Brickleberry

3 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Twice now you were provided with new and reliable proof that the late Iranian general Mohammad Reza Zahedi had a “strategic role in planning and executing the Al-Aqsa Storm.", the massacre that led to the slaughter of 1000s of innocent Israelis and Palestinians. From Bkk Brian just now and from me yesterday at 12:12pm. 

 

Yet you post old disformative information to mislead.  But at least I see  from your link that you now trust US MSM and government. 👍 

 

I appreciate the effort, but BKK Brian & you have both provided the same story from one source - A Saudi Arabian fake media company based in London, that cannot be found on websites such as mediafactcheck.com.

Even the Times Of Israel has acknowledged that Hamas stated very clearly why they did what they did, and Hamas has denied any involvement from Iran. So again, who are we to believe? US intelligence, Hamas and the Times of Israel, or Iran International - a Saudi media company aimed at taking down Iran?

https://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-guard-corps-hamas-oct-7-attack-was-revenge-for-killing-of-soleimani-in-2020/

Quote

 

Iran: Oct. 7 attack was revenge for killing of Soleimani in 2020; Hamas: No it wasn’t

IRGC also says it is ‘very aware’ why Israel allegedly assassinated another top general in Damascus; Gaza’s terrorist rulers insist vicious massacres were ‘Palestinian resistance’

However, Hamas swiftly denied the Iranian claim and reiterated that it attacked Israel over what it described as “the dangers threatening the Al-Aqsa Mosque,” referring to the key Islamic site on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem.

In a statement, the terror group said that “all Palestinian resistance actions” are a response to what it called the “occupation and its ongoing aggression against our people and the holy places.”

On the day of the attack, which Hamas dubbed ““Operation Al-Aqsa Deluge,” the terror group’s military commander Muhammad Deif said in a recorded message it was launched in retaliation for Israel’s “desecration” of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and was a follow-up of previous warnings by the group.

 

14 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Don't get too stuck on old reports when new information comes to hand.

 

Iran International reported that Coalition Council of Islamic Revolution Forces (also known by its Persian acronym SHANA) honored Zahedi’s “strategic role in forming and strengthening the resistance front as well as in planning and executing the Al-Aqsa Storm."

Hamas called its mass rapes of Israelis and slaughter of 1,200 people "Operation Al-Aqsa Storm."

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/slain-iranian-general-planned-executed-hamas-massacre-797014

Who do you think I'm going to believe? American intelligence, or the criminal who committed the crime?

If you actually researched where this story came from, you might realize that it is tripe. The Jerusalem Post (where you found the story) is reporting on another media outlet's story: Iran International, which is owned by the Saudi government - Iran's enemy!:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_International#:~:text=Fall of Kabul.-,Ownership,by Volant Media UK Ltd.

Quote

 

Lack of editorial independence[edit]

Though the TV station states that it "adheres to strict international standards of impartiality, balance and accountability",^[11] questions have been raised regarding its editorial independence.^[10][11]

In October 2018, a report by Saeed Kamali Dehghan in The Guardian linked Iran International's funding to Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. It also interviewed an unnamed insider who said that the editorial content had been influenced by its investors. A source was reported by The Guardian as saying that Iran International received $250m from Saudi Arabia for launching the channel. The insider and an unnamed ex-employee expressed dismay that Saudi funding had been concealed from the employees. Iran International denied The Guardian's report.^[10]

According to The Wall Street Journal, "[some] journalists at Iran International have complained that management is pushing a pro-Saudi, anti-Islamic Republic line". WSJ quoted a former correspondent at the TV station commenting that "a systematic and very persistent push" was made during her time there.^[11]

Azadeh Moaveni of New York University has charged the channel is an arm of Saudi Arabia: "I would not describe Iran International as pro-reform, or organically Iranian in any manner".^[76]

 

3 hours ago, Jeff the Chef said:

From Arrow to Iron Dome: The economics of Israel's air defense strategy
How much did it actually cost Israel to shoot down Iran’s flood of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and suicide drones?

 

The price of a single Iron Dome interceptor missile is about $50,000, and most of the time, it is directed at an inaccurate, primitive rocket with a relatively small payload. In the case of intercepting a ballistic missile from Iran, the numbers are in completely different spheres.

 

https://www.calcalistech.com/ctechnews/article/h18og9cl0#:~:text=The price of a single,with a relatively small payload.

Cheap lasers are already here. The UK has been testing its successful DragonFire laser. Around $10 per shot.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68795603.amp

Quote

 

DragonFire: UK laser could be used against Russian drones on Ukraine front line

The weapon is precise enough to hit a £1 coin from a kilometre away, according to the MoD. It is hoped that it will pave the way for a low-cost alternative to missiles, to shoot down targets such as drones.

January's successful test of the weapon was carried out at the MoD's Hebrides Range in Scotland and was hailed as a "major step" in bringing laser-directed energy weapons (LDEWs) into service.

The greatest advantage of lasers is cost and, in theory, an "unlimited magazine" of ammunition - as long as there is a reliable source of power. But the big drawback is that they can only fire at targets in the line of sight, unlike most missiles.

 

3 hours ago, rabas said:

 

The extraterritoriality thing is more an old wives' tale. Consulate territory is not really Iran territory.  reference

 

Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions sometimes do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are generally not sovereign territory of the represented state. The sending state can give embassies sovereign status but this only happens with a minority of countries. Rather, the premises of an embassy remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges (such as immunity from most local laws). [also note consulates don't even get the same protections as embassies]

 

Given that, do you still wish to protect the guy responsible for the Oct 7 operation that eventually led to the horrific deaths of thousands of innocent  Israelis and Palestinians?

 

Whilst it is true that embassies/consulates are not on 'sovereign soil' the second part of your post is wrong.

Iran might well be an awful state, but it had no direct involvement in Oct 7. Even if Iran was indirectly involved, you can't just blow up consulate buildings that are protected under international law. This is according to US intelligence:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-israel-iranian-officials-surprised-by-hamas-attack-israel/

Quote

 

The U.S. has intelligence indicating senior Iranian officials were surprised by the Hamas-led terror attack on Israel, according to multiple American officials familiar with the matter, preliminarily suggesting Tehran was not directly involved the launch of the deadly Oct. 7 assault.   

While analysis and collection are continuing and additional information may arise to contradict the initial assessments, officials briefed on the intelligence say key Iranian officials who would normally be aware of operations in the region appeared to be unaware the attacks were taking place. 

 

6 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

It did indeed but the credibility/legality of the Syrian state is questionable, is it not?  I don't mean to make light of it but there are very few countries that have any respect for the Syrian regime and therefore the current state.

Granted, but again - we should all just follow the law rather than break it.

43 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

It's not the Iranian consulate. It's a terror planning HQ for the IRGC. That's why it was full of senior IRGC military advisers - who are now thankfully unable to advise anymore. 

Well it's not a consulate now that its been blown up.

This is what's wrong with the world - people only care about their little patch of the world, or who is on their team. If we all played like that, this world would be on fire............. he says, his voice dripping with sarcasm.

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Did he ask you to pay for the drink ?

He was surprisingly accommodating....

25 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

I thought Gerry Adams was in Sinn Fein?

Yes, that's right. Sinn Fein is the political wing, IRA was the military wing. Gerry Adams belonged to both, even though he denies it!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerry_Adams#:~:text=Adams has stated repeatedly that,IRA leadership since the 1970s.

Quote

Adams has stated repeatedly that he has never been a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA). However, journalists such as Ed Moloney, Peter Taylor and Mark Urban, and historian Richard English have all named Adams as part of the IRA leadership since the 1970s. Moloney and Taylor state Adams became the IRA's Chief of Staff following the arrest of Seamus Twomey in early December 1977, remaining in the position until 18 February 1978 when he, along with twenty other republican suspects, was arrested following the La Mon restaurant bombing.[36][37] He was charged with IRA membership and remanded to Crumlin Road Gaol.[38] 

Similar to Hamas really. Hama is the political wing, Whereas the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades form the military wing of the Palestinian organization Hamas.

As with the IRA/Sinn Fein, several countries that list 'Hamas' as a terrorist organization, only list the military wing as a terrorist organization, not the political wing.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-is-hamas-what-to-know-about-its-origins-leaders-and-funding

Quote

Dozens of countries have designated Hamas a terrorist organization, though some apply this label only to its military wing. Iran provides it with material and financial support, and Turkey reportedly harbors some of its top leaders.

Its rival party, Fatah, which dominates the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and rules in the West Bank, has renounced violence. The split in Palestinian leadership and Hamas’s unwavering hostility toward Israel have diminished prospects for stability in Gaza.

23 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You made a false claim, for example, the IRA is not voted as a terrorist group by the UN and only voted as such by the UK. The are indeed terrorist's though, I was in London when a few of their bombs went off.

They were terrorists to the UK and the US, but they were freedom fighters to several other nations. 2 states out of 205.

Interestingly, several IRA members ended up in the Irish Dail (parliament) Gerry Adams being one of the most prominent. The situation in Ireland is slightly similar to the current conflict between Hamas & Israel. Several nations consider Hamas to be freedom fighters, whilst a handful (around 20) designate them as a terrorist group.

22 minutes ago, Wobblybob said:

Soon be 5 at least.

 

The UK is preparing to formally declare that Iran's Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) is a terrorist organisation.

The legal change would mean it becomes a criminal offence in the UK to belong to the group or support its activities.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-64156965

 

Did you not notice that the article is 4 months old? Hardly soon to be anything....

8 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

I'm not. My spiritual adviser is actually a Rabbi.

I hope it isn't Rabbi Schmooley. You might wake up with one of his buttplugs and a hangover one day....

17 minutes ago, rabas said:

Math doesn't work that way.  How many countries officially designate IRGC as non terrorist nice guys, 0. (excepting perpetrator Iran)

 

4 Yea, 0 Nay:  Thus  state terrorist organization. 

 

What world do you live in? That's not how math or voting works!

We have 205 states. 4 of which say this is a terrorist group, 201 of which have refused to designate them as a terrorist group. Therefore, they are not a terrorist group.

For your logic to be correct, you would have to admit that the US, & Israel are terrorist states, as they have been labelled as such by other countries.

5 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Therefore, it is NOT a terrorist organization, because it has not been approved by the world -a UN vote would be required.

 

You don't have to be UN voted to be a terror group, that's nonsense:

 

List of designated terrorist groups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups

It would make it official though, right?

The fact that only 4 out of 205 states: the US, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Sweden, have said it is a terrorist group is evidence enough that only a small minority of states think this way.

If it only takes a couple of states to make someone a terrorist group, then I'm pretty sure all of the world would be labeled 'terrorist'.

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

So what. They were still Iranians citizens in a third country.

 

Israel attacked Iran first

 

Iran retaliated as they could and should.

 

Israel runs crying to the UN and whines about the Iranian retaliation.

 

Israel has ignored so many UN resolutions, and yet they want UN support NOW.

 

Perhaps attacking the Iranians in Syria was not the brightest thing that Israel could have done.

You are right, he is wrong.

There are only 4 countries that say IRGC is a terrorist organization. Therefore, it is NOT a terrorist organization, because it has not been approved by the world -a UN vote would be required. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps

Quote

Currently, the IRGC is designated as a terrorist organization by Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Sweden and the United States.^[9][10]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Realy? You have no idea what is in a US embassy , yet you know what is in an Iranian embassy

I will give you this. If nothing else , you sure are funny. 

But you failed to unswore my question.

"If military personal, and/or spooks are in a US embassy , does that mean that such embassy is a legitimate military target. 

 

FYI: " Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning anyone can edit nearly any page and improve articles immediately. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing#:~:text=Wikipedia is a wiki%2C meaning,made Wikipedia better for all.

 

This was talked about a few pages back. The guy you're arguing with knows the building was untouchable, he knows it is illegal and he knows he is wrong. Even his friend BKK Brian admits he was wrong about the buildings. International law is VERY clear. Even if the building was being used as a military base, it is STILL untouchable.

6 minutes ago, transam said:

A Consulate is not an Embassy..........😉

But as you participated in the discussion yesterday, you already know this is irrelevant. Consulates, embassies and any buildings on an embassy's or consulate's compound (an annex) are inviolable under international law.

2 minutes ago, transam said:

😂............I had a good laugh at that..........😂

It is ridiculous. It's like calling the SAS a bunch of clowns. Or the Marines a bunch of P*ssies. Grow up and contribute something to the conversation, or just leave.

31 minutes ago, rabas said:

You need to ask Jimmy Carter.  

 

BTW the 'many killed' inside the ancillary consulate annex were mostly non consulate  IRGC global terrorist senior officers up to illegal activity.  This  included general Mohammad Reza Zahedil who helped plan the unconscionable October 7 massacre of women and children in Israel.

 

Reference [here]. Reliability of the reference. [here]

 

I would like to ask you up front, do any of these facts make any difference to you?

 

If not, why not?

No, they do not make any difference at all.

Firstly, you assume that because the staff killed were non-consulate, then it's OK. Unfortunately, you are wrong. The buildings themselves are inviolable , and must be protected under international law. This was a massive attack, completely flouting diplomatic norms and international law. How do you not get this? 

It is illegal to bomb an embassy building, consulate building, annex, whatever you want to use to try and worm your way around the vocabulary, it is illegal. Period.

Secondly, you mistakenly labelled the IRGC as a terrorist group. It is not. IRGC is the elite wing of the regular standing army. You may wish to call them terrorists, but they are not.

Thirdly, you are wrong about him helping to plan the Oct 7 attack. This is Israeli propaganda and lies. Even if you were right, this still does not make it a legal action. Could you imagine if America bombed Ecuador's embassy in the UK to get Julian Assange? Do you think that would be OK? Of course not. We must all follow the law, or we shall all become beasts.

41 minutes ago, transam said:

You missed out one word, "terrorists", that goes in between many and inside....😉

In which case, probably............

This is just childish. Calling a country's army 'terrorists'.

15 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

The thing you are not allowed to mention?

Voldemort.

Ah, I forgot. This isn't the JK Rowling thread.

30 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said:

 

Yeah. Or like Israel ignoring every resolution and so on but everybody is cool with it because, you know, the thing.

Not everyone, most of the world is in agreement which is why we have so many UN resolutions against Israel. What won't 'be cool' is if Israel causes WW3 by launching a fresh attack.

44 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said:

 

An NPC giving me random quests! Hilarious! 😅

 

We found out already that we are the good guys and we, the international community, have the final say over everything!

 

This map is a bit off... you should be showing the 5 UN veto states, America, China, UK, Russia, France. Nothing happens without their approval.

6 minutes ago, rabas said:

None, as long a they are not used for military purposes. 

 

Iran's top IRGC terror generals plotting attacks on Israel in the annex lost them their protections.  Note:    reference

 

8 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Wrong

Sorry, but you're both lying:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html

Quote

Diplomatic buildings are entitled to broad protections from attack or other interference by the host country under international customary law, codified in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations.

Article 22 of the Convention on Diplomatic Relations states:

“The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.”

Those protections remain in force even if the embassy is used for criminal or military purposes. The receiving state can break off diplomatic relations, or revoke the diplomatic immunity of specific individuals and eject them from the country, but it must still “respect and protect” the embassy buildings and their contents even after the mission has closed.