Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully

ScholesyTheWise said:
Yeah.
and, if you're a decent human being but still requiered by law to go to Gaza/South Lebanon and shoot people from the other side and be shot at,
there's no way you can realisticaly know that your bullets reached what you wanted to be their destinations.
people don't battle in labs,

and it's not going to be a war a la WW1/WW2 where you only had soldiers in the battlefield (at least on the infantry front).

seems like modern wars always involve civilian populations.
Click to expand...

What the past two decades have shown us is that long protracted sieges always leads to huge civilian suffering.

Raqqa, Mosul, Gaza are all examples of this.

What didn't result in really high civilian casualties were high risk- high reward fast operations to seize a town as quickly as possible without it settling in to a long term siege.

The US takeover of Baghdad was an excellent example of this, as was the Battle of Basra. The counter-fact to this was the Siege of Fallujah which took 2 months and results in thousands of dead civilians.

Ukraine war is the same, Russian's taking Kherson was smooth whereas Mariupol was a complete shitshow.
 
Its now gotten to the stage where certain powers are probably looking at assassinating a senior Israeli government official. It would lead to all out war but they just can't keep allowing Israelis to act with complete impunity.
 
nickm said:
Nope you are right, I got my figures wrong. Looks like it was more like approx 4k or so people killed with maybe 20% civilians in that depending on who is counting, but I will look for accurate figures.
Click to expand...

Drone figures are always controversial because many NGO's count "Non-combatants" as Civilians.

So if you drone strike an ISIS leader, and three of his bodyguards are there, those three count as "Non combatant civilians" because they were not the intended target of the strike. This leads to some pretty wild flucuations in figures.

When the West began drone operations they didn't get it right at the beginning, but it took over a decade of refinement of minimalization for it now to be a much better, much smoother process. For context:

Apologies for the shit quality image, had to upload it to IMGUR because it was saved on my PC as an extract from a document I had saved years ago.

9QK5TCJ.png
 
AfonsoAlves said:
What the past two decades have shown us is that long protracted sieges always leads to huge civilian suffering.

Raqqa, Mosul, Gaza are all examples of this.

What didn't result in really high civilian casualties were high risk- high reward fast operations to seize a town as quickly as possible without it settling in to a long term siege.

The US takeover of Baghdad was an excellent example of this, as was the Battle of Basra. The counter-fact to this was the Siege of Fallujah which took 2 months and results in thousands of dead civilians.

Ukraine war is the same, Russian's taking Kherson was smooth whereas Mariupol was a complete shitshow.
Click to expand...

You definitely know your stuff. thanks for the examples.
 
11101 said:
Afghanistan would never have happened if a certain somebody hadn't decided to take flying lessons, so that blame is not on the US.

I don't know enough specifics about the Saudis in Yemen but Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria would undoubtedly have been over sooner had the Iranians not been in there. To be fair Western politicians knew about it and did nothing to try and stop them.

And yes every nation has people in these conflicts but they are almost always trying to steer the conflict in a direction. The difference with Iran is they just want chaos, they work to undo any progress anybody else makes.
Click to expand...

Like certain somebody sent all saudia arabian to hijack planes. Instead of saudi arabia, lets invade afghanistan.
 
I started getting SMS's from Lebanese numbers with death threats and dodgy links, heh.
that's a first.

I wonder how the next days will unfold.
 
AfonsoAlves said:
Drone figures are always controversial because many NGO's count "Non-combatants" as Civilians.

So if you drone strike an ISIS leader, and three of his bodyguards are there, those three count as "Non combatant civilians" because they were not the intended target of the strike. This leads to some pretty wild flucuations in figures.

When the West began drone operations they didn't get it right at the beginning, but it took over a decade of refinement of minimalization for it now to be a much better, much smoother process. For context:

Apologies for the shit quality image, had to upload it to IMGUR because it was saved on my PC as an extract from a document I had saved years ago.

9QK5TCJ.png
Click to expand...

Maybe this isn't for this thread but wasn't it leaked that the US' definition of a combatant in their figures was any male above the age of 18? Technically I would count as a combatant if I was killed by a drone strike.
 
11101 said:
Afghanistan would never have happened if a certain somebody hadn't decided to take flying lessons, so that blame is not on the US.

I don't know enough specifics about the Saudis in Yemen but Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria would undoubtedly have been over sooner had the Iranians not been in there. To be fair Western politicians knew about it and did nothing to try and stop them.

And yes every nation has people in these conflicts but they are almost always trying to steer the conflict in a direction. The difference with Iran is they just want chaos, they work to undo any progress anybody else makes.
Click to expand...


Kaos said:
I already asked you to clarify this. How exactly would have Iran's lack of involvement ensured a quicker resolution to those conflicts?

Again, it was Sunni extremist factions in Iraq who were largely responsible for the terror attacks on the Iraqi people, the same factions btw who consider Iran a mortal enemy. The Syrian civil war was a complex battleground with various nations involved, but the biggest players were the Russians and the US as sponsors for their respective allies. I think you just chucked Iran's name into Afghanistan for good measure, not knowing their animosity towards the Taliban.

You're essentially echoing the reductionist neocon stance of Iran being the culprit behind everything going to shite in the Middle East. You're either deliberately being obtuse or don't really understand the nature or history of these conflicts.
Click to expand...

I think his understanding of the Iraq war is flawed.
 
Kaos said:
I already asked you to clarify this. How exactly would have Iran's lack of involvement ensured a quicker resolution to those conflicts?

Again, it was Sunni extremist factions in Iraq who were largely responsible for the terror attacks on the Iraqi people, the same factions btw who consider Iran a mortal enemy. The Syrian civil war was a complex battleground with various nations involved, but the biggest players were the Russians and the US as sponsors for their respective allies. I think you just chucked Iran's name into Afghanistan for good measure, not knowing their animosity towards the Taliban.

You're essentially echoing the reductionist neocon stance of Iran being the culprit behind everything going to shite in the Middle East. You're either deliberately being obtuse or don't really understand the nature or history of these conflicts.
Click to expand...

Then why were we finding them holed up together in Fallujah in the early 2000s? You have your theoretical ideas on what should happen, and then there's the reality of what did happen. What we found is that different factions that should hate each other often put their differences aside when it suited them.
 
nickm said:
Maybe one day I'll see a post from you which contains some actual thinking but I'm not holding our for it.
Click to expand...
Maybe one day we'll see a post from you which contains some actual thinking and a genuine concern about what's happening in the Middle-East, but I'm not holding out for it.
 
That_Bloke said:
Maybe one day we'll see a post from you which contains some actual thinking and a genuine concern about what's happening in the Middle-East, but I'm not holding out for it.
Click to expand...
Genuine concern? It's a football forum. I come on here to shoot some shit, have an argument.

But I get that some people come here mainly to show off how much they care about things to a bunch of strangers.
 
Last edited:
nickm said:
Genuine concern? It's a football forum. I come on here to shoot some shit.
Click to expand...
This subforum is called Current Events, with people genuinely concerned and/or affected by what's happening in the world. I'm personally glad that it exists and allows people from all over the world to share their piece of mind.

You can go ranting about Liverpool or Man City on the other ones, that's about your level and the best you'll ever be able to offer.
 
Last edited:
hasanejaz88 said:
Maybe this isn't for this thread but wasn't it leaked that the US' definition of a combatant in their figures was any male above the age of 18? Technically I would count as a combatant if I was killed by a drone strike.
Click to expand...

No. This is completely made up.

4tzkwys.jpeg
 
11101 said:
Then why were we finding them holed up together in Fallujah in the early 2000s? You have your theoretical ideas on what should happen, and then there's the reality of what did happen. What we found is that different factions that should hate each other often put their differences aside when it suited them.
Click to expand...
Which groups held together? The battle of Fallujah was largely Iraqi armed forces and the US fighting Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sunnah, the latter two groups consider Iran and all Shias as a mortal enemies marked for death.
 
11101 said:
Then why were we finding them holed up together in Fallujah in the early 2000s? You have your theoretical ideas on what should happen, and then there's the reality of what did happen. What we found is that different factions that should hate each other often put their differences aside when it suited them.
Click to expand...

You literally just made this up. Nor Iranian regulars, nor Iranian militia, nor IRGC were in Fallujah, in either the 1st Battle of Fallujah or the 2nd.

They did show up, to HELP Iraq and Western Forces in 2016 fight vs ISIS.
 
Kaos said:
Which groups held together? The battle of Fallujah was largely Iraqi armed forces and the US fighting Al Qaeda and Ansar al Sunnah, the latter two groups consider Iran and all Shias as a mortal enemies marked for death.
Click to expand...

There were none. Maybe some pro-Iranian Shia people were there because...they are 65% of the population but the above claim is nonsensical.

It's a made up claim.
 
nickm said:
Maybe one day I'll see a post from you which contains some actual thinking but I'm not holding our for it.
Click to expand...
You're notorious for being a callous, vice-signaling troll, rushing in at every half opportunity to antagonise others for sport. Been that way for years at this point. Spare me the faux concern. No one who is paying attention is buying it.
 
This is a blatant act of terrorism by Israel.

But seemingly no one in the world can stop israel.

even countries like china are only playing lip services (to attack the west) and are doing nothing apart from those useless UN resolutions.
 
nickm said:
Genuine concern? It's a football forum. I come on here to shoot some shit, have an argument.

But I get that some people come here mainly to show off how much they care about things to a bunch of strangers.
Click to expand...

If this didn't affect me emotionally, I would never post anything on an internet forum,
whether it's about football or dead people.

I'd like to think that there's an element of the internet that isn't just for shooting shit,
but to each their own, I guess.
 
ScholesyTheWise said:
If this didn't affect me emotionally, I would never post anything on an internet forum,
whether it's about football or dead people.

I'd like to think that there's an element of the internet that isn't just for shooting shit,
but to each their own, I guess.
Click to expand...
And it's great to have you on this forum.

Voices like yours are much needed in these dire times.
 
Sky1981 said:
I know it's Iran. But a souverign country hijacking an electrical company which sells their product to civilians and everyone that comes with money and planting a bomb inside it? And detonating it at will?
Click to expand...
It's Iran, so what?

This is the kind of shady shortcuts people love to use to downplay or excuse crimes they would otherwise be absolutely mad at if they were commited against another country/people they have more affinities with.

Sentences like "I know it's Iran but..." are exactly the point where a dehumanization process starts.
 
Last edited:
That_Bloke said:
It's Iran, so what?

This is the kind of shortcuts people love to use to downplay or excuse crimes they would would absolutely mad at if it was commited against another country/people they have more affinities with.

"I know it's Iran but..." is exactly where a dehumanization process starts.
Click to expand...
What does it mean anyway? Its Hesbollah backed by Iran so its kinda ok what Israel is doing?
 
That_Bloke said:
It's Iran, so what?

This is the kind of shortcuts people love to use to downplay or excuse crimes they would would absolutely mad at if it was commited against another country/people they have more affinities with.

Sentences like "I know it's Iran but..." are exactly where a dehumanization process starts.
Click to expand...

I kinda agree with you.

Even if it's Iran these sort of practice is (I'm lost for word) extremely unethical and already bordering a declation of war if not terrorism.

Can you imagine if Iran sabotaged say Verizone and blow up dozens of American?
 
Sky1981 said:
I kinda agree with you.

Even if it's Iran these sort of practice is (I'm lost for word) extremely unethical and already bordering a declation of war if not terrorism.

Can you imagine if Iran sabotaged say Verizone and blow up dozens of American?
Click to expand...
I'd strongly recommend you to avoid these "Even if...".

It's both.

The US would go to war. No ifs and buts.
 
Thing is, can Hesbollah go to war in the sense of invading Israel. Israel is provoking them to attack so they can have an excuse of invading Lebanon. Last few times they did that things havent exactly gone to plan?
 
Real Name said:
Thing is, can Hesbollah go to war in the sense of invading Israel. Israel is provoking them to attack so they can have an excuse of invading Lebanon. Last few times they did that things havent exactly gone to plan?
Click to expand...

A ground invasion can be very very bloody to both sides. It wont come to that though the US will make sure of that
 
Real Name said:
Thing is, can Hesbollah go to war in the sense of invading Israel. Israel is provoking them to attack so they can have an excuse of invading Lebanon. Last few times they did that things havent exactly gone to plan?
Click to expand...
They can't and never wanted to.

There's been untold RoE between the two for decades. Hezbollah's "escalation" during the last year is strictly tied to what's happening in Gaza.

On the other hand, Israel sees 10/7 as a one in a lifetime occasion to absorb Gaza and the West Bank (they're doing an awesome job at the moment) as well as dealing with Hezbollah, and Iran by extension, once and for all. The goal being the ultimate destruction of Iran and any notion of a Palestinian state as well as a major land theft, which includes parts of Southern Lebanon (that's where water is).

Israel needs the US to be fully onboard to move this plan forward but the latter is still dragging its feet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.