Once those civilian areas are militarized, they lose that privilege and become legitimate targets.

Once those civilian areas are militarized, they lose that privilege and become legitimate targets. — BitconnectCarlos

Bullshit.

I don't make rules. See the Geneva Convention. If, e.g., a school building or a hospital is being used as a base for military operations, it becomes a valid target.

If this weren't the case and civilian targets were always off limits, then the rules of war would be absurd. The enemy could fire from schools, and no one could respond without committing a "war crime."

I’ve heard all civilian areas Israel has bombed were militarized, or were housing terrorists.

Oops I mean Iran. Either way, let’s all be sure to believe them.

I don't make rules. — BitconnectCarlos

All you need is a sense of right and wrong. Everybody on the planet knows that what Israel did to Gaza was a crime against humanity. There are just a few people who don't want to face that fact.

I’ve heard all civilian areas Israel has bombed were militarized, or were housing terrorists.

Oops I mean Iran. Either way, let’s all be sure to believe them. — Mikie

The reason you never speak without being sarcastic is that you feel vulnerable.

:lol:

Good god you’re as shallow as you are arrogant. But that’s fine — I always like hearing bs psychological analysis from someone who thinks he’s Signund Freud because he read Chicken Soup for the Soul.

Bullshit. — frank

The reason you speak in Tweets while pretending to be authoritative is because your father didn’t give you enough attention as a child. And because you’re generally stupid.

Oops I mean Iran. Either way, let’s all be sure to believe them. — Mikie

Good thing that there are facts in these matters. Were rockets being fired from them? Were explosives and weaponry stockpiled there?

And you can reply with your sophistry: "An IDF soldier set foot in the place," but you do nothing with this but pave the way for total war, which will backfire.

We don't say that day and night don't exist because of the existence of twilight. Border cases exist, but they don't abrogate right and wrong.

The reason you speak in Tweets while pretending to be authoritative is because your father didn’t give you enough attention as a child. And because you’re generally stupid. — Mikie

That's probably true.

Try it. Just agree with whatever the person said. It sets you free.

Well, it is a war crime to target civilian areas. If Israel were firing rockets from these apartment complexes, that's one thing, but it's a war crime to engage in that type of indiscriminate bombing as Iran has been doing.

Standards of warfare change. — BitconnectCarlos

I've always believed anything's fair if your cause is just. For example, Churchill would have been justified using chemical weapons and torture against Nazi invaders. The only real war crime is losing. That being said, I have grave concerns about Israel's motives in this.

Good thing that there are facts in these matters. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes— the Israeli government tells you. So it’s fact. Regardless of any other organization, expert, or general logic.

You can hear the same thing in Iran. No thanks.

I can sympathize with using gas on Nazi invaders on the shores, but do you honestly believe everything from the Allies is justified? This view turns soldiers into murderers and rapists if nothing else. Sometimes warfare did involve going into a town and massacring everyone, but I would like to think that we could do away with that.

It's crystal clear that Palestinians store weapons in non-military facilities. It's been documented countless times.

Israel, OTOH, does have dedicated military facilities.

I can sympathize with using gas on Nazi invaders on the shores, but do you honestly believe everything from the Allies is justified? This view turns soldiers into murderers and rapists if nothing else. Sometimes warfare did involve going into a town and massacring everyone, but I would like to think that we could do away with that. — BitconnectCarlos

War. War never changes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSq5aCZO5n8

The only possible solution is to let women run the world. This I endorse wholeheartedly.

The only possible solution is to let women run the world. This I endorse wholeheartedly. — RogueAI

Now this would be interesting to see. How do you figure Israel-Iran works out with women in charge? Hopefully, Iran would have backed down with its nuclear program. Khamenei must go.

Now it's about combat survivability of the Iranian missile launchers and armament production as this becomes a battle of attrition. In the end it's harmful for Bibi if this goes from days to weeks and months. Soon also Bibi has to turn to Trump for more armaments also.

Soon also Bibi has to turn to Trump for more armaments also. — ssu

Which he’ll get.

If it is acceptable to bomb "militarized" Israeli homes, then it's acceptable to bomb militarized Palestinian ones.

Neither is really okay, but since Israel started it, and has carried it out with brutal and morally abhorrent violence, with thousands of babies dead — while grotesque internet trolls like you cheer it on — then yes, I’d say it’s kind of a laugh to hear Israeli’s complaining about war crimes or international law.

We all know that you’re completely blind to the reality of what’s happening, that much is clear. But your delusions are your own.

it's acceptable to bomb militarized Palestinian ones. — BitconnectCarlos

And by the way, this has been your mantra for years. So I’m glad you can now be consistent and say that it’s acceptable when Iran does it.

Neither is really okay, but since Israel started it — Mikie

This current war was initiated on October 7, 2023. There was a ceasefire prior.

I’d say it’s kind of a laugh to hear Israeli’s complaining about war crimes or international law. — Mikie

Should we laugh off German women when they mentioned being raped by Red Army soldiers?

So I’m glad you can now be consistent and say that it’s acceptable when Iran does it. — Mikie

If Israel were launching operations from those homes and apt buildings, they're legitimate targets.

This current war was initiated on October 7, 2023 — BitconnectCarlos

No.

If Israel were launching operations from those homes and apt buildings, they're legitimate targets. — BitconnectCarlos

Cool, so you support Iran’s actions. I applaud your consistency.

Cool, so you support Iran’s actions. I applaud your consistency. — Mikie

I don't even think Iran is claiming this. Nor does Israel, as a matter of policy, do such things. Unlike another group.

No. — Mikie

Do the Jews have a right to self-determination? Does any group have a right to self-determination?

Jewish Supremacist state = self-determination.

:yawn:

Yep.

Hopefully Iran won't enlargen the conflict by closing the straight of Hormuz. This would put oil prices skyrocketing and force Trump to go to a full war with Iran. Somehow I think they aren't going to be so reckless, if the US stays out of attacking Iran itself. If Trump would join the party, then it's another matter.

Yet if the missile strikes continue on Israel, then Bibi will face the question of when calling it quits. Israelis (and basically people ought to know) that Israel does have a large nuclear deterrent. Because of this deterrent, it's questionable just why Israel would be hellbent prolong this war. Doesn't Israel's nuclear deterrence work? Or Iranians would want to destroy themselves just to destroy Israel?



Nevermind the "Mad-Mullahs" argument of Iranians wanting a to commit a suicide on it's whole population, the fact is that in the Middle-East the political rhetoric isn't at all in line with the military reality on the ground. But naturally this rhetoric gives the argument for Bibi to proclaim that Iranians are lunatics. Tiny actors like the Houthis in dirt poor Yemen can indeed cry for the destruction of Israel, but they don't have any means of doing it. And Bibi will remind everybody that Iranian politicians have called for the destruction of Israel.



When there is actual nuclear deterrent on both sides, you would have such limited engagements as Pakistan and India had just a short time ago. In those cases basically both sides do want for the war to stop as quickly as politically possible as both sides do not want to escalate the conflict.

The fact is that we have this false idea repeatedly given to us that a war with two nuclear armed powers will lead to a nuclear war, and in the case of the US and Russia (and China), to an all out nuclear holocaust. And that to assume something else is wrong, and only increases the possibility of a nuclear war. That we simply cannot say that anything else would happen than an all out nuclear exchange.

But the truth is that this isn't the likely outcome. This Iran-Israel war and especially the engagements between India and Pakistan after the two have built their nuclear deterrent shows otherwise. Remember that many people thought that Israel attacking Iran would be "WW3". Well, if so, we are already living it! Doesn't seem so apocalyptic to me.

This also gives credibility to the previous Biden administration saying that if Russia would use nuclear weapons in Ukraine, NATO would attack Russian forces in Ukraine with an air campaign. Likely they really would have done that: A limited air campaign that would have weakened the Russian forces in Ukraine. And then a declaration that the limited air campaign was a success. And Russia would claim that it's forces endured the onslaught well. And then both would act as India and Pakistan have acted.



Why wouldn't then NATO forces attack let's say Russian nuclear submarine bases in the Kola Peninsula? Well, not only because of Norway and Finland (and Sweden) being against that, but also then that action would truly have gotten us closer to that WW3 type nuclear war. Then Russia would indeed follow it's nuclear doctrine. Hence the response truly would have been what the Biden administration said it would do. And only that. End result: no use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, at least for now.

The fact is that we have this false idea repeatedly given to us that a war with two nuclear armed powers will lead to a nuclear war, and in the case of the US and Russia (and China), to an all out nuclear holocaust. And that to assume something else is wrong, and only increases the possibility of a nuclear war. That we simply cannot say that anything else would happen than an all out nuclear exchange.

But the truth is that this isn't the likely outcome. — ssu

I was often taught the contrary: That two nuclear powers would never go to war because it would be irrational and mutually assured destruction.

Nuclear war isn't the likely outcome, but it doesn't need to be the likely outcome for it to be terrifying.

Even if it's 1%, do you want to keep running those odds year after year? Humans are mostly rational, but I would never declare human rationality an iron law of human nature. Cultures think in various ways and have different attitudes towards death. Belief in a resurrection is common for the Abrahamics.

Even if we knew there would be no nuclear war: Who loves death more? The secular or the Islamic fundamentalists? Fundamentalist religious countries (like Iran) that are nuclear do not bode well for a West that wants to live and let live. A nuclear Iran has much more bargaining power/influence, plus the possibility of proliferation, where they had their dirty work off to others to maintain plausible deniability.

You should be thanking Israel.

You live in a white supremacist state, and the entire world is also supremacist/racist/sexist. Nothing will ever be good enough for you, Mikie.

Funny how I don't remember the last time you called Gaza a supremacist society.

I was often taught the contrary: That two nuclear powers would never go to war because it would be irrational and mutually assured destruction. — BitconnectCarlos

That's not the contrary.

What you were told is that they would never go to war. That it indeed would be impossible, because "it would be irrational and mutually assured destruction". This is the line that I'm exactly talking about! Since there's MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), nuclear powers don't go to war.

Never were you (or I) told that the two Superpower could have a limited fight, but would restrain from using nuclear weapons. Well, that's the goddam thing that has already happened twice with India and Pakistan! Both can many millions of each others population. And they have fought wars having all those nuclear weapons. The wars have just been short and limited ones.

And that's why only later we have been told that the Red Air Force fought USAF fighters in Mig Alley during the Korean war with some Russian fighter pilots even getting to ace status against Americans. Did the Air Force know that they were fighting the Soviet Air Force? Of course! But this was kept as a secret, because nobody wanted to admit that the two powers were already engaged in pitch battle over North Korea. Don't want to frighten the people.

How we talk about nuclear war is really different and quite strange. The standard example is to put someone to be the President and then have the scenario where the other side has unleashed a massive nuclear strike... and he or she has the ten minutes to come up with a response. In that situation, many will give the answer (which basically reinforces the deterrence) that a similar massive strike is launched. But put that person to situation where the opponent has used an underwater nuclear detonation to kill one our attack submarine, and the response might not be to instill a massive nuclear strike on the enemy. And these situations aren't publicly discussed because of the emphasis is on that simply nuclear weapons would not be used, because "it would be irrational and mutually assured destruction". No other discussion tolerated.

Nuclear war isn't the likely outcome, but it doesn't need to be the likely outcome for it to be terrifying. — BitconnectCarlos

To take the step and use nuclear weapons, even small tactical ones, is huge. That I agree. Hence I don't think that the IDF would use nukes to destroy the underground facilities that Iran has.

During Desert Storm, the US couldn't know if Saddam Hussein actually would have nuclear weapons or would use the extensive chemical weapons arsenal. Hence it was a real possibility before it was evident that the Iraqi army would simply collapse. Colin Powell, who then was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has told later that then in case of WMD's used against US forces in 1991, they would have blown the damns on the Tigris (and rivers flowing to it), which would have caused a huge flood in Baghdad. A flood can be devastating, but it doesn't sound to us as devastating as a nuclear bomb or a chemical warfare attack. This remark also shows just to what lengths the US armed forces would go NOT to use nuclear weapons.

Yet you might ask yourself: are you already in WW3? I don't think so. Neither am I. Still now you do have (again) Israel and Iran in open war.

Even if we knew there would be no nuclear war: Who loves death more? The secular or the Islamic fundamentalists? Fundamentalist religious countries (like Iran) that are nuclear do not bode well for a West that wants to live and let live. A nuclear Iran has much more bargaining power/influence, plus the possibility of proliferation, where they had their dirty work off to others to maintain plausible deniability. — BitconnectCarlos

Israel started this war, not Iran.

You should be thanking Israel. — BitconnectCarlos

The only thing I would thank them if they can deliver on time the weapons systems Finland bought from them.

The real bulwark for Western Europe is Ukraine, not Israel. I'm not seeing a nuclear armed Caliphate emerging from the Middle East, yet I do see a Russia hellbent on it's own imperialist goals to be great Power again and restore it's empire.

What I see is a Israeli administration attacking a hostile country that is 1000 kilometers away from it with it's actual neighbors still calmly looking from the side as Iranian missiles streak over them to hit Israel. Bibi is truly now is the wartime president, who thinks that military operations are the key to success. That's one big major problem.