Jump to content

Israel-Hamas war thread


Brisketexan

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

UN posting some interesting stuff. Lot of people in the original message point out there is no crater and it appears to just be a sinkhole. 

 

You know this, but I think a lot of people don’t realize how dependent UN agencies are on local personnel everywhere and especially places like Gaza.  There aren’t really a lot “UN third country personnel” there to run things and push out information, they will be relying on local populations with attendant competing interests and agendas. 
 

I also really think one reason that so many people were reluctant to believe how horrible October 7 really was is because of how much mendacious reporting on atrocities they know their own side regularly does, so they can’t believe another side might tell the truth. The Russian population has been poisoned this way. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

You know this, but I think a lot of people don’t realize how dependent UN agencies are on local personnel everywhere and especially places like Gaza.  There aren’t really a lot “UN third country personnel” there to run things and push out information, they will be relying on local populations with attendant competing interests and agendas. 
 

I also really think one reason that so many people were reluctant to believe how horrible October 7 really was is because of how much mendacious reporting on atrocities they know their own side regularly does, so they can’t believe another side might tell the truth. The Russian population has been poisoned this way. 

 

I used to listen to this song decades ago and have always thought about the last line. Always thought that shit will never happen again. I'm not so sure anymore.

Post office clerks put up signs saying "Position Closed"
And secretaries turn off typewriters and put on their coats
And janitors padlock the gates for security guards to patrol
And bachelors phone up their friends for a drink while the married ones turn on a chat show
And they'll all be lonely tonight and lonely tomorrow
"Gentlemen time please, you know we can't serve anymore"
Now the traffic lights change to stop, when there's nothing to go
And by five o'clock everything's dead and every third car is a cab
And ignorant people sleep in their beds like the doped white mice in the college lab
And nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all
The needle returns to the start of the song
And we all sing along like before
And we'll all be lonely tonight and lonely tomorrow
Telephone exchanges click while there's nobody there
The Martians could land in the car park and no one would care
Closed-circuit cameras in department stores
Shoot the same movie every day
And the stars of these films neither die nor get killed
Just survive constant action replay
And nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all
The needle returns to the start of the song
And we all sing along like before
And we'll all be lonely tonight and lonely tomorrow
And bill hoardings advertise products that nobody needs
While "Angry from Manchester" writes to complain about all the repeats on TV
Computer terminals report some gains in the values of copper and tin
While American businessmen snap up Van Goghs for the price of a hospital wing
And nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all
The needle returns to the start of the song
And we all sing along like before
And nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all
They'll burn down the synagogues at six o'clock
And we'll all go along like before
And we'll all be lonely tonight and lonely tomorrow
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I have been puzzled by are cries for a ceasefire but never any explanation on how that would work. 

Shadi Hamid has an outline of his idea for one in the Washington Post today. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/08/gaza-cease-fire-israel-negotiation-hamas/

Quote

Opinion A cease-fire in Gaza isn’t a fantasy. Here’s how it could work.

 

By Shadi Hamid

Columnist and Editorial Board member

November 8, 2023 at 6:30 a.m. EST

 

The destruction in Gaza has reached staggering levels. More than 4,000 children have died — equivalent to 600,000 children as a share of the U.S. population. It is not sufficient to say war is tragic, although it is. It is true that Israel doesn’t deliberately aim to kill civilians. But for the Palestinians who must mourn their dead, are they supposed to find solace in the notion that Israel didn’t intentionally target their loved ones, when the outcome is the same?

 

What might a plausible cease-fire look like in practice? The specifics matter. Any proposal must take seriously Israel’s legitimate security needs. First, Hamas must agree to release hostages and commit to halting rocket fire into Israel. In exchange, Israel would agree to stop its bombardment of Gaza as well as any ground incursions into Gazan territory.

 

Once this first step is taken, a cease-fire would allow for further negotiations on what comes next. These talks should be led by the United States, with the active support of governments in communication with Hamas — namely Qatar and Turkey. These countries should demand that Hamas offload its governing responsibilities in Gaza to the Palestinian Authority.

While it will be challenging to iron out the specifics of such an arrangement, some rough outlines can be sketched. Just as it is unrealistic to ask Israel to accept an unconditional cease-fire, so, too, is the notion that Hamas can be “eradicated.” Unlike al-Qaeda or the Islamic State, both of which often relied on foreign fighters, Hamas members and their families are Palestinian. Truly eliminating the organization — one with hundreds of thousands of supporters and sympathizers — would require mass killing on an unprecedented scale.

 

But if Hamas members won’t disappear, what happens to them? Any intra-Palestinian negotiations should include a path for low- and mid-level Hamas cadres, as well as members of the group’s political leadership, to be incorporated within any future governing structure. Without one, the Palestinian Authority will continue to suffer from a major legitimacy deficit. Under any such “reconciliation” agreement between Palestinian factions, armed groups would need to demobilize and integrate their military forces within those of the Palestinian Authority. Elections would need to be held within a reasonable time and, in order to participate, members of Hamas and other militants would need to commit to pursuing any political aims through the ballot box.

 

All of this might sound like a fantasy. But ambitious and imaginative proposals often begin as fantasies. One must start somewhere, after all.

 

And there is precedent. In previous Egyptian-brokered Palestinian reconciliation agreements, including the 2014 Shati Agreement and the 2017 Fatah-Hamas Agreement, Hamas agreed to subject itself to the authority of a consensus government that would abide by previous agreements with Israel. Of course, after the horrific attacks against Israeli civilians on Oct. 7, there is no reason to take Hamas at its word. Compliance would need to be closely monitored. But a cease-fire is not a peace deal. If elements of Hamas were to renege on an intra-Palestinian agreement and resume rocket fire or armed maneuvers inside of Israel, then the Israel Defense Forces would have the right to resume military action against targets in Gaza.

 

This is not a time for repeating old mantras or hoping that Israel, through the goodness of its own heart, might agree to a cease-fire because it is the right thing to do for Palestinians. Israel, like any state, will prioritize its own citizens. In other words, we might wish it were otherwise, but Israel is not uniquely malevolent for caring less about Palestinians.

At the same time, Palestinians would need reason to believe that new governance arrangements in Gaza would not be the end of the story. A return to the status quo ante, including a continuation of an Israeli blockade, would create the conditions for future radicalization and fatally undermine the legitimacy of any authority in Gaza. Palestinians need to be shown — by the Biden administration and by Israel — that an independent state incorporating Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem is possible, not just in word but in deed.

 

Future U.S. military aid to Israel must be made contingent on it committing in good faith to this path. The Israeli government could not merely say that it accepts Palestine’s right to exist (although that would be nice). It would need to take concrete and tangible measures toward the establishment of a Palestinian state, including by entering into direct and unconditional negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

 

The United States must use its leverage to bring Israel to the table. The alternative is a return to prewar conditions in Gaza and the West Bank that is dangerous for Palestinians and Israelis alike. In such an environment of hopelessness, Palestinians would likely lose faith and again gravitate toward supporting armed insurrection.

 

To be sure, any prospect of peace between Israel and the Palestinians remains far off. But the lack of a clear vision for exactly how to achieve it shouldn’t stand in the way of doing what can be done today. Now and not later, a cease-fire is necessary. Fortunately, it is also possible.

 

So many parts of this just seem fanciful (especially since Hamas has said they won't stop attacking civilians), but at least it's a plan. 

 

Lebanese writer Hussain Abdul Hussain is likewise dubious of how realistic this plan is

 

Quote

Dear Shadi, enjoyed reading your column. Let me point out the half dozen errors in it.

1- "Hamas [should] offload its governing responsibilities in Gaza to the Palestinian Authority." When you get that, I will get you an IDF ceasefire. In fact, a Hamas handover of arms to PA can end this war, yesterday.

2- "Palestinian reconciliation agreements, including the 2014 Shati Agreement and the 2017 Fatah-Hamas Agreement, Hamas agreed to subject itself to the authority of a consensus government that would abide by previous agreements with Israel." There are many more Palestinian reconciliation agreements, including late Saudi King Abdullah taking Abbas and Meshaal/Haniyyah to swear before Kaaba in Mecca in 2007 to end split, and the most recent in Algeria in Oct 2022. None of these agreements went beyond signing papers, shaking hands, each party getting a hefty bonus for signature, then each going back to its trench. PA and Hamas never reconciled, will never do. Things are easier said in Washington than done in Ramallah and Gaza. When Haniyyah said in a speech last week that Hamas "accept a Palestinian state on 1967 territory," Abbas's advisor Mahmud Habbash said Hamas cannot propose anything because PLO is sole and legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. The two sides might look unified in cursing Israel during this Gaza War, but animosity between them cannot be hidden. 

3- "A return to the status quo ante, including a continuation of an Israeli blockade, would create the conditions for future radicalization." Now we know that under "blockade," 100 trucks a day entered Gaza through Rafah. Given the tens of thousands of Hamas rockets and other arms and ammunition, I fail to see where the blockade was. But even if I assume there was an Israeli blockade on Gaza, it did not "create radicalization" because Hamas coup predated "blockade." Israel left Gaza in 2005. Hamas won election in 2006. Hamas executed a coup, killed PA and ejected it in 2007, took over strip. Only then Israel imposed restrictions, the "blockade," on Gaza. Also, if Israel eradicates Hamas military (al-Qassam) in Gaza and someone else takes over government, no reason to keep the "blockade" that existed because of the Hamas takeover not causing the Hamas takeover.

4- "[Israel] would need to take concrete and tangible measures toward the establishment of a Palestinian state, including by entering into direct and unconditional negotiations with the Palestinian Authority."

Israel has never said no to talking to Palestinians, any day, any minute. It is Palestinians who have placed conditions on peace talks, mainly that Israel stop settlement building. Unconditional peace talks are brilliant, if you can convince Palestinians to accept them. I've been advocating for them for over a decade.

As for Israel taking measures to establishing a Palestinian state, I hope you see the absurdity of such demand. Only Palestinians can establish Palestine. The prerequisite would be for Palestinians to show ability to self govern, to respect deals with Israel and others, and to speak on behalf of all Palestinians (not Arafat signs peace and Hamas executes suicide bombings). Once Palestinians have a functioning government that speaks with one voice, Palestine would become a procedural measure.

All my best,

Hussain

 

Edited by Viper
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

But why don't we hit one in Iran with the message to cut it out? Hell, hit it hard and don't claim responsibility. Iran will know who did it. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Viper said:

One thing I have been puzzled by are cries for a ceasefire but never any explanation on how that would work. 

Shadi Hamid has an outline of his idea for one in the Washington Post today. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/11/08/gaza-cease-fire-israel-negotiation-hamas/

 

So many parts of this just seem fanciful (especially since Hamas has said they won't stop attacking civilians), but at least it's a plan. 

 

Lebanese writer Hussain Abdul Hussain is likewise dubious of how realistic this plan is

 

 

Israel should tell the world they will stop firing upon the unconditional surrender of Hamas and any other combatants in Gaza.  Until that happens, fuck off.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the SSGN that is there is indeed the USS Florida.  The same SSGN that shot 105 tomahawks into Libya the last time.  When they did that the last time.  The Florida was concerned that they didn't have enough ballast to dive again.  Luckily there isn't a real Navy that is able to threaten a surfaced submarine. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

So the SSGN that is there is indeed the USS Florida.  The same SSGN that shot 105 tomahawks into Libya the last time.  When they did that the last time.  The Florida was concerned that they didn't have enough ballast to dive again.  Luckily there isn't a real Navy that is able to threaten a surfaced submarine. 

If they need more ballast, I bet we can airlift in one of Vic Mackey's dates and take care of things.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure I'm going to get toasted, but Iran and its proxies are just about ready to FAFO. At some point, the US needs to stop punishing the proxies and punish Iran as well. I'm certain POTUS has had many, many meetings on that plan. It certainly feels like we're going to end up there, meetings or no. Just stream of couscous, but come on. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/40-us-service-members-may-brain-injuries-iran-linked-attacks-rcna123591

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-carries-out-more-strikes-against-iranian-targets-syria-2023-11-08/

"U.S. and coalition troops have been attacked at least 40 times in Iraq and Syria by Iran-backed forces since the start of October."

The fucking US is the only voice of reason that has any meaning in this for Israel, and Iran and co are deliberately, systematically escalating while trying to keep is jsut below the level of plausible deniability for the common Arab and US citizen. The US is not in control. 

Fuck it. Lot's of people hate the US and will not change their opinion. But this is not WMD in Iraq or even Afghanistan pretense. Let's see how Russia does without Iraqi drones and put Iran in self defense mode, for once, rather than continuing to allow them to murder and kill through proxies like hamas and hezbollah. 

Why the fuck do we spend 12% of all spending in the US (roughly a trillion a year), on the military if we won't, can't or shouldn't use it? Being attacked sure as hell seems like the right time to use it. 

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Viper said:

Apparently the new massacre denialism is to use unrelated videos to claim it was the IDF that shot the civilians at the peace festival

 

 

What an amazingly bad attempt at lying and creating a cover story. 

In addition to the stuff mentioned above, there were also countless videos that Hamas released themselves on the day of the attack, and shortly after, showing they were the ones attacking, and proud of it. There was also lots of footage uploaded by attendees.

We saw lots of evidence of Hamas terrorists coming in on paragliders and motorcycles. There was zero evidence of helicopters, despite copious amounts of footage.

Plus, if there was any truth to this, Hamas wouldn't have waited a month to release it. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Welshy said:

I'm sure I'm going to get toasted, but Iran and its proxies are just about ready to FAFO. At some point, the US needs to stop punishing the proxies and punish Iran as well. I'm certain POTUS has had many, many meetings on that plan. It certainly feels like we're going to end up there, meetings or no. Just stream of couscous, but come on. 

If reports are accurate, we killed some of the Iranians in Syria today.

Also, rebels in Yemen downed one of our Reaper drones (over water), so everybody (Iran) is escalating. I will not be surprised if within two weeks, we've hit Iranian drone factories, if they keep up drone attacks against our forces.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

If reports are accurate, we killed some of the Iranians in Syria today.

Also, rebels in Yemen downed one of our Reaper drones (over water), so everybody (Iran) is escalating. I will not be surprised if within two weeks, we've hit Iranian drone factories, if they keep up drone attacks against our forces.

Yeah, everyone is concerned about blame and plausible deniability, but tolerance for Iran has run its course in the US military, and some think this is actually an excuse for the US to deal with Iran.

Talking to some military friends who live in the intel and cyber space, both Colonels (one reserve on active), they don't think anyone has an option other than escalation by steps and hope for a miracle. Not dissimilar to WW2 Bismarckian geo-politics. Everyone has an agenda and obligation that necessitates X, and X triggers the same with everyone else until you just have to march. Both guys say Iran is desperately praying this doesn't go to "fuck 'em" level from the US and have said so.

They both say the US already believes it's unavoidable.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Welshy said:

I'm sure I'm going to get toasted, but Iran and its proxies are just about ready to FAFO. At some point, the US needs to stop punishing the proxies and punish Iran as well. I'm certain POTUS has had many, many meetings on that plan. It certainly feels like we're going to end up there, meetings or no. Just stream of couscous, but come on. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/40-us-service-members-may-brain-injuries-iran-linked-attacks-rcna123591

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-carries-out-more-strikes-against-iranian-targets-syria-2023-11-08/

"U.S. and coalition troops have been attacked at least 40 times in Iraq and Syria by Iran-backed forces since the start of October."

The fucking US is the only voice of reason that has any meaning in this for Israel, and Iran and co are deliberately, systematically escalating while trying to keep is jsut below the level of plausible deniability for the common Arab and US citizen. The US is not in control. 

Fuck it. Lot's of people hate the US and will not change their opinion. But this is not WMD in Iraq or even Afghanistan pretense. Let's see how Russia does without Iraqi drones and put Iran in self defense mode, for once, rather than continuing to allow them to murder and kill through proxies like hamas and hezbollah. 

Why the fuck do we spend 12% of all spending in the US (roughly a trillion a year), on the military if we won't, can't or shouldn't use it? Being attacked sure as hell seems like the right time to use it. 

 

The #1 reason we won't give Iran the "find out" part is Hezbollah. They have 10s of thousands of actual missiles that will overwelm Isreal's air defense. Big difference between them and the homemade Hamas stuff. 

In addition, Iran will almost certainly retaliate by firing thousands of ballistic missiles and drones. The US will then have to fully engage them and that's not something anyone wants right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

If reports are accurate, we killed some of the Iranians in Syria today.

Also, rebels in Yemen downed one of our Reaper drones (over water), so everybody (Iran) is escalating. I will not be surprised if within two weeks, we've hit Iranian drone factories, if they keep up drone attacks against our forces.

The great thing about using drones is that the U.S. can shrug and say no big deal or we can choose to end the Houthis as a political force. 
 

The strong pull is in the direction of the former, the preference here is for deterrence to work and there is a willingness to swallow a lot to make sure it does. There is a conscious effort from us to downplay these attacks and a conscious effort from Iran to make sure they can throw a proxy under the bus. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number 1 reason we haven't attacked Iran directly is they will close the Strait of Hormuz.  No one wants to see 20 dollars a gallon for gas right now.  We confront them.  We're gonna win, but we're going to lose some ships.  And even after that. Cleaning up the Straits to make it passable again could take months.  Iran knows this, we know this.  Iran is basically trying to keep itself in the news, without being the news.  If they really wanted to do some damage to our bases, they wouldn't strike at 44 different bases with a few missiles.  They would strike at 1 base with a few hundred missiles.  But they know if they kill some US soldiers then they are going to pay.  It's all window dressing. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Number 1 reason we haven't attacked Iran directly is they will close the Strait of Hormuz.  No one wants to see 20 dollars a gallon for gas right now.  We confront them.  We're gonna win, but we're going to lose some ships.  And even after that. Cleaning up the Straits to make it passable again could take months.  Iran knows this, we know this.  Iran is basically trying to keep itself in the news, without being the news.  If they really wanted to do some damage to our bases, they wouldn't strike at 44 different bases with a few missiles.  They would strike at 1 base with a few hundred missiles.  But they know if they kill some US soldiers then they are going to pay.  It's all window dressing. 

1- There are not 44 bases with large concentrations of troops. 

2- There was a push to make an onshore pipeline in the UAE so tankers would not have to go into the straits. Qatar fucked that one up because they wanted control of Dolphin. 

3- What are you going to hit? Kill some troops? Just like in the US military the average troop joined for belief and benefits. 

4- -Want to hit them hard? Leave their AF alone and take out their ports where they export oil from. 

5- What ships? Biggest threat is Bahrain and Qatar.

6- If it goes up. We can survive. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

1- There are not 44 bases with large concentrations of troops. 

2- There was a push to make an onshore pipeline in the UAE so tankers would not have to go into the straits. Qatar fucked that one up because they wanted control of Dolphin. 

3- What are you going to hit? Kill some troops? Just like in the US military the average troop joined for belief and benefits. 

4- -Want to hit them hard? Leave their AF alone and take out their ports where they export oil from. 

5- What ships? Biggest threat is Bahrain and Qatar.

6- If it goes up. We can survive. 

If Irans goal was to kill US troops.  They would send a few hundred missiles at some chow hall during lunch.  Right now the random missile shots are just to annoy us.  

If Iran closes the Straits the only way to break that blockade is to send our ships there to break the blockade and confront them directly. Their swarm drones and land based missiles is going to catch one of our ships off guard and put a big hole in it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

If Irans goal was to kill US troops.  They would send a few hundred missiles at some chow hall during lunch.  Right now the random missile shots are just to annoy us.  

If Iran closes the Straits the only way to break that blockade is to send our ships there to break the blockade and confront them directly. Their swarm drones and land based missiles is going to catch one of our ships off guard and put a big hole in it.  

Agree, they are not hitting our large locations. Sheik Isa is a pretty damn big port overseas. Iran won't attack our bases in Qatar or the UAE. Bahrain, maybe. Syria, for sure. 

How we respond? Don't agree. we have enough assets already in the region. Our air can take out their fleet. Keep the ships out of the Gulf and hammer their military only. This includes their drone factories.  Don't go near civilians. And then back off.

Edited by InkaUtexas
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Agree, they are not hitting our large locations. Sheik Isa is a pretty damn big port overseas. Iran won't attack our bases in Qatar or the UAE. Bahrain, maybe. Syria, for sure. 

How we respond? Don't agree. we have enough assets already in the region. Our air can take out their fleet. Keep the ships out of the Gulf and hammer their military only. This includes their drone factories.  Don't go near civilians. And then back off.

The problem with air is going to be.  Do the Arab nations allow us to use their air space.  Does Bahrain and UAE allow us to conduct missions out of our bases there.  Also with air, we are basically trying to sink a bunch of mid sized fishing boats.   It's expensive if we are trying to hit them with missiles.  You can't break a blockade with just air assets.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

The problem with air is going to be.  Do the Arab nations allow us to use their air space.  Does Bahrain and UAE allow us to conduct missions out of our bases there.  Also with air, we are basically trying to sink a bunch of mid sized fishing boats.   It's expensive if we are trying to hit them with missiles.  You can't break a blockade with just air assets.  

We run ops out of those countries all the time. And with the exception of Qatar they are not fond of Iran, except for money.

 And they have larger assets that are military. And yes you can. 

Or we can pull out and let Arabs/Persians go at it. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

We run ops out of those countries all the time. And with the exception of Qatar they are not fond of Iran, except for money.

 And they have larger assets that are military. And yes you can. 

Or we can pull out and let Arabs/Persians go at it. 

Their strategy in Hormuz would be small fast boats because the channel is so narrow.  But yeah I agree.  Let the Persians and the Arabs fight.  I want a 1930s isolationist America at this point.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Their strategy in Hormuz would be small fast boats because the channel is so narrow.  But yeah I agree.  Let the Persians and the Arabs fight.  I want a 1930s isolationist America at this point.

Well mount some hellfires in Oman. Or some other cool shit the world does not know we have

And ain't gonna happen. They make their $ on other places. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Welshy said:

Lalking to some military friends who live in the intel and cyber space, both Colonels (one reserve on active), they don't think anyone has an option other than escalation by steps and hope for a miracle. Not dissimilar to WW2 Bismarckian geo-politics. .

animal-house-bluto.gif

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

If Irans goal was to kill US troops.  They would send a few hundred missiles at some chow hall during lunch.  Right now the random missile shots are just to annoy us.  

Agree to an extent - even if it seems like a lot, it's more about them showboating/distracting than trying to actually kill large numbers of US troops.

18 hours ago, FartingMonk said:

If Iran closes the Straits the only way to break that blockade is to send our ships there to break the blockade and confront them directly. Their swarm drones and land based missiles is going to catch one of our ships off guard and put a big hole in it.  

If things escalate to that level, we dump hundreds of cruise missiles into Iranian factories, facilities, missile sites, and we sink their navy.  And if we lob some at their leadership and cause some chaos, then the Iranian youth who have quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) been mixing it up with the religious police over women's dress codes probably see an opening and go for it.

And at that point, Iran will not be able to ship any more missiles or drones to Russia, which has a huge benefit of helping Ukraine out a lot, and it's something we could do without having to get a funding bill passed.  The Russians, as much as they like shit stirred up,  are probably putting a lot of pressure on Iran not to take things too far because of that, because that would reduce the Russian ability to attack Ukrainian cafes, schools, restaurants, hospitals, and apartment buildings.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rumors are flying that we have escalated and hit an Iranian-backed militia headquarters, and that militias with Iranian support (define that however you want) then launched a dozen or more missiles/drones at the Conoco oilfields where a lot of Americans are stationed.  Or they launched first and then we hit the HQ.

I have no idea if this is related to those rumors (as in the rumors took this story and ran with it/changed details), as it's within hours of those rumors.

https://apnews.com/article/us-syria-airstrikes-iran-irgc-a84ed69e5b0ef6c9fa18656b72a9fda1

Quote

 The U.S. military conducted airstrikes on two locations in eastern Syria involving Iranian-backed groups, hitting a training location and a weapons facility, according to the Pentagon and U.S. officials. It marks the third time in a bit more than two weeks that the U.S. has retaliated against the militants for what has been a growing number of attacks on bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria.

In a statement, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the strikes targeted sites near Abukama and Mayadin and were used by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as Iran-backed militias.

Quote

According to the Pentagon, about 56 U.S. personnel have been injured in the attacks in Syria and Iraq, but all have returned to duty. Their injuries are a combination of traumatic brain injury and other minor wounds.

Happy Excuse Me GIF

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...