Israel-Iran-Proxies Conflict

[urbanoid]

3 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

I just showed that it does. It perfectly fits one of genoside criterias. Your excuses to justify is irrelevant.

You haven't proved intent.

The intent clearly isn't to kill X number of people (if there was, it could have easily been 10X or 20X) but to achieve political/security goals in the war clearly started by the other side.

Pretty much exactly the WW2 situation of Western allies or the US/UN forces in Korea or Desert Storm. Don't want your cities leveled and population decimated? Don't start a silly war or, if you already did, take an L and surrender. 

Genocide isn't about a number of dead, if all the Gazans start rushing at the Israeli troops and the Israelis kill every single one of them, it still won't be genocide, despite the fact that there are no Gazans left in the aftermath. If wacky Japanese plan to arm tens of millions with spears to throw them against the Americans landing on Home Islands became reality (with predictable result), it still wouldn't have been genocide. 

AFAIK no laws of war bar anyone from destroying military targets even if there are human shields involved. Built a weapon cache under hospital? Well, too bad that all the patients died, but it's on you. 

[MiGG0]

3 minutes ago, Josh said:

I think if your government kills or kidnaps over a thousand people, you can expect the urban warfare that results to be very brutal if your side refuses to surrender. I doubt you would label the battle for Grozny genocide.

It is combatant/civialr casualties ratio. Dont know about Grozny but if there were lot more civilian casualties combared to combatants, then yes it would be genoside aswell.

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

It is combatant/civialr casualties ratio. Dont know about Grozny but if there were lot more civilian casualties combared to combatants, then yes it would be genoside aswell.

That's a definition of genocide you have taken out of your ass and simply outed yourself as... not a very serious person, definitely not one worth debating.

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, urbanoid said:

You haven't proved intent.

The intent clearly isn't to kill X number of people (if there was, it could have easily been 10X or 20X) but to achieve political/security goals in the war clearly started by the other side.

Pretty much exactly the WW2 situation of Western allies or the US/UN forces in Korea or Desert Storm. Don't want your cities leveled and population decimated? Don't start a silly war or, if you already did, take an L and surrender. 

Genocide isn't about a number of dead, if all the Gazans start rushing at the Israeli troops and the Israelis kill every single one of them, it still won't be genocide, despite the fact that there are no Gazans left in the aftermath. If wacky Japanese plan to arm tens of millions with spears to throw them against the Americans landing on Home Islands became reality (with predictable result), it still wouldn't have been genocide. 

AFAIK no laws of war bar anyone from destroying military targets even if there are human shields involved. Built a weapon cache under hospital? Well, too bad that all the patients died, but it's on you. 

You dont need to prove intent to kill "just" civilians. Lack of protection for civilans is enougt.

[Markus Becker]

3 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

It is combatant/civialr casualties ratio. Dont know about Grozny but if there were lot more civilian casualties combared to combatants, then yes it would be genoside aswell.

Even if we take the official numbers from Hamas controlled sources at face vale the ratio is showing the opposite. The totals too. And that's with the exaggerated numbers. 

[MiGG0]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

That's a definition of genocide you have taken out of your ass and simply outed yourself as... not a very serious person, definitely not one worth debating.

No, it is what ie ICJ considers in theri genoside case against Israel.

In ICJ case: Shitloads of civilian casualties has been pretty much already proved (compatant/civilian ratio is still vague but all point more civilian casualties than combatants). This leaves three possible outcomes for ICJ ruling:

1. Israel did kill everyone on purpose (-> Genoside)

2. Israel did not do enóught to protect civilians (-> Genoside)

3. Israels sucked protecting civilians (maybe not genoside if they can prove that they really, really, REALLY tried it, but failed)

Im quessing number 2 is going to be outcome of that ruling.

Edited October 29, 2024 by MiGG0

[MiGG0]

9 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Even if we take the official numbers from Hamas controlled sources at face vale the ratio is showing the opposite. The totals too. And that's with the exaggerated numbers. 

Uh, what? Depeding source civilian combatant ration has been 50-90% of civilians(so every source state more civilian casualties than combatants)

Edited October 29, 2024 by MiGG0

[Mighty_Zuk]

3 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Like "It was accident" Merkava shot peacekeepers lately? Or that their actions in gaza/lebanon is more like genoside and not "self defence".

Where are the lies?

2 hours ago, crazyinsane105 said:

Sorry but this is laughable. The destruction was limited to radars associated with S-300s and an Iranian made over the horizon radar. This is far from full neutralization of Iranian air defenses.

Did I ever claim the batteries were fully destroyed?

Nope. In fact, I was the first here to explain that C2 trailers and radars were targeted and that for the last several years in Syria, the IAF prioritized radars over complete battery destruction.

I remember also explaining that these are paving strikes, so for the short term, destroying radars, does neutralize an AD battery. Particularly when we understand that the main threat posed by these AD batteries isn't their missiles, but their sensors and ability to relay information.

 

Edited October 29, 2024 by Mighty_Zuk

[MiGG0]

2 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Where are the lies?

 

It was not "accident" and it is not "self defence" anymore.

Edited October 29, 2024 by MiGG0

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 minute ago, MiGG0 said:

It was not "accident" and it is not "self defence" anymore.

Can you substantiate your claim?

Please explain to me the sequence of events and decision making on all sides at the relevant time.

 

Regarding self defense, please explain to me how it was not so.

[MiGG0]

7 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Can you substantiate your claim?

Please explain to me the sequence of events and decision making on all sides at the relevant time.

 

Regarding self defense, please explain to me how it was not so.

Yuo can look yopurself. But as all know UN peackeeppero tower was shot, Israed claimed it accident and later UN confirmed that it was delibrate attack against their post.

About self defence alrfeady discussed. It fills genoside term now from all civilian casualties inflicted.

Edited October 29, 2024 by MiGG0

[crazyinsane105]

15 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Where are the lies?

Did I ever claim the batteries were fully destroyed?

Nope. In fact, I was the first here to explain that C2 trailers and radars were targeted and that for the last several years in Syria, the IAF prioritized radars over complete battery destruction.

I remember also explaining that these are paving strikes, so for the short term, destroying radars, does neutralize an AD battery. Particularly when we understand that the main threat posed by these AD batteries isn't their missiles, but their sensors and ability to relay information.

 

And the point I am making is that you are confident that IDF aircraft can now fly unrestricted over Iran. Which is a really long claim to make because it assumes none of these radars can be replaced quickly…yet they can. So unless there was a follow up strike that took place hours or even minutes after, I doubt IDF can fly over Iran without detection. There are just a bit too many radars at this point the Iranians have that is providing a bit of coverage 

This wasn’t the case back in 2008, but it is now. 

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, crazyinsane105 said:

And the point I am making is that you are confident that IDF aircraft can now fly unrestricted over Iran. Which is a really long claim to make because it assumes none of these radars can be replaced quickly…yet they can. So unless there was a follow up strike that took place hours or even minutes after, I doubt IDF can fly over Iran without detection. There are just a bit too many radars at this point the Iranians have that is providing a bit of coverage 

This wasn’t the case back in 2008, but it is now. 

Also even those S-300 radars have not been proved (my initial point)AFAIK. Only those two fixed OTH installations.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The point to be remembered surely, is not what the Iranians lost, but that Israel found it so easy to knock back their defences without any losses, and hit what they wanted.

That was the message sent, and surely the one the Iranians are reflecting on.

[MiGG0]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The point to be remembered surely, is not what the Iranians lost, but that Israel found it so easy to knock back their defences without any losses, and hit what they wanted.

That was the message sent, and surely the one the Iranians are reflecting on.

Well, yeah but that is not exaclty what is shown this point (atleast so far). Israel used shitloads of planes and what we see is minimal damage. You would expect much more damage from numbers used.

UKR drone strikes do more "visible" damage (which ofourse is not to say is actually more). Those buildings could be totally empty that we see in pictures... or full of important stuff.

Edited October 29, 2024 by MiGG0

[crazyinsane105]

17 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

The point to be remembered surely, is not what the Iranians lost, but that Israel found it so easy to knock back their defences without any losses, and hit what they wanted.

That was the message sent, and surely the one the Iranians are reflecting on.

They used ALBMs, something Iran doesn’t have a defense against. I doubt anybody believed they would. 
 

The IDF didn’t fly a single sortie over Iranian soil though, unlike in all other strikes since Oct 7. Had they flown a sortie over Iran and dropped a shit ton of JDAMs and flew back without any losses, that would be a significant issue for the Iranians no doubt. But for some reason that didn’t happen 

[Markus Becker]

3 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

No, it is what ie ICJ considers in theri genoside case against Israel.

In ICJ case: Shitloads of civilian casualties has been pretty much already proved (compatant/civilian ratio is still vague but all point more civilian casualties than combatants). This leaves three possible outcomes for ICJ ruling:

1. Israel did kill everyone on purpose (-> Genoside)

2. Israel did not do enóught to protect civilians (-> Genoside)

3. Israels sucked protecting civilians (maybe not genoside if they can prove that they really, really, REALLY tried it, but failed)

Im quessing number 2 is going to be outcome of that ruling.

Oh please, it's what you expect fighting an armed group whose rules of engagement can be summed up as: Violate all the laws of war and don't even use lube! 

[MiGG0]

1 minute ago, Markus Becker said:

Oh please, it's what you expect fighting an armed group whose rules of engagement can be summed up as: Violate all the laws of war and don't even use lube! 

Yes I do. Fighting terrorist like terrorist makes you... terrorist aswell. Or in this case fighting terrotist with genoside, makes you mass murdereds. Im sure there are plenty of people with excuses in history that try to justify their mass murders or genoside aswell. Question is are you one of those (not personally you, but in generall terms) or not?

[Markus Becker]

Look, it's always warcrime to use human shields, it's not one to attack a target protected by human shields. 

[MiGG0]

9 minutes ago, Markus Becker said:

Look, it's always warcrime to use human shields, it's not one to attack a target protected by human shields. 

It is genoside if you dont protect civilian lifes enought regardless if there were terrorist (or any other valid target) among them. And current civilian casualtied show protecting civilians has failed badly. That itself fills "genoside" term (unless Israelis can prove that they just sucked in it, but very hard to do in this point).

Edited October 29, 2024 by MiGG0

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, MiGG0 said:

Yuo can look yopurself. But as all know UN peackeeppero tower was shot, Israed claimed it accident and later UN confirmed that it was delibrate attack against their post.

About self defence alrfeady discussed. It fills genoside term now from all civilian casualties inflicted.

You're embarrassing yourself.

1 hour ago, crazyinsane105 said:

And the point I am making is that you are confident that IDF aircraft can now fly unrestricted over Iran. Which is a really long claim to make because it assumes none of these radars can be replaced quickly…yet they can.

Are the replacement radars active? If not, when will they be?

1 hour ago, crazyinsane105 said:

So unless there was a follow up strike that took place hours or even minutes after, I doubt IDF can fly over Iran without detection.

I don't understand this "argument". There were 3 waves of attack.

1 hour ago, crazyinsane105 said:

There are just a bit too many radars at this point the Iranians have that is providing a bit of coverage 

Iran is a huge country. It doesn't have that many radars, and what it does have, hardly includes any redundancies from overlap. 

3 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

It is genoside if you dont protect civilian lifes enought regardless if there were terrorist amogn them. And current civilian casualtied show protecting civilians has failed badly. That itself fills "genoside" term.

Given the amount of typos and obvious lack of thought, you're either drunk or well below capacity to use the internet for research.

Edited October 29, 2024 by Mighty_Zuk

[MiGG0]

So you are one of the people that try to justify genoside. Got it.

Edited October 29, 2024 by MiGG0

[urbanoid]

Just now, MiGG0 said:

So you are people that try to justify genoside. Got it

Yes, we are chad genocide enjoyers, unlike you, you virgin genocide protester. You got us fair and square.

[R011]

5 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Like "It was accident" Merkava shot peacekeepers lately? Or that their actions in gaza/lebanon is more like genoside and not "self defence".

Given that Israeli actions don't come close at all to what any reasonable person would call genocide, or even excessive, that's not very convincing.

[glenn239]

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

Iran is a huge country. It doesn't have that many radars, and what it does have, hardly includes any redundancies from overlap. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Defense_Force

Looks like a shit ton of SAM systems to me....