started it's war against the USA in 1979 by attacking the US embassy in Teheran.

Yep.

Well, we did kind of accidentally blew up that Iranian Airbus, so maybe we're even on that level?

Arguably one could consider this The Fifty (plus) Year War and the US has inserted its nose into it several times. This region has been meddled with relentlessly. The meddled grew tired of it, and fought back. Sadly, the revolutionaries were themselves quite dickish. And so we've had several small to large to huge skirmishes in the area since the late 70s. The US just helped potentially prevent a large number of Israeli casualties. So at least we are on the right there.

But who started it is a bullshit argument to once again justify violence. Violence has done nothing but beget violence in the Middle East. Cooler heads must prevail. We need the lost on October 7th to be the victims, not the tip of the iceberg.

Hamas has explicitly said they intend 10/7 to simply be the tip of the iceberg of their genocide. Turn the other cheek isn't going to work.

 

[ZiprHead]

If bombing an embassy counts as a direct attack on a country, then no essentially about it -- Iran started its war with Israel in 1992.

Iran started it's war against the USA in 1979 by attacking the US embassy in Teheran.

Yep.

Well, we did kind of accidentally blew up that Iranian Airbus, so maybe we're even on that level?

Arguably one could consider this The Fifty (plus) Year War and the US has inserted its nose into it several times. This region has been meddled with relentlessly. The meddled grew tired of it, and fought back. Sadly, the revolutionaries were themselves quite dickish. And so we've had several small to large to huge skirmishes in the area since the late 70s. The US just helped potentially prevent a large number of Israeli casualties. So at least we are on the right there.

But who started it is a bullshit argument to once again justify violence. Violence has done nothing but beget violence in the Middle East. Cooler heads must prevail. We need the lost on October 7th to be the victims, not the tip of the iceberg.

Hamas has explicitly said they intend 10/7 to simply be the tip of the iceberg of their genocide. Turn the other cheek isn't going to work.

Do you think they still have the capability to carry out such an operation?

 

[laughing dog]

If bombing an embassy counts as a direct attack on a country, then no essentially about it -- Iran started its war with Israel in 1992.

Iran started it's war against the USA in 1979 by attacking the US embassy in Teheran.

Yep.

Well, we did kind of accidentally blew up that Iranian Airbus, so maybe we're even on that level?

Arguably one could consider this The Fifty (plus) Year War and the US has inserted its nose into it several times. This region has been meddled with relentlessly. The meddled grew tired of it, and fought back. Sadly, the revolutionaries were themselves quite dickish. And so we've had several small to large to huge skirmishes in the area since the late 70s. The US just helped potentially prevent a large number of Israeli casualties. So at least we are on the right there.

But who started it is a bullshit argument to once again justify violence. Violence has done nothing but beget violence in the Middle East. Cooler heads must prevail. We need the lost on October 7th to be the victims, not the tip of the iceberg.

Hamas has explicitly said they intend 10/7 to simply be the tip of the iceberg of their genocide. Turn the other cheek isn't going to work.

Do you think they still have the capability to carry out such an operation?

Good question since they lacked the capability on 10/6.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If bombing an embassy counts as a direct attack on a country, then no essentially about it -- Iran started its war with Israel in 1992.

Iran started it's war against the USA in 1979 by attacking the US embassy in Teheran.

Yep.

Well, we did kind of accidentally blew up that Iranian Airbus, so maybe we're even on that level?

Arguably one could consider this The Fifty (plus) Year War and the US has inserted its nose into it several times. This region has been meddled with relentlessly. The meddled grew tired of it, and fought back. Sadly, the revolutionaries were themselves quite dickish. And so we've had several small to large to huge skirmishes in the area since the late 70s. The US just helped potentially prevent a large number of Israeli casualties. So at least we are on the right there.

But who started it is a bullshit argument to once again justify violence. Violence has done nothing but beget violence in the Middle East. Cooler heads must prevail. We need the lost on October 7th to be the victims, not the tip of the iceberg.

Hamas has explicitly said they intend 10/7 to simply be the tip of the iceberg of their genocide. Turn the other cheek isn't going to work.

Whrn did Hamas become a term for Iran?