Israel invaded
Discussion
AW111 said:
What are the odds on further Israeli provocation of Iran?
An attack / retaliation by Iran will bring the US and others rushing to Israel's defence, and all those pesky war crimes allegations will get forgotten.
It’s almost comical in the levels of obviousness that western powers are pushing Israel to provoke Iran. An attack / retaliation by Iran will bring the US and others rushing to Israel's defence, and all those pesky war crimes allegations will get forgotten.
The Iranians have been a destabilising power in the region for decades, I don’t think many western powers (or their allies in the Middle East) will be too upset if Israel continue to rattle their cage and provoke. Which is exactly the tactic Iran used with Hamas.
KarlMac said:
isaldiri said:
I suppose you would also have no issue with supporting assassinations of the 'settler cranks' as well as the more extremist elements of the Israeli government too?
If they formed a terrorist organisation then yes I would. Look, you don’t have to dance around it. We’ve all worked out you support Hamas. Same as in the Ukraine thread you were dancing around the support of Russia. How very contrarian of you. Very clever.
AW111 said:
What are the odds on further Israeli provocation of Iran?
An attack / retaliation by Iran will bring the US and others rushing to Israel's defence, and all those pesky war crimes allegations will get forgotten.
For all the claimed 'not wanting to further escalate the situation' (which actually probably does apply to the US and Iran), it's rather obvious that Israel are trying to provoke Iran into doing something that will force the US to act....An attack / retaliation by Iran will bring the US and others rushing to Israel's defence, and all those pesky war crimes allegations will get forgotten.
Edited by isaldiri on Friday 12th April 13:16
g4ry13 said:
Lots of sabre-rattling hitting the wires about Iran imminently attacking Israel in days and the US military deploying a missile ship with advanced defense capabilities near Israel.
Kahmenie is going to have to do something to save face. His recent rhetoric included a promise to hit Israel hard - I would be surprised if a direct missile/drone strike from Iranian territory is planned. Most likely scenario is using his proxies to cause trouble.As I mentioned a while back, this conflict is teetering on the edge of going properly hot.
Iran going to attack Israel in the next 48 hours. Let's see how that goes for them.
We need three changes of players in the region - Hamas, Israeli hard right and Iran's religious leaders. All the mad mullahs will do is hasten their own demise. Who are they trying to impress - their own nutjob supporters or is it that Hamas strategy of attacking people so you get obliterated in return but somehow win in the end? It won't be the youth of Iran. They want the idiots gone as much as anyone.
We need three changes of players in the region - Hamas, Israeli hard right and Iran's religious leaders. All the mad mullahs will do is hasten their own demise. Who are they trying to impress - their own nutjob supporters or is it that Hamas strategy of attacking people so you get obliterated in return but somehow win in the end? It won't be the youth of Iran. They want the idiots gone as much as anyone.
Edited by Unreal on Friday 12th April 15:48
isaldiri said:
KarlMac said:
isaldiri said:
I suppose you would also have no issue with supporting assassinations of the 'settler cranks' as well as the more extremist elements of the Israeli government too?
If they formed a terrorist organisation then yes I would. Look, you don’t have to dance around it. We’ve all worked out you support Hamas. Same as in the Ukraine thread you were dancing around the support of Russia. How very contrarian of you. Very clever.
Edited by isaldiri on Friday 12th April 13:16
It's the usual line the Zionist take, if 'you're not supporting us, you're supporting Hamas's'. It has to be binary with them as they can't except any criticism, wholly justifiable too of Israel's action including prior to Oct 7.
They know full well they're wrong but actually couldn't care less once they get their way. It's an Israeli trait that been seen time and time again.
And we all know without US support they'd be far less extreme than they are. Probably more civilised, less greedy (debatable) and far more considerate to other neighbouring nations. Sadly, all they really know is military strength, not much else.
More grim reading:
'Huge amount' of Gaza surgery on children, says UK doctor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68796...
'Huge amount' of Gaza surgery on children, says UK doctor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68796...
rohrl said:
Is it okay to bomb other countries embassies now, or is it only okay if Israel does it? I can’t really see how Israel could complain if Iran blows up one of their embassies, but I’m willing to bet they would say that Iran were indescribably evil if they did so.
This article goes into the legal arguments https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/in...
“Going To Israel Made Me Anti-Zionist” - Former Zionist Jew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKK08HD-OPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKK08HD-OPA
isaldiri said:
For all the claimed 'not wanting to further escalate the situation' (which actually probably does apply to the US and Iran), it's rather obvious that Israel are trying to provoke Iran into doing something that will force the US to act....
Surely even you can see that Iran’s proxies are the agitators and instigators here?Edited by isaldiri on Friday 12th April 13:16
M1AGM said:
More grim reading:
'Huge amount' of Gaza surgery on children, says UK doctor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68796...
I'm sure somebody will come along say the above is Hamas's' fault. Suspect it shouldn't take too long either.'Huge amount' of Gaza surgery on children, says UK doctor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68796...
Unreal said:
Iran going to attack Israel in the next 48 hours. Let's see how that goes for them.
We need three changes of players in the region - Hamas, Israeli hard right and Iran's religious leaders. All the mad mullahs will do is hasten their own demise. Who are they trying to impress - their own nutjob supporters or is it that Hamas strategy of attacking people so you get obliterated in return but somehow win in the end? It won't be the youth of Iran. They want the idiots gone as much as anyone.
Yep, the Iranian leadership and old the old stale male religious nutters could do with clearing out in Iran and attacking Israel might just bring that about. It's almost as if they are incapable of learning from history. Don't they remember how long they were at war with Iraq for and how long it took for Iraq to be overwhelmed when they had to fight against people that actually knew what they were doing.We need three changes of players in the region - Hamas, Israeli hard right and Iran's religious leaders. All the mad mullahs will do is hasten their own demise. Who are they trying to impress - their own nutjob supporters or is it that Hamas strategy of attacking people so you get obliterated in return but somehow win in the end? It won't be the youth of Iran. They want the idiots gone as much as anyone.
Edited by Unreal on Friday 12th April 15:48
The return of Khomeini in the 70's set the country back 50 years. I often wonder had the Shah not been ousted if Iran would have developed into the voice of reason in the region helping to set policy that would have avoided what we are seeing today and many other conflicts past.
JJJ. said:
'Opposition to the shah himself was based upon his autocratic rule, corruption in his government, the unequal distribution of oil wealth, forced Westernization, and the activities of SAVAK (the secret police) in suppressing dissent and opposition.'
So, much for the Shah of Iran...
Where did i say he was perfect ? Of the two options at the time i would say he was far and away the better for the people of Iran as a whole. Ye , that westernisation is a bSo, much for the Shah of Iran...
h, terrible when you can't stone women to death for being a bit chippy or throw people off rooftops due to their sexuality or even politics. It too has lots of negatives, but the positives generally outweigh them for most.Have to laugh at the corruption in government. Virtually every single Iranian that had any authority in any organisation from fairly low management level to locals that had influence in their small regions was being paid to be on the books of the CIA. The Americans and their paranoia along with their asset robbing and rip off tactics in business probably did more harm to the Shah and his regime than anything he did himself. They all hated westernisation except when it was lining their pockets or letting them move to America post revolution.
loafer123 said:
isaldiri said:
For all the claimed 'not wanting to further escalate the situation' (which actually probably does apply to the US and Iran), it's rather obvious that Israel are trying to provoke Iran into doing something that will force the US to act....
Surely even you can see that Iran’s proxies are the agitators and instigators here?Edited by isaldiri on Friday 12th April 13:16
wc98 said:
The return of Khomeini in the 70's set the country back 50 years. I often wonder had the Shah not been ousted if Iran would have developed into the voice of reason in the region helping to set policy that would have avoided what we are seeing today and many other conflicts past.
Well it could as easily have been the shah was seen as being a western installed puppet (which I suppose would be factual after all) and increasingly out of touch with the iranian population and due to having to resort to increasingly oppressive measures to maintain his grip on power, was never going to stick his neck out further by being seen as pro israeli.....wc98 said:
Yep, the Iranian leadership and old the old stale male religious nutters could do with clearing out in Iran and attacking Israel might just bring that about. It's almost as if they are incapable of learning from history. Don't they remember how long they were at war with Iraq for and how long it took for Iraq to be overwhelmed when they had to fight against people that actually knew what they were doing.
You do have a point I suppose. A grinding war against iran started by a US backed middle eastern state that had (and used) chemical weapons which their backers were happy to ignore that had constantly sought to attack the iranians ultimately did cost the iranians a pretty awful toll even if it largely ended in stalemate.Edited by isaldiri on Friday 12th April 19:28
isaldiri said:
loafer123 said:
Surely even you can see that Iran’s proxies are the agitators and instigators here?
Surely even you can see that bombing consulates/embassy buildings of iran in syria and lebanon is somewhat of an intentionally direct provocation beyond the mostly tit for tat exchanges of fire along the lebanon/israeli border which has rather deliberately been calibrated not to turn much worse?wc98 said:
JJJ. said:
'Opposition to the shah himself was based upon his autocratic rule, corruption in his government, the unequal distribution of oil wealth, forced Westernization, and the activities of SAVAK (the secret police) in suppressing dissent and opposition.'
So, much for the Shah of Iran...
Where did i say he was perfect ? Of the two options at the time i would say he was far and away the better for the people of Iran as a whole. Ye , that westernisation is a bSo, much for the Shah of Iran...
h, terrible when you can't stone women to death for being a bit chippy or throw people off rooftops due to their sexuality or even politics. It too has lots of negatives, but the positives generally outweigh them for most.Have to laugh at the corruption in government. Virtually every single Iranian that had any authority in any organisation from fairly low management level to locals that had influence in their small regions was being paid to be on the books of the CIA. The Americans and their paranoia along with their asset robbing and rip off tactics in business probably did more harm to the Shah and his regime than anything he did himself. They all hated westernisation except when it was lining their pockets or letting them move to America post revolution.
The US have shown time and again that they would rather support a righr wing autocrat or monarch than a damn communist, even if the 'commie' alternative is just a socialist-leaning nationalist movement.
KarlMac said:
isaldiri said:
I suppose you would also have no issue with supporting assassinations of the 'settler cranks' as well as the more extremist elements of the Israeli government too?
If they formed a terrorist organisation then yes I would. Look, you don’t have to dance around it. We’ve all worked out you support Hamas. Same as in the Ukraine thread you were dancing around the support of Russia. How very contrarian of you. Very clever.
loafer123 said:
isaldiri said:
loafer123 said:
Surely even you can see that Iran’s proxies are the agitators and instigators here?
Surely even you can see that bombing consulates/embassy buildings of iran in syria and lebanon is somewhat of an intentionally direct provocation beyond the mostly tit for tat exchanges of fire along the lebanon/israeli border which has rather deliberately been calibrated not to turn much worse?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff