|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:A client saw my last name and congratulated me on Israel "getting rid o the Arabs". *uncomfortable silence* Mr. War Crime was my father, please call me Gigolo. We're estranged.
|
#
¿
May 14, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Is there a list of justifications for individual attacks? The Wikipedia articles dont always replicate claims. What is the link between Israel and the Maersk Hangzhou?
piL fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Jan 12, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2024 08:11
|
|
|
ASIC v Danny Bro posted:This would probably be a good start: I looked at a few of the links. I had assumed that the Houthis would at least claim some connection, whether accurate or not. I dont really see their claims, if any, being listed in the articles linked on that map.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2024 08:36
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:The Houthis simply claim the crew are also Israelis. No proof in the form of passports or anything but it's enough for their supporters. Thank you, this is what I was looking for, though for a different attack, based on the dates. The specific Houthi claims seem to be poorly cataloged in related English articles and on Wikipedia which I think is amplifying the noise on this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Stringent posted:I agree entirely. The two carrier groups dispatched to the Med should have established a no fly zone over Gaza as soon as they were on station and able to commence flight operations. An uninvited no fly zone over someone else's territory is an act of war. Without a UN mandate, this would be viewed as an act of war initiated by the US versus Israel. While technically true that Biden is equipped to order this, that's a massive expectation with massive repercussions that, if Israel escalated back, likely leads to impeachment and removal of Joe Biden from office and subsequent dialing back of US involvement.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2024 18:50
|
|
|
KillHour posted:While I agree that Israel would be loving pissed and it wouldn't happen, Gaza is not Israel's territory. I'm not confident that Hamas would invite the US to do that either. To practically enforce a no-fly zone over Gaza would require extending it over Israel and likely Egypt. A prop plane going 300 knots long ways over a 22 nm long Gaza would need to be processed and engaged within 4 minutes. A jet at 600 knots in 2 minutes. Short ways crossing Gaza, assuming a 4nm breadth is 48 and 24 seconds respectively. Meanwhile, the attack aircraft wouldnt even need to go over Gaza. You can still shoot ground targets from 22nm (and definitely 4nm) away from an aircraft, meaning you could hit southern targets in Gaza while flying in Israeli air space. It would reduce precision of course, however, and I'm sure the US would be blamed for forcing Israel to use less discriminate attacks.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Hamas very much does not like the US, but I'm pretty sure they would be fine with Biden ordering the military to shoot Israeli planes out of the sky. I dont think they publicly asked for one. All I'm trying to contrary is the notion that two carrier groups (or the US in general) should have unilaterally established a no-fly zone. Unfortunately, it is not that simple.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:The Houthis have been a somewhat successful rebellion through years of getting bombed (by Saudi failsons playing at being literal weekend warriors, but still), bombing them slightly more and more accurately probably won't end them. IMO it's more that the US wants to show its displeasure by making craters and putting some dead pirates next to missile launcher debris on TV, and hopes that that'll satisfy any domestic anger/business anxiety over piracy. If the Houthis could kindly stop their missile launches after making their own frustrations known loudly enough to their own domestic audience, in time for it to look like US bombings were the reason, that'd be a nice bonus. US foreign policy heavily leans into keeping the high seas open and that the rest of the world will ally against you if you violate this basic tenant. It's very important to US interests that holding a chokepoint hostage against the entire world, even in the most justified small case, never becomes an acceptable answer. Otherwise whatever happenening whereever becomes a reason to blockade Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, Korea or Japan until they're appropriately destabilized (perhaps for other reasons). Its in the US's interest that nobody decides this is a valid course in Panama, Malacca, the Mediterranean, or the Capes, because either the US likes using those, likes trade through those, or generaly wants to avoid having to deal with destabilization that results by sudden changes of food, fuel, or economic traffic. The US maintains restricting access beyond UNCLOS limits is an act of war. By this logic, if the Houthis are to be treated as a state, the Houthis would be described as having taken war actions on Bahamas, Panama, Norway, Marshall Islands, Hong Kong/China, Liberia, Cayman Islands, Gabon, Singapore, and Malta in addition to their targets of Israel and the US. States with stakes like cargo ownership, recipient ports, or crew members onboard such as Russia, Denmark, Japan, the Philippines, or Greece would probably describe these actions as "unfriendly". It's politically easier and probably politically necessary to take clear and direct action in the case of Red Sea crisis while the Israeli/Hamas conflict is fraught with complexity and quagmire. The Houthi's correctly identified a US Center of Gravity. US action, however, is often constrained by pissing off the electorate or pissing off the rest of the world. Houthi wild flailing has circumvented the second constraint. piL fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Jan 14, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2024 20:07
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Yes, that is the idea, but again, it would require an astounding degree of self delusion to imagine that cratering a rebel drone base in the desert will accomplish more than PR victories against rebels who have notably kept operating while getting bombed for a decade already. Maybe it'll slightly deter a real country with expensive assets you could wipe out, rather than backyard drones that don't require an intact air base to launch, but unless the US follows up with an occupation they won't actually destroy poo poo. Maybe militarily, but against Saudi interests, the US took the Houthi's off the terrorist list and against Saudi requests, the US didn't bomb them, and the Saudi-Houthi cease fire has been holding strong for 2 years. This means a couple of years of being able to build things you would hate to see wrecked. This means a slow transition to being considered the legitimate government that has been unhampered by the US and US can stall that. Houthis were charting a course for legitimacy for their rule, as terrible as that may be. And if a peer or the Saudi's decide to go hot again, their efforts will be much more effective if the US ensures that any Houthi whom launches a missile gets to do so exactly once. I also dont think the US can bomb the Houthis out of Yemen, but there's a lot of steps between that and knocking off strikes on maritime traffic that military pressure can affect. The audience isn't just the Houthis, it's nonstate entities who might try to destabilize South Africa for sweet chokepoint missile access, it's semi-stable autocracies in Central and South America, its non-state actors in Mindinao, it's China and nearby partner nations. Even if the Houthis aren't cowed, the US has to show they wont back down just because regime change isn't on the menu, or risk stability among all those other audiences.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2024 22:13
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:I don't think that North Korea has minefields with either the PRC or Russia. Im not trying to support any argument, just dipping in to clarify this listed point that came up. According to Human Rights Watch, there are unconfirmed reports of such. HRW posted:Since late 2021, there have been unconfirmed reports about mines buried along the Tumen and Yalu Rivers to prevent border crossing to China. Media with contacts in North Korea reported that authorities started laying landmines around the northern border since August 2023, and six people died when land mines went off trying to cross the border near Musan county, North Hamgyong province, in September and October 2023.48 Distinguishing fact from fiction about matters between DPRK and PRC seems like a nearly impossible task, so for now they're just reports
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2024 03:52
|
|
|
Immunity isn't sovereignty. While the US bombing a Chinese embassy was bad, we wouldn't call it an American airstrike on China. Nor was article 5 invoked when a Russian missile impacted the German embassy in 2022 in Kyiv--because it wasn't an airstrike on German soil. The myriad of protests that have become violent against various embassies throughout the world are bad, but they're not land invasions of sovereign foreign territory. Generally speaking the Iran-Israel conflict has been an away game for both countries or limited to information, cyber, special (whether Mossad or IRGC) and proxy warfare within each other's borders. Strikes back and forth will be unique compared to how the conflict has been going.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2024 02:19
|
|
|
ANIME AKBAR posted:I'm baffled by the suggestion that a strike on a country's consulate/embassy is somehow ranked below an attack within the country's borders (especially when said attack is on state/military personnel or infrastructure). There's not really a ranking system, and it's not lesser or greater in all cases. It is nuanced. This misconception continues to keep repeating every couple of pages, and it emerges exactly because they would be very closely ranked in most cases. People take this fact that they're very close in severity of offense and then make (likely unintentional) hyperbolic statements saying they're literally the same thing--not just in severity of offense, but in the international recognition of territorial rights and responsibilities. Edit: I agree with Lovely Joe Stalin's post, but was trying to avoid a conversation litigating the Israeli Embassy attack. The key part is violating the bounds of 'cold war'. I would not be surprised to find that the IRGC in that consulate was doing something hankey with regards to Israel in that consulate, just because why wouldn't they be? Im fairly certain IRGC has run ops in Israel like Mossad has in Iran and nothing about the current circumsta ces makes me think theyd quit now. Chief among the IRGC's jobs is rustling up non-state proxy actors and Damascus is very close to Israel. It would be reasonable for Russia to be distrustful of the Ukranian and US consulates in Belarus (though maybe dont bomb them). The US and the USSR probably would have solved this by discovering and laying out transgressions to a host nation in a semi-public action forcing an action. That obviously doesn't work in Syria right now. The next escalation would probably be convincing some other third party to strike. Israel crossed the spheres here in a way that should be quite embarrassing to the Mossad and shows why during the Western-Soviet Cold War, that the US and the USSR behaved the ways they did. piL fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Apr 14, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2024 19:15
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Outrail posted:The whole pier thing is honestly really dumb. If aid can't reach Gaza the problem is not physical logistics it's politics and red tape. Acting like the pier is critical to humanitarian relief just sounds hollow. Building a pier has already been derided as potential support for and/or literal invasion by some. Landing supplies by amphibious vessels would require large swaths of marines ashore and exposure to the sort of violence/risk that would entail. It's always absolutely red tape and politics, internal and external. But that's not separate from logistics. Logistics is not just fuel and distance--at this scale its largely is navigating overlapping and conpeting bureaucracies and requirements. slorb posted:The only benefit the pier does seem to have it is it makes it harder for settlers to camp out in front of the trucks while the IDF pretends they're trying to move them on. The pier allows a route that does not cross through Israeli soverign territory. Right now the global community can only convince and coerce to change the inspection policy and let more food in. They can't force the issue except by invading Israel if the only routes are in Israel. UNs not going to agree to that. Will the global community change their minds about Israeli inspection? Will they use the additional bargaining chip and circumvent the Israelis? Who knows. I suspect this whole thing started as a threat during negotiations, Israel called the bluff, and now the US feels forced to follow through even if it's probably going to not work. quote:But I bet they'll just manufacture a "Hamas mortar/rocket attack" on the pier every few days so that it is usually shut. Who's they? Why would they have to manufacture attacks? It's in the interest of drat near every regional state and non-state actor to keep the US entangled or to strike at US assets. It's advantageous the individual disorganized paramilitary member to build credibility by making strikes. It's in easy range without extending forces. It may be perceived safer to strike US assets there than Israel since it will be against US interests to do anything about the strikes since the US is desperately trying to get the hell out, and Israel is more likely to turn a blind eye for destroying food aid than for striking Israel. The attacks will come regardless and the US will need to decide whether to escalate or bail during an election season. The other great economies will continue to stand idly by.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2024 18:17
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:The Israeli's still get to inspect and deny, at their whim, goods heading to the pier anyways. It doesn't change anything. It's using the same policy that the border crossings in Israel use. I had meant for this line to address that. piL posted:. Right now other entities can't tell Israel "actually, I disagree, you may not inspect it." It's goods traveling on soverign Israeli territory--to force exemption here contrary to the government's wishes is to invite a weakening of the concept of sovereignty between all states. Once the process is established, if other states determine that actually they don't like how the Israelis are running the shlw, they are more readily able to change the agreement--as long as the Cypriots agree. And if Cyprus doesn't agree, the goods can flow from elsewhere from international waters, through international waters, to a pier in Gaza--provided the entities running the pier (likely UN or US troops) permit it to land. While somewhat of a diplomatic foible if the opposite was formally agreed to, it's no longer a threat to statehood. Will the international community reach that conclusion? Will other powers (namely the US or the UN) use the ability to let goods in without Israeli consent as a bargaining chip to influence other Israeli behaviors? Was developing an avenue to circumvent Israel sovreign claims part of the plan? I don't know. But they are more able to with the pier than without.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2024 08:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:How is this different from the US military or the UN or whomever leading a land convoy on the ground, not stopping for checkpoints, and saying "if you want to stop us, you'll have to use force?" The difference is the cost to third parties. If we assume for a minute that a far removed country, say Malaysia doesn't have much of a dog in this fight, it suddenly becomes in Malaysia's interest to decry the US's actions of violating territorial sovereignty to support logistics because they may not want the same thing to happen to them later. In the three party problem of Palestinians, US, and Israel, having the US punch Israel in the nose to help the Palestinian people sounds like an easy yes. In global politics, having the US punch the very nature of sovereignty in the nose for literally every single nation state threatens to normalize actions that would be normal elsewhere, and is exactly the kind of action decried as imperialistic. The US doesn't like invade a nation-state because they want to. They always have a reason--just like Russians "defending" the rights of ethnic Russians in Crimea or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or unacceptable actions by Spain in Cuba and The Phillipines combined with an attack. Even the Nazis fabricated a humanitarian lreason to invade Poland. So international law says soverign power has the decision and pretty much all soverign powers fight to preserve that right. This is why the US tries to get the UN or at least a large coalition "of the willing" whenever it does decide to breech international etiquette.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2024 19:44
|
|