Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Jimmy Higgins]

Iran launches strike on Israel.

Booms and air raid sirens sounded across Israel early Sunday after Iran launched hundreds of drones, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles in an unprecedented revenge mission that pushed the Middle East closer to a regionwide war. In Washington, President Joe Biden said U.S. forces helped Israel down “nearly all” the drones and missiles and pledged to convene allies to develop a unified response.

The attack, less than two weeks after a suspected Israeli strike in Syria that killed two Iranian generals in an Iranian consular building, marked the first time Iran has launched a direct military assault on Israel, despite decades of enmity dating back to the country’s 1979 Islamic Revolution.

So I suppose good news, bad news. But it certainly is an escalation we really didn't want to precipitate.

 

[repoman]

Striking an Embassy is normally out of bounds.

 

[Derec]

Striking an Embassy is normally out of bounds.

It wasn't an embassy. It was an adjacent building housing IRGC and Hezbollah officers involved in attacks against Israel.

 

[laughing dog]

Striking an Embassy is normally out of bounds.

It wasn't an embassy. It was an adjacent building housing IRGC and Hezbollah officers involved in attacks against Israel.

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.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Striking an Embassy is normally out of bounds.

It wasn't an embassy. It was an adjacent building housing IRGC and Hezbollah officers involved in attacks against Israel.

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.

This is correct. Although, I think that Iran and Israel have essentially been at war for a long time. Biden stated that he will not join Israel in a potential attack against Iran at this time.

 

[TomC]

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

 

[lpetrich]

US will not take part in retaliatory action against Iran, White House says | Reuters

However, the attack from more than 300 missiles and drones, mostly launched from inside Iran, caused only modest damage in Israel as most were shot down with the help of the U.S., Britain and Jordan.

An Air Force base in southern Israel was hit, but continued to operate as normal and a 7-year old child was seriously hurt by shrapnel. There were no other reports of serious damage.

Two senior Israeli ministers signalled on Sunday that retaliation by Israel is not imminent and it would not act alone.

and

Iranian Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian said Tehran had informed the United States its attack on Israel would be "limited" and for self defence and that regional neighbours had also been informed of its planned strikes 72-hours in advance.

A Turkish diplomatic source said Iran had informed Turkey in advance of what would happen.

Iran said the attack was aimed at punishing "Israeli crimes" but it now "deemed the matter concluded."

This is much like Iran's previous response to attacks on it.
Iran president vows vengeance 3 years after general's death | AP News - January 3, 2023

Iran responded to the killing of Soleimani by launching a barrage of missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq, causing dozens of brain concussion injuries but no deaths among U.S. soldiers stationed there. Iranian officials have repeatedly vowed to take further steps and imposed sanctions on individuals accused of taking part in the operation.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This is much like Iran's previous response to attacks on it.
Iran president vows vengeance 3 years after general's death | AP News - January 3, 2023

Iran responded to the killing of Soleimani by launching a barrage of missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq, causing dozens of brain concussion injuries but no deaths among U.S. soldiers stationed there. Iranian officials have repeatedly vowed to take further steps and imposed sanctions on individuals accused of taking part in the operation.

TOTALLY UNPROVOKED ATTACK. I CANNOT FATHOM HOW SUCH AN ATTACK COULD OCCUR. (Sarcasm).

 

[TomC]

US will not take part in retaliatory action against Iran, White House says | Reuters

However, the attack from more than 300 missiles and drones, mostly launched from inside Iran, caused only modest damage in Israel as most were shot down with the help of the U.S., Britain and Jordan.

An Air Force base in southern Israel was hit, but continued to operate as normal and a 7-year old child was seriously hurt by shrapnel. There were no other reports of serious damage.

Two senior Israeli ministers signalled on Sunday that retaliation by Israel is not imminent and it would not act alone.

and

Iranian Foreign Minister Amir Abdollahian said Tehran had informed the United States its attack on Israel would be "limited" and for self defence and that regional neighbours had also been informed of its planned strikes 72-hours in advance.

A Turkish diplomatic source said Iran had informed Turkey in advance of what would happen.

Iran said the attack was aimed at punishing "Israeli crimes" but it now "deemed the matter concluded."

This is much like Iran's previous response to attacks on it.
Iran president vows vengeance 3 years after general's death | AP News - January 3, 2023

Iran responded to the killing of Soleimani by launching a barrage of missiles at U.S. bases in Iraq, causing dozens of brain concussion injuries but no deaths among U.S. soldiers stationed there. Iranian officials have repeatedly vowed to take further steps and imposed sanctions on individuals accused of taking part in the operation.

So, where is "International Law"?

Is it different when violent Muslims attack civilians? Apparently so, I don't see anything doing anything about it.
As usual...
Tom

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

 

[TomC]

He dosn't approve hitting the embassy.

This is the sort of media distortion that makes this conversation so difficult.
Israel struck at leaders of a violent terrorist gang that attacked them. That Iran had them in a building adjacent to the embassy is because Iran put them there.

Now, Iran has launched an attack against civilians. Where's the "International Law"?
Nowhere. It's been thoroughly weaponized against Israel, so Iran and their terrorists can do anything that they want to do.

Frankly, Fuck International Law is becoming the sensible opinion.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

Frankly, Fuck International Law is becoming the sensible opinion.
Tom

To be fair, that appears to have been the unofficial stance of many governments.

But then, if one says fuck international law, it makes it harder to take the argument that it is illegal or against the rules or norms to attack civilians as genuine.

 

[TV and credit cards]

He dosn't approve hitting the embassy.

This is the sort of media distortion that makes this conversation so difficult.
Israel struck at leaders of a violent terrorist gang that attacked them. That Iran had them in a building adjacent to the embassy is because Iran put them there.

Now, Iran has launched an attack against civilians. Where's the "International Law"?
Nowhere. It's been thoroughly weaponized against Israel, so Iran and their terrorists can do anything that they want to do.

Frankly, Fuck International Law is becoming the sensible opinion.
Tom

If we're to survive as a race, we should adhere to some international standards. Not attacking another's embassy is one of those standards. We do not unilaterally or even collectively decide to attack another's embassy. Whataboutisms notwithstanding.
You say "fuck international law" why? Is this brought on by a feeling of security based on the nation you live in? Such comments are easily made in the heartland of the United States.

 

[TomC]

Frankly, Fuck International Law is becoming the sensible opinion.
Tom

To be fair, that appears to have been the unofficial stance of the Israeli gov't for decades.

I think so too.
For obvious reasons.
I'm just now coming to an understanding of the reasons, but they've been there for a long time.

To me, Netanyahu's attitude towards the UN and international law is probably similar to that of Malcolm X attitude towards US government and law back in the 60s.
For very similar reasons.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Striking an Embassy is normally out of bounds.

It wasn't an embassy. It was an adjacent building housing IRGC and Hezbollah officers involved in attacks against Israel.

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.

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

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.

Argentine Court Says Iran Was Behind Israeli Embassy and Jewish Center Attacks

The ruling opens the possibility for relatives of victims of the 1992 and 1994 attacks to make claims against Iran in international tribunals.

www.nytimes.com

 

[TomC]

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

 

[Harry Bosch]

Striking an Embassy is normally out of bounds.

It wasn't an embassy. It was an adjacent building housing IRGC and Hezbollah officers involved in attacks against Israel.

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.

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

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.

Argentine Court Says Iran Was Behind Israeli Embassy and Jewish Center Attacks

The ruling opens the possibility for relatives of victims of the 1992 and 1994 attacks to make claims against Iran in international tribunals.

www.nytimes.com

I'm sorry to say but the international world doesn't care about atrocities committed against Israel (or Ukraine).

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

 

[TomC]

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.

I'm pretty sure that they killed a few in the initial attack. Not many, but some. Maybe 3.
Nevertheless, they attacked a building marked "US Embassy". There's absolutely no doubt about that.

FWIW, even then I understood why. It was not really an embassy, it was headquarters of a hostile government. Like the Iranian "embassy" hosting Hamas leadership. You can't weaponize your embassy then complain that it's been treated like a weapon.
Unless, apparently, you're a violent Muslim outfit. Then International Law no longer applies.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He dosn't approve hitting the embassy.

This is the sort of media distortion that makes this conversation so difficult.
Israel struck at leaders of a violent terrorist gang that attacked them. That Iran had them in a building adjacent to the embassy is because Iran put them there.

Now, Iran has launched an attack against civilians. Where's the "International Law"?

Right now it is pondering whether escalation is worth the price. Israel would be justified in striking back at Iran. The question is, is it worth the likely response?

Nowhere. It's been thoroughly weaponized against Israel, so Iran and their terrorists can do anything that they want to do.

Frankly, Fuck International Law is becoming the sensible opinion.
Tom

Fuck international law works great until the bodies are piled up high and people start wondering if there was another option.

Iran tried to strike with 20 or so real missiles and failed to overwhelm the defenses with the other 280 decoys. Iran looks pretty bad at this point. Not only did the US and Israel know it was coming, they beat it back definitively.

What is the right response? I'm uncertain, but I think fuck international law needs to be pretty far down the options list.