Pre-match: The inevitable war with Iran

It's not that hard. Someone who works for the state-run media of an authoritarian regime (like Iran) is a propagandist. No real need to kill them, though. Just take out the infrastructure of the state-run media.

 

have you noticed the tactics used by the mullahs? they wrote the terrorist handbook. This has never been a conventional war scenario going back to the days when suicide bombers in vests were detonating everywhere and being martyred. so yeah, conventional rules of war seem a little dated. Probably due for a re-write once the dust settles in Tehran.

 

How do you draw the line, legally speaking ? But again, I can see no one gives a sh!t about what the law say.

 

They most certainly did not, because terrorism predates the revolution in Iran by several decades.

You're making my point for me.

 

Iran can't really bitch about the law when they have been violating it for decades.

Now that they're getting their asses handed to them, they and their apologists are suddenly very concerned about the law.

 

If you think Iran has been fighting a rule-abiding conventional war for all these decades, we're going to disagree. They've been agitating for this fight and now they're getting it, but instead of using Hamas/Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad/Houthis (etc) to do their fighting for them, they are now being confronted directly, and they're failing, spectacularly.

This regime has been a nightmare since the hostage crisis all those years ago, their whole basis for survival has been built on hatred for the west, western values, Israel and the Jewish people...so now it would appear that we are finally having a reckoning and TBH, I believe the Iranian people, the entire Middle East, and the whole planet will be far better off without them.

 

You saying "look how bad those guys are" in response to my saying "your principles are a lie" proves my point.

 

The laws explicitly cover non-conventional war situations.

listen to yourselves - you are condoning and cheerleading explicit war crimes.

If you watch Fox News I guarantee they are cheering on the israeli bombing (which is clearly illegal).

Can Iran legitimately blow up the hosts of Fox and Friends?

what’s the moral difference between you guys and MBS who arranged for the dispatch of a “journalist” he didn’t like? Or Bashar al Assad, who didn’t like the credentials of “independent journalist” (and Marine Corps officer) Austin Tice, who he apparently kidnapped and allegedly killed?

 

As I said, I'm not for newscasters being attacked, even if they are simply the mouthpiece for the regime. That would be my response to you too @Umar ...I made that clear.

 

Could you share with us how you define "civilized world"? And how does is fit with the fact that Iran wants to destroy Israel?

 

Damn, the level of thinking has rapidly decreased.

 

It would be the one that has for compass the Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, and that tries as well as possible to realize its principles. It is neither Iran, nor Israel, nor the United States of Trump, and I am afraid that it is less and less Europe.

 

I really wann

You didn't answer my question you just stated countries that you dislike.
But sure, let's go with it. What countries do you think they are "civilized"?

 

Incorrect - the dual-use (in this case the burden of proof is on Israel as NATO did) was the stronger case as detailed in the prosecutor report, not propaganda. Article 79 of Additional Protocol I grants civilian status to journalists in armed conflict, provided they do not take direct part in hostilities. Loss of protection occurs only if journalists engage in acts amounting to "direct participation in hostilities" (gathering tactical intelligence, transmitting military orders). Propaganda alone does not constitute direct participation.



https://www.icty.org/sid/10052


Let give Israel the benefit of the doubt here, the IHL still mandates advance warnings to minimize casualties. While they did issue a district-wide alert, no specific evacuation notice was send to IRIB staff forcing them to flee mid-broadcast. Media facilities are considered civilian object unless proved otherwise.

Lastly, there are provisions about "proportionality of the response vs concrete and direct military advantage" - which is also brought in doubt by the prosecutor in his report for the Serbia case.

The whole point of my argument is that they can fry military personnel but should deploy every efforts to avoid casualties of civilians, judging by Gaza and the massacre of Khan Younis with tanks & drones no less) - that's asking for a lot

 

The word "civilized" don't fit. That's why I put quotations marks on the first place...

I'd rather say countries with principles -those exposed above- and decency. Are there any left ? I don't know.

 

Most cases are easy calls. It’s a mistake to not attempt that just because the edge cases will be hard.

 

I don't really care what happens to anyone working to support the Mullahs in Iran, to be clear.

 

We get all of Iran's inventions!

 

Iirc google maps satelite photo has shown an "undetectable F35". Seems these are very much detectable from above, looking down on them.
Perhaps that's the idea behind the chinese balloons too.

 

Not sure if anyone is familiar with the 2009 Brookings Institution paper, "Which Path to Persia?"
It's fascinating how they predicted most of what's going on as we speak - almost like they are following a roadmap. We are past Part I, we're in the middle of "Part II" where the paper explores scenarios where Israel might struggle to achieve a decisive victory, emphasizing that Iran’s military infrastructure is deeply entrenched, making airstrikes alone insufficient to neutralize its capabilities.

It adds that US involvement would depend on political will, both domestically and internationally. They highlighted that public opinion, allied support, and global diplomatic pressure could influence whether the U.S. would escalate its role.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/...ions-for-a-new-american-strategy-toward-iran/

 

Iran = means Land of the Aryans.
Iran invented white supremacy.

 

So wait, isn't Israel from "The Global North?'

Yet, we're supposed to "give Israel the benefit of the doubt" when bombing the journalists from "The Global South?"

 

I don’t understand. If you claim that there’s no such thing anymore as a ‘civilized world’ or ‘civilized countries,’ then why did you specifically choose to mention Israel and the United States? Why not mention Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, France, Britain, Italy, or Norway?

But let’s put that aside since you insist on dodging the question. Can you at least clarify which ‘principles’ you’re referring to, and which countries represent your ‘principles’?

 

Highly networked balloons sitting about twenty-five miles above the ground with infrared detection. I suspect that google's satellites have similar infrared detection.

 

I can think of some Rwandan newscasters in 1993 that we coulda blown up and saved a lot of lives.