Comments by "" (@tomk3732) on "What the Israel u0026 Iran Strikes Just Revealed" video.

What???? Iran showed that they are regional powerhouse. Israel was afraid to respond.
7
And that is just for Israel.
6
Iran is actually... democracy as well - they have elections with multiple candidates. Yes, religion is very important... but guess what, so is in Israel.
4
We have photos of what was hit - it clearly had Iranian flag on top and google locates it as consulate / embassy. Embassy is frequently a set of buildings - not just 1, it can be a 100 like US embassy in Iraq.
3
"limited" for Iran - mother of war for Israel.
2
We don't know. No proof of any losses was shown. Drones were small and described as toys. There is not even proof it was Israel. No losses on Iranian side.
2
So? It has same protections under international law.
2
Well, we do know - Israel stated it was between 1b and 1.3b on their side for cost. Add US and UK. As for Iran, we do know it was 120 missiles + about 200 drones. Drones are cheap - say 40k each at most. So 8m for all drones, at most. Missiles are expensive - but are they 1m each? Probably not. So say on average 500k - total cost would be around 70m.
2
@DaniEpstein Sure it does - it falls under international law - including that of Israel - "Currently, diplomatic relations, including diplomatic immunity, are governed internationally by the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which has been ratified by almost every country in the world." The building has been known to be embassy / consulate - even US acknowledged this and they are somewhat of a heavy duty Israeli supporter. Israel broke the law - nothing new, Israel does it all the time.
1
@DaniEpstein Section 54 does mention 3rd states. Even you mention " Laws and Customs of Warfare " - which also have laws and customs of diplomatic relations. Also by same argument 3rd state could at will attack embassy of Israel anywhere on earth and one should just say that it was legitimate act - after all one can claim that Israeli embassy was planning terrorist acts - why not? In such case any attack in Israeli embassy from now on is not subject to breaking of any international laws - do you agree? I let Iran and others know that.
1
@DaniEpstein Article 54 establishes rules a third state needs to adhere - certainly if you are to allow transit I think its logical to follow you are not allowed to kill them. If Argentine embassy bombing was a crime so is attack on Iranian embassy / consulate. Or one can simply state that attack on Argentine embassy of Israel was not a crime, as it was just an annex of the embassy, heck the target was actually church nearby. Heck, according to your logic one can say Jews were plotting something in 1992 in that annex making it legal target. So either 1992 attack was a crime or it was not - if it was, so is 2024 attack. Either we are going to treat everyone equally or just admit we run out of arguments.
1
@DaniEpstein Well, we can go about it the same way with 1992 bombing which you have provided for me - was there anything written in Persian found? No? So why blame Iran? Maybe it was Jews themselves, no - I believe that was even one of the lines advanced during the investigation. Lets be a bit more "realistic" - even if there is no direct evidence of a crime there is evidence suggesting the culprit that may be indirect - this is the case for both attacks. If we were to accept only direct evidence, most murderers would go scot free. So, are you going to let Iran off the hook for 1992 and sacrifice 4 Jews - and let Iran take 7? Btw thank you for bringing out 1992, it was most helpful. As for me projecting from the Article - it is customary not to attack diplomatic missions even if not explicitly stated - I believe even Nazi during WWII followed this - granted only for western states they considered worthy. The war against Israel argument is a bit hollow - do you have a recording of their plotting? Or is your evidence similar to the one with missile and Hebrew writing on it?
1
@DaniEpstein I am sure we can get Iranian court or similar to confirm that Israel bombed the consulate. So what? I see you don't want to go into equivalence. 4 Jews for 7 Iranians is not a good trade, for Israel. As US power in the world is going down, Israel would be wise to figure out how to get new friends, as standing alone against Iran and rather quickly rest of ME would not end well for Israel. China sees Iran as far more preferential trade partner than Israel,
1
How is many? They sent some drones - which took hours and hours to get there - they informed everyone this will happen days before so both US and UK were ready. They informed Israel whom also had their aircraft up - so they easily taken care of the drones. Missiles did get through with about 10% penetrating. This shows that in surprise attack maybe 20% would go through or more. This shows low performance of Israel - I mean its a small country with massive AD network.
1
If they did massive damage they risked US entering the war / massive retaliation. The aim was to save face and show strength - which they did very well. Israel on the other hand shown weakness and that it clearly cannot go toe to toe with Iran without US support.
1
You had a response? Really? When, where? Is there any proof of it? We don't have Israel admit it, we have only US saying there was a response through their "free" media. No satellite photos - nothing - indicates a strike.
1
@lumekp Evidence is called "trust me bro". Iran reported no damage, no proof of any damage, no proof of even a strike!
1
Iran showed power! They whacked Israel hard. Israel? Who knows - there is a supposed "strike" but no proof of it... wash it mirrors and shadows? I think it was a mistake for Israel to do "maybe we did maybe we did not" attack. It showed Israel is weak and cannot act without US. Better would be to keep ambiguous.
1