Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
15 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Because they're a civilized country that stands against terrorism perhaps. 

Agreed but the poster should also note that the UK's actions have been defensive. I don't see anything wrong with stopping a missile from killing people.

 

Both the US and the UK have stated that they will not take part in any action against Iran.

Posted
3 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Agreed but the poster should also note that the UK's actions have been defensive. I don't see anything wrong with stopping a missile from killing people.

 

Both the US and the UK have stated that they will not take part in any action against Iran.

And yet in a sense they just did.

Netanyahu  may have overplayed his sketchy hand !

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

US, UK, France and Jordan all helped shoot down the Iranian attack.

Are those countries going to attack Iran with Israel as well in retaliation?

Posted
1 minute ago, Seppius said:

Are those countries going to attack Iran with Israel as well in retaliation?

Silly question, which I'm sure you already know the answer to as its in just about every article on the internet that is related to this incident. It is also not 100% certain if/when and what sort of retaliation there will be from Israel.

  • Like 1
Posted

Cutting through the pseudo-history and pooling of ignorance, US stock futures today are up (not down as predicted by most). Are the institutional big spenders (who, after all, really do run the world) betting that responses, if any, will be measured and/or delayed.

Hopefully the neighbors from hell may not succeed in involving the rest of us in their absurd tribal wars after all.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
  • Thanks 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Brickleberry said:

 

So in your warped world, I can bomb any embassy around the world, willy nilly - as long as I don't do it in my own country?

 

Are you a few crackers short of a picnic?

 

   I am just telling you what the law says regarding Embassies .

I am stating the rules .

Some of us read the rules and follow the rules , rather than just doing what you like and taking no notice of the rules . 

  ( BTW, You cannot bomb anything, as it would be against the rules)

   

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour 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. 

 

Once again you try to trivialise Iran attacking Israel with what is now reported as approximately 350 cruise missiles, drones, and ballistic missiles, simply because that number is a small percentage of their arsenal; and remember, this attack was in response to a single Israeli strike on a building that was not even on Iranian soil.

 

 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

  ( BTW, You cannot bomb anything, as it would be against the rules)

 

->

 

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

other non host countries can bomb the Embassy if they want to 

 

  • Agree 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

Once again you try to trivialise Iran attacking Israel with what is now reported as approximately 350 cruise missiles, drones, and ballistic missiles, simply because that number is a small percentage of their arsenal; and remember, this attack was in response to a single Israeli strike on a building that was not even on Iranian soil.

 

 

I am not trying to trivialise anything. Iran wanted to send a message, they didn't want to start a war.  In stating that their actions are at an end, Iran more or less said the same. They said they would punish Israel and in their eyes, they have.

 

Israel's defensive capabilities are well known so my guess is that they knew that their attack would be ineffective but you can bet your bottom dollar that the media in Iran will be stating a completely different story.

 

Most of the military experts on the region have the same opinion.

Posted
1 hour 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 continue to trivialise Iran attacking Israel because of the percentage of their arsenal that they used; even now claiming to know which missiles they used, and the age of them; next, I guess, you will issue the perfunctory statement that you are in no way antisemitic.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
1 hour ago, AreYouGerman said:

Iran, being part of the Axis of Resistance, will respond to the act of war of bombing their embassy:

 

How many times do you need to be told that the embassy of Iran was not bombed ? I have told you twice already, but you don’t seem to have any powers of comprehension.

 

  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

You continue to trivialise Iran attacking Israel because of the percentage of their arsenal that they used; even now claiming to know which missiles they used, and the age of them; next, I guess, you will issue the perfunctory statement that you are in no way antisemitic.

 

Yes, because I'm not anti semetic in any way! So, 'perfunctory' or not I will state that I am not anti semetic.  In fact if I was forced to take sides in this matter I would reluctantly fall on Israel's side - I have no love for a regime that represses its people, imprisons them for dissent and forces women into an unwanted dress code.

 

So, I'd suggest that you read all of my posts and stop your selective reading because in this case you've got egg on your face.

 

I respect the rights of all to hold their beliefs. I just wish they wouldn't fight wars over them or let them run their daily lives. Israel is guilty of war crimes in Gaza just as Hamas are. Its a sad situation that requires an almost impossible amount of compromise to settle.

 

You have completely got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I have not sought to trivialise anything, I am simply pointing out what most of the experts on the region are saying - and I believe they are right.  That is that Iran simply wanted to send a message without starting a war that they can't win.  They calculated what they thought they could do and the ball is now in Israel's court.  However, as the attack was ineffective, Israel's allies are pressing them not to react.

 

Had they wished to start a war, Iran's attack would have been much bigger and sustained. As it is, Iran has stated that their actions are at an end - they sent their message.

 

If you had missiles of varying ages in your arsenal - would you use the newest ones that were due to be destroyed soon in any case?

Edited by MangoKorat
  • Agree 2
Posted
19 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

I guess, you will issue the perfunctory statement that you are in no way antisemitic.

I'd be interested to learn which part of any of my posts is anti semetic?

Posted

Another Country confirms their help in the attacks against Israel 

 

Saudi Arabia acknowledges helping defend Israel against Iran

Saudi Arabia's royal family posted on its website about the country's role in defending Israel against the Iranian barrage

Saudi Arabia acknowledged that it had helped the newly forged regional military coalition — Israel, the United States, Jordan, the United Kingdom, and France — repel an Iranian attack against the Jewish state early Sunday morning, in an unusual post on its royal family’s website.

It referenced a story on KAN News about the Saudi involvement in the military defensive operation in which 99% of the Iranian drones and missiles were destroyed before hitting their targets. 

Many of the drones and missiles had to travel over Jordanian and Saudi airspace to reach Israel. 

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/saudi-arabia-acknowledges-helping-defend-israel-against-iran-797201

  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

 

How many times do you need to be told that the embassy of Iran was not bombed ? I have told you twice already, but you don’t seem to have any powers of comprehension.

 

 

You have told? Who are you?

 

We are going circles again because some people don't understand that in fact a part of the embassy, an 'annex building' on the embassy compound has been bombed. If this would happen to the US, it would be treated as what it is, an attack on 'US soil'.

 

Somehow it's the old 'rules for thee but not for me" comes to mind.

 

Let's hear what the other major world power thinks about that: "China condemns the attack on the Iranian embassy in Syria, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin said on Tuesday."

 

https://english.news.cn/20240402/540059d3ee134cb584c06fa2dc2d29fe/c.html

 

  • Haha 2
Posted

Who fired the Missile that that flattened the Iranian conslate in Damascus? ISRAEL so Israel started this latest fighting Iran had every right to respond not the other way round. So if and its a big If its Israel who started it 1st.

  • Confused 2
  • Love It 1
Posted
1 hour ago, AreYouGerman said:

 

->

 

 

 

   You asked whether you could bomb an Embassy , you personally .and that was my reply in the first post .

   The second reply was about what Countries can do .

Like, You personally can not legally bomb an Embassy, but Israel can do so 

  • Like 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Who fired the Missile that that flattened the Iranian conslate in Damascus? ISRAEL so Israel started this latest fighting Iran had every right to respond not the other way round. So if and its a big If its Israel who started it 1st.

That argument doesn't hold much water. There is credible evidence that one of the architects of the 7th of October attack was in that consulate so from that point of view its very much 'chicken and egg'. 

 

My argument would be on the sanctity of an embassy or consulate but then again, if an embassy or consulate is simply being used as cover for a military headquarters, does it retain that sanctity?

 

Interestingly, when circumstances demanded it, the UK government allowed the storming of the Iranian Embassy in London in 1980.  Obviously completely different cicumstances as in that case, it was the legal occupants of the embassy that were in need of help but it did demonstrate that when necessary, an embassy or consulate's sanctity can be breached.

 

A very convoluted matter but I have to say that if I knew where someone who killed my family was, I wouldn't think twice about attacking them, wherever they were.

  • Like 2
Posted
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.

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...