There's tons of video corroboration of this mentality.
Bonus:
For the US:
If by definition no-one is a civilian, then you can never kill civilians. That's the value of the Harvard law degree!
Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Bonus:
For the US:
If by definition no-one is a civilian, then you can never kill civilians. That's the value of the Harvard law degree!
The correct assessment would be: Every armed force targets civilians in times of serious conflict.
More so in serious conflict but definitely not in low intensity conflicts. Most western militaries have clear rules of engagement on what defines a target.
But why have Israel been hell bent on destroying the Iran deal when it would result in end of nuclear weapons development. If what you are saying is accurate they would be on the forefront to make the deal.
So that makes it justified?
Tell that to the tens of thousands dead and dying, I am sure it will be a comfort to them.
I am not sure why I even posted in CE to be fair, any discourse on this subject whether its in the televised or social media or here both sides are set on their view so its a waste of time trying to change views. So I will agree to disagree here and go back to lurk mode. Though I like @2cents posts a lot usually so no hard feelings.
Because they dont view it as a permanent solution to the Iran nuke issue. The deal is temporary and Iran could cheat behind the scenes, then simply resume development once it expires. In the interim they could get everything from sanctions relief to their frozen assets back.
That's not what they've been saying though. Or the other option is to negotiate a better deal, instead of trying to lure the US into bombing them.
Well first and foremost I think they genuinely believe that Iran is determined to become a nuclear power no matter what, and that the deal is/was dysfunctional and will grant Iran the ability to become a nuclear power in a moment's notice the second they feel like the international context makes it feasible. They believe that sanctions and continued pressure on the regime is a more promising means to prevent it.
Secondly I think they believe that Iran received a massive financial windfall through sanctions relief with the deal which has been spent on strengthening its anti-Israel proxies and its position in Syria.
You should stick around, we're having a discussion and your input is as valuable as anybody else's.
That's precisely what Trump is attempting here. A permanent deal that gets rid of their program.
No. One user implied Iran/Hezbollah are much more humane in their conduct of warfare than others, while another said USA and Israel flat-out don't target civilians. My point was that no one needs to pretend the forces one favors over others (for whatever reason) are unblemished in that regard. Discussions would be much less irritating if this was generally acknowledged. Possible differences may still be discussed then, of course.
I'm not familiar with exact military terminology. But in my understanding, the distinction between low intensity and high intensity conflict is blurred in asymmetric/guerilla/terrorism type of conflicts (which probably most conflicts are today). Combatants and non-combatants also get mixed up frequently. Drone strikes - and the way civilian deaths are calculated with from the start - seem a perfect example for this.
There's tons of video corroboration of this mentality.
Bonus:
For the US:
If by definition no-one is a civilian, then you can never kill civilians. That's the value of the Harvard law degree!
1. I was talking about State policy, not the opinion of a retired B-G. Liberman's warning on Twitter is not the mark of a State who target civilians. If you are stupid enough to ignore the warning, you only have yourself to blame.
2. I can't comment on unverified, context free videos.
3. I was talking about State policy, not the opinion of an individual MK with a history of controversial opinions.
4. Your screenshot of highlighted text doesn't show the U.S intentionally targets civilians. Neither do the links. The targets are the insurgents.
Low intensity is generally the absence of bombing campaigns and ground troops and focuses more on small special forces teams, drones, etc. They still have CONOPS and ROEs.
Last edited:
All right, then a lot of what was talked about here wasn't low intensity anyway. Rest of my post is self-explanatory as a statement, I guess.
The snipers used to police 'The great return march' proves otherwise. Israel murders civilians on a regular basis
Thirty-two out of 40 Palestinians killed during 'The Great March of Return' were operatives of, or individuals affiliated with, terror groups.
There are Hamas teachers, Dr's, nurses, welfare officers. Being a member of Hamas does not make it ok for Israel to murder them
Which is extremely naive thinking.
Iran has no rational choice but to pursue a nuclear program in the current climate considering Saudi and Israeli cooperating to undermine Iran at every opportunity. They've been backed into a corner, surrounded with no powerful allies. What other option do they have? Bolton's hardball with Iran is just going to make them more determined to pursue nuclear program because they have no other options.
Iran will not attack Israel with a nuclear bomb though. They don't care about Jews, but Israel has Arabs as well. They wouldn't want to kill Arabs which is what would happen if they bombed Israel. That, and mutual assured destruction would mean the end of Iran.
Arabs and Persians + Sunni and Shia don't have a great history of getting along, though.
If that's the case, I don't get why we can't proceed with this deal as it is, and then renegotiate a permanent one later? Isn't it about compromise anyway? And doesn't the bad PR surrounding the pulling out make it harder to negotiate this permanent deal?
Yeah but the Persians are not anti Arab the way the Arabs are anti Persian and anti Kurdish. Iran supports Shia Arabs in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain and Kuwait.
These neocons like John Bolton and Pompeo have close to zero judgement. They are doing a pretty goof job with the peace talk with North Korea (so far) but seem to be on the path to causing mayhem in Syria and Iran.
Awful people, these neocons like Rumsfeld, Bolton, Pompeo, Cheney.
Awful people, these neocons like Rumsfeld, Bolton, Pompeo, Cheney.
They do have a rational choice, which is eliminate their program and sign a long term deal in exchange for a lifting of sanctions and avoiding a hot war on their territory. That's a pretty good deal for Khamenai when contrasted to the alternative.
That would be fine, but since Trump ran on getting out of the deal, he will perceive this as an easy win to keep his base in line.
Well hopefully, he didn't feck it up for the future. Broken international relationships are much harder to repair than your hardcore base's perception, I'd assume.
A hot war is not desirable for US though, and is quite possible that Russia will offer similar (or more) help to Iran as it did to Syria, in which case, it becomes extremely difficult for US.
Israel doesn't have the means for a conventional war against Iran. They can bomb it, but hardly send the army there, despite having a more powerful army. Iran in turn can bomb Israel too.
After the Iraq fiasco, does US really want a war in Iran, which at the very best case for US will be significantly worse than the Iraq war, and can go to become as bad as Vietnam war. I doubt so.
So, I guess it is sanctions (this time only from US), with Iran continuing now their nuclear program, and Israel occasionally attacking their scientists and centrifuges. Essentially, how it was before the deal Kerry made.
Iran is actually pretty isolated. They need economic relief and can't really afford to get into a military confrontation against a much more powerful military.
I know that's the pie in the sky neo-con idealism but thats not a realistic option from an Iranian perspective because Trump lost all trust. There is no reason to make a long term deal if you have no trust in the other party to actually hold to the deal. When the US just breaks any deal whenever it suits them as Trump is showing, why should any other nation trust what they say to even make a deal? Its naive if anyone thinks Iran is going to give up their nuclear goals now regardless of what they say. Also there is really nothing the US even gains from all this. Its all to benefit Israel and Saudi Arabia.
If Trumps leads the US into an expensive pointless war in Iran his approval ratings will drop below that 35% barrier you talk about frequently
I think people often forget to make the distinction between Israel as a countries, and Jews.
This part is souced, there's a ref for it if you want it.
The Iranians don't have any power in any this. They can either negotiate a new deal involving a complete cessation of their program in exchange for economic concessions or deal with Trump and the military and economic weapons he wields. Trump himself will feel especially emboldened in all of this since he likely views that his tough talk against Kim worked nicely. The difficult part of Trump will be dealing with the various European states in the JCPOA (France, UK, & Germany) and how they would react to the US pulling out, whether they would continue doing business with Iran, and whether the US would be in the odd position of sanctioning them to do it.
Hard to say since his base are pretty tight with him and wars generally make Presidential numbers go up in the beginning. Since Trump isn't likely to get involved in a ground war, it would be a relatively short conflict.
Do you think Obama's deal was not working at all?
Why would Iran comply with Trump's deal if they were not complying with Obama's deal?
What does the US gain from tearing up Obama's deal just because, only to try to re-negotiate now?
Even if we assume Trump's "tough talk" is this magical remedy that has been missing in the Middle East all these years, why would Iran comply if they can just wait 2 years until no more Trump, since Trump has already proven no administration needs to adhere to any prior administration's deals?
I posted these quotes by the founder of the Islamic Republic Khomeini earlier:
"From the very beginning, the historical movement of Islam has had to contend with the Jews, for it was they who first established anti-Islamic propaganda and engaged in various stratagems, and as you can see, this activity continues down to the present. Later they were joined by other groups, who were in certain respects, more satanic than they."
(I believe he's referring to the Baha'is here)
"We must protest and make the people aware that the Jews and their foreign backers are opposed to the very foundations of Islam and wish to establish Jewish domination throughout the world. Since they are a cunning and resourceful group of people, I fear that—God forbid!—they may one day achieve their goal, and that the apathy shown by some of us may allow a Jew to rule over us one day. May God never let us see such a day!"
https://www.al-islam.org/printpdf/book/export/html/12118
There's also the fact that Iran has hosted a Holocaust-denying competition and had a Holocaust-denying President. Khamenei himself is a Holocaust-denier. Much of his anti-Israel rhetoric is blatantly antisemitic. Oh and here's a lovely recent tweet from him:
I definitely think the deal was working - in fact we know it was working since the Iranians had been getting periodically recertified. On the other hand, Trump did campaign on repealing the entire deal and negotiating a new one so I'm not entirely shocked that he has followed through.
How are Israel justifying a secret Iran nuclear capability despite having exactly that themselves?
By not admitting that they have them.
If the US allies show Trump a big middle finger regarding sanctions, he will be the one ending up isolated. US sanctioning Germany or France, now that will be unprecedented since WW II . But I actually think he may double down and do it. Again, nobody will be happy except one man in the Kremlin.
Legit, the only country I can see benefiting from any of this is Russia.
But they know that everyone knows that they have them right? And why isn't this being called out more?
They will simply deny it.