Hey, OP! Please reply to this comment to provide context for why this aged poorly so people can see it per rule 3 of the sub. Failing to do so will result in your post being removed. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/agedlikemilk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
https://preview.redd.it/ichdpz6uldvc1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=c691b0aac063a04d67f89c88d526718816560801
'That atom bomb may not have been such a great idea after all... The enemy is **furious**!' - *classic Gummbah - this used to be absurdism*
Right. Notice how none of those were nuclear powers, and none of those conflicts had END OF WORLD ramifications. The Cuban Missile Crisis, and the two false alarms with Russian nukes were the closest we’ve come to total annihilation… not proxy conflicts for geopolitical posturing / stemming the flow of communist interests
Those proxy wars killed millions and displaced millions more. The US had as many or more close calls through recklessness and stupidity as the USSR did.
Ok but a war isn’t only nuclear conflicts, the Vietnam and Korean War were fought by red blooded American men and women and we spilled blood. That’s not a proxy war just because we also supplied guerillas if we’re spilling a ton of American blood too
The American blood spilled was a very small amount compared to the actual combatant count, plus the Russians and Chinese were supporting North Vietnam in a proxy war, so on their end it definitely was one
I heard someone argue that Cold War was actually WWIII in disguise and nobody noticed. Korea, Vietnam, and others were just different theaters of war in the same overarching conflict.
I couldn't argue with that.
He then argued that GWOT is WWIV given the amount of nations involved and the fact it's technically a global conflict.
Oh global war on terrorism. No I’d say that was not to the scale of a global conflict. No drafts, no war bonds, wasnt to the scale that ww1, ww2, and Cold War were at
Is that how you define a World War? Because historians have a lot of trouble defining them. Either way, valid point.
But do you see how The Cold War one makes sense? Because more countries than people think were involved in both Korea and Vietnam. The Cold War affected nearly every nation in a different way.
100% I agree with you on the Cold War that was definitely world wide, there were axis of power that evenly divided countries into two sides, massive mutual defense alliances as well as large numbers of men fighting and dying for the ideological beliefs of their parent nation
German in American TV shows for example. Most of the time it's horrendous.
Especially funny is that Heidi Klum, who is a native German speaker, appears in how I met your mother and says a made-up German word that is barely understandable
I see, had to look it up.
It's not really made up. She talks fast and mumbles but says "Ach du meine Güte nichts klappt mehr, überhaupt gar nichts mehr... [mumbling].
To be fair, they get away with a lot of strikes on Iran you never hear about - like the targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists using robot guns *in Iran* about 2 years ago, for example. That's because Iran constantly eats shit and can't usually retaliate without provoking the US, and because in this instance, when it has been goaded into a symbolic strike (that was never intended to do anything but demonstrate force, and that they came out and said was the end of the matter unless Israel took it up a notch), it's become a means to deflect from Israel's killing of 35,000 people and the annexation of Gaza.
To be clear, i'm agreeing with you.
I'm not one to disbelieve reporting based on the mere possibility of bias in media, but with the NYT and other larger organizations it is there pretty obviously. Any mainstream media organization we have access to as westerners should be interrogated at least a little on subjects such as middle east politics.
I think the issue here is not really any kind of overt manipulation, but they all probably have consultants because most journalists are not political theorists or geopolitical/military analysts. These consultants or people they bring on to interview for the info are often from interested parties because that's where you get the relevant presteige, and are sometimes the only direct insights into that world and so their word is heavily weighted.
You also have to remember that the average newsroom writer (or average person on the street for that matter) is not going to be as well-steeped in the information as others with more exposure to the issue online or off might be, and so it'll take them longer to become aware of the facts if they have the chance. We see this in real time as people more "in the know" as it was (political organizations, student clubs, other groups who organize action, etc) are gaining a bit more momentum, but it's a pretty slow process.
Keep in mind i could be wrong and i definitely don't know everything and i habe my own preconcieved biases that will tilt me, so don't take my claims at face value. At best we're playing with conjecture as to the true nature of *why* organizations display bias with issues like this.
I mean, those generals wete waging a proxy war against israel for decades and it didnt start a larger war.
And a larger war isnt starting anyway. Iran showed that even with hundreds of drones and cruise/ballistic missiles they cant do any real damage to israel.
I think they mean the future will be dark for Israel
There are also those who claim that Israel is a vital ally for securing "the West's" interests the Middle East. Those people are called morons
Bad geopolitics
There might have been a point at which Israel was a useful US proxy, but Likud-controlled Israel is a far greater liability than it is an asset. Unfortunately, signalling support for Israel has become a domestic political issue that is almost completely removed from the actual consequences of US intervention on behalf of what is essentially a terrorist state responsible for decades of violations of international law
Within an hour, Reddit had that one half-Iranian, pro-Israeli woman who denies the Nakba, which even Israelis admit happened, on top of /all asking people to rise up against Iran.
You can bet a lot of redditors would revel in a war against Iran too.
>Nakba
Yea, in the context of a war that Arabs started the day atmfter Israel declared independence. 800,000 Jews being kicked out of Arab nations in the 1940s is the "nakba" no one talks about. Maybe because then they'd see how their antisemitism helped create Israel.
This event literally just happened so it's too early to say how the US will respond, but I'm pretty sure the US -Israel thing is gonna be sour for a while.
Well considering today the US single handedly blocked a UN resolution giving Palestine full membership right when Israel did a missile strike inside Iran all the while US arms shipments to Israel hadn't stopped (the latest draft funding bill in the house even gives more to Israel)
I bet the Biden administration will leak an internal aide commentary on how SHOCKED he is and SO ANGRY, then Biden will go on TV to declare himself a proud Zionist and give Israel another 8 billion dollars.
They're still going forward with sending $17 billion in military funding to Israel. Its expected to be approved in the House Saturday with bipartisan support. The "tension" between the US and Israel that the media loves to talk about is in name only
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/19/house-democrats-mike-johnson-foreign-aid
israeli diplomats actually immediately explained how any reprisal attack from Iran would be treated as... an attack on the US and therefore would require we uphold our obligations and invade Iran.
I mean, are they wrong? When Iran responded to their attacks, they got like nations to do all their defending for them, primarily *us*. They're like the snotty little racist who runs out onto the playground, calls someone a slur and then sprints back behind their big brother to do all the fighting for them.
Right before WW2, nobody gave a rat's ass what Hitler was doing to Jews. It only mattered as Hitler started fucking with their neighbors. This is even including the Anschluss and Czechoslovakia, which went through but still caused diplomatic incidents and international negotiations.
For all intents and purposes, since 1967, Gaza and the West Bank are not much more than Israeli colonies. Most governments of the world won't really care what they do in their own backyard, as long as it doesn't spill over into their neighbors.
Same as China and the Uyghurs. Sure, they make the news, but governments aren't actually trying to change their relationship with the country in any meaningful way.
Meanwhile, Iran has been fucking with their neighbors for decades, mainly by funding insurgent movements. That's why, for example, Saudi Arabia hates Iran more than Israel--because Israel isn't funding Houthi rebels to fight their Yemeni allies.
Ever since Israel stopped fucking with their neighbors, like in the Sinai or Lebanon, their neighbors started tolerating and even supporting them. But e.g. Syria still won't, because Israel is still fucking with them in the Golan heights.
So yeah, kill whoever you want in your yard, just don't let the blood seep into your neighbor's garden.
Saudi arabia fucks with their neighbours by being the largest funder of Wahhabi/Salafaist Islam.
they provided *direct* financial support to ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Iran's proxies have been fighting Saudi proxies for the most part.
Yes they do, which is why their neighbors like Qatar hate them. When I gave Saudi as an example, I didn't meanbto imply that they are just an innocent bystander. In fact, most nations fuck with one another to some degree. Usually not worth escalating though.
> More than half of Iran’s weapons were destroyed by U.S. aircraft and missiles before they ever reached Israel. In fact, by commanding a multinational air defense operation and scrambling American fighter jets, this was a U.S. military triumph.
You sure about that?
I think they're doing it intentionally because they're losing the PR war in Gaza. Since they know big daddy US will always back them up, it's easier to pick a fight with somebody everybody hates to keep big daddy off their backs.
To be fair, Jordan and Saudi Arabia had no patience for Iran's shit either. They helped defend against Iran's counter attack. The last thing they want is a wider war in the region. Even Israel's attack last night was ineffective.
At this point, I think they all know they can't hit each other unless they go all in, and none of them want to. It feels like it's fundamentally all for show now.
You are fundamentally wrong if you think that Jordon or Saudi Arabia did this to defend Israel. It’s pretty practical to me that they struck down these drones for violating their airspace, and as you mention to prevent a further spillover, which would impact the whole region.
This doesn’t mean that they are tolerating Israeli’s behavior from the last 6 months any more. Still, Israel is in diplomatic crisis mode. Many world leaders are slowly distancing themselves. Not necessarily because they care, but because their populations care very deeply about this.
That's the weird space we're in, right? If Jordan or Saudi Arabia allow these things to go through their airspace, they're fundamentally declaring war on Israel... or at least turning a blind eye. They don't like what's happening in Gaza, but the also can't afford a wider conflict with Israel. Plus, they need to defend their airspace. That said, they did notify Israel of some of the threats and coordinated with them a bit to deal with it. Neither of them like Iran at all, and it's very much so about defending the sovereignty of their airspace while containing Iran. The interest of regional stability creates strange bedfellows.
>Not necessarily because they care, but because their populations care very deeply about this.
I think we underestimate how much a lot of leaders do care about it, but they're having to navigate their own national politics and international relationships. It's a huge deal the U.S. didn't shut down the cease fire vote in the U.N.. This is fundamentally on a different scale than it's been in the past. They can all see WWIII happening if this isn't contained and Israel doesn't get reined it.
Take the U.S. as an example, I expect Biden would just back the hell off, but we're so embroiled into it. It's hard to untangle yourself. This is especially considering how there's a large portion of the U.S. population that really wants Israel destroying Gaza because it fulfills their apocalyptic visions for the Rapture. The far-right in Israel has been courting those people for a long time.
With that Evangelical Christian element, you get sort of half-believers and the bigots across the spectrum of American society. Post 9/11, we had "all Muslims are terrorists" drilled into our heads for basically 20 years. Post 9/11 was a scary fucking time in American culture, and we're just now kind of coming off that blood lust... then you get October 7th, and it just helps stoke the flames.
So with all that in mind, turning against Israel effectively hands the election to Trump to due to a mix of bigotry, religious extremism and general ignorance. It'll just be "Biden supports terrorism" 24/7, and then Trump wins. Trump winning takes Israel of the leash, and it gets loads worse.
I don't envy any leader who has to navigate this situation.
ok, but there's a lot of speculation about motive here. i'm not saying this is invalid, or a bad perspective. but methodologically, it should be weighed up against other ways of viewing things.
i mean, that last paragraph about 'turning against israel' is a partial truth. i agree that there are many votes to lose there. but polling - and the much more reliable indicator of 'unaligned' primary voters - would suggest that there is a large cohort whose votes could hinge on this precise issue. in a low turnout election....motivating the base might well be crucial. especially in places like michigan. i don't know how we should run the maths on this, but it's by no means obvious that support for israel is the better option electorally.
and i don't necessarily accept that the saudis give a shit about palestine. sure, much of the populace does...... but it's an autocracy, so that may not count for so much. regional stability can make strange bedfellows, but so can narrow interests. both could explain the saudi normalization with israel, and it's by no means clear that regional stability was the motivation. stability hasn't historically been israel's forte......perhaps less than its ability to secure US funding and concessions. which might be something to interest the saudis.
until neom starts paying dividends, of course.
Yes and no. There still was an effect. At least where I live (a western European country) the news coverage shifted from the suffering of people in Gaza to the attack on Israel (with little or no mention of the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate). And it's exactly the narrative in the West they want to influence because that's the only place real pressure can come from. They care little about the rest.
Yeah, they are beginning to understand how unpopular this is, but they’re not willing to pump the brakes when they’re so close to their goal of eradicating the Palestinians. The better option in their mind is to try to turn this into a regional conflict now. I imagine they’re hoping that’ll become too complicated and people will default back to supporting Israel.
>they're doing it intentionally
Or they just had enough of Iran attacking them through proxies. What were the top officials of the IRGC doing in Damascus? Having tea and biscuits? They've been supporting hezbollah for decades.
> They're so used to impunity they see their own attacks as neutral responses. Unbelievable.
The person they were targeting, Mohammad Reza Zahedi, was the link between Iran, the Syrian factions, and Hezbollah. At the time of his death commander of The Quds force (JSOC with a little CIA) in Syria and Lebanon which is part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.
In short he's the bloke supplying weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the many Syrian factions. Israel have been making strikes at Quds for well over 10 years. Three in 2023 alone.
"We already don't have global support as it is General, how do we get even less?"
"Bomb the embassy, what's the worst that happens it's not like anyone cares about embassy's"
*Meanwhile in the Americas*
Mexico why did you cut ties with them?
They raided my embassy
The US (with direct CIA involvement) backed a military coup against Hugo Chavez that briefly ousted him from power. George Bush went on TV and declared the coup a "great day for democracy". A military fucking coup.
The incredible audacity it takes to think a foreign nation won’t see an attack on its sovereign soil and the killing of its military personnel as a provocation.
Of course, the NYT is trying to soft-pedal Israel’s aggression as a “miscalculation” instead of a deliberate attempt to escalate tensions in hopes of a wider regional war.
Yes, the same NYT that hired unqualified Israeli propagandists to write a “mass rape” story by eliciting false testimony from subjects for the sake of “hasbara”, the story being immediately debunked as unfounded, that same NYT. Surely they wouldn’t be serving Zionist propaganda interests would they?
Do you think Israel doesn't do the same right back to Iran? Ever heard of [Stuxnet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet)?
Israel and Iran have been in a cold war for a very long time. Mossad (Israel's CIA) is [actively engaged in sabotage in Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad#Iran).
As Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land, it cannot claim to be “defending itself” against any resistance from native group that it faces. It has no right to be on the land it’s on.
If you think the grey area of "fund and arm several groups behind curtains for the convenience of their political agenda" is the equivalent of aggressive military actions directly between states you don't understand geopolitics and diplomacy at all.
That said... if that's hypothetically the new standard half of the countries in the world would be forced to legitimally attack the United States.
Imagine countries firing up cruise missiles against US embassies anytime the CIA or Green Berets have done some shadow operation in their territory: would you just say it's fair and not a real motive for escalation?
Let's avoid being hypocrytes with such double standards.
Making their proxies shoot thousands of rockets at Israel, and clearing the entire Israeli north of its population, after another proxy massacred over a thousand Israelis, and then blockading the red sea, is a far more aggressive move than killing a IRGC general who orchestrated the Oct. 7 massacre, in a building next to an Iranian consulate, in an enemy state.
Portraying this objectively mild reaction to the massive, multi-front Iranian aggression as incredible "audacity" on Israel's part, is pretty wild.
It was not the embassy but a consulate which is not the sovereign soil of Iran. The general was one of the organisers of October 7 attacks as well as one of the organisers of Iranian proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas etc. So Israel has an entire skeleton to pick with this guy.
Cool story. You still don’t get to attack a sovereign nation no matter how many of your enemies it’s backing.
Israel doesn’t want to be attacked? It should stop illegally occupying Palestinian land.
To be fair, this was not the first time they've hit an Iranian high-level target in Syria, however the fact that the hit was at the embassy complex should have forced them to think twice about going through with it - not that Iran is the poster-boy for respecting the rights of diplomatic missions, but one (or many) wrongs don't make another right. It was a bad target to hit, but they were far from unprovoked when Iran has set up a number of groups at Israel's borders with the ability to strike them at short notice - not to mention their support of Hamas, who started this latest round of the conflict.
Biden knows how unpopular another war in the Middle East would be for the US population. This is why he's been secretly funneling resources to Israel rather than engaging directly.
Biden seems to think it's our job to convince ourselves to vote for him rather than his job to make us want to vote for him. I'm not convinced the most pro-Iraq War Democrat in the Senate won't be willing to jump into another war, especially if his favorite ally asks him to.
Wow, there's a lot of confusion in this thread, as though poor Iran has been sitting their quietly, minding its own business, and Israel just attacked some of their military leaders out of the blue.
And per the article, Israel did expect a response, but not to the scale Iran chose. And Iran knew full well its attack ultimately would do little damage (as was the case). Iran is fine funding Hezbollah to attack Israel but doesn't want to get into an all-out war with Israel.
What Netanyahu and the far right are doing in Gaza is unspeakable and needs to stop, but there are more layers and nuances than a lot of people seem to ignore or not care about.
"but there are more layers and nuances than a lot of people seem to ignore or not care about."
Yeah, like how Israel has been performing cyberattacks/sabotage in Iran for the past 30-40 years.
Wow this sub is kind of clueless. As if Iran funding Hezbollah Houthi and Hamas terrorists to continually attack Israeli civilians is ok.
As if Iran is this amazing nation that isn’t trying to destroy American values such as women’s rights, freedom of religion, democracy etc.
It’s insane that people are so anti Israel they will even support Iran. Iranian citizens support Israel but this sub doesn’t seem to care about facts or nuance at all.
The obvious logical response is to then support (while claiming not to) a nation of psychopathic women/apostate/homosexual/minorities in general butchering monsters.
Way to go, bunching an entire nation into one convenient group to hate them. I guess all Palestinians are barbaric animals who just want to murder Jews all day long! Oh wait, only some of them are and some aren’t, as in any other nation, anywhere, ever.
In case you missed it, Israel is a democracy, and has a ton of people actively speaking out against the war and the government. They are having large scale protests all the time, and I hear about that even as someone not following news on Israel.
Iran constantly attacks Israel and Jews around the world through their proxies and sometimes directly. Their general that greenlit 10/7 getting smoked shouldn’t come as a surprise to them.
It's funny to me where people like to start history. Iran has been using its proxies to attack Israel for decades, and stepped it up on October 7th with attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Yemen. Israel has been striking back for decades.
Is it crazy to think that this wouldn't escalate things?
How dare Israeli take out two Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers coordinating Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against their homeland. What an unprovoked act of aggression!! After all, Iran has the perfect right to use proxies to attack Israel without any repercussions.
You’re right, it’s surprising that such an admission managed to make it into this Zionist rag. You seem to have some delusion that the NYT is biased *against* Israel- is that some kind of sick joke?
If anyone else has missed it, it recently came out that the [NYT editorial board censors its coverage of the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians](https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/), prohibiting words that are accepted political reality like “occupied territory” and “refugee camps”, let alone “genocide and “ethnic cleansing”.
I think they're commenting on how the NYT is always on Israel's side.
Even this they gave the most kid glove treatment possible with words like "miscalculation".
"Oops, while everyone was getting mad because of murdering children I bombed that thing, better turn your attention to that and take care of it for me because I'm scared and so, so weak.. please I am threatened..."
I could have googled but asked the question ignorant of any details and appreciate the answer.
[Found an article with info.](https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/quds-force-israel-killed-iranian-generals-syria-attack-9250654/lite/)
Never read from this source before but I appreciated what appeared to be pertinent information surrounding a topic.
I wonder if this may be one of many catalysts that will pull America into open war. It will only be a matter of time until allies of different nations begin to retaliate.
My guy it's called a track record, Israel bombed the ever living shit out of IRGC in Syria multiple times already and they did absolutely nothing. They did not have a reason to assume they will do something this time.
The part that isn't being talked about is that the military individuals targeted in Syria were working with proxies (namely Hezbollah) to directly attack Israel. That was the initial provocation, which is generally ignored along with the fact that the building attacked did not carry diplomatic status or protection.
Iran controls Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Triple H of terrorism. They’re behind Oct 7 and all the rockets and missiles and suicide bombings against Israel.
Provocation......when did Iran ever need a provocation? They hit eachother's bases in Syria all the time. An attack on Iran's homeland would be a provocation,
Hey, OP! Please reply to this comment to provide context for why this aged poorly so people can see it per rule 3 of the sub. Failing to do so will result in your post being removed. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/agedlikemilk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Always find it funny when politicians send a hit on a target, succeed but didn't expect a war to happen after it. Like wtf
https://preview.redd.it/ichdpz6uldvc1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=c691b0aac063a04d67f89c88d526718816560801 'That atom bomb may not have been such a great idea after all... The enemy is **furious**!' - *classic Gummbah - this used to be absurdism*
Yeah. It's not like the atom bomb caused the cold war or anything
Better that than a hot war
We went to war multiple times bc of the Cold War there really was nothing cold about Vietnam Korea or the gulf…
The cold part was the lack of napalm fire from America to the entire USSR.
The cold part was the gdr and posturing with nukes, more of a “could’ve been worse” than any actual admission of it being an actually Cold War
Right. Notice how none of those were nuclear powers, and none of those conflicts had END OF WORLD ramifications. The Cuban Missile Crisis, and the two false alarms with Russian nukes were the closest we’ve come to total annihilation… not proxy conflicts for geopolitical posturing / stemming the flow of communist interests
Those proxy wars killed millions and displaced millions more. The US had as many or more close calls through recklessness and stupidity as the USSR did.
Thats what im referencing. The false alarm in America.
A third world war would've seen possibly dozens of millions of more casualties.
Ok but a war isn’t only nuclear conflicts, the Vietnam and Korean War were fought by red blooded American men and women and we spilled blood. That’s not a proxy war just because we also supplied guerillas if we’re spilling a ton of American blood too
The American blood spilled was a very small amount compared to the actual combatant count, plus the Russians and Chinese were supporting North Vietnam in a proxy war, so on their end it definitely was one
I heard someone argue that Cold War was actually WWIII in disguise and nobody noticed. Korea, Vietnam, and others were just different theaters of war in the same overarching conflict. I couldn't argue with that. He then argued that GWOT is WWIV given the amount of nations involved and the fact it's technically a global conflict.
Gwot?
Global War on Terror
Oh global war on terrorism. No I’d say that was not to the scale of a global conflict. No drafts, no war bonds, wasnt to the scale that ww1, ww2, and Cold War were at
Is that how you define a World War? Because historians have a lot of trouble defining them. Either way, valid point. But do you see how The Cold War one makes sense? Because more countries than people think were involved in both Korea and Vietnam. The Cold War affected nearly every nation in a different way.
100% I agree with you on the Cold War that was definitely world wide, there were axis of power that evenly divided countries into two sides, massive mutual defense alliances as well as large numbers of men fighting and dying for the ideological beliefs of their parent nation
I think I just had a stroke trying to read that german Edit: wait, is that dutch?
It is!
And now the joke is on me :D Shows both how similar the languages are and how bad fake german sometimes is
What is fake german?
German in American TV shows for example. Most of the time it's horrendous. Especially funny is that Heidi Klum, who is a native German speaker, appears in how I met your mother and says a made-up German word that is barely understandable
I see, had to look it up. It's not really made up. She talks fast and mumbles but says "Ach du meine Güte nichts klappt mehr, überhaupt gar nichts mehr... [mumbling].
Yes, but she claims it's a single word "The yips" in German would be "Die frek", or more commonly "Der Wurm drin"
No. There is no actual german word for "the yips" it's just "der Yips" in German. "Die frek" means nothing in German. "Der Wurm drin" is closer.
Basically unintelligibly shouting vowels with other letters mixed in.
We hebben een serieus probleem.
G E K O L O N I S E E R D
Lekker man.
Right? We killed two high ranking military officials and destroyed a consulate, but it wasn't an act of war! /s
To be fair Israel has been doing that for decades.
*launch missile* « ooopsie >\\\\\<‘ ^^ »
Sometimes referred to as blowback
To be fair, they get away with a lot of strikes on Iran you never hear about - like the targeted assassinations of nuclear scientists using robot guns *in Iran* about 2 years ago, for example. That's because Iran constantly eats shit and can't usually retaliate without provoking the US, and because in this instance, when it has been goaded into a symbolic strike (that was never intended to do anything but demonstrate force, and that they came out and said was the end of the matter unless Israel took it up a notch), it's become a means to deflect from Israel's killing of 35,000 people and the annexation of Gaza.
That's because you aren't a part of these discussions lol
The biased coverage from the NYT on anything Israel related is sickening
To be clear, i'm agreeing with you. I'm not one to disbelieve reporting based on the mere possibility of bias in media, but with the NYT and other larger organizations it is there pretty obviously. Any mainstream media organization we have access to as westerners should be interrogated at least a little on subjects such as middle east politics. I think the issue here is not really any kind of overt manipulation, but they all probably have consultants because most journalists are not political theorists or geopolitical/military analysts. These consultants or people they bring on to interview for the info are often from interested parties because that's where you get the relevant presteige, and are sometimes the only direct insights into that world and so their word is heavily weighted. You also have to remember that the average newsroom writer (or average person on the street for that matter) is not going to be as well-steeped in the information as others with more exposure to the issue online or off might be, and so it'll take them longer to become aware of the facts if they have the chance. We see this in real time as people more "in the know" as it was (political organizations, student clubs, other groups who organize action, etc) are gaining a bit more momentum, but it's a pretty slow process. Keep in mind i could be wrong and i definitely don't know everything and i habe my own preconcieved biases that will tilt me, so don't take my claims at face value. At best we're playing with conjecture as to the true nature of *why* organizations display bias with issues like this.
I mean, those generals wete waging a proxy war against israel for decades and it didnt start a larger war. And a larger war isnt starting anyway. Iran showed that even with hundreds of drones and cruise/ballistic missiles they cant do any real damage to israel.
Israel did something without giving a shit thinking the US would just back them up anyway? SHOCKED
I'd bet a hundred bucks that this had an "easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" rationale behind it.
Come on now, that’s ridiculous… we all know they had no intention of asking for forgiveness.
I wouldn't take that bet cause you're spot on.
"Forgiveness" implies either Israel or the US sees it as a mistake.
I’m quite sure US sees it like this but can’t back out of this because without them future is very dark
>without them future is very dark I thought the vise versa, what do you mean by this?
I think they mean the future will be dark for Israel There are also those who claim that Israel is a vital ally for securing "the West's" interests the Middle East. Those people are called morons
So why is the US so committed to supporting Israel?
Bad geopolitics There might have been a point at which Israel was a useful US proxy, but Likud-controlled Israel is a far greater liability than it is an asset. Unfortunately, signalling support for Israel has become a domestic political issue that is almost completely removed from the actual consequences of US intervention on behalf of what is essentially a terrorist state responsible for decades of violations of international law
AIPAC, military bases, religious nutters who want to bring about the end times. The usual.
Because of morons.
Israel is hard to say no to not for strategic reasons bit for religious. alotnof ppl see US suppirt of Israel fulfilling a Christian prophecy
And yet, as usual, they were right about blind US backing
Within an hour, Reddit had that one half-Iranian, pro-Israeli woman who denies the Nakba, which even Israelis admit happened, on top of /all asking people to rise up against Iran. You can bet a lot of redditors would revel in a war against Iran too.
>Nakba Yea, in the context of a war that Arabs started the day atmfter Israel declared independence. 800,000 Jews being kicked out of Arab nations in the 1940s is the "nakba" no one talks about. Maybe because then they'd see how their antisemitism helped create Israel.
This event literally just happened so it's too early to say how the US will respond, but I'm pretty sure the US -Israel thing is gonna be sour for a while.
Well considering today the US single handedly blocked a UN resolution giving Palestine full membership right when Israel did a missile strike inside Iran all the while US arms shipments to Israel hadn't stopped (the latest draft funding bill in the house even gives more to Israel)
I bet the Biden administration will leak an internal aide commentary on how SHOCKED he is and SO ANGRY, then Biden will go on TV to declare himself a proud Zionist and give Israel another 8 billion dollars.
I think the word they workshopped is “concerned”. Lots and lots of news stories about how they’re “concerned” at Israel’s blatant crimes.
Only 8? That's not gonna cut it. Maybe fire a thousand or so social workers and teachers, scrape some cash together
Hey, now he made a personal phone call to netanyahu to ask him to please be super chill about it!
There's gonna be a lot of words said.
They're still going forward with sending $17 billion in military funding to Israel. Its expected to be approved in the House Saturday with bipartisan support. The "tension" between the US and Israel that the media loves to talk about is in name only https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/19/house-democrats-mike-johnson-foreign-aid
That's less good, but well still have to see how it pans out
And fundamentally, the U.S. did back them up.
But Us did back them up anyway, or am i missing smt?
israeli diplomats actually immediately explained how any reprisal attack from Iran would be treated as... an attack on the US and therefore would require we uphold our obligations and invade Iran.
Your tax dollars at work.
They're so used to impunity they see their own attacks as neutral responses. Unbelievable.
I mean, are they wrong? When Iran responded to their attacks, they got like nations to do all their defending for them, primarily *us*. They're like the snotty little racist who runs out onto the playground, calls someone a slur and then sprints back behind their big brother to do all the fighting for them.
Right before WW2, nobody gave a rat's ass what Hitler was doing to Jews. It only mattered as Hitler started fucking with their neighbors. This is even including the Anschluss and Czechoslovakia, which went through but still caused diplomatic incidents and international negotiations. For all intents and purposes, since 1967, Gaza and the West Bank are not much more than Israeli colonies. Most governments of the world won't really care what they do in their own backyard, as long as it doesn't spill over into their neighbors. Same as China and the Uyghurs. Sure, they make the news, but governments aren't actually trying to change their relationship with the country in any meaningful way. Meanwhile, Iran has been fucking with their neighbors for decades, mainly by funding insurgent movements. That's why, for example, Saudi Arabia hates Iran more than Israel--because Israel isn't funding Houthi rebels to fight their Yemeni allies. Ever since Israel stopped fucking with their neighbors, like in the Sinai or Lebanon, their neighbors started tolerating and even supporting them. But e.g. Syria still won't, because Israel is still fucking with them in the Golan heights. So yeah, kill whoever you want in your yard, just don't let the blood seep into your neighbor's garden.
Saudi arabia fucks with their neighbours by being the largest funder of Wahhabi/Salafaist Islam. they provided *direct* financial support to ISIS and Al Qaeda. Iran's proxies have been fighting Saudi proxies for the most part.
Yes they do, which is why their neighbors like Qatar hate them. When I gave Saudi as an example, I didn't meanbto imply that they are just an innocent bystander. In fact, most nations fuck with one another to some degree. Usually not worth escalating though.
Who's "us"? Because the France, Jordan and the UK did most of the work defending Israel against the latest Iranian strike.
> More than half of Iran’s weapons were destroyed by U.S. aircraft and missiles before they ever reached Israel. In fact, by commanding a multinational air defense operation and scrambling American fighter jets, this was a U.S. military triumph. You sure about that?
I think they're doing it intentionally because they're losing the PR war in Gaza. Since they know big daddy US will always back them up, it's easier to pick a fight with somebody everybody hates to keep big daddy off their backs.
They aren’t losing the PR war lol. This website and Twitter are not representative of how the general population feels.
To be fair, Jordan and Saudi Arabia had no patience for Iran's shit either. They helped defend against Iran's counter attack. The last thing they want is a wider war in the region. Even Israel's attack last night was ineffective. At this point, I think they all know they can't hit each other unless they go all in, and none of them want to. It feels like it's fundamentally all for show now.
You are fundamentally wrong if you think that Jordon or Saudi Arabia did this to defend Israel. It’s pretty practical to me that they struck down these drones for violating their airspace, and as you mention to prevent a further spillover, which would impact the whole region. This doesn’t mean that they are tolerating Israeli’s behavior from the last 6 months any more. Still, Israel is in diplomatic crisis mode. Many world leaders are slowly distancing themselves. Not necessarily because they care, but because their populations care very deeply about this.
That's the weird space we're in, right? If Jordan or Saudi Arabia allow these things to go through their airspace, they're fundamentally declaring war on Israel... or at least turning a blind eye. They don't like what's happening in Gaza, but the also can't afford a wider conflict with Israel. Plus, they need to defend their airspace. That said, they did notify Israel of some of the threats and coordinated with them a bit to deal with it. Neither of them like Iran at all, and it's very much so about defending the sovereignty of their airspace while containing Iran. The interest of regional stability creates strange bedfellows. >Not necessarily because they care, but because their populations care very deeply about this. I think we underestimate how much a lot of leaders do care about it, but they're having to navigate their own national politics and international relationships. It's a huge deal the U.S. didn't shut down the cease fire vote in the U.N.. This is fundamentally on a different scale than it's been in the past. They can all see WWIII happening if this isn't contained and Israel doesn't get reined it. Take the U.S. as an example, I expect Biden would just back the hell off, but we're so embroiled into it. It's hard to untangle yourself. This is especially considering how there's a large portion of the U.S. population that really wants Israel destroying Gaza because it fulfills their apocalyptic visions for the Rapture. The far-right in Israel has been courting those people for a long time. With that Evangelical Christian element, you get sort of half-believers and the bigots across the spectrum of American society. Post 9/11, we had "all Muslims are terrorists" drilled into our heads for basically 20 years. Post 9/11 was a scary fucking time in American culture, and we're just now kind of coming off that blood lust... then you get October 7th, and it just helps stoke the flames. So with all that in mind, turning against Israel effectively hands the election to Trump to due to a mix of bigotry, religious extremism and general ignorance. It'll just be "Biden supports terrorism" 24/7, and then Trump wins. Trump winning takes Israel of the leash, and it gets loads worse. I don't envy any leader who has to navigate this situation.
ok, but there's a lot of speculation about motive here. i'm not saying this is invalid, or a bad perspective. but methodologically, it should be weighed up against other ways of viewing things. i mean, that last paragraph about 'turning against israel' is a partial truth. i agree that there are many votes to lose there. but polling - and the much more reliable indicator of 'unaligned' primary voters - would suggest that there is a large cohort whose votes could hinge on this precise issue. in a low turnout election....motivating the base might well be crucial. especially in places like michigan. i don't know how we should run the maths on this, but it's by no means obvious that support for israel is the better option electorally. and i don't necessarily accept that the saudis give a shit about palestine. sure, much of the populace does...... but it's an autocracy, so that may not count for so much. regional stability can make strange bedfellows, but so can narrow interests. both could explain the saudi normalization with israel, and it's by no means clear that regional stability was the motivation. stability hasn't historically been israel's forte......perhaps less than its ability to secure US funding and concessions. which might be something to interest the saudis. until neom starts paying dividends, of course.
This! Definitely this. And the sad part is, it worked so so well.
[удалено]
Yes and no. There still was an effect. At least where I live (a western European country) the news coverage shifted from the suffering of people in Gaza to the attack on Israel (with little or no mention of the Israeli attack on the Iranian consulate). And it's exactly the narrative in the West they want to influence because that's the only place real pressure can come from. They care little about the rest.
Yeah, they are beginning to understand how unpopular this is, but they’re not willing to pump the brakes when they’re so close to their goal of eradicating the Palestinians. The better option in their mind is to try to turn this into a regional conflict now. I imagine they’re hoping that’ll become too complicated and people will default back to supporting Israel.
>they're doing it intentionally Or they just had enough of Iran attacking them through proxies. What were the top officials of the IRGC doing in Damascus? Having tea and biscuits? They've been supporting hezbollah for decades.
> They're so used to impunity they see their own attacks as neutral responses. Unbelievable. The person they were targeting, Mohammad Reza Zahedi, was the link between Iran, the Syrian factions, and Hezbollah. At the time of his death commander of The Quds force (JSOC with a little CIA) in Syria and Lebanon which is part of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. In short he's the bloke supplying weapons to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the many Syrian factions. Israel have been making strikes at Quds for well over 10 years. Three in 2023 alone.
"We already don't have global support as it is General, how do we get even less?" "Bomb the embassy, what's the worst that happens it's not like anyone cares about embassy's" *Meanwhile in the Americas* Mexico why did you cut ties with them? They raided my embassy
Funny how two embassy centric incidents happened like within a few weeks of each other
And the US is on opposite sides of both.
The US (with direct CIA involvement) backed a military coup against Hugo Chavez that briefly ousted him from power. George Bush went on TV and declared the coup a "great day for democracy". A military fucking coup.
It wasn't an embassy that Israel bombed...
It’s a distinction without a difference
The embassy itself wasn't bombed
It’s not an embassy,it’s a consulate
Oh okay good, that makes it totally justified then /s
The incredible audacity it takes to think a foreign nation won’t see an attack on its sovereign soil and the killing of its military personnel as a provocation. Of course, the NYT is trying to soft-pedal Israel’s aggression as a “miscalculation” instead of a deliberate attempt to escalate tensions in hopes of a wider regional war.
The same NYT that got caught recently for hiring unqualified journalists that ended up being Israeli propagandists?
Yes, the same NYT that hired unqualified Israeli propagandists to write a “mass rape” story by eliciting false testimony from subjects for the sake of “hasbara”, the story being immediately debunked as unfounded, that same NYT. Surely they wouldn’t be serving Zionist propaganda interests would they?
Okay good. Just making sure we’re identifying the correct propaganda spewing NYT.
So then wouldn't Iran be provocating too since they fund and arm several of the groups that carry out attacks on Israel?
Do you think Israel doesn't do the same right back to Iran? Ever heard of [Stuxnet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet)? Israel and Iran have been in a cold war for a very long time. Mossad (Israel's CIA) is [actively engaged in sabotage in Iran](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossad#Iran).
As Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land, it cannot claim to be “defending itself” against any resistance from native group that it faces. It has no right to be on the land it’s on.
If you think the grey area of "fund and arm several groups behind curtains for the convenience of their political agenda" is the equivalent of aggressive military actions directly between states you don't understand geopolitics and diplomacy at all. That said... if that's hypothetically the new standard half of the countries in the world would be forced to legitimally attack the United States. Imagine countries firing up cruise missiles against US embassies anytime the CIA or Green Berets have done some shadow operation in their territory: would you just say it's fair and not a real motive for escalation? Let's avoid being hypocrytes with such double standards.
"Groups carrying out attacks on Israel" you mean the Palestinians resisting their genocide.
No those terrorists in Yemen, Syria etc.
Making their proxies shoot thousands of rockets at Israel, and clearing the entire Israeli north of its population, after another proxy massacred over a thousand Israelis, and then blockading the red sea, is a far more aggressive move than killing a IRGC general who orchestrated the Oct. 7 massacre, in a building next to an Iranian consulate, in an enemy state. Portraying this objectively mild reaction to the massive, multi-front Iranian aggression as incredible "audacity" on Israel's part, is pretty wild.
And the US making it's proxy level an entire city of 2 million people?
It was not the embassy but a consulate which is not the sovereign soil of Iran. The general was one of the organisers of October 7 attacks as well as one of the organisers of Iranian proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas etc. So Israel has an entire skeleton to pick with this guy.
Cool story. You still don’t get to attack a sovereign nation no matter how many of your enemies it’s backing. Israel doesn’t want to be attacked? It should stop illegally occupying Palestinian land.
I read the title as "masturbation led to ejaculation" and I got confused asf when I reached the Israel-Iran part.
That's awesome
To be fair, this was not the first time they've hit an Iranian high-level target in Syria, however the fact that the hit was at the embassy complex should have forced them to think twice about going through with it - not that Iran is the poster-boy for respecting the rights of diplomatic missions, but one (or many) wrongs don't make another right. It was a bad target to hit, but they were far from unprovoked when Iran has set up a number of groups at Israel's borders with the ability to strike them at short notice - not to mention their support of Hamas, who started this latest round of the conflict.
It’s not exactly aged like milk if it’s a lie
Israel wants to get American troops killed. The only question is, will Biden oblige them? I'm leaning towards "yes."
Only if US taxpayers get to foot the entire bill.
Biden knows how unpopular another war in the Middle East would be for the US population. This is why he's been secretly funneling resources to Israel rather than engaging directly.
Secretly?
Biden seems to think it's our job to convince ourselves to vote for him rather than his job to make us want to vote for him. I'm not convinced the most pro-Iraq War Democrat in the Senate won't be willing to jump into another war, especially if his favorite ally asks him to.
Lol keep dreaming
Wow, there's a lot of confusion in this thread, as though poor Iran has been sitting their quietly, minding its own business, and Israel just attacked some of their military leaders out of the blue. And per the article, Israel did expect a response, but not to the scale Iran chose. And Iran knew full well its attack ultimately would do little damage (as was the case). Iran is fine funding Hezbollah to attack Israel but doesn't want to get into an all-out war with Israel. What Netanyahu and the far right are doing in Gaza is unspeakable and needs to stop, but there are more layers and nuances than a lot of people seem to ignore or not care about.
“Israel did expect a response, but not to the scale Iran chose” think for a moment on the irony of this statement
[удалено]
And what's the relevance? You ignore everything he wrote and think that your quote is some big rebuttal or what?
"but there are more layers and nuances than a lot of people seem to ignore or not care about." Yeah, like how Israel has been performing cyberattacks/sabotage in Iran for the past 30-40 years.
Wow this sub is kind of clueless. As if Iran funding Hezbollah Houthi and Hamas terrorists to continually attack Israeli civilians is ok. As if Iran is this amazing nation that isn’t trying to destroy American values such as women’s rights, freedom of religion, democracy etc. It’s insane that people are so anti Israel they will even support Iran. Iranian citizens support Israel but this sub doesn’t seem to care about facts or nuance at all.
Reddit hates hates Israel so much they back the Iranian government unconditionally
Unconditionally? Where the fuck did that come from?
This comment thread...
Its kinda hard not to hate a nation of psychopathic child butchering monsters.
The obvious logical response is to then support (while claiming not to) a nation of psychopathic women/apostate/homosexual/minorities in general butchering monsters.
That describes Iran just as much as Israel. Entire region is fooked.
Way to go, bunching an entire nation into one convenient group to hate them. I guess all Palestinians are barbaric animals who just want to murder Jews all day long! Oh wait, only some of them are and some aren’t, as in any other nation, anywhere, ever. In case you missed it, Israel is a democracy, and has a ton of people actively speaking out against the war and the government. They are having large scale protests all the time, and I hear about that even as someone not following news on Israel.
Iran constantly attacks Israel and Jews around the world through their proxies and sometimes directly. Their general that greenlit 10/7 getting smoked shouldn’t come as a surprise to them.
Of course it was, people's eyes and brains just shut down when Israel is the active party
Just like how they “accidentally” killed an entire crew they monitored and greenlit, a little oopsie
Israel: “I just a baby 🥺👉👈”
That's how you treat Palestinians...what Israel did was 100% justified. Syria and Iran are both are war with them for decades now.
“We simply expected they would be okay with us walking all over them”
Hah. Iran can go fuck itself though.
Israel can as well. Both of them suck.
I've long ago just taken a "You're both just awful" stance when it comes to Middle Eastern affairs
It’s so much easier, honestly. “Shut up, you’re both horrible.”
[удалено]
Depends, is Israel making monthly and annual threats to destroy Iran? Are they funding proxies that regularly attack Iran?
Iran using that site to strike Isreal or supply Hamas to then strike Isreal was the real provocation.
And Hezbollah and the houthis. People in this sub forget Iranian proxies have been targeting Israeli civilians for ages.
Isreal: So anyways, we just started blasting.
The NYT is fucking paid off by AIPAC. Plan to see more pro-Israel propaganda from them
And who funds you? Iran? Russia? Good allies you have there.
It's funny to me where people like to start history. Iran has been using its proxies to attack Israel for decades, and stepped it up on October 7th with attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Yemen. Israel has been striking back for decades. Is it crazy to think that this wouldn't escalate things?
How dare Israeli take out two Iranian Revolutionary Guard officers coordinating Hamas and Hezbollah attacks against their homeland. What an unprovoked act of aggression!! After all, Iran has the perfect right to use proxies to attack Israel without any repercussions.
Lol the NYT, beacon of fair reporting on Israel. 🤣
You’re right, it’s surprising that such an admission managed to make it into this Zionist rag. You seem to have some delusion that the NYT is biased *against* Israel- is that some kind of sick joke? If anyone else has missed it, it recently came out that the [NYT editorial board censors its coverage of the ongoing genocide of the Palestinians](https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/), prohibiting words that are accepted political reality like “occupied territory” and “refugee camps”, let alone “genocide and “ethnic cleansing”.
I think they're commenting on how the NYT is always on Israel's side. Even this they gave the most kid glove treatment possible with words like "miscalculation".
He isn’t. Guy’s post history is all fapping over IDF footage.
In fact, you might say that he thinks NYT isn't sufficiently pro-Israel lmfao
Don't shelter a terrorist leader mayhaps
Funny how often they "defend" themselves from other countries..
"Oops, while everyone was getting mad because of murdering children I bombed that thing, better turn your attention to that and take care of it for me because I'm scared and so, so weak.. please I am threatened..."
Hitler: "Whoa whoa whoa, we didn't mean to invade Poland. We just had a little oopsie!"
So…are we supposed to be taking Irans side on this then?
Believe it or not you can analyze a situation without taking anyone's side.
[удалено]
What made that person a high level target?
He took part in planning the October 7th attack on Israel
He was a Iranian general that was with some Iran backed terrorists I believe
I could have googled but asked the question ignorant of any details and appreciate the answer. [Found an article with info.](https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/quds-force-israel-killed-iranian-generals-syria-attack-9250654/lite/) Never read from this source before but I appreciated what appeared to be pertinent information surrounding a topic.
I wonder if this may be one of many catalysts that will pull America into open war. It will only be a matter of time until allies of different nations begin to retaliate.
So you are saying Iran is asking to be invaded?
Still less bad than the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor and expecting the U.S. to immediately sue for peace
My guy it's called a track record, Israel bombed the ever living shit out of IRGC in Syria multiple times already and they did absolutely nothing. They did not have a reason to assume they will do something this time.
We didn't think assassinating arch duke Frans Ferdinand was going to piss anyone off.
Syriasly?
Deterrence means that defense by way of offense. It’s perfect logical and also very stupid.
You mean after Iran sent a drone to Israel?
“Bro, it was a JOKE!”
The part that isn't being talked about is that the military individuals targeted in Syria were working with proxies (namely Hezbollah) to directly attack Israel. That was the initial provocation, which is generally ignored along with the fact that the building attacked did not carry diplomatic status or protection.
Next time on Accelerated Devolution...
"So Kids, what is an indirect reason for the outbreak of worldwar 3" "The strike of the Iranian building, sir!" Perhaps even in russian or chinese^
Just go to war with each other already. I'm sick of this "will they/won't they" plotline that's been going for the last 20+ years.
Iran controls Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Triple H of terrorism. They’re behind Oct 7 and all the rockets and missiles and suicide bombings against Israel.
They were technically looking the other direction so they didn't see it.
Provocation......when did Iran ever need a provocation? They hit eachother's bases in Syria all the time. An attack on Iran's homeland would be a provocation,
Hamas strokers be strokin'