Israel threatens Iran’s top leader after missiles damage hospital and wound more than 200
-
The problem with assassinating leaders is that it turns the population into a headless mob, and plenty of innocents suffer tremendously anyways.
Modern military technology has made such concerns much less important, as any conflict is increasingly devastating.
Yerp. Killing the leader leaves a power vacuum depending on the structure of the government. Power vacuums are the quickest way to a civil war.
-
No they didn't. Iran didn't bomb every hospital and clinic in Israel repeatedly, Iran didn't bomb Israel fertility centers, Iran didn't ambush and shoot doctors and bury their bodies, Iran didn't drone strike ambulances AFTER coordinating their movement. Iran didn't bulldoze graves of all the people it slaughtered to invade a hospital and destroy its water lines, Iran didn't evacuate hospitals at gun point and leave infants to starve to death alone in hospital beds. Iran didn't do any of that.
Israel did all that, and more, and they bragged about it very loudly and posted all the evidence themselves.
Ive heard a few Israeli spokespeople on the radio. Listening to their justifications is as hypocritical as it gets. Somehow strikes on Tel Aviv are the most despicable acts of all time while Israel is simply conducting the most glorious military operation ever. It sick.
-
Read the headline? Bombing a hospital it says, but I doubt you can read it better if I write it
️It was a colateral damage . Iran can't do precise airstrikes like israel does
-
It was a colateral damage . Iran can't do precise airstrikes like israel does
Then they shouldn't have done it Einstein.
-
Then they shouldn't have done it Einstein.
Sure they should let israel bombarding them without defending itself. What a clown.
-
Sure they should let israel bombarding them without defending itself. What a clown.
They do war crimes. Iran does war crimes. Spin it as you like, Iran are doing war crimes.
-
They do war crimes. Iran does war crimes. Spin it as you like, Iran are doing war crimes.
Which one again? Collateral damage is not war crime
-
What happens if one country invades the other which doesn't posses the tech necessary to kill the leader? eg cruise missiles, bunker busters, or modern aviation in general
Then that country would lose in a conventional war also?
-
Then that country would lose in a conventional war also?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Not really, there are some good examples of underdogs winning (without cruise missiles for example).
edit: and we're not talking strictly conventional. also that's not what "no downsides" means
-
They do war crimes. Iran does war crimes. Spin it as you like, Iran are doing war crimes.
Israel wrote the book on war crimes.
-
Israel wrote the book on war crimes.
So there were no war crimes before the fifties, intetesting (read: stupid) take.
-
So there were no war crimes before the fifties, intetesting (read: stupid) take.
Israel has attacked Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran in the last few months. I'm probably forgetting a few places, because those ulta-religious lunatics in Tel Aviv are attacking everyone.
Religious conservatism is poison. And nothing is more poisonous than the fascist regime in Tel Aviv.
-
Israel has attacked Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iran in the last few months. I'm probably forgetting a few places, because those ulta-religious lunatics in Tel Aviv are attacking everyone.
Religious conservatism is poison. And nothing is more poisonous than the fascist regime in Tel Aviv.
Your hatred seems to be on pair with it.
-
Your hatred seems to be on pair with it.
Isn't that the correct response to a genocidal dictatorship? Please tell me what other feelings are appropriate.
