International Events : How I learnt to stop worrying and love the-

[Kalbear]

Just now, Jace, Extat said:

So it's like this:

Israel escalated by attacking Iranian targets in Syria, damaging Iran rather than their disposable proxies. 

Then Iran escalated by launching 330 airborne weapons at Israeli soil. 

Israel escalated again by striking Iranian air-defence systems.

That last one isn't an escalation. Like, at all. 

Just now, Jace, Extat said:

Proving that, unlike Iran, they have the capacity to inflict damage wherever and whenever they please, without five-hour delays between firing the shot and it hitting its target- that is an escalation of capacity to deal damage. 

Yeah, that's a very weird way of looking at things, but if you want to celebrate that AFC South division championship here by all means do so; I'm sure that participation trophy is sweet as hell. 

[Jace, Extat]

If I threw a bunch of butter knives at you and none of them did more damage than bouncing off your shoe, then you threw a Bowie knife at me that hits where you were aiming... that isn't an escalation? 

[Rippounet]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, that's a very weird way of looking at things,

I wouldn't say "weird."

Even a measured tit-for-tat approach requires rational actors. The paradox of the last few decades is that "rogue states" have behaved rationally, proving that despite their discourse/propaganda, they have the ability to de-escalate ; conversely, "liberal-democratic" states have shown an ability to fall prey to their own myths or propaganda, to the point where today we see the ability to openly engage in genocidal activities.
It's not a good trend, and it's spectacularly stupid to celebrate it.

[Zorral]

38 minutes ago, maarsen said:

This came out in Canada a while back when a Sikh community leader was killed in Vancouver. We had issues in the last election with Chinese government interference but killing people is even worse.

Yes, the report addresses the events in Canada as extensively as the other assassinations and attempts at assassination in some other nations.

You can read the piece in entirety, in which the Canadian assassination plots are addressed, as, is stated, the link is a Share Link.

Edited April 29 by Zorral

[Altherion]

The Israeli strike on Iran was very carefully calibrated to allow Israel's leadership to say that they hit some military target inside Iran (and thus have retaliated for the barrage) while simultaneously allowing Iran's leadership to say that there was no meaningful attack at all (and thus there is no need for further retaliation). It worked out surprisingly well.

[Jace, Extat]

6 minutes ago, Altherion said:

The Israeli strike on Iran was very carefully calibrated to allow Israel's leadership to say that they hit some military target inside Iran (and thus have retaliated for the barrage) while simultaneously allowing Iran's leadership to say that there was no meaningful attack at all (and thus there is no need for further retaliation). It worked out surprisingly well.

I don't know about the bolded. I think that, like the idea that Iran's attack was meant to be ineffective, this is projecting wishful thinking about how these governments are treating one-another. 

Iran wanted to flex, say "we can hurt you too." They failed. 

Israel flexed and said "we can hit you wherever we want." 

I think Iran has backed down not because honor was satisfied on both sides, but because they realized Israel's capacity to inflict damage is just on another level. Which is, to Ripp's point, rational.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Was a bit surprised to see headline in Huffpost that Putin didnt order a Navalny death according to U.S. intelligence.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-russia-navalny-putin_n_662f6b1ee4b09dcb783058ea

Its a distinction without merit imo. Even if he didnt "order" his death, he certainly made all the condition for his demise possible and holds responsibility for the death.

[polishgenius]

Yeah it's a bit 'will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest on this day when he's going to be vulnerable with these weapons I happen to have left lying around'. 

[Mudguard]

6 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Was a bit surprised to see headline in Huffpost that Putin didnt order a Navalny death according to U.S. intelligence.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/us-russia-navalny-putin_n_662f6b1ee4b09dcb783058ea

Its a distinction without merit imo. Even if he didnt "order" his death, he certainly made all the condition for his demise possible and holds responsibility for the death.

I would take these reports with a huge grain of salt.  Unnamed sources and a lack of hard evidence don't provide me with any confidence in the alleged conclusion, which seems to me to be little better than mere speculation.  I also question why this unnamed source would leak such information absolving Putin of a potential crime.  I don't have access to the original Wall St. Journal report, but I can't imagine that this conclusion had a high degree of certainty behind it.

[The Big Stink]

I think some people are uncomfortable with Jewish people having their own dedicated nation and area for self determination.

I feel for the Palestinians but Jewish people have the right to exist.

 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Jace, Extat said:

If I threw a bunch of butter knives at you and none of them did more damage than bouncing off your shoe, then you threw a Bowie knife at me that hits where you were aiming... that isn't an escalation? 

Yeah, I take issue with that entire characterization and it's bizarre to consider many long-range ballistic missiles as butter knives. It fits your narrative but not the facts. 

58 minutes ago, Jace, Extat said:

I think Iran has backed down not because honor was satisfied on both sides, but because they realized Israel's capacity to inflict damage is just on another level. Which is, to Ripp's point, rational.

I get that you really want to believe that because that's literally how you frame the world, but that really doesn't match up with either Iran's actual behavior (they could have been significantly more effective if they wanted to, as we've discussed previously) and Israel's behavior (where Israel did not play up the attack at all, did not frame it remotely like how you just did, and the actual damage was not really clear). When the far-right guy in Israel that you'd likely be most aligned with calls Israel's response 'lame', you might want to rethink your priors. 

This is especially the case because Israel really didn't reveal anything Iran hasn't already experienced previously. It's not like they just showcased their ICBM-launched ninjas. Israel has been able to do airstrikes like this with impunity and there are good signs that they've done so previously. 

It's a lot more reasonable to conclude that Iran backed down because they didn't want a full-scale war with Israel to start with, but they had to respond in some way to a direct attack on their embassy by Israel. I 

[Werthead]

Perun's analysis (posted a few pages back) was interesting because it divided the Iranian attack on Israel into two categories: slow-moving drones apparently aimed at civilian population centres launched with hours of warning and easily intercepted, and a massive ballistic salvo launched with much less warning at military targets, that was almost certainly intended to cause some but not outrageous damage: ballistic missiles are much harder to hit and travel much faster, and you wouldn't fire 100 of them as a message. However, 50% or so of the missiles blew up on the pad or in-flight, and most of the rest was taken out by US and Israeli antiballistic systems, some of which were used for the very first time and Iran may not have known were operational in-theatre. Iran also seems to have been genuinely surprised that anti-Iranian feeling in Arab countries ran so high they were willing to side with Israel despite the ongoing bombardment of Gaza, showing a political misjudgement of the situation.

Of the missiles that actually landed, several missed their targets, and were probably not engaged because the interception systems calculated they would not land in populated areas and thus it was pointless (and expensive) to shoot them down. One of these may have injured the Bedouin girl. Only an estimated 5-7 missiles penetrated all of the defences, didn't explode on their own and actually caused some damage, to whit several holes in runways that were repaired overnight and a single aircraft shelter that was empty and some say was due to be knocked down anyway.

Iran could have launched a larger attack, in particular using Hezbollah's medium-range cruise missiles to engage Israel's missile defences to try to saturate them to allow more of the main Iranian attack to get through, but chose not to, with the reasoning being that it was part of the message, to Iran thinking that Israel would take use such an attack as a casus belli to invade Lebanon and destroy Hezbollah in detail, which Israel is much more confident now it can do. It's also possible Iran concluded that saturating Israel's short and medium-range defences wouldn't have helped their own attack, which was countered by an entirely different classes of defences (i.e. Hezbollah can try to overcome Iron Dome, but since you don't use a multimillion dollar Arrow missile to shoot down a drone, it wouldn't help Iran's ballistic missiles get through).

In contrast, Israel's response sailed through Iran's air defences apparently without triggering them (until after impact, whereupon the local AA opened fire) and blew up a radar control system for an entire S-400 battery (not even the battery itself). Israel could have also done much more but didn't.

If messages were exchanged, it was that Israel and its allies' technological superiority was greater than even expected, which Israel then demonstrated again, with the implication being that instead of the radar control unit, they could have targeted the neighbouring nuclear processing facility directly. Iran could probably hurt Israel more than they did in that attack, but Israel's ability to hurt Iran at will with little or no chance of Iran mitigating the damage were more aptly demonstrated.

The fact that people can conclude both Iran and Israel won/drew/lost the argument is a sign that both nations did indeed hold back to some extent, but I think a political-technical-strategic analysis shows that Iran came out on the losing side overall.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

The fact that people can conclude both Iran and Israel won/drew/lost the argument is a sign that both nations did indeed hold back to some extent, but I think a political-technical-strategic analysis shows that Iran came out on the losing side overall.

To be clear I 100% agree that Iran came out the loser on several levels here, but the notion that Iran is backing down because Israel 'escalated' is complete bullshit. 

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, The Big Stink said:

I think some people are uncomfortable with Jewish people having their own dedicated nation and area for self determination.

I feel for the Palestinians but Jewish people have the right to exist.

 

What does genociding palestinians has to do with jewish people right to live? Do palestinians have the right to live? And to live free with everything that comes with that. Or for you, jewish people are superior to palestinans in some way

[Jace, Extat]

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, I take issue with that entire characterization and it's bizarre to consider many long-range ballistic missiles as butter knives. It fits your narrative but not the facts. 

 

What are the facts? 

Iran's terror proxies attacked Israel.

Israel killed Iranian generals in a strike in Syria.

Iran launched 300+ weapons at Israel, wounding 1 child because of Allied air-defence capabilities. 

Israel launches 1 weapon at Iran and destroys their target, proving capability to do the same anywhere at any time.

Iran stops.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

I get that you really want to believe that because that's literally how you frame the world,

Well don't tease a gal with something like this: How, exactly, do you think I frame the world?

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

...but that really doesn't match up with either Iran's actual behavior (they could have been significantly more effective if they wanted to, as we've discussed previously) 

Yeah, but... could they really? We've certainly discussed it, but what exactly do you think they could have done? Sent 500 explosives? 1,000? They sent as many as they thought they needed to penetrate Israeli defences- didn't. 

You can choose to believe that Iran fired a shot into the air for pride's sake, but those weapons were aimed at Israel. That means intent to wound as far as I need know.

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

and Israel's behavior (where Israel did not play up the attack at all, did not frame it remotely like how you just did, and the actual damage was not really clear). When the far-right guy in Israel that you'd likely be most aligned with calls Israel's response 'lame', you might want to rethink your priors. 

 

I mean what do you expect Israel to say? They're engaged in a war, they've got shit to do. Like, what are they supposed to say? They followed up a failed attack with a successful one- winners don't need to spin shit. The message was for Iran, not Benjamin The Blogger. 

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

 

This is especially the case because Israel really didn't reveal anything Iran hasn't already experienced previously. It's not like they just showcased their ICBM-launched ninjas. Israel has been able to do airstrikes like this with impunity and there are good signs that they've done so previously. 

It's a lot more reasonable to conclude that Iran backed down because they didn't want a full-scale war with Israel to start with, but they had to respond in some way to a direct attack on their embassy by Israel. I 

Iran backed down because they took a shot, missed, and then got their eye blackened as a reminder of who is capable of what. When Iran was at full-alert, waiting for an Israeli response, the attack still got through and did damage with no warning or chance to intercept. That's different from a bolt-out-of-the-blue strike or assassination. 

[The Anti-Targ]

The only winner in that exchange is those who want to keep the region unstable for whatever reasons, that have nothing to do with the interests or safety of the Israeli, Palestinian or Iranian people. 

 

[Heartofice]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The only winner in that exchange is those who want to keep the region unstable for whatever reasons, that have nothing to do with the interests or safety of the Israeli, Palestinian or Iranian people. 

 

Who are these people?

[Bironic]

41 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Who are these people?

I don’t agree with @The Anti-Targ because I interpret his line of thought as conspirational. But There are certainly people who want to continue and possibly escalate this conflict for as long as possible. Netanyahu and his ilk know that the Israeli will vote them out of power as soon as the war is over, thus continuing and escalating it so that he can claim that he’s Israel sole savior makes sense. Irans Regime has so many internal problems and unrest that galvanizing their supporters by having a front against a common enemy like Israel makes a lot of sense. Hamas wants to break the rapprochement of Israel and various Arab states so more dead Palestinian civilians are good, since the Arab street will be incensed by that. Hizbollah has a precarious situation in Libanon and so does Assad in Syria, the Houthi’s in Yemen and Iraqs government is also far from stable, again unifying against a common enemy such as Israel makes sense. Russia finally profits if the eyes of the west turn to the MENA region because of its war in Ukraine, and possibly because isis might want to reconsider targeting Russia instead targeting the west since we’re helping Israel more than Russia does…

[The Anti-Targ]

Ordinary folk never want war and never call for war, they are propagandised into it by people who have or want power and see an advantage in starting or carrying on war, and who stand to lose if peace breaks out all over the place. It has always been thus. The motivations are many and varied.

It's curious that @Bironic doesn't mention the US, when the US certainly has the power to throw a blanket on the fire. Right now it would seem to be to the distinct electoral advantage of Biden to make Israel cool their jets, so why isn't he? By definition a plan carried out by more than one person is a conspiracy. Every country or group mentioned in your post requires at least two people to conspire to achieve their objectives. So rather odd that you say my post is conspiratorial. Maybe you think I'm being all deep state, illuminati conspiratorial. Why look for shadowy organisations to blame when the ones in front of our eyes are right there not even trying to hide.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Ordinary folk never want war and never call for war, they are propagandised into it by people who have or want power and see an advantage in starting or carrying on war, and who stand to lose if peace breaks out all over the place. It has always been thus. The motivations are many and varied.

It's curious that @Bironic doesn't mention the US, when the US certainly has the power to throw a blanket on the fire. Right now it would seem to be to the distinct electoral advantage of Biden to make Israel cool their jets, so why isn't he? By definition a plan carried out by more than one person is a conspiracy. Every country or group mentioned in your post requires at least two people to conspire to achieve their objectives. So rather odd that you say my post is conspiratorial. Maybe you think I'm being all deep state, illuminati conspiratorial. Why look for shadowy organisations to blame when the ones in front of our eyes are right there not even trying to hide.

So your answer to my question is the United States? I'm trying to understand what the point you are walking around is.