MangoKorat Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 5 minutes ago, transam said: Why send 300+, instead of say, 50 to make a point. The 300+ cost a lot of money, plus they told their "believers", it was a successful raid.........🤭 300 is a minute percentage of the stocks of conventional missiles and drones they hold. They are also widely reputed to have over 3000 ballistic missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 23 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said: Interesting take. Let's see. Host nation, Host nation, Host Nation . Host Nation Syria was the Host nation . Israel wasn't the host nation 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 3 minutes ago, MangoKorat said: Come off it. Iran knows very well that it would come off far worse if Israel launched an out and out attack on them. They also know very well that in addition to Israel's 'Iron Dome' there are US and UK warships in the region with the capability to shoot down just about anything Iran fires (something Ukraine doesn't have). But is costs significantly more for the Iron Dome to knock down a missile than it does to fire one, and the supply of Iron Dome supplies is limited. So now they wait a while and try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 1 minute ago, MangoKorat said: 300 is a minute percentage of the stocks of conventional missiles and drones they hold. They are also widely reputed to have over 3000 ballistic missiles. Why waste them to achieve nothing, why not 50 to achieve nothing.....🤗 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post rabas Posted April 15 Popular Post Share Posted April 15 11 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said: Interesting take. Let's see. Completely different question. It does not counter the first opinion, just says it would be nice to talk things out before bombing. LOL. Talk things out with Iran's IRGC, who are trying their best to kill you... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AreYouGerman Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said: Host nation, Host nation, Host Nation . Host Nation Syria was the Host nation . Israel wasn't the host nation Ah! Got it! You're right, it's obviously justified in that case if it's not the host country doing the bombing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 5 minutes ago, MangoKorat said: 300 is a minute percentage of the stocks of conventional missiles and drones they hold. They are also widely reputed to have over 3000 ballistic missiles. You just can't bring yourself to admit they failed in the objectives 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AreYouGerman Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 2 minutes ago, rabas said: Completely different question. It does not counter the first opinion, just says it would be nice to talk things out before bombing Of course it's a different question? Like, what? And it says it's an act of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 1 minute ago, AreYouGerman said: Ah! Got it! You're right, it's obviously justified in that case if it's not the host country doing the bombing. Legally, Its just the host Nation who has to provide the Embassy and its staff with protection ,other non host countries can bomb the Embassy if they want to 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AreYouGerman Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 Just now, Nick Carter icp said: Legally, Its just the host Nation who has to provide the Embassy and its staff with protection ,other non host countries can bomb the Embassy if they want to 🤣 Okay. Any adults left in the room? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eloquent pilgrim Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 13 minutes ago, MangoKorat said: 300 is a minute percentage of the stocks of conventional missiles and drones they hold. They are also widely reputed to have over 3000 ballistic missiles. You seem to be indicating that attacking Israel with 300+ cruise missiles, drones, and ballistic missiles is acceptable, based on the premise that it is only a small percentage of their (Iranian) stocks. You would therefore, I assume, find it acceptable if Israel retaliated with a similar percentage of their own weapons stocks …. or do you think it should be different rules of engagement for Israel. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabas Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 4 minutes ago, MangoKorat said: 300 is a minute percentage of the stocks of conventional missiles and drones they hold. They are also widely reputed to have over 3000 ballistic missiles. It's not about stock, it's about transport, prep, and launch bandwidth. How many how fast. There are missiles and there are missiles. Big computer guided missiles/drones can take much more effort. And of course they must all be targeted. For a data point, again look at my reference on the Russian effort to launch 158 in one day. That was part of a larger attack that lasted 5 days. Total for missiles and drones for the 5 days was 500. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabas Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 11 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said: Ah! Got it! You're right, it's obviously justified in that case if it's not the host country doing the bombing. First they challenge you, then they argue with you, then they change the question, then you win. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottiejohn Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said: You seem to be indicating that attacking Israel with 300+ cruise missiles, drones, and ballistic missiles is acceptable, based on the premise that it is only a small percentage of their (Iranian) stocks. They may just be firing their about to go out of date war stock which has to be replaced whether fired or not! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 4 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said: 🤣 Okay. Any adults left in the room? What is childish about explaining to you that the Iranian Embassy in Syria didn't have diplomatic protection from Israel, because Israel wasn't the host Country ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 1 minute ago, Yellowtail said: So now they wait a while and try again. Doubtful unless Israel retaliates. Believe me, Iran really doesn't want a serious attack by Israel, that's why its been leaving it to its proxies like the Houthis and Hezbollah to carry out long term smaller attacks. The hardline Iranian Islamist government's position internally has been weakened over the last few years - an attack by Israel would probably mean the end for Khomeini and he will be aware of that. Until now, Israel would not have received support if it carried out any sustained attack on Iran. That position is now weaker and if Iran attacks again, the Israelis will feel fully justified in bombing the hell out of Tehran. There are members of the Israeli government that have wanted to deal with Iran for years - any further attacks from Iran and they may well get their way. Remember this, Israel is by far the best equipped and strongest military force overall in the entire Middle East, they also have the backing of the US - that's why they still exist. Iran's main ally Putin, is busy with his own war. He may have stepped in to help that other lunatic in Syria but this conflict is different, I really can't see him getting involved.........unless of course, we move to WW3 but then he'd be rather busy elsewhere. Much as Iran doesn't want to take Israel on directly, Putin doesn't want to take the West on either - not directly. I'm not an Israeli supporter by the way, I'm just telling it like it is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 18 minutes ago, transam said: Why waste them to achieve nothing, why not 50 to achieve nothing.....🤗 Ask them, they are the ones that achieved nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AreYouGerman Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 2 minutes ago, rabas said: First they challenge you, then they argue with you, then they change the question, then you win. You got definitely a victory for the best disinformation this round 😅 Nobody can 'win' against people who think it is okay to bomb embassies because a country just declared it's okay to do so. It's a completely made up fantasy world. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 11 minutes ago, AreYouGerman said: 🤣 Okay. Any adults left in the room? Who's asking...........? 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Carter icp Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 4 minutes ago, rabas said: First they challenge you, then they argue with you, then they change the question, then you win. Get real . I have explained to him five times that the Iranian Embassy in Syria wasn't covered by Embassy laws because Israel wasn't the host Country , I didn't even ask a question, let alone change the question 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummin Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 5 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said: Get real . I have explained to him five times that the Iranian Embassy in Syria wasn't covered by Embassy laws because Israel wasn't the host Country , I didn't even ask a question, let alone change the question You saying what? So every consulate and Embassy is legal targets as long it is not the host country targeting the Embassy or consulate? Interesting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabas Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said: Get real . I have explained to him five times that the Iranian Embassy in Syria wasn't covered by Embassy laws because Israel wasn't the host Country , I didn't even ask a question, let alone change the question You have it backwards I was criticizing his posting and how he keeps changing the goalpost. When a poster changes the question, that's when you, we win. It's from the saying. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they argue, then you win". Was that Gandhi? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 16 minutes ago, rabas said: It's not about stock, it's about transport, prep, and launch bandwidth. How many how fast. There are missiles and there are missiles. Big computer guided missiles/drones can take much more effort. And of course they must all be targeted. For a data point, again look at my reference on the Russian effort to launch 158 in one day. That was part of a larger attack that lasted 5 days. Total for missiles and drones for the 5 days was 500. The information so far is that the attack was mainly composed of drones, something that Iran is reputed to have 000's of thousands of. They are not difficult to launch - especially when you have days to prepare for it. The Iranian Consulate in Syria was attacked on 1 April, Tehran's attack on Israel was 2 weeks later. Russia is trying to launch missiles in a completely different situation. Although Ukraine's capability is severely depleted, it still fires back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 Baiting and bickering posts and replies have been removed. Posts with videos from unapproved social media sources have been removed: All video content must be from a credible media source, and in English. Foreign languages, even with subtitles, are not permitted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transam Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 2 minutes ago, MangoKorat said: The information so far is that the attack was mainly composed of drones, something that Iran is reputed to have 000's of thousands of. They are not difficult to launch - especially when you have days to prepare for it. The Iranian Consulate in Syria was attacked on 1 April, Tehran's attack on Israel was 2 weeks later. Russia is trying to launch missiles in a completely different situation. Although Ukraine's capability is severely depleted, it still fires back. 2 minutes ago, MangoKorat said: The information so far is that the attack was mainly composed of drones, something that Iran is reputed to have 000's of thousands of. They are not difficult to launch - especially when you have days to prepare for it. The Iranian Consulate in Syria was attacked on 1 April, Tehran's attack on Israel was 2 weeks later. Russia is trying to launch missiles in a completely different situation. Although Ukraine's capability is severely depleted, it still fires back. No, it wasn't mainly drones...........🤔 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 29 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said: You seem to be indicating that attacking Israel with 300+ cruise missiles, drones, and ballistic missiles is acceptable, based on the premise that it is only a small percentage of their (Iranian) stocks. You would therefore, I assume, find it acceptable if Israel retaliated with a similar percentage of their own weapons stocks …. or do you think it should be different rules of engagement for Israel. I don't think anything is acceptable - by either side. I'm simply commenting on what has happened and that it was not a particularly large attack in terms of how many missiles and drones Iran actually has. I think I made it clear that I am not an Israel supporter, neither do support the medieval lunatics in Iran. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AreYouGerman Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 At least we know now for a fact how Iran, being part of the Axis of Resistance, will respond to the act of war of bombing their embassy: With a thoughtful and necessary self-dense act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MangoKorat Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 3 minutes ago, transam said: No, it wasn't mainly drones...........🤔 170 drones, 120 ballistic missiles and you can bet it used its oldest stock which was coming towards the end of its useable life. Iran is said to have 3000 ballistic missiles so it fired 4% of them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bkk Brian Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 2 minutes ago, MangoKorat said: 170 drones, 120 ballistic missiles and you can bet it used its oldest stock which was coming towards the end of its useable life. Iran is said to have 3000 ballistic missiles so it fired 4% of them. You forgot the cruise missiles 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowtail Posted April 15 Share Posted April 15 9 minutes ago, MangoKorat said: I don't think anything is acceptable - by either side. I'm simply commenting on what has happened and that it was not a particularly large attack in terms of how many missiles and drones Iran actually has. I think I made it clear that I am not an Israel supporter, neither do support the medieval lunatics in Iran. So you're on the fence.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now