Just curious, what do you see as Iran's (and by association, their proxy armies) ultimate vision, one where they would never need to use violence against adversaries again? I just want us to be clear here the means and ends here, as they get lost in this "Elephant vs. tiger" crap.I think this is the tit for tat game of limited escalation. All out attack will likely respond in an all out counter-attack and retaliatory strike. — ssu
Remember that the Islamic Republic of Iran has the heritage and, at least officially, the aims of the Islamic revolution to promote the Muslim World. The hostility against Israel comes basically as a popular endeavor to woo the Arab street to support the Islamic revolution. Yet the Islamic republic is inherently against the present-day monarchies and the non-theocratic democracies (at least in name democracies) of the Arab states. And then there is the Sunni / Shia divide to that and also that Iranians aren't Arabs. So a lot of reasons for divisions.
And of course from their point of view, the Great Satan is out to get them and their revolution. This blends in to the Iranian history of the early 20th and 19th Century, when the state was quite weak compared to the Western imperialists and I think Iranians view this time similarly as present day China views the China of the 19th Century.
I think the whole region should have a real push to normalize relations, disarm and integrate as places like Europe have done. — ssu
Palestinians aren't even remotely close to Axis powers of the WW2. — ssu
If you have good civil defense (bomb shelters), safety of civilians is important and the evacuation of civilians from the battlefield is possible, then a huge war can go without huge losses on civilians. — ssu
And "such is war" is one of the most stupid reasoning ever I've heard. Believe me, there really are very different ways of fighting a war. — ssu
Now we are reaching in Gaza the numbers that in the Iraqi war were killed in two years (24 000). — ssu
Israel's conduct is well above the standards of the Allies in WWII. Israel exercises restraint. — BitconnectCarlos
Well, if the anti-Westerners have the idea of viewing things extremely black and white, I also urge to make the distinction between Iran and the IS / Daesh.Whether we're talking about Iran or their Sunni counterparts, it's imperative to view such ideologies as disastrous, and with contempt. Their actions, teetering on the edge of destruction without going over, aren't admirable or clever. This ideology, akin to a suicidal, apocalyptic death cult, needs to be cast aside from the collective mindset of an entire region, thrown into the dustbin of history. — schopenhauer1
And this is one thing we have to remember: in the Middle East the rhetoric is far more over the top than the actions taken. — ssu
The Allies' goal wasn't to displace an entire people and ethnically cleanse the area of Palestinians. So this is false. You have an idiotic idea of restraint, where the capability to do worse is proof of restraint. That's the abusive father claiming restraint when hitting his children because he could kill them too. — Benkei
Also, it is not clear what Israel's intention is regarding Gaza. — BitconnectCarlos
That's the way Israel and Hamas and Israel and the Palestinians have fought for quite a long time now.This low level deployment of paramilitary fighters, meant to disrupt without going to full scale war? — schopenhauer1
That's the way Israel and Hamas and Israel and the Palestinians have fought for quite a long time now.
For example, warfare in Lebanon has gone on for a long time on a low burner even after Israeli withdrew from Southern Lebanon. The global media focuses on this only when large scale operations happen. — ssu
Seems like the Houthis have tried swarming or similar attack, that the US CENTCOM called "complex":I went on a bit of a tangent there, but whilst writing this I started to realise how grave this situation might actually be. I used to take US naval dominance for granted, but I think we're actually past that point. — Tzeentch
See hereOn Jan. 9, at approximately 9:15 p.m. (Sanaa time), Iranian-backed Houthis launched a complex attack of Iranian designed one-way attack UAVs (OWA UAVs), anti-ship cruise missiles, and an anti-ship ballistic missile from Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen into the Southern Red Sea, towards international shipping lanes where dozens of merchant vessels were transiting.
Eighteen OWA UAVs, two anti-ship cruise missiles, and one anti-ship ballistic missile were shot down by a combined effort of F/A-18s from USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS Gravely (DDG 107), USS Laboon (DDG 58), USS Mason (DDG 87), and the United Kingdom’s HMS Diamond (D34). This is the 26th Houthi attack on commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea since Nov. 19. There were no injuries or damage reported.
Well, how did the Israeli independence movement look like to the British, who were fighting them?Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? — schopenhauer1
I think there will be interesting military history written about this, but I think it will take years. Military professional magazines might have a good account on the missile war in a few months I guess.It would be nice to know some more details about how complex this truly was, but a strike of this size would have been very dangerous to isolated navy vessels. — Tzeentch
Perhaps then I don't understand your question.No I’m talking about countries and Iran and their goals. Israel’s goal was quite clear, their neighbors was quite clear too about Israel at that time, so that point seems just an aside or not understanding my question. — schopenhauer1
Is the question what are the objectives of Iran and it's proxies here? — ssu
Let's pose a counterfactual situation where there were no Islamist paramilitary groups or low level violence. What would that look like?
Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? The only thing I see people pointing to was 1953 Mossadegh as reasons why this isn't the case. I think that is a weak argument for why other choices aren't even strongly a reality. Tunisia I guess is a moderate success, no? — schopenhauer1
This is something not just limited to the Middle East or Muslim countries, actually. Yet I do think that democracy is totally possible in these countries. I think Malesia is one example as it's put quite high for example in the Economist's Democracy Index and ranked among the United States and Israel as "flawed democracies". (the Index categorizes countries as: Full Democracy, Flawed Democracy, Hybrid regime and Authoritarian).Also are the only options ever Islamist or authoritarian? The only thing I see people pointing to was 1953 Mossadegh as reasons why this isn't the case. I think that is a weak argument for why other choices aren't even strongly a reality. Tunisia I guess is a moderate success, no? — schopenhauer1
The PLO wasn't (and isn't) Islamist. And it's difficult to say what the Palestinian liberation movement would be then if it wouldn't resort to the typical violence these movements use. But I guess that pacifism wouldn't be so successful in this case. The pacifist march to the Gaza wall didn't end up so well for the Gazans. — ssu
This is something not just limited to the Middle East or Muslim countries, actually. Yet I do think that democracy is totally possible in these countries. I think Malesia is one example as it's put quite high for example in the Economist's Democracy Index and ranked among the United States and Israel as "flawed democracies". (the Index categorizes countries as: Full Democracy, Flawed Democracy, Hybrid regime and Authoritarian). — ssu
The tragedy is that only true peace could possibly bring enough prosperity to the region for it to become not so wavering. But if a group of armed men in pick up trucks can create an "Islamic State" and militaries can make coups, there's a long road to political stability needed to have a functioning democracy. All rulers in the region can face violent overthrows, hence the belief in democracy isn't strong for starters. — ssu
I wasn't quite thinking of the PLO (now part of Palestinian Authority, a quasi-governing agency). I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. I notice you try to look for a quick Israeli redirection. I find that interesting and telling :chin:. It's like a knee-jerk reaction almost. It's really hard for you to simply denounce Islamism and authoritarianism demonstrated by Muslim communities without qualification of something (mainly anti-Israel or US). You aren't as biased as other posters, but the undercurrent is obvious. I'm not even sure this is objectivity, because even most historians and chroniclers have a point of view. — schopenhauer1
One of the most biased posters blaming others for being biased. What a joke. — Benkei
Well, look at the topic and the name of this thread. Is it somehow a knee-jerk reaction to try to stay with the topic???I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. I notice you try to look for a quick Israeli redirection. I find that interesting and telling :chin:. It's like a knee-jerk reaction almost. — schopenhauer1
Iranians have their Islamic revolution. No wonder that both Ansar Allah (the Houthis) and Hezbollah are also islamic movements too. Hence it's no wonder why they are islamic and shiite movements. It would be similar to be puzzled about the American revolution being so much about liberal policies and rights of individuals.I was thinking of the splintered proxies from Iran. — schopenhauer1
Tunisia has had it's share of going forward and back, but the country that started the "Arab spring" has improved somewhat. No news is usually good news, even if corruption still persists.As I mentioned, Tunisia, though not perfect, is towards democratic reforms. — schopenhauer1
I guess peacefully then spreading their theocratic islamic revolution. "Revolutionary" goverments usually stick to their ideology, at least in some way: still the US talks a lot about democracy and individual rights etc. Many say it's still an experiment. In Iran's case it's their revolution that is for them important. This could happen quite peacefully. Similarly as, well, Saudi Arabia has spread Wahhabism. Not only by the actions of one Osama bin Laden, that is.So what is Iran's goals, such that it would be a world where they wouldn't use violence? — schopenhauer1
Similarly as, well, Saudi Arabia has spread Wahhabism. Not only by the actions of one Osama bin Laden, that is. — ssu
Your lack of historical knowledge and inability to think is on display across the forum. It's not an ad homs to point this out. — Benkei
Well, look at the topic and the name of this thread. Is it somehow a knee-jerk reaction to try to stay with the topic??? — ssu
I guess peacefully then spreading their theocratic islamic revolution. "Revolutionary" goverments usually stick to their ideology, at least in some way: still the US talks a lot about democracy and individual rights etc. Many say it's still an experiment. In Iran's case it's their revolution that is for them important. This could happen quite peacefully. Similarly as, well, Saudi Arabia has spread Wahhabism. Not only by the actions of one Osama bin Laden, that is. — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.