Israel-Iran-Proxies Conflict

[MiGG0]

11 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

@MiGG0 you here to troll or do you actually want to learn?

Because learning requires one to ask questions, not make baseless assertions. Time to face it - everything you wrote here in the past 24 hours was patently false.

No, what I have wrote is true. ICJ have case about Israel genoside and Israel is responsible for civilian casualties they inflict. Look it up youself. There  shitloadscof cases and accusation even from international law professors. Should be easy even to you find them.

 

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.1_Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.pdf

 

ICJ ruling:
https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454

 

Different accusation of war crimes:

https://www.reuters.com/world/un-experts-say-israels-strikes-gaza-amount-collective-punishment-2023-10-12/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/12/world/middleeast/un-report-israel-hamas-war-crimes.html

https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session56/a-hrc-56-crp-3.pdf


etc, etc... thgeree is shit load of these if you just TRY to find them

Edited October 30, 2024 by MiGG0

[Mighty_Zuk]

18 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

No, what I have wrote is true. ICJ have case about Israel genoside and Israel is responsible for civilian casualties they inflict. Look it up youself. There  shitloadscof cases and accusation even from international law professors. Should be easy even to you find them.

 

If it's so easy to find, why have you never, not even once, provided any evidence to your claims?

What I post here is also very easy to find, yet I go through the effort to make it presentable, easy to understand, and with verification for what I say. 

The only possible conclusion is that you're trolling, and as such should be ignored. Which I will, starting now.

[Mighty_Zuk]

As expected, both Hezbollah and Israel are ramping up attacks amid ceasefire talks to make their cases.

Hezbollah launched an SSM at Israel this morning at around 6 AM. The missile reportedly broke apart mid-flight, and at least one interceptor was sent against it.

In response, Israel is evacuating Baalbek, Hezbollah's northernmost stronghold, and where it stores most of its long range missiles including SRBMs like the one launched today.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

S-300 are the red circles. Together with the April strike, all 4 S-300 sites are, at the very least, blinded via destruction of radar. Several of the casualties are reportedly from a strike on an S-300 system's C2, which further degrades Iran's ability to restore these systems. Russia makes extensive use of its air defenses to cover its vast territory and frontlines, so having spare radars, C2, and other associated equipment - is not at all trivial.

Cyan circles are SA-22 aka Pantsir. Their locations indicate the sites of utmost importance to Iran.

What matters most is not a system's range, but its features. For example a PAC-3MSE missile will undoubtedly have lower range than a PAC-2 missile. But it is clearly optimized for BMD work, while the PAC-2 GEM isn't. 

What Iran needs first and foremost is air defenses capable of defeating not aircraft, but ALBMs. Then, it needs those capable of shooting down cruise missiles and that includes their penaids. And only then, it needs those capable of shooting down aircraft. 

Aircraft and cruise missiles have substantial penaids. Aircraft can carry pods, towed decoys, and employ their radars for powerful EW. Their advanced sensory allows them to also constantly assess the enemy's air defense. Cruise missiles are often accompanied by decoys. Being relatively light, high numbers of decoys can be employed.

ALBMs are another thing entirely. Whatever penaids they have - must be carried onboard. Their very long range, tremendous speed, and unique trajectory, don't allow aircraft to remain close enough, or even employ any independent decoys. Iran's failure to counter the threat of ALBMs, allowed Israel to defeat the closest thing Iran had to a BMD array.

 

I'm not an expert on missiles. Nor BMD. However, this fella right here says the S-300PMU-2 is optimized for BMD. With the S-300PMU-2 batteries offline, at least for now but possibly indefinitely, Iran no longer has BMD capability and its remaining air defense assets are vulnerable to Israeli ALBMs.

Now, a quick google search shows the Bavar 373, black circles, is also a BMD system. 

This is the time to explain that the image was taken from a tweet by Naftali Hazoni which I won't share here for the sake of brevity, but it is purely illustrative. However, it does show us that Iran's Bavar 373 systems, which Iran claims are longer range and altitude than S-300, were unable to protect the S-300 systems in a layered approach. 

The claims of use of a Suter-like capability, plus talk of Iran's air defenses largely neutralized despite no reference to the Bavar 373, likely indicate that the Bavar 373 is either less capable, not yet deployed, or somehow compromised.

The remaining air defenses are 15th Khordad, medium range air defenses optimized to defeat air breathing targets. But it seems Israel already recognized the relative vulnerability of cruise missiles, so these systems will be of little use to Iran. 

 

[MiGG0]

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

If it's so easy to find, why have you never, not even once, provided any evidence to your claims?

What I post here is also very easy to find, yet I go through the effort to make it presentable, easy to understand, and with verification for what I say. 

The only possible conclusion is that you're trolling, and as such should be ignored. Which I will, starting now.

Because it is lasy for you not to even try to find them. For once I’ll find links for you and edit this post after returning home (on work trip).

[Mighty_Zuk]

In this casual announcement on assassination of a senior Hezbollah figure, IAF shows an F-16I loaded with 4 Rampage ASMs.

Rampage has a 150km range when ground launched. It features a 120kg warhead ideal for soft targets. 

I don't know if it's meant to be used vs Iran, but it is certainly useful for strikes in, say, Iraq and northern Syria.

 

[glenn239]

13 hours ago, Josh said:

Oh, it is ratio and not intent? What is the golden ratio?

The golden ratio would be that if the targeted section of the base has 20 buildings, that 20 buildings have been destroyed.    But when it has 20 buildings and, say, 4 are destroyed, the question is.  Did the Israelis target fewer buildings or did the munitions get shot down?

[TrustMe]

50 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

In this casual announcement on assassination of a senior Hezbollah figure, IAF shows an F-16I loaded with 4 Rampage ASMs.

Rampage has a 150km range when ground launched. It features a 120kg warhead ideal for soft targets. 

I don't know if it's meant to be used vs Iran, but it is certainly useful for strikes in, say, Iraq and northern Syria.

 

 

I'm sure that a heavy ordnance load like the above would severely reduce performance. USA AF tankers were orbiting in Iraq during the first IAF strike. I'm sure that these tankers refueled Israeli aircraft for the return leg.

Edited October 30, 2024 by TrustMe

[glenn239]

8 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Of which there are very few systems that are relevant vs Israel. The vast majority of these are of the same capabilities as what Syria has, and we know Israel flies safely through Syria.

The question is not aircraft being shot down, it's how  many munitions  can be shot down.

Quote

You don't know for sure if IAF flew sorties directly above Iran. The leaked intel report, if it's not a PSYOP, suggests Israel's RA-01 drone can fly recon missions over Iran.

Quite possibly.  Stealth aircraft are undetectable to everything but LF radar outside 10-20 miles from the SAM battery.

 

Quote

There is no reason to destroy an entire facility. Hitting just the bottleneck or the hardest to replace and substitute machinery, has some clear benefits.

  The picture says that either the Israelis were selective or that the Iranians shot down most of the missiles.  Why pick one theory over the other?

Quote

If a site has 5 buildings. Building A takes 2 years to rebuild. Building B takes 1 year. And the rest take 3 months. So if I strike all of them or just A, it won't matter because it'd still take 2 years. So I didn't gain anything by targeting the smaller ones. But I did pay for the extra munitions and flew the extra planes.

The point is what's in the buildings, not the buildings themselves.  The IAF can't possibly have intel to the level to know what's in each building at any give time, so when they have 5 buildings, they need to destroy 5 buildings to be certain they accomplish the mission.

[seahawk]

The type and from of a building gives you a good idea on what is in it.

[Josh]

6 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

Who started war is irrelevant. Responsibity for civilian casualties are for both but as Hamas is terrorist organization they are already ”outlawed” . As attacker Israel needs to protect pakestinian still.

Who started the war is irrelevant? Is that how you feel about the U.S. in Iraq as well?

Hamas is literally the legal government of Gaza. That’s where the UN checks and Israeli collected taxes* go. If your government starts a war and refuses to end it, guess what, your country is a war zone. I’m sure a lot of the Germans were not super jazzed about the situation either, at least not by 1943.
 

*ETA: despite being ousted by Hamas, some Gaza officials were still on the Palestinian Authority’s payroll and being paid by Israeli collected taxes until last November.

Edited October 30, 2024 by Josh

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

The golden ratio would be that if the targeted section of the base has 20 buildings, that 20 buildings have been destroyed.    But when it has 20 buildings and, say, 4 are destroyed, the question is.  Did the Israelis target fewer buildings or did the munitions get shot down?

Iran doesn't have a capability to shoot down ALBMs of the types Israel fired.

21 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The question is not aircraft being shot down, it's how  many munitions  can be shot down.

None, if ALBMs are the main weapon of choice.

21 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The picture says that either the Israelis were selective or that the Iranians shot down most of the missiles.  Why pick one theory over the other?

Of course Israel was selective. The targets were very clearly meant as a paving strike, not a total decapitation strike.

21 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

The point is what's in the buildings, not the buildings themselves.  The IAF can't possibly have intel to the level to know what's in each building at any give time, so when they have 5 buildings, they need to destroy 5 buildings to be certain they accomplish the mission.

That's another assertion that's patently false. Israel conducted ops in the past where it only targeted specific sections of a building. 

Right after the strike, a former chief of air force said they had intel down to the 8th decimal in coordinates.

[glenn239]

6 minutes ago, Josh said:

Who started the war is irrelevant? 

AFAIK, the rules of warfare do not give a party that has been attacked more of  a green light to kill civilians.  Can you cite anything from international law that says otherwise?

[Josh]

2 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

AFAIK, the rules of warfare do not give a party that has been attacked more of  a green light to kill civilians.  Can you cite anything from international law that says otherwise?

Have the Russians been informed?

[glenn239]

14 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

That's another assertion that's patently false. Israel conducted ops in the past where it only targeted specific sections of a building. 

Sure, but the question remains as before  - are the surviving buildings indicative of selective Israeli target selection, Iranian AD, or both?  

Quote

Iran doesn't have a capability to shoot down ALBMs of the types Israel fired.

That's quite a sweeping statement.

Edited October 30, 2024 by glenn239

[glenn239]

16 minutes ago, Josh said:

Have the Russians been informed?

The ratio of civilian to military deaths in Ukraine is greater than 20:1 (ie, more than 20 military casualties to each civilian).  The ratio of civilian casualties in Palestine surely has to be more than 1:5 (ie, 5 civilian casualties for every military casualty).  The difference between the two is maybe 100-150 times more civilian deaths per combatant deaths in Palestine than in Ukraine.  Seems like a lot.

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2024 by glenn239

[Josh]

2 hours ago, glenn239 said:

The ratio of civilian to military deaths in Ukraine is greater than 20:1 (ie, more than 20 military casualties to each civilian).  The ratio of civilian casualties in Palestine surely has to be more than 1:5 (ie, 5 civilian casualties for every military casualty).  The difference between the two is maybe 100-150 times more civilian deaths per combatant deaths in Palestine than in Ukraine.  Seems like a lot.

 

 

 

I question those exact statistics but agree overall that Gaza has been hard on civilians. Urban warfare with a terror organization that adopts no uniform is going to be like that. Hamas committed numerous war crines to start this war and it knows exactly what it must do to end it.

Edited October 30, 2024 by Josh

[MiGG0]

53 minutes ago, Josh said:

Who started the war is irrelevant? Is that how you feel about the U.S. in Iraq as well?

Hamas is literally the legal government of Gaza. That’s where the UN checks and Israeli collected taxes* go. If your government starts a war and refuses to end it, guess what, your country is a war zone. I’m sure a lot of the Germans were not super jazzed about the situation either, at least not by 1943.
 

*ETA: despite being ousted by Hamas, some Gaza officials were still on the Palestinian Authority’s payroll and being paid by Israeli collected taxes until last November.

It irrelevant in question is Israel actions genoside. Civilians are civilians even side that started war and are under protection of International law.

[crazyinsane105]

44 minutes ago, Josh said:

I question those exact statistics but agree overall that Gaza has been hard on civilians. Urban warfare with a terror organization that adopts no uniform is going to be like that. Hamas committed numerous war critical start that war and it knows exactly what it must do to end it.

Sinwar had two goals for the Oct 7 attacks, and he clearly stated it. The first was to make the Israeli occupation much more costly, the second was to internationally isolate Israel. He knew that the number of civilian deaths would be astronomical but he was fine with this.

I do feel horrible for civilians on all sides trapped in this cycle of death, but Hamas knew what they were doing. 

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

Sure, but the question remains as before  - are the surviving buildings indicative of selective Israeli target selection, Iranian AD, or both?  

Selective targeting. I literally explained that before. Why are you incapable of comprehension?

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

That's quite a sweeping statement.

Yes it is. And also one which I thoroughly explained 2 posts above.

You don't get to complain given your record.

35 minutes ago, MiGG0 said:

It irrelevant in question is Israel actions genoside. Civilians are civilians even side that started war and are under protection of International law.

Didn't you say you were gonna reply with the necessary information on your jennycide claims?

1 hour ago, glenn239 said:

The ratio of civilian to military deaths in Ukraine is greater than 20:1 (ie, more than 20 military casualties to each civilian).  The ratio of civilian casualties in Palestine surely has to be more than 1:5 (ie, 5 civilian casualties for every military casualty).  The difference between the two is maybe 100-150 times more civilian deaths per combatant deaths in Palestine than in Ukraine.  Seems like a lot.

Didja figure it out yet?

Edited October 30, 2024 by Mighty_Zuk

[glenn239]

36 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Selective targeting. I literally explained that before. Why are you incapable of comprehension?

Yes, we understand.  Selective targeting is one of two explanations.  The other possibility is that AD prevented some buildings being hit.   

Quote

You don't get to complain given your record.

You stated that Iranian AD could not shoot down specific types of Israeli missiles.  This, immediately after you'd stated that you are not an expert in SAM systems or this type of technical discussion.   In fact, you and I have no clue what the status of Iranian AD is.  All we know is that they have a shit ton of SAM systems and are being assisted by both the Russians and the Chinese.

 

 

 

[R011]

11 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

? Over 40k total casualties of which 50-90% are civilians. Whole genoside term was taken in use after WWII, but they did genoside. What nazis did does not make Israel innocent in anyway. Your point?

This is the legal definition of genocide:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Israeli actions are not destroying the people pf Gaza.

[urbanoid]

25 minutes ago, glenn239 said:

Yes, we understand.  Selective targeting is one of two explanations.  The other possibility is that AD prevented some buildings being hit.   

You stated that Iranian AD could not shoot down specific types of Israeli missiles.  This, immediately after you'd stated that you are not an expert in SAM systems or this type of technical discussion.   In fact, you and I have no clue what the status of Iranian AD is.  All we know is that they have a shit ton of SAM systems and are being assisted by both the Russians and the Chinese.

 

 

 

'Whatever success a Western or Western-aligned country achieves, it's fake news, not really a success, and even if it is it's just a prelude to a disaster in the future.'

Yaaawn 

[R011]

9 hours ago, MiGG0 said:

This number is what UN uses and probably will be used ICJ aswell. They consider it reliable enought.

By "UN" you mean UNRWA which is effectively an agency of Hamas in Gaza.

[Josh]

19 minutes ago, R011 said:

This is the legal definition of genocide:

Any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Israeli actions are not destroying the people pf Gaza.

It’s worth noting that Russia has transferred Ukrainian children to Russia and so falls under the above definition.