251–260 of 507 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A double tap strike as well. Definitely no mistake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack Edit: *triple tap.
Triple tap seems to indicate definitely a mistake in targeting. Despite the war aims being nebulous, illegal, and ever changing, none of them would be advanced by bombing a girls school.
no shit... this is not proof of a mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you not like the Iranian regime to be destroyed at all?
It wasn't sarcasm. We are on the same team here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would you like a country to respond to getting bombed?
Destroy the bombers, not children? Also I am confused which contry you mean, mutual bombing has going on there since a while.
Iran bombed Israel in January as a distraction tactic during the protests.
Ok, I did win. Do I get cheaper gasoline now?
That's it? Momentary gasoline price is all that matters now? Not geopolitical interests, alliances, _Doing The Right Thing_? If that's the only angle you care about, then US subduing the Iranian regime would go a long way to de-facto dissolving OPEC and bring much more flexibility to oil prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What part of "doing the right thing" is bombing an all girls school?
A double tap strike as well. Definitely no mistake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack Edit: *triple tap.
>Independent analysis of satellite imagery suggested that the school and the Sayyid al-Shuhada military complex had been struck near-simultaneously by air-delivered munitions.[39]
The objectionable part of double/triple tap strike is that you're killing rescuers or aid workers. Otherwise from a morality perspective there's no meaningful difference between 1 bomb and 2/3 bombs, especially if the actual incident was by all accounts caused by a targeting error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It might not be. It might be. Uncertainty is the point of what Iran is doing. There might be mines in the straight that are sophisticated enough to be armed, disarmed, or moved on command, or there might not. There might be artillery emplacements* hidden and not found, ready to pop up... or there might not. There are probably still plenty of drones and missiles all over the country that can be called down on Hormuz a…
So what's left of the Iranian regime is basically like the Houthis now, reduced to getting world attention by committing random acts of piracy and firing at random ships off their coast. To make whatever point they were trying to make. Seems like a win to me. Declare victory, say the straight is open, just like the Red Sea is open. If anything moves at shipping, destroy its source. They don't have a right to attack m…
Do you understand the concept of asymmetrical warfare? Hiding hundreds of launchers, firing them, and losing them is already accounted for by Iran, while a decent chance of losing any asset going through is prohibitively expensive. The strait is closed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
??? Do most of your everyday life decisions involve starting wars or killing people? That's concerning. Are you a high-ranking officer in the US military? As it happens, I'm not, and my decisions do not typically have life-or-death consequences. I also don't even know what you're getting at. There was nothing "relativistic" or "morally grey" about my argument. My point is that in order for any kind of peace to exist,…
I didn't think the point was that subtle. There is good and evil, right and wrong, survival and destruction. You seem to think that drawing a line around some land and calling yourself a country immunizes you from the moral scrutiny of your neighbors. While this certainly accords with the promulgations of the morally bankrupt UN, it is not a recipe for existing in our world. This is why it is important to have a powe…
Ok, I did win. Do I get cheaper gasoline now?
Yes, in 10 years. Because even though gas prices go up hour by hour they take years to ever so slowly drift down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don’t think that the person you’re replying to is Donald Trump, do you? I'm confused how this interpretation could ever come about. No, I mean his point about "Trump trying to bolster NATO" is comic, as Trump is actively weakening NATO, no matter his stated goals wrt. improving funding and having member states "carry their load". _Especially_ his threats to Greenland and Canada, for no apparent reason. It's rea…
Turns out consistency is overrated. We talk as if it's a bare minimum, but there isn't actually any penalty for violating it. We've still got some kind of karmic notion that inconsistency is bad for you in the long run. Maybe it is, but that run keeps getting longer and longer.
Not that my country fared any better with this kind of rhetoric in last couple of years. But we don't have the democratic tradition as rich as you had (or at least I felt you had). I feel like despair will be the feeling for me this decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. Under sanctions to prevent them from being a danger to everyone around them while they sponsor terror globally and go on TV talking about getting nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Most of Europe is within striking distance of their current capabilities that they were not supposed to have. Treaties gave terms to limit the range of their missiles. Treaties were agreed to to prevent them from enriching uranium.…
The real dangers to peace in the Middle East are America, Israel and historically the British, because these three are the bastards that toppled Iran's democracy and lead them to such a defensive posture in the first place. With the utmost respect, kindly blow your judeo-american sanctions out your ass. America should have NOTHING to do with Iran whatsoever, we don't have any moral right to intervention here.
Sponsoring and funding global terror networks is not a “defensive posture”. Giving speeches about nuking your enemy while secretly developing those capabilities isn’t either.