Iran’s IRGC say attack on Israel response to killing of Nasrallah
Iran’s Fars news agency is reporting that Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said the missile attack under way on Israel is in response to the killing of Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah last week as well as that of the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh earlier this year.
“In response to the martyrdom of Ismail Haniyeh, Hassan Nasrallah and (IRGC Guards commander) Nilforoshan, we targeted the heart of the occupied territories,” the IRGC said in a statement.
So seems like Iran intends this to be a one and done response for everything Israel has done the last few months.
… Yeah. Iran “doesn’t strike first”. They just back terrorist groups with funding, supplies, and planning so that they can strike instead.
Please do yourself a favor and actually educate yourself on the clusterfuck that is the middle east rather than just parroting whatever a twitch streamer tells you. This has been going in cycles for decades.
There is a significant difference between proxies and a direct missile attack launched by a nation-state. Just as there is a significant difference between the US arming a genocidal state, and the US actually dropping bombs directly on civilians. Not to say Iran and the US are not blameless for the actions of their proxies, but there are degrees here that are significant. You kneejerk “Iran bad, Israel good” view of the world is devoid of nuance. Maybe you should get yourself a twitch stream.
Believe it or not, but you don’t have to explicitly state something for you to be doing something. It’s extremely obvious that you approached this news with that bias.
A bias of… state sponsored terrorism bad and escalation bad? Or is the problem that I have cared about the dead civilians in the region for more than a year?
REALLY curious what you “sense” from that sentence.
Well. The current conflict with Israel only really goes back about 80-ish years. And there are strong arguments that the current iranian proxy wars are a different conflict with different root causes but… yeah.
The region itself? Most of that goes back to when The West decided to redraw borders with no real logic other than guaranteeing cyclic wars of ethnic cleansing between warlord. I want to say that is more 150-ish years, but I genuinely forget. So it very well could be centuries in that regard.
But the way to think of it? The former is why EVERYONE hates Israel. The latter is why nobody is actually interested in helping the Palestinians and just view them as a way to bleed IDF resources and give the government rope to hang themselves with.
I would say the current cycle of violence can be said to have begun after WWI and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. But there have been plenty more cycles of sectarian and tribal violence in the region over the centuries.
Yes. There are millenia of conflicts. There are millenia of conflicts around the globe. You get two groups of humans next to each other and they are going to start stabbing each other.
But it was normal (apologies for the negative connotations) tribal warfare. Different regions would fight other regions as both skirmishes and conquest. But it was largely when Westerners decided to draw up a bunch of maps with no willingness to understand the residents that we began the current cycles of horror. Because lets say you hate the Reds and the Reds hate you. But now? Now you live in a city with one Red and the rest of the Reds live in a city with one You. Eventually someone decides to do some ethnic cleansing which leads to retaliatory ethnic cleansing and more wars and so forth.
And, inevitably, warlords see an opportunity to gain power. Which leads to refugees which leads to ethnic cleansing which leads to…
Pretty sure humans dont always stab one another. But if thats what you assume will happen, it will just push one person to stab first. We should be rejecting any and all hateful talk and speach. As soon as someone talks about instigating voilence, its no surprise that people start taking pot shots at him.
The Washington Post is reporting, citing three anonymous Pentagon officials, that American troops in the Middle East were not targeted during the Iranian missile attack in Israel.
Iraqi group linked to Iran have previously fired rockets at military bases housing US soldiers in Iraq and Syria.
Another sign that Iran is trying to respond, as a deterrent, rather than with an intent to escalate. At least that’s what it seems like so far.
Israeli military spokesperson Daniel Hagari just held a televised address.
In it, he said the Israeli military is “fully prepared to defend and retaliate” to the Iranian attack, stressing that it would be in a “timely manner”.
So seems like Iran intends this to be a one and done response for everything Israel has done the last few months.
i.e. “Please don’t escalate this any further. We prefer this level of escalation and no more.”
Yeah, that’s been Iran’s position for a while. They don’t strike first, but they’ll return fire.
They do arm plenty of proxy groups, though.
… Yeah. Iran “doesn’t strike first”. They just back terrorist groups with funding, supplies, and planning so that they can strike instead.
Please do yourself a favor and actually educate yourself on the clusterfuck that is the middle east rather than just parroting whatever a twitch streamer tells you. This has been going in cycles for decades.
There is a significant difference between proxies and a direct missile attack launched by a nation-state. Just as there is a significant difference between the US arming a genocidal state, and the US actually dropping bombs directly on civilians. Not to say Iran and the US are not blameless for the actions of their proxies, but there are degrees here that are significant. You kneejerk “Iran bad, Israel good” view of the world is devoid of nuance. Maybe you should get yourself a twitch stream.
Where did I ever say
But hey, much easier to attack a strawman, right?
Believe it or not, but you don’t have to explicitly state something for you to be doing something. It’s extremely obvious that you approached this news with that bias.
A bias of… state sponsored terrorism bad and escalation bad? Or is the problem that I have cared about the dead civilians in the region for more than a year?
REALLY curious what you “sense” from that sentence.
*centuries
Well. The current conflict with Israel only really goes back about 80-ish years. And there are strong arguments that the current iranian proxy wars are a different conflict with different root causes but… yeah.
The region itself? Most of that goes back to when The West decided to redraw borders with no real logic other than guaranteeing cyclic wars of ethnic cleansing between warlord. I want to say that is more 150-ish years, but I genuinely forget. So it very well could be centuries in that regard.
But the way to think of it? The former is why EVERYONE hates Israel. The latter is why nobody is actually interested in helping the Palestinians and just view them as a way to bleed IDF resources and give the government rope to hang themselves with.
I would say the current cycle of violence can be said to have begun after WWI and the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. But there have been plenty more cycles of sectarian and tribal violence in the region over the centuries.
Yes. There are millenia of conflicts. There are millenia of conflicts around the globe. You get two groups of humans next to each other and they are going to start stabbing each other.
But it was normal (apologies for the negative connotations) tribal warfare. Different regions would fight other regions as both skirmishes and conquest. But it was largely when Westerners decided to draw up a bunch of maps with no willingness to understand the residents that we began the current cycles of horror. Because lets say you hate the Reds and the Reds hate you. But now? Now you live in a city with one Red and the rest of the Reds live in a city with one You. Eventually someone decides to do some ethnic cleansing which leads to retaliatory ethnic cleansing and more wars and so forth.
And, inevitably, warlords see an opportunity to gain power. Which leads to refugees which leads to ethnic cleansing which leads to…
Pretty sure humans dont always stab one another. But if thats what you assume will happen, it will just push one person to stab first. We should be rejecting any and all hateful talk and speach. As soon as someone talks about instigating voilence, its no surprise that people start taking pot shots at him.
Bit of it, yeah. But Iran in particular is a mid-20th century clusterfuck of British and US interference.
Honestly the best thing we can all do is wean ourselves off oil so it can go back to being a scattering of unimportant desert tribes.
I think it’s highly unlikely that Israel will agree on that one. This may escalate and quickly.
Another sign that Iran is trying to respond, as a deterrent, rather than with an intent to escalate. At least that’s what it seems like so far.
Hmm…