Utopia Talk / Politics / Gaza: ad caedem, non ad pugnam

Rugian Member	Mon Oct 23 01:40:16 "If you have a mind to protect your state and not to suffer all this country to become [Muslim], arm yourselves in the first watch, and follow me in force, not to a battle but to a massacre." - Marcus Furius Camillus Link to previous: http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=92257
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 23 01:55:17 Did the EU teach Hamas how to use paragliders? "Diplomat conducted ‘first Gaza paragliding flight,’ shouted, ‘Free Palestine!’ three months before terror attack By Ronny Reyes Published Oct. 22, 2023, 4:40 p.m. ET A former European Union envoy to Gaza is being slammed for allegedly empowering Hamas to use paragliders, the very devices employed by the Palestinian terrorists to invade Israel and kill more than 1,400. Sven Kühn von Burgsdorff, a German diplomat, crowed on video in July that he was conducting “the first Gaza paragliding flight in history” as he soared over Gaza’s coast while shouting, “Free Palestine!” The giddy then-EU envoy told Palestinians in the footage that once they’re free, “You can do exactly the same thing.”" http://nyp...e-months-before-terror-attack/
Paramount Member	Mon Oct 23 03:04:29 NYPost lol Anyhoo The EU is in the right to help Palestine build its own airforce and train their pilots. Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and its genocidal blockade of Gaza is illegal.
Paramount Member	Mon Oct 23 04:12:52 Rugian, ” 57% of US Muslims think that Hamas was justified in butchering over a thousand Israelis.” If Israel is justified to massacre civilians, then Hamas is too. The Palestinian Authority, Hamas and the UN Security Council has for many years been telling Israel and its settlers to leave Palestine. What happens to them when they refuse to leave and when Hamas attacks in self defense is first and foremost Israel’s responsibility. Hamas, PA and the UNSC has actually been very nice and humane by telling Israel to leave.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 05:42:10 Ruggy Your timeline is way off. Paragliding has been a thing since PLO. Nevermind that Israel's massive security failure enabled the operation. Israel was damned lucky Hamas had not planned on success. Murder Your analogy was problematic on many levels. But yes, occupying powers have huge obligations. Israel's alternative to occupation is a comprehentive agreement with PA that is ratified by referendum. You know, the normal nation-building stuff. Worst case outcome? An ironwall like that running through Europe. It can continue with this stupid hands off occupation for as long as it likes, but it still is an occupation. I would advice physical reoccupation to permanently resolve the scale of hamas type problems.
murder Member	Mon Oct 23 06:24:11 "Israel's alternative to occupation is a comprehentive agreement with PA that is ratified by referendum." Actually there's a third option. They can keep bombing the fuck out of anything that moves inside Gaza until they quit firing rockets.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 23 06:28:16 Murder: "They can keep bombing the fuck out of anything that moves inside Gaza until they quit firing rockets." Historically that strategy works out at 140 dead israelis per year, or c. 1400 a decade. So it's not working.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 06:46:57 Well, you could say "working" if Israel is willing to increase its casualty tolerance. Losses at that level are not an existential threat. But there is reason to suspect that technological advances showcased in Ukraine are particularly well-suited to nuisance attacks versus israel. By this I mean drones of any size. Mainly inertial guided or satelitte guided variants. Component import control to avoid mass assembly projects inside of gaza seem almost nightmarishly difficult to implement successfully.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 06:57:38 Toss in AI too. Self-targetting (programmed to seek out targets with defined characteristics) drones can be included in an emerging threat analysis.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 07:09:48 Another reason for "not working" is that Israeli efforts are based on mass mobilization to deter counter efforts while doing the "bomb the fuck out of" operations. I would not want to guess at the inferred gdp loss level, but expect Biden's aid request for Israel is about right. 10-15 billion a month. Or about equal to Israel's State budget outlays per month.
murder Member	Mon Oct 23 07:17:53 "Historically that strategy works out at 140 dead israelis per year, or c. 1400 a decade." Actually it's never been tried. If it had been, there'd be no structures left standing in all of Gaza.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 23 07:51:34 The UK would literally not be the country it is today had not they engaged in ethnic cleansing in Scotland and Ireland (Wales arguably as well). Yet Britain now denies Israel the use of the very tools it used to secure its own nation, even though that solution would be by far the most effective at achieving long-term peace in Gaza. Do as I say, not as I did.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 08:59:16 New era, new rules. Note that the only thing valuable about Gaza is the Gazans living there. It is otherwise just a patch of desert with decrepit cement structures it would cost multiple 10s of billions to bring up to code. I am unsure of how you think shifting Gazans 10km West to Sovereign Egyptian soil would improve Israel's security. Hamas (and its successors) can as happily lob rockets and drones into Israel from there. More happily in fact as it would be under an Egyption air control area with far less import controls that disrupt armaments production. It simply is not a problem that can be outsourced.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 23 09:46:07 "New era, new rules." Aka Europe got theirs under the old rules and now they don't want anyone else to benefit. "Note that the only thing valuable about Gaza is the Gazans living there." A bit bold to characterize the Gazans living there as an "asset" to anyone. "I am unsure of how you think shifting Gazans 10km West to Sovereign Egyptian soil would improve Israel's security." I don't think that Egypt should or would bear the full brunt of a Gazan diaspora. Even if they did though, that would accomplish several things: 1) It would shorten the Israeli line of defense. 2) It would shift security concerns to Egypt, which (unlike Israel) is not under the microscope by the anti-Semitic BDS crowd for every single action they take against Palestinian terrorists. 3) It would result in the permanent destruction of Hamas and any possible successor group. Hamas only holds power because Palestinians are under the delusion that they could one day get a state in Gaza. Take that delusion away and the Palestinians as a people will eventually disperse, either becoming fully naturalized Egyptian citizens (aka the Jordan method) or seeking new opportunities in other countries. Either way, Hamas loses the population base responsible for its existence. The only downside to this approach is that Israel will have to spend 20 or so years of vague international condemnation for its actions. That certainly beats the centuries it would take for a non-total occupation to work.
murder Member	Mon Oct 23 10:12:12 "I am unsure of how you think shifting Gazans 10km West to Sovereign Egyptian soil would improve Israel's security. Hamas (and its successors) can as happily lob rockets and drones into Israel from there. More happily in fact as it would be under an Egyption air control area with far less import controls that disrupt armaments production." You're talking about Egyptian state sponsored terrorism? I don't think that would turn out well for them.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 10:39:08 Rugian “A bit bold to characterize the Gazans living there as an "asset" to anyone.” He meant liability, he doesn’t understand how accounting works.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 11:55:45 From X. In 2014, Thomas Sowell said this: "Many years ago, on my first trip around the world, I was struck by how the children in the Middle East — Arab and Israeli alike — were among the nicest looking little children I had seen anywhere. It was painful to think that they were going to grow up killing each other. But that is exactly what happened. It is understandable that today many people in many lands just want the fighting between the Israelis and the Palestinians to stop. Calls for a cease-fire are ringing out from the United Nations and from Washington, as well as from ordinary people in many places around the world. According to the New York Times, Secretary of State John Kerry is hoping for a cease-fire to “open the door to Israeli and Palestinian negotiations for a long-term solution.” President Obama has urged Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to have an “immediate, unconditional humanitarian cease-fire” — again, with the idea of pursuing some long-lasting agreement. If this was the first outbreak of violence between the Palestinians and the Israelis, such hopes might make sense. But where have the U.N., Kerry and Obama been during all these decades of endlessly repeated Middle East carnage? The Middle East must lead the world in cease-fires. If cease-fires were the road to peace, the Middle East would easily be the most peaceful place on the planet. “Cease-fire” and “negotiations” are magic words to “the international community.” But just what do cease-fires actually accomplish? In the short run, they save some lives. But in the long run they cost far more lives, by lowering the cost of aggression. At one time, launching a military attack on another nation risked not only retaliation but annihilation. When Carthage attacked Rome, that was the end of Carthage. But when Hamas or some other terrorist group launches an attack on Israel, they know in advance that whatever Israel does in response will be limited by calls for a cease-fire, backed by political and economic pressures from the United States. It is not at all clear what Israel’s critics can rationally expect the Israelis to do when they are attacked. Suffer in silence? Surrender? Flee the Middle East? Or — most unrealistic of all — fight a “nice” war, with no civilian casualties? General William T. Sherman said it all, 150 years ago: “War is hell.” If you want to minimize civilian casualties, then minimize the dangers of war, by no longer coming to the rescue of those who start wars. Israel was attacked, not only by vast numbers of rockets but was also invaded — underground — by mazes of tunnels. There is something grotesque about people living thousands of miles away, in safety and comfort, loftily second-guessing and trying to micro-manage what the Israelis are doing in a matter of life and death. Such self-indulgences are a danger, not simply to Israel, but to the whole Western world, for it betrays a lack of realism that shows in everything from the current disastrous consequences of our policies in Egypt, Libya and Iraq to future catastrophes from a nuclear-armed Iran. Those who say that we can contain a nuclear Iran, as we contained a nuclear Soviet Union, are acting as if they are discussing abstract people in an abstract world. Whatever the Soviets were, they were not suicidal fanatics, ready to see their own cities destroyed in order to destroy ours. As for the ever-elusive “solution” to the Arab-Israeli conflicts in the Middle East, there is nothing faintly resembling a solution anywhere on the horizon. Nor is it hard to see why. Even if the Israelis were all saints — and sainthood is not common in any branch of the human race — the cold fact is that they are far more advanced than their neighbors, and groups that cannot tolerate even subordinate Christian minorities can hardly be expected to tolerate an independent, and more advanced, Jewish state that is a daily rebuke to their egos." The man’s ability to cut through bullshit and see reality is second to none.
Paramount Member	Mon Oct 23 12:16:10 ”It is not at all clear what Israel’s critics can rationally expect the Israelis to do when they are attacked. Suffer in silence? Surrender? Flee the Middle East?” Yes. Surrender. End the illegal military occupation. Yes. Flee the Middle East. Return to your country of origin in Europe and the US.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 12:34:51 The overwhelming majority are born there, you idiot.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 12:36:03 Over 60% are 2nd and 3rd generation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 12:38:04 Paramount you strike me as the kind of coward, that would say you will vote MP, but then at the booth you voted SD. You did, didn’t you?
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 12:42:30 Nimi Nothing wrong with micromanaging a client state. It might be different if the first step in any Israeli operation is to secure aid from the US. But sure, lets decolonialize our mindsets. Let everyone have nukes. After that, may the best country in the ME win. Ruggy L'Shana Haba'ah B'Yerushalayim. I think you tragically underestimate how long a people can hold on to a current unachievable and unrealistic dream.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Oct 23 12:43:16 "So it's not working." Half assed military campaigns rarely work.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 12:46:29 If the first step was not to secure US aid. Let Israel be independent if it wants to be independent. Right now it is about as needy as Ukraine.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 12:52:01 Jergul, you are a grotesque person.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 13:15:00 Yes, how grotesque to point out Israel policy has chains attached. Not only for moral reasons, but also because of Israel's direct dependence on US aid. That is right up the grotesquelly advocating total occupation instead of genocide. Grotesque. You little buddy are a comic relief. We should all thank you daily for the laughter you spread :).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 13:25:01 And then he bravely ran away.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 13:29:52 What? Why? Where? Who? When?
Sam Adams Member	Mon Oct 23 13:49:38 http://x.com/RishiSunak/status/1716503372528758876?s=20 Lol sebs london police were so pro-hamas his prime minister had to call em out publicly.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 14:27:21 Jergul Don’t loose hope, they are making great progress developing treatments against dementia. Now sit down before you hurt yourself.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 14:33:42 Weaksauce little buddy. Apply yourself :).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 14:59:04 Your the one doing the impression of grand pa' Simspson being woken up too early from his afternoon nap.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 23 15:57:22 In which Rugian advocates for genocide while complaining others are tolerant of genocide.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 23 16:03:24 Rugian: ") It would shift security concerns to Egypt" Yes. And that is a very bad idea from pretty much everyone's perspective. From the Arab perspective it would give Iran leverage over Egypt. From a specifically Saudi perspective it would give Iran a foothold to threaten the gulf of Aqaba. From a European perspective it would give Iran and Russia another route to control migration flows across the Mediterranean. It would also give Iran a proxy to threaten trade through the Suez canal. It's a fucking terrible outcome for all of Israel's historic patrons, current allies and prospective new partners against Iran. The only people that would like this outcome are Israeli settlers who fancy the Gazan strip but are blissfully ignorant that in the long run this might just tip the west into considering Israel too much of a liability, Iran and Russia.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 23 16:09:29 Murder: Egypt's govt is already teetering and struggling with insurgents in the Sinai peninsular. And your great idea is to give them a security problem Israel can't manage on top of their existing burdens they are managing for us under a mix of sticks and carrots; and then bomb them when they fail? Are you fucking idiotic? Europe absolutely does not want Egypt to become an ungoverned space. It would be like America getting all the mad narco and communist terrorist groups and revolutionaries, arranging for them to be moved to the north of Mexico and then bombing the Mexican federal police and army into oblivion.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 16:11:50 Seb I think you are making too big a deal of shifting Gaza 25 miles South-East. It would change nothing on the ground. The ghetto would still be a ghetto surrounded by security fences. Egypt would however want to keep those caged there focused on Israel and would not have much reason to fear Israeli countermeasures. What is Israel gonna do? Occupy the new gaza? It is such a ludicrous idea. Never mind the moral and legal aspect.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 16:16:13 Nothing that you just said is correct. Losing Hamas would be a severe blow to Iran. Iranian agents would *not* be operating in Egypt, just like they are not operating in Saudia Arabia or Bahrain, despite large oppressed shia minorities. Hamas is sunni and at best tolerates Shias, because they have to. These things would be obvious if you knew anything or had watched or heard anything these people say. had you said, it would fuel the Muslim brotherhood, that Hamas sprang out of... see but you didn't. It's fascinating that literally everything you said was stupid.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 16:16:59 ^seb
Seb Member	Mon Oct 23 16:18:30 "Lol sebs london police were so pro-hamas his prime minister had to call em out publicly." Sunak is down 25 points in the polls. He's trying to shore up the Sam vote of thick angry white people. Police are using the same tactics they have used to go after hate crime in protests before: trawl social media after the fact, identify and prosecute days or weeks later. They don't bother charging in with riot police to grab people on the spot if there's no violence, because 99% of the crowd are engaging in protected free speech, can't necessarily see who the police are going after, and invariably end up with a riot because they think the police are attacking the crowd. There's no need to take that risk to officers or the general public if the crime isn't violent and you can get them later. Facial recognition and cameras ftw. Another thing you object to iirc. But it is gratifying that you've finally come to realise why we have these laws, and that they have value.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 23 16:19:28 I mean I did literally tell you all along that the laws and tactics were introduced in the early to mid 2000s specifically to tackle spreading of Islamism and radicalisation.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 23 16:25:38 Nim: "Losing Hamas would be a severe blow to Iran." They don't lose Hamas though. Moving the population en mass to Egypt just means Hamas or another proxy group composed of the same sort of folks will get set up there. "Iranian agents would *not* be operating in Egypt" Egypt is already failing to control rebel groups in Sinai. You throw in 2 million extra people in a few giant refugee camps - which are famously hard to police, it's absolutely certain Iranian agents will be free to operate there.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 23 16:30:56 "Hamas is sunni and at best tolerates Shias" They have good relations with Iran now as a client. Why do you think that would change suddenly if in Egypt? They'd still want to liberate Palestine and attack Israel, they would see toppling Egypts govt (friendly with Israel) beneficial, and they'd see threatening trade and tourism as important ways of keeping their issue salient. This "oh but er Iran is Shia and Hamas is Suni so obviously they wouldn't have an alliance" makes no sense. Iran's been backing them for over a decade. Why would that suddenly stop? Iran would see it as a massive opportunity and so would Hamas. Their interests would remain as aligned as ever. It would be a set back for hamas but not Iran - for Iran the new location would be even better.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 23 16:32:46 "had you said, it would fuel the Muslim brotherhood, that Hamas sprang out of... see but you didn't." I literally referred to the Sinai insurgency. Who the fuck do you think those folks are?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 16:33:03 Yes they would, if they lose Gaza, they are losing the front against Israel. That is a big nail in their coffin. They have been building up to this moment for 40 years. Either they do something and get pummeled or they do nothing and lose their 40 year investment. "Egypt is already failing to control rebel groups in Sinai." They are not no. Sinai has no population or value for Egypt besides being a desert buffer for the canal. The groups operating there have a deep hatred for Shias and Iranians in perticular. The Gaza population would fuel that, it would fuel the brotherhood, not destabilize Egypt and do absolutely nothing for Iran. Hamas as I said, is tolerating shias, because they have to. If they are forced into the Sinai, and then Iran did nothing, they are very likely going to melt in with the Islamic state remnants in Sinai and stop tolerating Shias.
Seb Member	Mon Oct 23 16:34:21 Nim, I think you are going to have to accept that maybe you are not on top of the geopolitics of this situation as you think. Iran and Hamas don't have an alliance because of religion? Really? The Sinai insurgents aren't Suni? Really? Egypt will be able to effectively police the Sinai? Really? Like, have you paid *any* attention to this era in the last decade?
Seb Member	Mon Oct 23 16:34:28 Area?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 16:36:22 "I literally referred to the Sinai insurgency. Who the fuck do you think those folks are?" Sunnis who hate Iran and shias, slaughtered them by the thousands in Iraq. It would be even dumber if you had referenced the if you had said that Hamas exodus into sinai would fuel the salafi insurgency, while giving Iran, one of their mortal enemies a foothold in the sinai.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 16:39:37 If Iran is going to do something, it will do something in the correct order. 1. Get nukes. 2. Do whatever it likes with conventional means and irregular proxies.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 16:39:39 "Iran and Hamas don't have an alliance because of religion? Really? The Sinai insurgents aren't Suni? Really? Egypt will be able to effectively police the Sinai? Really?" Stupid questions, or things that I already addressed.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 16:41:14 Right now what it is actually doing is working Russia and China to get them to veto UNSC resolutions on Gaza that are worded incorrectly in Iran's opinion.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 16:49:22 "1. Get nukes. 2. Do whatever it likes with conventional means and irregular proxies." Iran is in a damned if you and damned if you don't scenario. If Israel attacked IRGC bases in Iran, people would cheer for Israel. That's how bad things are, and what you get when you explicitly tell the people you are working for 15% of the people (their base).
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 17:03:31 Were you trying to contradict what I said there? 1. Get nukes 2. Do whatever it likes with convetional means and irregular proxies Stands, not matter whatever the population might feel about the IRGC. Though nothing you have ever said weakens my suspicions that Iranians have the same rally around the flag effect as everyone else when under external attack.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 17:20:59 They are not going to be around long enough to acquire nukes, if they already don't have them. I already said this in a previous thread. The time to rally around the flag, was 15 years ago, when the question was Iran's nuclear power program for the benefit of the Iranian people and nation. Not the Islamic republic's moronic Jihad for Jerusalem, and in this case to come to the aid of another Islamist organization, equally horrible as the one killing and maiming them for how they dress and what they say. Nothing you have said weakens my suspicion that you are retarded :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 17:27:23 "everyone else when under external attack" Maybe dimwits like you, but I think someone as dense as you would be able to see the subtle difference in someone bombing your industrial infrastructure because you can't have nuclear energy, vs attacking IRGC bases for supporting and defending a terrorist organization that slaughteed old women and children, taking them as hostages and uploading videos calling the women and young girls "concubines". Maybe the average Iranian is more intelligent than you?
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 17:29:40 Nimi I am sure you think so. Give us a date then. When will the current regime be gone? According to the US, Iran can have enough material for a bomb 12 days after it begins enriching to an appropriate level. Israel reckons it could have 4 bombs in three months. I guess you dont mean in the next 12 days. So three months maybe So when? When will the regime be gone in your mind? I am heartened that you think Iranians will stoically suffer attacks from a foreign power btw. The Zoroastrianism pacifist streak must have hit those good folks hard. Not sure how they would be able to change the regime through passive resistance and hunger strikes. But good on them if they ever wanted to try.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 17:33:14 Ah, you think the IDF could contain attacks to meaningless strikes at revolutionary bases. How singularly smoothbrained of you. Is it IDF activity in Gaza that lead you to that pinpoint strikes only, not matter how the target retaliates philosophy? Iran has had enough deterrence to avoid IDF strikes for more than a decade now. It can simply lob too many missiles Israel's way, and there is not way Israel could limit its counter to IRGC bases exclusively. Status quos exist for a reason.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 17:35:15 Whatever you say, arctic goat herder.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 17:41:06 On a more serious note. I think Iranians do care about mass killings of Gazan civilians. Regime propaganda is not protesting the attacks on hamas. It is framing it as civilians being starved and killed. Is the regime factually wrong given what we know?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 17:45:14 There is no surprise that you would assume in a linear loyalty and support is this infinite resource that can be tapped as soon some external fow attacks you regardless of context. You know, like this would be the first time a regime has been destroyed from within by their own people, suffering military defeat or attacks from an external foe, it is so uncommon it has happened in Iran half a dozen times. It's fascinating actually because you want us to believe like have read about history and stuff. You are definitely dumber than the average Iranian.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 17:47:13 "think Iranians do care about mass killings of Gazan civilians" What you think is irrelevant. I know, you think you understand and know stuff. Sorry the be the bearer of bad news.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 17:51:18 Nimi Captain obvious much? What we all think is irrelevant. Sorry to break that sad news to you. So when will the regime fall if you believe the regime will fall before it gets nukes and it will take 3 months for the regime to get nukes once it wants them? Next week? The week after? Pick a date so we know now what we will be laughing at you for on that particular day :). Grow a pair and commit to your convictions :).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 17:51:41 "Iran has had enough deterrence to avoid IDF strikes for more than a decade now" Absolutely and Syria has enough air defense to impose such costs on Israel, that Israel will definitely not be bombing Syria as weekly exercise activity for 8 years, since you said those retarded words. If I wanted fables and stories about Iranian capabilities, I can just get them from the Islamic states propaganda outlets.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 17:54:38 "What we all think is irrelevant. Sorry to break that sad news to you." Again, what you think and feel is irrelevant. What I say is informed. "Next week? The week after?" Whenever Khamenei dies, I have said so before. It's not your fault you are stupid.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 17:58:57 Nimi If you wanted fables about Iran, all you have to do is subscribe to the newsletters you do subscribe to :). Probably written by the same dude that printed them out as handouts in 1989. I am going to ignore that red herring on syria (wah whatabout syria) and just suggest you read up on Iran and hezbolla's missile arsenals. Israel does not have that much critical infrastructure and it has been busily expending its iron dome missiles on bottle rockets :).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 17:59:13 It could be next year, but Khameneis father lived to over 90 so it could be a few more years. Either way, they don't have the resources to put towards a nuclear weapons programs. Those Israeli assassinations had the second order effects of the many Iranian nuclear scientists leaving for abroad, many went to Turkey. More pay, more freedom and no assassinations.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 18:03:01 "all you have to do is subscribe to the newsletters you do subscribe" Whatever makes you feel better. "I am going to ignore that red herring on syria" Of course you will ignore everything you are wrong about. That is why you remain ignorant. Waaa I understand stuff, I swear!
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 18:05:19 What you say is highly misinformed, ideologically driven, wishful thinking, genocidal, irrelevant dog whistles. It really does not matter what we think :). That is why you are always good for a laugh little fellow :).
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 18:07:23 Now be a good boy and look up exactly what I have said about Syrian air defences. Give me the link so I can find an actuall representative quote after you maul the one you find by selective copy-paste cutting :).
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 18:07:24 "and just suggest you read up on Iran and hezbolla's missile arsenals." Yea, totalyl dude!, dem joos be shaking in their boots. Look at the response of Iran towards assassinatins of their nuclear scientists, cyber attack sabotage of the infrastructure, killing Soleimani and Iran shot a few missiles, after warning the americans, that gave Seda o sima some tape to run, and claim they killed 50 american soldiers. They didn't even kill an Israeli dog in response. You have to be actually seriously retarded Jergul. There is no other explanation. I bet you were impressed by the drone they shot down?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 18:09:48 "What you say is highly misinformed, ideologically driven, wishful thinking, genocidal, irrelevant dog whistles." Projection: over 9000 kW "Give me the link" Find it yourself you lazy demented old fuck. Didn't even bother to go dig for links for this, I remember most of the stupid things you have said.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 18:11:57 So the US is wrong on enough material for a nuke in 12 days and Israel is wrong on 4 nuclear bombs in 3 months because some little fellow on the internet says different? I am relieved Iran cannot get nukes after all. Though at this point, a bomb is more about engineering than science. Good luck trying to assasinate all engineers in Iran. They are way more common than Indian doctors.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 23 18:20:20 "arctic goat herder" rofl
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 18:22:58 Nimi We will jot it down to maliciously misrepresenting what I might have said a decade ago then. Buy thanks for trying to remember my every word, no matter how poorly you do it :). I expect the payback for some of those things happened on october 7th if you want to look at it in the grand scheme of things Iran knows it is sponsoring groups it cannot fully control even if Iran wanted to. Of course Israel (and the US) acts in proportionate ways against Iran too at times. The missile arsenals are actually dangerous. They could cause the same type of migration Ukraine saw at the beginning of the war. Too many vulnerable and critical installations in Israel. Status quos exist for a reason. It is not in Israel's or Iran's interests to escalate to a point that is actually dangerous.
Rugian Member	Mon Oct 23 18:23:23 Seb "There's no need to take that risk to officers or the general public if the crime isn't violent and you can get them later. Facial recognition and cameras ftw... I mean I did literally tell you all along that the laws and tactics were introduced in the early to mid 2000s specifically to tackle spreading of Islamism and radicalisation." You really have to appreciate how absolutely shit the circular logic is here: - UK government imports millions of Muslims - UK government imposes a totalitarian surveillance regime on its citizenry that is practically lifted straight from Nineteen Eighty-Four - Seb: "See how much value facial recognition and cameras have?!?!?!??!" Jesus Christ.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 18:24:37 Like I said, they only way they are getting them, is if they already have them. Said that in one of the earlier threads, that one of their people said something insinuating they should "reveal" some hidden card up their sleeve. But then I added only retards think this will change anything strategically, or the demise of the Islamic state. Be they Islamic retards or their retarded hang arounds at the arctic circle. It's not your fault you are slow and forgetful.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 18:36:54 Nimi That is factually false. Iran could produce nuclear weapons within 3 months according to sources. So one way for Iran to get nukes it by starting to build them. The question would be why? The answer to that would be because they wanted to escalate significantly, and did not want to worry about Israel nuking Iran. But why escalate significantly? It does not serve Iran, just as escalating significantly does not serve Israel. Status quos exist for a reason as I have said many times. You would have to be a special kind of stupid to think I meant that means Iran is going to break with the status quo. What I have said however, is that at least 4 muslim countries will become nuclear powers in relatively short order if Israel follows genocidal policies in Gaza. Status quo is fine. But you really do need a nuclear umbrella if it turns out your neighbour is a genocidal, nuclear armed rogue state.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 18:37:21 "We will jot it down to maliciously misrepresenting" You totally never said Israel would suffer attrition to Syrian air defenses. Totally never made up some jergul math in support of it. Never. "The missile arsenals are actually dangerous." Knives are dangerous, my farts are dangerous. Yea, stay vague, that is your best bet. "It is not in Israel's or Iran's interests to escalate to a point that is actually dangerous." Only someone dense and ignorant who has not been paying attention to anything would say that. It is not in Iran's interest that Hamas is annihilated. It's actually in their rational self-interest to defend Hamas, if they could. They can't. Regardless of what they do now, they lose. If you talk a lot of shit and then when the shit hit's the fan, you do jack shit. That is like so not Jihad or congruent with the narrative you have been selling since the Iraq war, "the road to Jerusalem goes through Iraq". Delude yourself all you want.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 18:41:34 "You would have to be a special kind of stupid to think I meant that means Iran is going to break with the status quo." And you have to be the retard I say you are, if you didn't read me address this. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. It does not matter. Holy shit man, all this back and forth, just for you to think you have figure out what I addressed in my opening statement? lol Muh status quo fo evah! Nothing changes, everything just moves in a straight line. lol :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 18:48:10 If it's not clear, the most likely outcome is that Islamic republic does nothing, because they would unambiguously lead to their rapid demise, there will be no rally of the people behind them. They can still live on hopium that somehow they can sell another defeat to their people and their own as a victory. But you see, even their own are starting to lose faith and calling their "mighty" missile arsenal for scrap metal, if they are not used as children is Gaza are dying.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 18:52:41 Nimi Yes, double down on malicious misrepresentation. Air defences create air exclusion zones that make it prohibitively difficult for air power to operate. This means stand-off arsenals, not gravity bombs, have to be used. Air defences dramatically impact on missile survivability. Saturation attacks are the only consistent way to hit targets. So instead of 1 missile, you would need 4 missiles to achieve the same result. That is what the rofl@subsonic missiles is all about. Ask the ammonia factory in Haifa how vague missile threats are. Concrete enough for you? We just saw what pretty low level missile barrages can do. 8 million people left Ukraine. Iran and its proxies have way more missiles than Russia. Hamas is irrelevant as the only way to elliminate hamas is by ensuring a more sophisticated successor will arise from the ashes. That is why all of you are dancing around genocide. You know the current Israeli operation is fundamentally meaningless because it will neither commit genocide (at least not on a scale that would make a difference), nor will it reoccupy Gaza to permanently provide security in the area. So the sooner Israel feels comfortable raising the mission accomplished banner, the better. Then it can do the introspection about what failures allowed Gaza to succeed as it did in the first place.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 18:54:23 Allowed hamas to succeed*
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 23 18:55:47 And it the likely outcome because they have NEVER done shit. Didn't do shit about the assassinationts, the cyber attacks, the killing of soleimani, the constant bombing of their infrastructure in Syria and Iraq. The Iranian people are clearly more diligent, astute and intelligent than Jergul. They are not buying the scam.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 19:05:31 Now, I am not denying that Israel might pass some undefined trigger that causes muslim countries to become nuclear powers in relatively short order. That trigger point is greater than 2k dead children. There is no damned if you do, damned if you dont scenario. There is an order. Iran needs nuclear weapons before it can use its conventional arsenal enmasse. It is an arsenal that has the potential to trigger a diaspora in Israel on a scale we have seen in Ukraine (so 20% of the population seeking refuge abroad). Diasporas are something Israel takes deadly seriously for historical reasons. Iran needs nukes if it wants to trigger a diaspora. It really is as simple as so.
jergul large member	Mon Oct 23 19:06:54 Didnt do shit? Iran has all kinds of proxies doing shit all the time. Just nuisance stuff. Like Israel et al does to Iran. Nothing to get all existential over.
murder Member	Mon Oct 23 21:11:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouI_wwG2LKY I don't see why genocide is off the table.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 24 02:10:58 Murder The answer depends on the perspective. A realist would say it is off the table because multiple muslim countries will build nuclear arsenals if it occurs. Genocide is on a scale however. I would not care to qualify where the trigger for nuclear profiliation is. But it will be a cascade if and when it happens (either zero new nuclear powers or 4 of them).
Seb Member	Tue Oct 24 03:03:09 Nim: "Sunnis who hate Iran and shias" Gaza has hundreds of smuggling tunnels into Sinai and Western intelligence thinks they've been cooperating with Hamas for a while. Hamas, as you note, are Sunni, not Shia though they maintain a great relationship as a client of Iran. Is this really so hard for you to figure out what happens if you shift 2m people into Sinai? Egypt can't currently control Sinai and will be less able to do so when there's a huge refugee population there. Hamas rebuilds in Sinai with continued support from Iran, is what happens. And probably absorbs the Sinai insurgents. You keep saying "But suni and Shia will always be enemies" all you like, but Hamas has been an ally of Iran for ages and there's no reason to think that would change.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 24 03:19:28 Egypt and Jordan can't tolerate population transfer. Egypt because it may well cause the collapse of the govt. They might even prefer supporting Hamas if they think a military stalemate in Gaza avoids population transfer as the issue is cost to existential to them. Jordan because it will become the model for the West Bank. Hezbollah instinct will be too engage because if they lose Hamas they become the focus. Iran can't afford to be seen to jettison Hamas as it's influence with proxies is based on long term relations. They can threaten the straits of Hormuz with drones and shit, spiking oil prices at a time we can't rely on Russia. Saudi - MBS has his projects to secure the future of Saudi. Israel normalisation will go on the back burner, especially if Egypt and Jordan - the two longest peace treaties with Israel are under strain. He will want to avoid being sucked into a regional war /w Iran. He also had a big beneficiary of oil price spikes. Iran will see an opportunity to try and force the US out of the middle East - the US has pivoted to the Pacific and isn't well placed right now. China might see a historic opportunity to grab Taiwan. Russia might get away with Ukraine. This is why the whole US strategy is to try and create an opportunity and space for Bibi to do some kind of Gaza op without spillover. Which means not displacing the population and trying to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. It is vital to US and European strategy that this doesn't become a regional conflagration. Deterrence will only get you so far in that though, because for many states and groups, there are existential or extremely high prices associated with invasion inaction once you start transferring the population of Gaza. And the US and Israel, once the latter committed to Gaza and the former to holding a sword over Hezbollah's head, will not be able to threaten major operations against Iran, defend other points of regional vulnerability without dropping Ukraine or creating a widow for China over Taiwan. Basically, the wheels seem to have come off Netenyahu's decades long strategy whereby he got peace with the Arab states without land for Palestinians; made a 2SS "impossible" through annexations and Bantustans in the West Bank, and supporting Hamas to divide Gaza from the west bank; and just managing the Palestinians as an internal security threat. It's all very badly fucked.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 24 03:30:03 For Israel, it boils down to either managing a nuisance problem or facing true threats. Again, from a realist perspective. I am still pretty sure the pound of flesh vengance craves will tail off at some suitably disproportionate level. A four digit number of Palestinians for 1400 Israelis.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 24 04:01:37 Jergul: Ah but there's a principal/agent problem. What is in Netenyahu's interest is not aligned with what one might think is in Israel's geopolitical interest. For Netenyahu, his entire "mow the lawn" strategy has failed. So he will be looking at population transfer as his solution. Otherwise he's a failure that led Israel down a blind ally where it's stuck with a palestinan population it can't control, can't do land for peace and has already played all its cards with the Arab states. Hence "change the face of the middle East" comment. So the challenge for the US is: try and allow a Gaza land op but prevent overspill into Egypt while deterring Iran and Hezbollah without committing enough forces that invite China to think it has a window while also not letting Ukraine down.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 24 05:07:29 I honestly wonder what planet some of you are on. The idea that shifting 2m people 25 miles south east is going to mean Hamas suddenly gives up on attacking Israel, and will suddenly stop accepting weapons, money and training from Iran is bizarre. What you will see is the same kind of situation in Gaza, but in an area where Israel needs to either attack Egypt or at least get it to turn a blind eye to any reprisals when Hamas attacks. It will mean Hamas forges stronger links or even absorbs the Daesh groups in Sinai. The idea that Hamas and the Palestinians will "melt away" is bizarre - that didn't happen in Jordan. The PLO tried to take over Jordan and were physically expelled. And that at least had the historical context that the west bank had been part of Jordan. The idea that 2m gazans will now suddenly integrate and become Egyptians and Egypt will accept that is absurd. Egypt isn't going to give 2m people whose leadership is associated with a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot and ties with Iran citizenship. I can bet you good money right now, folks in Cairo are furiously backchanneling to Tehran to keep options open in the event of a population transfer being forced on them. They will want to understand what the cost of accomodation with Iran will be in the event Hamas is based in Sinai.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 24 05:25:46 Seb “aza has hundreds of smuggling tunnels into Sinai and Western intelligence thinks they've been cooperating with Hamas for a while. Hamas, as you note, are Sunni, not Shia though they maintain a great relationship as a client of Iran. Is this really so hard for you to figure out what happens if you shift 2m people into Sinai? Egypt can't currently control Sinai and will be less able to do so when there's a huge refugee population there.” Already addressed all of this and explained what would happen. It’s ok seb, what you said was just stupid, it’s not even the dumbest thing you have said in these threads. You should really move on. “You keep saying "But suni and Shia will always be enemies" all you like, but Hamas has been an ally of Iran for ages and there's no reason to think that would change.” Pathetic strawman crafted out of desperation. I specifically said Islamic state (their slaughter of shias in Iraq) and salafis. I’m sorry you are stupid and can’t read. If we are going to entertain the idea, which could possibly happen, that Iran would approach the Salafi beheaders/Takfiri terrorist and be tolerated like Hamas is tolerating them out of necessity. That would further unravel the Islamic republic’s moral grounding and support from within their own ranks, which is already happening. These would be the same ideological brethren that captured and beheaded IRGC soldiers and Iraqi shias. The problem is, the more you try to rescue the stupid things you said, the dumber it gets, supporting what I am saying: losing Hamas will be a serious defeat for the Islamic republic and make their presence in the area very complicated and slippery. Your issue is that you feel like you need to confront everything Rugian et al say, regardless of how stupid it is, instead of focusing on the salient point. It ultimately leads to these places where you must argue the absurd. Stop doing that.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 24 05:29:37 "jergul large member Mon Oct 23 19:06:54 Didnt do shit? Iran has all kinds of proxies doing shit all the time. Just nuisance stuff. Like Israel et al does to Iran" Didn't do shit, exactly. Your broken ability to assess physical reality and value the magnitude of things and stuff is like, right in the first thread when this conflict started. You only got it wrong by 2 orders of magnitude. Not bad for an arctic goat herder! You guys never invented a written alphabet or a numeral system after all.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 24 05:47:31 Seb Egypt can tolerate it fine. As I said, the Sinai only serves as largely barren buffer for the canal. Egypt has a population of 110 million, 2 million refugees in the Sinai, fed by the UN, is not going to break their backs. "Jordan can't tolerate population transfer." This is far more accurate. it is also conceivable that the Islamic republic would have more ability to influence in a destabilized Jordan (population 10 million) that is bordering Syria and Iraq while acting as a front towards Israel, than it could have in Sinai. This would drag Saudi Arabia into it and destabilize the region and have sunnis and shias at each others throat again. Islamic republic would not survive such a conflict. An indication is their unwillingness to do anything about the Taliban attack and killing of their forces and border outposts or the fact that Taliban are causing droughts in eastern Iran. People in Iran, see these things and they take note.
Seb Member	Tue Oct 24 06:28:52 Nim: You didn't address it, you blathered about how Hamas being Suni meant they wouldn't work with Shias, only the Shias here are Iran and they've been working together for decades. So god knows what you were thinking. Then you spun a ridiculous idea that having been kicked out meant Hamas would be mad at Iran and would lose their cause for existence. "that Iran would approach the Salafi beheaders/Takfiri terrorist and be tolerated like Hamas" Iran won't though. They have Hamas, who are Suni, to act as the go between. They can keep funneling arms and support to Hamas, who will handle the relationship with the Sinai groups and probably absorb them over time. We already know Hamas has relations with the Sinai groups. "That would further unravel the Islamic republic’s moral grounding" It's very deniable. And I don't see Iran dropping their relationship with Hamas at the moment or over the last decade or so. Why does Iran suddenly decide Hamas serves no use to them when it's having to attack Israel from the strip and can be played as a leverage point on Egypt? You keep saying "losing Hamas" but you are living in a fantasy world where you can destroy and then permanently suppress Hamas without policing the gazan population. The "exile gazans to Sinai" isn't that. It's Israel killing a lot of Hamas fighters, and then putting the Gazan population into what will be in effect an ungoverned space in Sinai. So Hamas will have fertile recruitment grounds, be no more easy to isolate from Iranian supply lines. It will simply grow again. There's zero chance that Egypt will be able to do the policing work, or integrate the gazan population. This is magical thinking. "Egypt has a population of 110 million, 2 million refugees in the Sinai, fed by the UN, is not going to break their backs." The issue isn't feeding them you cretin. It's suddenly having a refugee camp what would be the sixth biggest city in the US full of people that they cannot and do not want to integrate as citizens and cannot police. The Sinai is a buffer zone, sparsely populated and they have trouble dealing with the insurgents already there. You are proposing to put a defacto city there, where they don't have the infrastructure or resources to police what would be s population in which operates a hostile group sponsored by a strategicaly hostile regional power, intent on fomenting hostilities against a country on their border. No, it's just crazy talk to think the Egyptians will be able to manage this.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 24 06:30:33 Seb "you blathered about how Hamas being Suni meant they wouldn't work with Shias" If you want to keep up your bullshit, then you are not worth addressing.
murder Member	Tue Oct 24 07:28:47 "The answer depends on the perspective. A realist would say it is off the table because multiple muslim countries will build nuclear arsenals if it occurs." If you believe that then you mitigate it by expanding the genocide. They can't build nuclear arsenals if you nuke them first.
murder Member	Tue Oct 24 07:32:49 "Egypt can't currently control Sinai and will be less able to do so when there's a huge refugee population there." Then maybe move the Gazans to the west bank ... of the Nile.
Rugian Member	Tue Oct 24 07:34:41 Maybe Europe should offer a place of refuge for the Palestinians. Seeing as you guys apparently love them and all.
Rugian Member	Tue Oct 24 07:38:09 Rashida Tlaib is still denying that Hamas was responsible for the hospital bombing. Muslims do not belong in America.
	show deleted posts