rafah when?

Friday the 26th is my guess (would not surprise me though if it was Friday the 3rd though).



This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 18 2024 06:56am

I think you misunderstood my post, I said targeting an Israeli embassy (as in your example of what would be a proportionate) would involve attacking another country where the embassy was located, this would complicate the situation even more, as it would then be both Israel (the embassy) and the host country being attacked.

As an example, would you say Iran launching an attack on the Israeli embassy in the US would have been more proportionate? I assume you would say no to this but I'm curious what country you think should have been targeted instead.

I'm not moralizing on this topic, I don't particularly care one way or another and my opinions regarding palestine aren't relevant to this IMO. I just don't agree it is "clearly disproportionate" because from where I'm sitting it was the least they could do while still doing something. The alternative would be launching a couple drones they knew would get shot down which would be more humiliating than not responding at all. I personally don't think they should have responded but I don't know how much more mild the attack could have been.

The example you provided would have been a proportionate response. I dont understand why you would assume that my answer would be to the contrary. The only way it would be a disproportionate response, in the example you provided, (Iran blowing up the Israeli consulate in the united states) would be if 100 people were killed in the retaliatory strike. While the media can spin w/e its wants, twist the truth (you only have to look at the conflicting views of Iran's response - each side is claiming victory), ultimately it goes back to simple logic:

I will say it again:

If country A does X to a country, then a proportionate response would be country B doing X back to the original aggressor.

i.e. proportionate response.

an example of disproportionate response would be when you throw stones and are jailed for years for doing it. i.e. the punishment does not fit the crime. or, collectively punishing an entire group of people due to the actions of the minority. You would have to ask Israeli's for their understanding (and rationale) of disproportionate responses, noting they are experts in this field.

Finally, I must reiterate that attacking another country, in any capacity, is fundamentally destabilizing, and it is wrong to do, as it is wrong to proportionately, or disproportionately, respond. We do not live in a fairy tale world though and countries act in their own self interests when weighing up how to respond to internal, or external, aggression, and from an Israeli perspective, as with the Iranians, a response, is basically mandated to deter further acts of aggression. While any response may elicit behavior not sought, each country has to make up its own mind (or be told) how to respond while weighing the pro's and con's (or ignoring them). Fundamentally this is the inherent flaw to responses noting the high risk of the domino effect leading to outright war as each country spirals with each new act of aggression/response. This is one of the reasons why you do not target consulates, in order to maintain a doorway or window to negotiate / peace talks / prevent unintended consequences.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 18 2024 09:01am

I usually agree with you on a lot but I don't understand how you could believe Iran attacking the US AND Israel would somehow be more proportionate than Iran attacking just Israel.

At its most basic level the argument i am making is that if someone punches you, you do not then have the right to punch them AND their friend.

You are discounting the fact that Israel is repeatedly launching missiles at other countries. in this instance. Syria. i.e. Israel attacked both Syria (the united states) and iran (israel).
If Syria is friendly to Iran, then it could be said that the US is friendly to Israel. so using your example, at its most basic level, israel punched syria and iran. ergo, iran can punch both the US and Israel.

This is purely a logic exercise, obviously i condemn all countries that FAFO. the fact that israel repeatedly punches syria is not a rationale to determine that such action is OK. similarly the fact that iran does not repeatedly launch attacks on the US would mean that if iran were to do so now, it would be construed as a major escalation. but if you do something to someone, them doing it back to you, is proportionate, even if you dont feel that way. by you i mean one, not you specifically, if you know what i mean.

obviously iran would not look to attack an israeli diplomatic mission to the US as the status quo suggests that this would be an escalation. but in simplistic terms this is a proportionate response, i.e. tit for tat. launching missiles at the US, or at Israel, is disproportionate. doing unto others what they have done to you, is proportionate.



This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 18 2024 02:01pm

Ah ok, I think we have some differences in how we view these things but I can see your logic now. Thank you for elaborating.

anything that is out of the ordinary, such as an attack on the US, or sending a crap tonne of missiles at Israel (even if no one is killed) could be seen as an escalation. For the simple reason that Israel and the US feel entitled to drop bombs on other countries, which they do consistently, and presume that no one will drop bombs on them. therefore a proportionate response is in the eye of the beholder.

i.e. it can easily be argued as a thought exercise that there is no such thing as a proportionate, or disproportionate response, as people (and groups/countries) view things, measure things, differently. to make this very simple: Israel sees what it is doing in gaza, killing 30k+ dead, a proportionate response to the terrorist attack on 7th Oct. (the rest of the world does not).

TLDR: I accept my views here are not universally accepted.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 18 2024 02:38pm

LIVE: US vetoes UN resolution backing full UN membership for Palestine



So whenever we hear of the US commenting on the 2-state solution, please recall this vote. dont listen to what people say, listen to what they do and how they vote.

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 18 2024 03:40pm

More details from the Iranian attack from an israeli source:

https://m.maariv.co.il/news/military/Article-1092613

The key take away here is that this source is claiming that Iran did NOT use their advanced ballistic missles ( Segil, Khoramshahr etc) but instead used Imads, Kader 110s etc. Iran did use Khybers though, and these are hypersonic dual stage MaRV missles and they are definitely advanced, so the article got that one wrong.

The article also reaffirms my previous post by stating that the Hermon base, the Nabatim base and the Ramon base were all targeted but all sustained minor damage ( a c130 was scuffed up aswell) and they hit a commanders pool cartel style.

And the most important takeaway from the article is this:

It seems that the interception rate of the missiles is about 84%: very high, but not comparable to the numbers that the IDF reported, which gave the impression that all Iranian threats had been completely intercepted, when they advertise crazy success rates (99%) and create a state of perfection, this can cause complacency in the citizens as well as in the military

So now that we are all up to speed on the exact details of the attack, we can all put on our thinking caps and try to guess what Israel will target. Before I give my opinion, I would like to hear from the class on what the Israelis will target and I'll link you an article to get yall started:

From nuclear sites to cyber attack: Israel's options in retaliating against Iran

https://www.calcalist.co.il/ctechnews/article/hjcaaasg0