|
Charliegrs posted:Israel's targe in the consulate bombing was military. The target was the high ranking Quds force officials that were inside the consulate. Of course it was incredibly dumb to kill them there, but the target wasn't the consulate itself. This might be the dumbest possible hair to split.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
Paladinus posted:The absolute shortsightedness of attacking an embassy amidst growing tensions is staggering. Literally zero strategic reason to do that, pure posturing. Zero surprise that Iran retaliated, and Israel will still try to spin it as an unprovoked attack somehow. There are plenty of reasons why attacking a consulate is a great idea, if you're cynical enough. 1. There have been a lot of people questioning how much arms and money flow into Israel, seemingly just to grind Gaza into the dust a little harder without regard to the casualties of the women and children. Now each and every country involved in these transfers of arms can say to their concerned citizens, see, this isn't about grinding Gaza into the dust a little harder, it's about helping Israel defend itself from those Iranians. Note: It's still all going to be used to grind Gaza into dust without regard to the casualties of women and children. It is entirely possible this is a gift to the American administration. At the very least it's a gift to the arms dealers who fund American politics via campaign donations and shady PACs. Half of the fun is to keep those companies lobbying their governments on behalf of Israeli decision makers. The money flows and a little heat is off the back of the US administration a bit. I can't be sure it works this way in other places, Germany for example, but I imagine every weapons-producing country is delighted by this, whatever they say publicly is whatever. 2. It actually a great distraction from what's going in Gaza, if you're the kind of person who really loves what's going on in Gaza, but thinks the people who are upset about it are harshing your mellow. It's probably a fine time right now to do all sorts of very interesting things to Gaza and the West Bank. The media has been historically on your side. A few little things like this are a great way to going back to the coverage you want. #2 is a stretch of course since nobody at all has cared about running distractions since this thing started. 3. Netanyahu cannot go to jail so long as Israel is at war. It is in his interest to keep some kind of conflict brewing, forever. 4. There's nothing to lose. No matter how many missiles and drones are sent, Israeli (and American) defensive systems are going to make short work of most of it. A few may get through, sure, but not enough to cause more than extremely light damage. A few people die? Whatever. Take a deep breath and ask yourself cynically, if the kind of of political decision maker who is content to grease refugee camps, hospitals, and what what, 15k to 20k non combatant women and children... if they would really care, deep down, if a few of their own people die in the process. If you're already comfortable with murder on that level what's a few more bodies? 5. It forces Iran into a Demonstration of Weakness. Iran gets to look comically ineffectual in its retaliation. This probably hurt Iran more than Israel, because Iran isn't just going to be installed resupplied by America and Europe once its stocks run low. People can make all the excuses they like that this is Iran just testing for future weakness, but that sounds like magical thinking to try to make Iran save face. Edit: Grammar and diction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:This might be the dumbest possible hair to split. This is like how people argue the IDF isnt targeting civilians when they blow up hospitals or whatever where they believe a couple militants are inside. Anything you are choosing to shoot at is being targeted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 23:41
|
|
|
I believe the rationale that Israel actually used was that the use of the building for the Quds meeting made it not a valid embassy/consulate under international law. The NYT article I posted a bit ago goes into the basis. Israel might even believe this, but it's still silly because it ignores the broader norms of international conduct regarding the protection of these buildings despite their use for this purpose, as previously discussed here. They can't pretend to have been surprised by the response (and don't appear to have been).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2024 23:46
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Israel's targe in the consulate bombing was military. The target was the high ranking Quds force officials that were inside the consulate. Of course it was incredibly dumb to kill them there, but the target wasn't the consulate itself. Diplomatic missions are not valid military targets, that is not what a “military target” means in this context.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 01:21
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Israel's targe in the consulate bombing was military. The target was the high ranking Quds force officials that were inside the consulate. Of course it was incredibly dumb to kill them there, but the target wasn't the consulate itself. target [ tahr-git ] 3. Anything fired at
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 01:49
|
|
|
i wasn't aiming at the building, i was aiming through the bullding
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 03:27
|
|
precious
|
Targets can be things, and targets can be people. When a warplane bombs an ammunition factory for example, the building itself is the target. The destruction of the building is the goal. When a warplane wants to kill some high ranking military officials unless they are out in the open then they are going to be in a building which is what gets bombed. In both cases a building was destroyed, but in the latter example the goal was to kill the enemy military officials. It's pretty obvious what Israel's actual goal was to bomb the consulate since they could have done it whenever but did it when some Quds force officials were there. Unless you think Israel just wants to bomb diplomatic buildings now just because they are owned by an enemy state.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 03:49
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Targets can be things, and targets can be people. When a warplane bombs an ammunition factory for example, the building itself is the target. The destruction of the building is the goal. When a warplane wants to kill some high ranking military officials unless they are out in the open then they are going to be in a building which is what gets bombed. In both cases a building was destroyed, but in the latter example the goal was to kill the enemy military officials. They shot at the building in order to kill the people who were inside. The building is the thing they shot at. That makes it a target. Aramis fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Apr 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 03:52
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Targets can be things, and targets can be people. When a warplane bombs an ammunition factory for example, the building itself is the target. The destruction of the building is the goal. When a warplane wants to kill some high ranking military officials unless they are out in the open then they are going to be in a building which is what gets bombed. In both cases a building was destroyed, but in the latter example the goal was to kill the enemy military officials. The point which you seem bent upon missing, is that you do not get to just blow up diplomatic buildings regardless of who or what is in them. Much like hospitals, "my enemy was in there" is not an accepted or acceptable excuse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 04:41
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Targets can be things, and targets can be people. When a warplane bombs an ammunition factory for example, the building itself is the target. The destruction of the building is the goal. When a warplane wants to kill some high ranking military officials unless they are out in the open then they are going to be in a building which is what gets bombed. In both cases a building was destroyed, but in the latter example the goal was to kill the enemy military officials. Does this stop at venues protected by the Vienna convention? Or does it extend to hospitals? How about aid convoys operated by Washington based celebrity chefs? Maybe NGO headquarters?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 05:05
|
|
|
They didnt die at covid they died with covid -- energy
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 05:27
|
|
|
pesty13480 posted:There are plenty of reasons why attacking a consulate is a great idea, if you're cynical enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 05:47
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Targets can be things, and targets can be people. When a warplane bombs an ammunition factory for example, the building itself is the target. The destruction of the building is the goal. When a warplane wants to kill some high ranking military officials unless they are out in the open then they are going to be in a building which is what gets bombed. In both cases a building was destroyed, but in the latter example the goal was to kill the enemy military officials. Alternatively, they could have killed those particular IRGC members anywhere, but waited until they were inside a consulate to kill as many staffers as possible and bomb a diplomatic building on purpose. They did this because they knew people online would come out of the woodwork with emotionally pacifying but completely ridiculous arguments such as “actually they were trying to shoot through the building not at the building” instead of questioning why the Israeli government is trying to start additional fights with its neighbors. It’s a silly rhetorical game to play. More generally, this kind of extreme rationalizing will degrade your ability to objectively assess the potential consequences of what Israel is doing. And finally just to make it crystal clear, the collateral damage assessment, aka exactly how many innocent people you’re about to mulch, is part of mission planning every single time. not a value-add fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Apr 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 09:27
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Targets can be things, and targets can be people. When a warplane bombs an ammunition factory for example, the building itself is the target. The destruction of the building is the goal. When a warplane wants to kill some high ranking military officials unless they are out in the open then they are going to be in a building which is what gets bombed. In both cases a building was destroyed, but in the latter example the goal was to kill the enemy military officials. Are you purposefully being a moron? One does not have the right to bomb any building full of civilians because there is 1 person inside that is a legitimate target. Like there's been excessive discussion about this regarding the repeated hospital attacks in Gaza. You seem to be hyper-focused on the word 'target' instead of taking in the bigger picture of what happened. Fixating on semantics that make no difference to the actual event is a bizarre hill to die on and is extremely suspicious behaviour.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 14:08
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Targets can be things, and targets can be people. When a warplane bombs an ammunition factory for example, the building itself is the target. The destruction of the building is the goal. When a warplane wants to kill some high ranking military officials unless they are out in the open then they are going to be in a building which is what gets bombed. In both cases a building was destroyed, but in the latter example the goal was to kill the enemy military officials. What point are you trying to get at with this observation? Are you just saying what you think the proper of the attack was? Because yeah it's fairly obvious they wanted to kill those special forces guys, but it's not really relevant to a discussion about Iran's response, since blowing up diplomatic buildings is still not allowed in international law regardless of who is in there. There was a CIA office in the World Trade Center. Hypothetically if someone's only goal is killing the valid military targets who worked in that office, people would probably not be cool with it if they leveled the entire building to get those guys. Like, the reason the US retaliated against Al-Qaeda was not because Al-Qaeda didn't carefully focus their intent on only those particular guys and reassure us that the rest of the building was "just in the way" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Apr 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 14:10
|
|
|
Do people forget that consulates and embassies are technically foreign soil? If Norway bombed our American embassy that would be an act of war, fellow NATO members or not, and no matter the reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 14:25
|
|
|
F4rt5 posted:Do people forget that consulates and embassies are technically foreign soil? If Norway bombed our American embassy that would be an act of war, fellow NATO members or not, and no matter the reason. Read back a couple pages; the law on this is more complex than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 14:36
|
|
|
International law doesn't seem to mean a whole lot either, unless you're the United States and want it enforced for your benefit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 15:20
|
|
|
it's really a perfect example of all of it being completely arbitrary bullshit that is selectively enforced based on whether or not you're in the good graces of the "rules based international order". Ah, see here: the land is not technically Iranian soil. The target wasn't technically the consulate. The stuff (that would otherwise make us apoplectic) being done by the guys we like is technically permissible, and therefore any response to a blatantly provocative bombing by an insane apartheid ethnostate ruled by psychotic fascists is Terrorism Most Foul
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 15:28
|
|
|
the law is so complicated when it comes to consulates. Its so simple when it comes to starving palestinians (its khamas' fault)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 15:32
|
|
|
DV is technically right but it makes no difference really as attacks on a country's diplomatic missions are typically viewed as equivalent to attacks on the country itself. Remember how pissed Mexico is right now about Ecuador raiding their embassy? https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/11/mexico-calls-on-the-international-court-of-justice-to-expel-ecuador-from-un It matters even less because even if the guy Israel assassinated was in a convoy, on a warship or traveling by airplane, hitting a flag officer is still pretty clearly an act of aggression/war that demands some sort of response.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 15:46
|
|
|
I don't think anybody is or has been arguing that Iran is or was not justified to respond to the attack on its consulate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 16:01
|
|
|
No, it's just the usual hasbarists suicide bombing the thread and derailing discussion to focus on anything but the subject at hand. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 16:05
|
|
|
Quantum Cat posted:No, it's just the usual hasbarists suicide bombing the thread and derailing discussion to focus on anything but the subject at hand. If you think people are arguing in bad faith, report them. Or call them out. This kind of vague aggro bullshit just makes the thread lovely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 16:12
|
|
|
Quantum Cat posted:No, it's just the usual hasbarists suicide bombing the thread and derailing discussion to focus on anything but the subject at hand. I also find the nitpicking (but only when those nits give coverage to Israel, mind) annoying but it seems pretty well on topic to discuss international laws and norms surrounding diplomatic missions given the current crisis stems from Israel launching an attack on one? I'm struggling to see how it's off topic. Definitely on topic, Barak Ravid with more info, doesn't sound great: https://www.axios.com/2024/04/15/israel-iran-attack-missiles-retaliation quote:Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant told Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin Sunday that Israel has no choice but to respond to the unprecedented missile and drone attack launched by Iran over the weekend, a U.S. official and another source briefed on the call told Axios.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 16:17
|
|
|
Kagrenak posted:DV is technically right but it makes no difference really as attacks on a country's diplomatic missions are typically viewed as equivalent to attacks on the country itself. And we don't have to take your word for it either, just ask the US Department of State What Is A U.S. Embassy? quote:While the host government is responsible for the security of U.S. diplomats and the area around an embassy, the embassy itself belongs to the country it represents. Representatives of the host country cannot enter an embassy without permission. An attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents. Kagrenak posted:DV is technically right but it makes no difference really as attacks on a country's diplomatic missions are typically viewed as equivalent to attacks on the country itself. Remember how pissed Mexico is right now about Ecuador raiding their embassy? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Apr 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 16:32
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:If you think people are arguing in bad faith, report them. Or call them out. I just want anyone posting anything in defense of the embassy attack to also post the same thing in defense of October 7th because there were military targets in that attack, too. I want to see them posting "they weren't attacking a music festival, they were attacking through a music festival." If they say that Iran's response is an inappropriate escalation, then I don't just want to see them simply stating the obvious fact that Israel's response has been disproportionate. I want them to say that even one volley of missiles would have been an inappropriate escalation. If they really believe in the arguments they are making, they should make themselves clear. If they don't really believe, well that's the definition of bad faith, right? Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Apr 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:Targets can be things, and targets can be people. When a warplane bombs an ammunition factory for example, the building itself is the target. The destruction of the building is the goal. When a warplane wants to kill some high ranking military officials unless they are out in the open then they are going to be in a building which is what gets bombed. In both cases a building was destroyed, but in the latter example the goal was to kill the enemy military officials. You keep saying the building was a “military target” or contained a “military target” because there were IRGC personnel inside it, when that has nothing whatsoever to do with what could make a consulate a “military target” under international law. How is this whole derail not a violation of non-standard definitions and goalpost moving, plus a stubborn refusal to acknowledge any other points?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:12
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:it's really a perfect example of all of it being completely arbitrary bullshit that is selectively enforced based on whether or not you're in the good graces of the "rules based international order". This is any legal system pretty much, and it’s the best we have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:20
|
|
|
rkd_ posted:This is any legal system pretty much, and it’s the best we have. I don't think an international führerprinzip is representative of "the best we have", no. If you're saying it's the operational one due to the position of America as the global hegemon, then sure, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:42
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I don't think an international führerprinzip is representative of "the best we have", no. If you're saying it's the operational one due to the position of America as the global hegemon, then sure, I agree. It's the best we have because it's the only one allowed by the hegemon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:57
|
|
|
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/09/middleeast/israel-gaza-mass-graves-al-shifa-hospital-intl Western media is stating to report more frankly on what happened exactly in Al-Shifa, hundreds of decomposed bodies being found, though I don’t see a lot of explicit pushback on the Israeli narrative claiming there was a battle there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:03
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I just want anyone posting anything in defense of the embassy attack to also post the same thing in defense of October 7th because there were military targets in that attack, too. I want to see them posting "they weren't attacking a music festival, they were attacking through a music festival." If you are referring to this post: Charliegrs posted:Israel's targe in the consulate bombing was military. The target was the high ranking Quds force officials that were inside the consulate. Of course it was incredibly dumb to kill them there, but the target wasn't the consulate itself. You are being trolled. Edit: quoted wrong post DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Apr 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/09/middleeast/israel-gaza-mass-graves-al-shifa-hospital-intl Every time I see more about the hospitals in Palestine it makes me think about how things are being portrayed here versus how they are being portrayed in Ukraine via 20 Days in Mariupol. Excellent documentary, but people watching that and then falling for the "terrorists in the hospitals!" poo poo is just really depressing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:If you are referring to this post: What. Pointing out poor logic by giving an example of a bad conclusion that follows from it is not trolling, it's a pretty basic reasoning method. It has a name and a wiki entry and everything Proof by Contradiction E: Did you quote the wrong post by accident, maybe you meant the guy who was actually making that argument? Charliegrs posted:Israel's targe in the consulate bombing was military. The target was the high ranking Quds force officials that were inside the consulate. Of course it was incredibly dumb to kill them there, but the target wasn't the consulate itself. E2: VVV ah OK no worries, I was so confused lol, kept reading over my post looking for a typo VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:55 on Apr 15, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:41
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What. Yep, my bad, quoted the wrong poster. Will fix.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I don't think an international führerprinzip is representative of "the best we have", no. If you're saying it's the operational one due to the position of America as the global hegemon, then sure, I agree. Laws are not and have never been self-enforcing, they require people in power to enforce them. Laws that are enforced by people in power are by definition the best we have. Edit: International laws are of course enforced by those with international power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
I invite you all to read the second sentence of the post I made.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 30, 2024 02:52 |
|
|
Clarste posted:Laws are not and have never been self-enforcing, they require people in power to enforce them. Laws that are enforced by people in power are by definition the best we have. So when I see signs that say "Speed Limit Enforced by Airplane," an airplane isn't actually going to write me a ticket? Or if I see a "Speed Limit Enforced by Radar" sign, the living embodiment of RADAR won't actually be writing me a ticket?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:01
|
|
