- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Whenever they claim that about Gaza the target is usually a hospital. So ya’know, “trustworthy.”
Right before the election, of course.
“October surprise!” - Netanyahu
Looks constrained so far. No energy targets. Yet.
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…
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻)
So…hospitals? Schools? (While they’re open and full of children of course)
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.
At least for now, it looks like Iran is downplaying the attacks, which is a good sign for de-escalation.
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.
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.
