IDF targets and kills food aid workers

[4everwarriors]

Huh? The voice of reason, hey?

[Hards Alumni]

What double standard? Jimmy Carter did squat when they seized our embassy in 1979.

They had hostages.  Consider that the most simple difference.

[Hards Alumni]

Hear me out here...

Perhaps none of these actions are worth defending and we should just stay out of it.

When you have to bring up an action from 44 years ago, that should probably tell you something.

yes

[forgetful]

This is fair, I don't have much against it.  However, I do think it's silly that people are acting like Israel maliciously attacked a country minding its own business when they attacked the embassy, and not that Iran has been attacking Israel by proxy for months/years.

There is no innocent victims here.  Israel is undeniably overaggressive at the moment, but anyone trying to lionize or stump for Iranian leadership are just blind Israel haters and would root for a Charles Manson/Jeffrey Dahmer tag team if they were opposing Israel

No real disagreements, but attacks by proxies, and direct attacks are different, everyone in the world knows this, and it is why the US and every other major country constantly is funding proxies to do their dirty work.

And even then, bombing an embassy is a whole other level of...you just don't do that, even if it had been proxies. It is why Israel didn't "take credit for it." They even knew it was wrong and was going to be a powder keg moment.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Huh? The voice of reason, hey?

That means staying complete out you know. No arms sales. No helping with their defense.

[MU82]

This is fair, I don't have much against it.  However, I do think it's silly that people are acting like Israel maliciously attacked a country minding its own business when they attacked the embassy, and not that Iran has been attacking Israel by proxy for months/years.

There is no innocent victims here.  Israel is undeniably overaggressive at the moment, but anyone trying to lionize or stump for Iranian leadership are just blind Israel haters and would root for a Charles Manson/Jeffrey Dahmer tag team if they were opposing Israel

Important to remember that Putin is supplying war machines and financial support to Iran, and has been for years. The same Putin that a good chunk of one U.S. political party, including its presidential candidate (who claims to love Israel), is kowtowing to. Even some top Republicans are furious that their party has been infected by Putin's propaganda machine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/07/russian-propaganda-republicans-congress/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3d5525b%2F6614140ec8507e7d8b23a0de%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F17%2F53%2F6614140ec8507e7d8b23a0de

Rep. Michael R. Turner (R-Ohio), who chairs the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, said Sunday that it was "absolutely true" that some Republican members of Congress were repeating Russian propaganda about the invasion of Ukraine instigated by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Turner did not specify which members he was referring to, but he said he agreed with House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), who said in an interview with Puck News last week that Russian propaganda had "infected a good chunk of my party's base" and suggested that conservative media was to blame.

Reagan is rolling over in his grave about the tragedy that is his former party.

[forgetful]

Interesting historical analysis on the news just a bit ago, discussing on how the UN and world leaders failed in averting what might become a wider Middle East war.

Apparently in 1998, the Taliban attack an Iranian consulate. Iran needed to retaliate, but was able to avert an actual war/battle, because the UN and world leaders intervened to strongly condemn the Taliban attack.

The UN Security Council did not condemn the Israeli attack on an Iranian embassy this time, and they were largely forced to respond. It really is a failure of world leadership.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Well Heisey was right about one thing. (Shocker...)  Israel is moving forward without caring what the rest of the world thinks. But it's not going to end for them how they think it will.

They have accomplished none of their larger goals and have managed to widen the war in the process.

[jesmu84]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-called-off-retaliatory-strike-on-iran-after-call-with-biden-new-york-times/

Looks like Israel gonna lay low for now. Joe does have a bit of influence, it seems

[MUBurrow]

Interesting historical analysis on the news just a bit ago, discussing on how the UN and world leaders failed in averting what might become a wider Middle East war.

Apparently in 1998, the Taliban attack an Iranian consulate. Iran needed to retaliate, but was able to avert an actual war/battle, because the UN and world leaders intervened to strongly condemn the Taliban attack.

The UN Security Council did not condemn the Israeli attack on an Iranian embassy this time, and they were largely forced to respond. It really is a failure of world leadership.

I strongly disagree with that conclusion, and think it ignores who all of the players here have shown themselves to be.  The UN has been plenty hostile toward Israel, not least of all lately with the South Africans using apartheid as moral currency to bring an ICJ case against Israel.  Its not like the UN is afraid to condemn Israel.

I also think that has almost no relationship to how Iran would have responded.  Since when has Iran's leadership given two craps about internaitonal pressure or UN declarations?  Saying they wouldn't have responded if the UN condemned Israel both gives the Iranians too much diplomatic credit and overincentivizes isolating Israel.

[MUBurrow]

Well Heisey was right about one thing. (Shocker...)  Israel is moving forward without caring what the rest of the world thinks. But it's not going to end for them how they think it will.

They have accomplished none of their larger goals and have managed to widen the war in the process.

Bibi's motivation to preserve his political position (and stay out of jail) cast such a shadow over Israel's next move.  The Iranian response was calculated so as not do any actual damage, but Bibi has no personal/political incentive to prevent escalation.

[Lennys Tap]

Well Heisey was right about one thing. (Shocker...)  Israel is moving forward without caring what the rest of the world thinks. But it's not going to end for them how they think it will.

They have accomplished none of their larger goals and have managed to widen the war in the process.

So
A. How is it going to end?
B. How do they think it's going to end?

[forgetful]

I strongly disagree with that conclusion, and think it ignores who all of the players here have shown themselves to be.  The UN has been plenty hostile toward Israel, not least of all lately with the South Africans using apartheid as moral currency to bring an ICJ case against Israel.  Its not like the UN is afraid to condemn Israel.

I also think that has almost no relationship to how Iran would have responded.  Since when has Iran's leadership given two craps about internaitonal pressure or UN declarations?  Saying they wouldn't have responded if the UN condemned Israel both gives the Iranians too much diplomatic credit and overincentivizes isolating Israel.

You are mixing concepts. Individual countries within the UN have acted against Israel, and made statements criticizing Israel, but the UN is meaningless as they can't institute anything formal without policy from the Security Council.

The UN Security Council has done next to nothing.

Regarding your latter comments. Iran in 1998 did stand down, after the UN Security Council Condemned the Taliban for its attack on the Iranian consulate. Iran doesn't want open war, and Iran did say that had the UN Security Council acted here, they may have been able to avoid having to respond.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-security-council-should-have-condemned-iran-embassy-attack-syria-irans-un-2024-04-11/

[4everwarriors]

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-called-off-retaliatory-strike-on-iran-after-call-with-biden-new-york-times/

Looks like Israel gonna lay low for now. Joe does have a bit of influence, it seems

Ah, you mean BO, aina?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

So
A. How is it going to end?
B. How do they think it's going to end?

It's going to end in a stalemate with a situation similar to the previous - but a lot of people will have suffered and died in the process.

They thought it was going to end in a similar way we thought Afghanistan and Iraq were going to end. It always sounds simple and easy. But it's not. For far too long we have thought the absolute surrender of WWII was the obvious end to wars. Its not. They're messy and inconclusive.

Their objectives were to beat Hamas and rescue the hostages. They will end up doing neither...at least fully. I'm not sure they ever could have, but their standing worldwide has taken a massive hit in the process. Even their greatest ally is growing tired of their actions in Gaza.

And that's not a Biden thing - that's a Bibi thing.

[rocket surgeon]

" But it's not going to end for them how they think it will."

Gee, tell us oh wise man, how is this going to end??  Hang on, I've got to gather my family  so they don't miss some history here

[MUBurrow]

You are mixing concepts. Individual countries within the UN have acted against Israel, and made statements criticizing Israel, but the UN is meaningless as they can't institute anything formal without policy from the Security Council.

The UN Security Council has done next to nothing.

Regarding your latter comments. Iran in 1998 did stand down, after the UN Security Council Condemned the Taliban for its attack on the Iranian consulate. Iran doesn't want open war, and Iran did say that had the UN Security Council acted here, they may have been able to avoid having to respond.

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-security-council-should-have-condemned-iran-embassy-attack-syria-irans-un-2024-04-11/

You're right, I skipped over the Security Counsel reference in your op - that was my mistake.

I do still think that the Iranians' statement is BS.  Dropping a "you made us do this" while referring to Israel as the "Zionist regime," and then being taken seriously, is really something. I understand that reference reflects that Iran doesn't diplomatically recognize Israel - but that's kind of the whole game here. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

" But it's not going to end for them how they think it will."

Gee, tell us oh wise man, how is this going to end??  Hang on, I've got to gather my family  so they don't miss some history here

Too late. I already answered above.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

You're right, I skipped over the Security Counsel reference in your op - that was my mistake.

I do still think that the Iranians' statement is BS.  Dropping a "you made us do this" while referring to Israel as the "Zionist regime," and then being taken seriously, is really something. I understand that reference reflects that Iran doesn't diplomatically recognize Israel - but that's kind of the whole game here. 

Right. In no way should Iran be seen as a victim here. My guess is that it was their entire idea to start this in the first place.

But Israel has played right into their hands.

[forgetful]

You're right, I skipped over the Security Counsel reference in your op - that was my mistake.

I do still think that the Iranians' statement is BS.  Dropping a "you made us do this" while referring to Israel as the "Zionist regime," and then being taken seriously, is really something. I understand that reference reflects that Iran doesn't diplomatically recognize Israel - but that's kind of the whole game here.

I agree. Their language is terrible and wrong, and highlights a lot of the problems.

But I do believe that Iran has zero desire for an open war, and believe that if the UN Security Council denounced Israel's attack on their Embassy, that would have been sufficient for them to be able to save face without retaliating. I don't think Iran ever envisioned a scenario where Israel would bomb an Embassy, or would attack them directly.

It's also quite simply a fact, that Israel was 100% aware that Iran would retaliate, in Israel, if they bombed the Iranian Embassy. They bombed it anyway.

That in no way says Iran is a victim.

I'm seriously hoping that cooler heads start to prevail.

[jesmu84]

If I'm understanding correctly, the US provides missiles for the iron dome. If true, the US spent $1+ bil against the Iranian drones.

[Pakuni]

This seems like poor advice. Though perhaps not surprising from the guy who wanted to use the Army against Americans in 2020.

As pro-Palestinian protesters blocked major U.S. transportation infrastructure on Monday, from San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge to the entrance to Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, one Republican senator joined Fox News to call for Americans "to take matters into their own hands."

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tom-cotton-urges-americans-to-take-matters-into-their-own-hands-to-stop-pro-palestinian-protestors/

[forgetful]

If I'm understanding correctly, the US provides missiles for the iron dome. If true, the US spent $1+ bil against the Iranian drones.

Israeli reports say that it cost between $1-1.35B to repel the Iranian attack.

Hezbollah alone, has the capacity to fire ~500-1000x the number of rockets/missiles that were fired in that attack. Iran has the capacity to match that or more.

[Jockey]

This seems like poor advice. Though perhaps not surprising from the guy who wanted to use the Army against Americans in 2020.

As pro-Palestinian protesters blocked major U.S. transportation infrastructure on Monday, from San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge to the entrance to Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, one Republican senator joined Fox News to call for Americans "to take matters into their own hands."

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tom-cotton-urges-americans-to-take-matters-into-their-own-hands-to-stop-pro-palestinian-protestors/

Yet he supported WHITE Americans who attempted to overthrow the US government.

Interesting.

[dgies9156]

After reading four sections of comments on Israel/Hamas/Gaza and assorted diversions, the one conclusion that's apparent is that we're rather weak on the history of the area.

The Western Middle East has been a battleground since the Jewish people under Moses fled Pharaoh. Muslims are taught from the moment they begin nursing at their mother's breasts that Jews are infidels and should be killed. Every Jew since the mid-1940s has the Holocaust drilled into them from the day they nurse from their Mother. This is the classic immovable object meets and unstoppable force.

Hamas is nothing more than a reflagged, undisciplined Iranian army. Ditto Hezbollah. Their mercenaries aimed at creating instability and giving Iran plausible deniability in its ongoing war with the Great Satan. 

We see things through domestic political and social considerations. In our culture, we try to be inclusive and believe if people vote, they can change the political and social direction of our country. Nobody in the Middle East gives a rat's backside about inclusion. The whole war is about turf and about survival.

Two things are paramount in the debate. First, despite the pleadings of the President, U.S. Domestic political considerations carry no weight when Israel's life and death is on the line. Diamona exists because Israel will do any and everything to assure its survival, lest we end up with Holocaust II.

Second, when you go to war, civilians get killed. Lots and lots of them. There is no avoiding it.

As a side note, the only people who brought an even limited peace to the Middle East were Jimmy Carter and Anwar Sadat. That worked out well for President Sadat, didn't it?