Comments by "Sunoo Peek" (@Sunopeek) on "How Israeli Oct 26th strike on Iran happened" video.

  1. Iran was unstable and still fought off Iraq, which was supported by almost everyone at the time. Calling that a loss is misrepresentation of history and cheap bait at the best.
    12
  2. The strike was surprisingly limited. This says Israel is still afraid of a real Iranian counterattack despite the 20-year gap in military superiority they enjoy. Maybe they're hoping Trump would win so they could launch an actual attack? Or maybe both the US and the region threatened Israel to not escalate. Neither side wants a real exchange of fire, so hopefully, this thing stops here. But you can't trust the Israelis on anything, so I doubt it.
    10
  3.  @SapphiR3_  The harsher the Iranian response, the more serious the damage Israel had inflicted. If Iran doesn't retaliate or limits it's response, then the Israel attack didn't do much.
    5
  4.  @unrealuknow864  That's expected. Especially when the West and USA provide it with unlimited support. Plus they struck from outside of Iran territories from the maximum standoff distance. Israel itself has no counter measure against Irans missiles. If Iran attacks for real there will be serious damage. But then Israel will hit back for real and it will escalate into a regional war and no one wants to see that. Iran can easily absorb the damage and pain because they're not a nation of cowards and weaklings as the Iraq- Iran war showed. Can Israel though?
    5
  5.  @incurableromantic4006  Israel is the largest US-European military base in the world. It's capabilities aren't surprising, it's just a reflection of USA and Europe's military capabilities.
    3
  6.  @incurableromantic4006  Under every "made in Israel" sticker is an American or German flag. The rest is other European nations.
    3
  7.  @incurableromantic4006  Receiving unlimited funding and cooperation while your underdeveloped foes are sanctioned isn't an amazing achievement.
    3
  8.  @incurableromantic4006  It's less a miracle nation and more like a welfare nation.
    3
  9.  @cesruhf2605 Minimizing risk is the literal definition of being afraid.
    2
  10.  @RichardWagner-hi4zn  If you aren't a 5 year old, stop speaking like one.
    2
  11.  @daryooshshirvan7878  The problem is that we only have propaganda at the moment. The pro-Israel side is claiming it was a massive success while the other side is downplaying the strike. Neither side is providing definitive evidence besides some pictures that don't say anything.
    1
  12.  @daryooshshirvan7878  The problem is that we only have propaganda at the moment. The one side is claiming it was a massive success while the other side is downplaying the strike. Neither side is providing definitive evidence besides some pictures that don't say anything.
    1
  13.  @daryooshshirvan7878  Too much bias and propaganda by both sides at the moment. But it works well. If both sides can claim victory, then there's less chance of a war breaking out.
    1
  14.  @incurableromantic4006  If you remove the "made in Israel" sticker you'll see a US or German flag on almost everything they have. Everything is from other European nations. Also getting unlimited funding and cooperation without any sanctions makes it easy be advanced compared to sanctioned 3rd world nations. I don't understand why it's called a miracle when it's just welfare on steroids.
    1
  15.  @danghoangluong2942  Why would I be jealous of the largest welfare recipient in history?
    1
  16.  @incurableromantic4006  More exports then import? Why does it still take billions of dollars in aid and subsides then? Give it back so the taxpayers can see benefits from their own taxes instead of sending it overseas.
    1
  17.  @danghoangluong2942  I mean, who doesn't want billions of dollars of free taxpayer money? It's like a billionaire child inheriting a billion dollar industry and claiming he's self-made. It's a laughable claim.
    1
  18.  @mrmr446  Egypt and Syria had nukes as well back then. It was Soviet supplied after the 6 day war to deter against any further Israeli adventures. There's a reason Israel was always quick to agree to a ceasefire and never marched on capitals. They knew what would happen if they pushed their luck.
    1
  19. Plus, their militaries were already at peak exhaustion limits and couldn't push any further. So they already took a ceasefire once they got everything they could get, and their military couldn't advance any further.
    1
  20.  @mrmr446  Yes, they did. It was Soviet supplied and controlled. They were on Egyptian and Syria territories to deter against any Israeli adventures. There's a reason Israel says it's not the first to introduce them.
    1
  21.  @incurableromantic4006  Yes, they did. It was Soviet supplied and controlled. They were on Egyptian and Syria territories to deter against any Israeli adventures. There's a reason Israel says it's not the first to introduce them.
    1
  22.  @incurableromantic4006  Your answer makes no sense given the context of our conversation. You changed the subject that was being discussed. We were talking about a welfare nation that exaggerates its achievements as it stands on the shoulders of giants. You countered that it exports more than it imports as proof of its resilience. Then you were asked to return all the aid since you clearly don't need it. Here, you changed the subject to claim that you do need it because it frees up your resources to be focused on R&D and other areas of development. You went in a circle just to prove how a welfare nation works.
    1
  23.  @mrmr446  The only known ones are there. But this was in the past when they were allied with the Soviets. Now, they don't have them anymore after the Soviets left the region. Egypt might have Pakistani supplied warheads as a deterrent. We know for certainty that Saudi Arabia has Pakistani warheads on its territory.
    1
  24.  @incurableromantic4006  Wait forever. No one cares. Sorry to burst your zionist delusions, but there's a reason Israel was always quick to agree to a ceasefire.
    1
  25.  @incurableromantic4006  Wait forever. No one cares. Sorry to burst your historical delusions, but there's a reason Israel was always quick to agree to a ceasefire.
    1
  26.  @mrmr446  Israel is the only nation in history that is proud of the fact that it only fought 3rd world nations. It's bizarre.
    1
  27.  @mrmr446  You're arguing with a Hasbara (lies) or unit 8200 agent. They get paid to waste people's time online with nonsense and falsehoods. When they run out of those, they start throwing personal insults.
    1
  28.  @mrmr446  They didn't declare their Cuban sites. They were discovered. It didn't last long because the US agreed to remove some from Europe in exchange for the Soviets removing the Cuban ones. The Cuban ones were placed there in retaliation for the US placing their own close to the Soviets. The whole idea behind them is that you never know where they're located or stored. MBS hosts Pakistani forces that field those weapons on Saudi territory completely under Pakistani control. This gives Saudi Arabia a deterrent option without actually "owning" the weapon. It was the same agreement the Egyptians/Syrians used with the Soviets back in the 70s to deter against misguided Israeli adventurism. They fought a war in 1973 even though they knew Israel had nukes by then. You don't do that unless you have a similar deterrent available. I understand if you don't wish to continue this since we're getting off topic.
    1
  29.  @incurableromantic4006  If you're talking about today? Try using yours and see what happens. If you're talking about the past wars, again, there's a reason Israel was always quick to agree to a ceasefire. They knew what would happen if they passed a certain threshold.
    1
  30.  @incurableromantic4006  Learning to read is an incredible gift. You should try it. It was Soviet supplied and controlled, not given. Soviets had these weapons installed on several bases, this region was one of them. The 73 war was started even though Egypt/Syria knew Israel had nukes by then. You don't fight a war against nuclear power unless you have a deterrent of your own ready. Soviets left the region afterwards, so the Egyptians/Syrians no longer have that deterrent. Unless Pakistan supplied some to Egypt.
    1
  31.  @incurableromantic4006  You have nothing of substance to say in support of your arguments, so you resort to personal insults. This makes your opinion worthless.
    1
  32.  @incurableromantic4006  Denial is the first stage of grief when you learn inconvenient truths, especially if you've grown up only learning one-sided propaganda masqueraded as history. We're getting seriously off-topic, and I don't get paid to comment online like you hasbara (lies) / unit 8200 agents, so I'm dropping this conversation.
    1
  33.  @mrmr446  That was part of a disinformation campaign to trick the Israelis. It's recorded history. Soviets continued supporting Egyptians long after, and they still had a presence in Egypt during the war. They broke relations in 1981 after Egypt supported the Mujahedeen Afghanistan and because of the peace treaty with Israel. But they remained as allies until 1981.
    1
  34.  @incurableromantic4006  Denial is the first stage of grief when you learn inconvenient truths, especially if you've grown up only learning one-sided propaganda masqueraded as history. We're getting seriously off-topic, and I don't get paid to comment online like hasbara (lies) / unit 8200 agents, so I'm dropping this conversation.
    1
  35.  @mrmr446  That was a trick in the build-up to the 73 war with the Israelis. It's recorded history. Israel did something similar with its Air Force in 67. Soviets continued supporting Egyptians long after, and they still had a presence in Egypt. They only broke relations in 1981 after Egypt supported the other side in Afghanistan and because of the peace treaty with Israel. But they remained as allies until 1981.
    1
  36.  @mrmr446  But without nukes in your arsenal, that way of thinking isn't calculated but rather wishful thinking. Having them secretly in your arsenal just in case but banking on them not being used on occupied territory would be a more realistic plan.
    1
  37.  @mrmr446  It was "publicly" done as a show to trick their foes. Soviets continued their presence inside Egypt despite getting "kicked out" and continued supplying aid to the Egyptians during the 73 war. There was "fear" of Israel using wmds, yes, but they never did because they knew the consequences of what would have happened. By their own admission they're not the first people to introduce it in the region and they knew it. Once again, you don't attack a nuclear armed state unless you have a deterrent ready and waiting. You're confusing what happened before the 73 war with what happened afterward. US weaponary wasn't provided until February of 1978, five years after the war. The deteriorating Egypt-Soviet relations didn't happen until after the war.
    1
  38.  @mrmr446  Wishful thinking doesn't apply to high stakes operations. Israel obtained their nukes after the 67 war and their position was always they were not the "first" to introduce them. They weren't talking about the US and it's allies. They were talking about their neighbors Egypt and Syria
    1
  39.  @mrmr446  Are you reading your own comments? You said Egypt and Soviets stopped being allies before the 1973 war and that Sadat publicly kicked them out to gain US weapons. That's wrong on many levels. They remained allies before and during the 73 war. Sadat publicly "kicked" the Soviets as a ruse to catch the Israelis off guard. Soviets remained in Egypt and continued supplying them during the war. After the war, the Soviet-Egypt relations started degrading with US approval and support. The began taking opposing sides on many issues. It wasn't until 1978 that US first approved the first sale of military hardware to Egypt. Soviet relations were finally cut in 1981.
    1
  40.  @mrmr446  Israel says it isn't the first to introduce wmds in the region. You said that Israel was talking about Turkey housing US nukes on its territory, but that's not what Israel was talking about. It was talking about its hostile neighbors who obtained those wmds first. Why would Israel be threatened by US weapons controlled by US soldiers on Turkish soil?
    1
  41.  @mrmr446  You literally said it was referring to Turkish bases. Are you reading your own comments? Israel says it wasn't the first to introduce them in the region, and they're correct. Their neighbors got the Soviets to station some of theirs in the region as a deterrent after the 67 war. You don't launch a massive war like 73 against a nuclear armed nation without a similar deterrent available. It was obviously done in secret to maintain the surprise.
    1
  42.  @mrmr446  You're contradicting yourself and saying historically inaccurate things then saying you never said them once you get pressed on them. I think it's better if we drop this conversation and move on. Because I will.
    1
  43.  @erloriel  Nor do they deserve to be. They're plagued by leadership that cares more about the survival of their regimes than the well-being of its citizens. Syria especially has always suffered from that catastrophic style of leadership.
    1
  44.  @jstrainsstuff2386  No, they were not. They were symbolic and telegraphed using outdated technology aimed at sending a message. The aim was to send a message without escalation.
    1
  45.  @louis108  They easily bypassed Israel's defense system with outdated weaponary at low cost. So they have a low-tech, low-cost and effective attack that can be mass produced. All they have to do now is improve the accuracy and develop "unique" warheads.
    1
  46.  @lmao.3661  To be fair it's too early for copium since we still don't know the extent of the damage, if any, inflicted so far.
    1
  47.  @jamskinner  No, we only have propaganda so far. Actual real damage will take time as analysts and spies do their work.
    1
  48.  @jamskinner  Yeah, but images without a full analysis of what they were is just propaganda. For example, Iran struck 30+ military targets and bases with plenty of images of destruction. Then they claimed it was a massive success, and proof is that Israel is too scared to attack seriously. But without an investigation into what was struck and why, then it's just propaganda to satisfy domestic audiences. The same applies here to Israel's attack. Without an analysis into the details, it's just propaganda.
    1
  49.  @danghoangluong2942  Yeah, but images without a full analysis of what they were is just propaganda. For example, Iran struck 30+ military targets and bases with plenty of images of destruction. Then they claimed it was a massive success, and proof is that Israel is too scared to attack seriously. But without an investigation into what was struck and why, then it's just propaganda to satisfy domestic audiences. The same applies here to Israel's attack. Without an analysis into the details, it's just propaganda.
    1
  50.  @jamskinner  Yeah, but images without a full analysis of what they were is just propaganda. For example, when Israel was struck by 30+ military targets and bases there was plenty of images of destruction. It was claimed a massive success, and proof is that Israel is too scared to attack seriously. But without an investigation into what was struck and why, then it's just propaganda to satisfy domestic audiences. The same applies here to Israel's attack. Without an analysis into the details, it's just propaganda.
    1
  51.  @danghoangluong2942  Yeah, but images without a full analysis of what they were is just propaganda. For example, when Israel was struck by 30+ military targets and bases there was plenty of images of destruction. It was claimed a massive success, and proof is that Israel is too scared to attack seriously. But without an investigation into what was struck and why, then it's just propaganda to satisfy domestic audiences. The same applies here to Israel's attack. Without an analysis into the details, it's just propaganda.
    1
  52.  @jamskinner  Images and videos don't tell the full picture. We don't know what was targeted and why. What if they were decoys or if the real facility was buried deep underground? This is why we need a full analysis. Until then, the pictures are just cheap propaganda for domestic media consumption.
    1
  53.  @danghoangluong2942  Images and videos don't tell the full picture. We don't know what was targeted and why. What if they were decoys or if the real facility was buried deep underground? This is why we need a full analysis. Until then, the pictures are just cheap propaganda for domestic media consumption.
    1
  54.  @jamskinner  If the true facility was actually underground, that building? And the top part was just a front? Then yes, definitely. It can be a decoy.
    1
  55.  @RichardWagner-hi4zn  Maybe I'll understand if you start speaking it first? Which part of the conversation was hard to follow? I'll try to dumb it down to a five year old level to help you understand.
    1
  56.  @RichardWagner-hi4zn  You basement dwellers are so weird. Anyone who doesn't blindly support Israel is called pro-Iranian. Anyone who doesn't blindly support Iran is called pro-Israel. There's 239 other nations and territories that are neither Iran nor Israel. But to be fair, that's something you only learn if you finished five year old level school classes.
    1
  57.  @RichardWagner-hi4zn  War = bad Hitting hard = other side hitting back harder Not hitting hard = you are scared of the other side + you don't want to escalate Both sides not hitting hard = both sides don't want war That should be simple enough for a 5 year old to understand.
    1
  58.  @cesruhf2605  You went in a circle just to repeat the same point. They're scared of losing. That's why they maximize their chances while minimizing the risk. Minimizing risk is the definition of being scared. Scared of losing or scared of failure.
    1
  59.  @avikaisermann6936  If this was true Iran would have retaliated immediately. The statement is exaggerated as part of psychological warfare to satisfy domestic audiences so regional tensions can end, maybe?
    1