- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- news@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- world@quokk.au
- news@hexbear.net
You must log in or register to comment.
“Israel says” - Oh so lies then. Gotcha.
Still waiting for the proof of those underground hamas command bunkers filled with gold and beheaded Jewish babies to appear.
Israel opening up a 3rd front in their war right before USA elections.
I’m sure this time USA will totally do something to reign them in…
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)
Lol, why in the world do you weirdos think USA should reign them in? Not thier party, not thier tamales.
Right before the election, of course.
EDIT: Israel has announced its over and Iran says the attacks were limited. I’m actually surprised, hopefully it means that the escalations between the two are over.
Taken from the live page at Al Jazeera:
Iran’s military has confirmed that Israeli strikes on the country targeted military bases in Ilam, Khuzestan and Tehran provinces, causing “limited damage.”
The statement from Iran’s armed forces was read aloud on state television, which showed no images from the sites of the attacks.
Iran’s military claimed its air defences limited the damage inflicted by Israel’s strikes.
Link to page: https://aje.io/zs30s7
“October surprise!” - Netanyahu
Looks constrained so far. No energy targets. Yet.
Whenever they claim that about Gaza the target is usually a hospital. So ya’know, “trustworthy.”
So…hospitals? Schools? (While they’re open and full of children of course)
It looks like it’s over.
If they’re actually telling the truth about ‘precise military targets,’ and I’m not confident of that, this is not as bad as I had feared.
Not good, but not as bad as I had feared, which was a much more massive retaliation.
Now we just have to hope things don’t keep escalating.
Sorry to say that but escalation is the only way to stop Israel and it’s genocidal campain
Stopping a genocide by potentially killing far more people than the genocide is killing doesn’t seem like a very good alternative.
When in history a colonized power was stopped without ton of civilians dying because of the colonizer refusal for peace? Are you telling me that for example that India shouldn’t have resisted the British empire because 100 millions Indian died? I wish there was a world where peace happen without sacrificing a single person, but that’s not the reality.
When did I say there shouldn’t be resistance?
Resistance to genocide and an escalating war between two nuclear powers are very different things.
If you think Iran actually gives a shit about Palestinians and what Israel is doing to them, you’re wrong.
The Usa and other allies won’t stop supporting Israel politically and military, Palestine can’t beat Israel alone, it need support from other countries . I don’t hear people calling for not escalating against Russia and rightfully so. Both Israel and Russia are occupiers.
Yes Iran doesn’t really care about Palestinians but their interests align with supporting armed groups against Israel
You don’t seem to get it. There won’t be a Palestine if this war keeps escalating. Because Iran will annihilate it along with Israel.
Believe it or not, Palestine doesn’t have a giant radiation shield.
Also, the idea that millions of dead Israelis and Iranians even if nukes aren’t used is worth it because of Palestine is extremely ethically messed up.
And what is stopping Gaza complete destruction right now?
The genocide in Gaza and the invasion in Lebanon were “limited ground incursions” so I don’t trust Israels wording here either.
Like I said, I’m not confident of that. But I’m not confident of anything Iran says either. I don’t trust Israel and I don’t trust Iran. Neither government has given me reason to.
I wonder if we will ever find out the truth about anything either of them have done so far in this particular recent conflict they’re involved in with each other.
At least for now, it looks like Iran is downplaying the attacks, which is a good sign for de-escalation.
Iran made it clear that if the attack was contained, than they would let it be. If not, then they retaliate.
If they do intend to retaliate, I don’t expect it happening before the election. They know these kinds of things help Trump and the last thing they want is a Trump presidency.
My problem is that I don’t trust Israel’s claim that this was precise and I also don’t trust Iran’s claim that if it is contained, they won’t retaliate.
Because I don’t trust either government at all.
Trust them to serve their own self interests.
Israel’s interest is escalating and prolonging the conflict to grab more land and kill more Arabs and Persians.
Iran’s interest is de-escalation since they’re in no shape to fight a war with Israel, and the US.
You could be right in general, but you should know that Iranians are not Arabs and they hate being mistaken for Arabs.
http://www.us-iran.org/resources/2016/10/21/myth-vs-fact-persians-and-arabs
Forgot about that lol, thanks for reminding me. I’ve edited my comment.
I don’t think they said they would not retaliate against a limited attack though that might end up being the case depending on the nature and scale of the damages.
If Israeli strikes — a response to a barrage of missiles from Iran earlier this month — inflict widespread damage and high casualties, they said, Iran will retaliate. But if Israel limits its attack to a few military bases and warehouses storing missiles and drones, Iran might well do nothing.
The officials said Ayatollah Khamenei had directed that a response would be certain if Israel strikes oil and energy infrastructure or nuclear facilities, or if it assassinates senior officials.
They made the terms clear. Now we see if Israel abides by them. My guess is no.
Different statements were made in the past month:
Iran’s General Staff of the Armed Forces said in a statement carried by state media that any Israeli response would be met with “vast destruction” of Israeli infrastructure.
I believe the Iranian ambassador said something of the same vein at the UN security council meeting as well. Either way I still agree that they likely wont respond to this type of limited strike as things currently stand.
BBC - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for BBC:
Wiki: reliable - BBC is a British publicly funded broadcaster. It is considered generally reliable. This includes BBC News, BBC documentaries, and the BBC History site (on BBC Online). However, this excludes BBC projects that incorporate user-generated content (such as h2g2 and the BBC Domesday Project) and BBC publications with reduced editorial oversight (such as Collective). Statements of opinion should conform to the corresponding guideline.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United Kingdom
Search topics on Ground.News
Groups like MBFC use their position as gatekeepers of the political spectrum to disguise radical ideas as centrist positions, and it’s ironic that !world using such a biased propaganda platform to tell its readers what is credible.
Bias is not the same thing as propaganda, propaganda is not the same thing as misinformation. Articles should be evaluated on how factual they are, and there are plenty of platforms that are doing the hard work of verifying information without putting their political ideology above their credibility. This bot is a mistake.
Before removing the bot, !news mods removed comments critical of the bot, and ignored the overwhelming negative feedback and the consensus that the bot should be removed when they opened the discussion up to the community.
!politics and !world now appear to be willing to change course. The vote to “Kill” – stop their bot from advertising MBFC in all of their posts – appears to be leading in both communities.
If you upvote the Kill comment so that this lead becomes a landslide, you can make it even more embarrassing and difficult for them to claim ‘bots’ or backtrack.
