7 ms·

Iran has always said a lot of things (mostly BS). This is worthless without evidence and I don't think anyone had evidence that their missiles were restricted t

Iran has always said a lot of things (mostly BS). This is worthless without evidence and I don't think anyone had evidence that their missiles were restricted to 2,000km. Certainly, I don't think anyone took their word for it. In fact this attack proves that there was no such limitation (although it is unclear to me if the missiles fired could actually jave reached Diego Garcia). Now this may be a demonstration and veiled threat, on the other hand if Iran was to fire a missile at continental Europe I would hope that the consequence for them would be to be flattened, so...

mda 7mo ago
Like they flattened Afghanistan? It is funny people thinks land war in an huge mountainous country with 90 million people is easy.
- mytailorisrich 7mo ago
  I wrote "flatten", not "invade".
  - mda 7mo ago
    flatten with what?
    - drnick1 7mo ago
      Like what is happening now, completely decimating their army, navy, and air force. If that isn't enough, destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields), or go even further and destroy their electrical grid and send the country back to the stone age. Finally, if the regime does not surrender after all this, a nuke could still be used.
      - lostlogin 7mo ago
        > destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields) That’s the worlds source or revenue.
      - subscribed 7mo ago
        You don't use nuke on the regime, you use it on the civilians, FFS. Genocidal freaks. As if Hiroshima didn't teach you anything.
      - lm28469 7mo ago
        Lmao, from "we're here to bring democracy" to "let's destroy their civilian infrastructure" to "let's nuke them" real quick If that's the US way, why are Russians the bad guy again?
      - amunozo 7mo ago
        Think about what you're saying. That causes hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians. Suffering of millions. Weren't you supposed to help the Iranian people? This is the opposite.
        afroboy 7mo ago
        We all know he doesn't care about civilians he just want Muslims to be killed in masses and that's it, and Israel/US are carrying his dream and 50% of Americans dream to annihilate the faith of people who don't like.
- PepperdineG 7mo ago
  Never get involved in a land war in Asia but only slightly less well-known is never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
  - me_smith 7mo ago
    Inconceivable!
applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
You didn't have to take their word for it. It was self-evident from the fact they never did anything like this before, and now they are. Notably, the previous guy issued a religious decree against the development of nuclear weapons. Despite American's favorite propaganda tool for manufacturing consent, "but the WMDs", we have no reason to believe that was ever actually being violated. But you'd better believe it will be now if they think they can pull it off.
- mytailorisrich 7mo ago
  There is a difference between not doing something and being unable to do something. Clearly there were able but only showed it now and their previous claim was BS (again, assuming those missiles did fly "far"). No-one believes that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, either... or that they wouldn't if they had developed the capability.
- gambutin 7mo ago
  Ayatollah Khomeini admitted that he had lied about plans to make Iran democratic. This practice is known as taqqiya. It’s ok to lie if you’re deceiving the enemy.
  - subscribed 7mo ago
    Did he also released a religious decree stating as much? Because otherwise you're comparing apples to mushrooms. Not even themselves kingdom.
- rayiner 7mo ago
  Do the missiles Iran has been raining down on other countries for decades not count as WMDs?
  - jl6 7mo ago
    No. There’s a definition from the UN here if you’re interested: https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/view/UNHQ/9626F6CEB2A92C9B85256A0000078872 https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/view/UNHQ/9626F6CEB2A92C9B8...
breppp 7mo ago
> On the other hand if Iran was to fire a missile at continental Europe I would hope that the consequence for them would be to be flattened Iran have been attacking uninvolved NATO member Turkey for a while now and nothing happens. The USA is already fully engaged into this war while Europe can hardly deal together with Russia, it is doubtful they'd do anything even if it rained down on their territory
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- mda 7mo ago
  Attacking as in a couple of rockets heading US bases which were intercepted. Of course nothing would happen, why would Turkey (or other European countries) join this pointless war?
  - breppp 7mo ago
    This is an attack on Turkish territory regardless if there's a US base, and Iranian missiles usually miss the bases anyway. Turkey is led by a strongman leader and these are very sensitive to acts of public humiliation. So that's unwise when thinking about any negligible strategic advantage they may gain from these attacks
    - mda 7mo ago
      Iran is Turkey's neighbor and had relatively good relations for very long time, even with the strongman it doesn't make a shred of sense to change this. Especially for USA which has a tendency to back stab Turkey in any occasion (They could not get away from the time when Turkey did not allow them to invade Iraq from north, the previous BS war)
      - breppp 7mo ago
        Hence my point that Iran's "strategy" is very questionable
- 7mo ago
throwaway27448 7mo ago
What incentive would Iran have to lie? Their entire security model revolves around believable deterrence—apparently far more believable than either Israel or the US understood.
chasd00 7mo ago
Idk, I don’t think Europe has the capacity to do anything except launch their nukes. If missiles started falling on London they’d run to the UN and start writing letters. It would take months for NATO to start having planning meetings to figure out how to plan the response. I feel like the only military capability is maybe the SAS and nukes. There’s nothing in between.
- amunozo 7mo ago
  That's ridiculous, but Europe has no reason to intervene in this craze. If attacked, things would change. Europe has participated in previous wars like Irak or Afghanistan, why wouldn't we be able to act now?

mda 7mo ago

Like they flattened Afghanistan? It is funny people thinks land war in an huge mountainous country with 90 million people is easy.

mytailorisrich 7mo ago
I wrote "flatten", not "invade".
- mda 7mo ago
  flatten with what?
  - drnick1 7mo ago
    Like what is happening now, completely decimating their army, navy, and air force. If that isn't enough, destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields), or go even further and destroy their electrical grid and send the country back to the stone age. Finally, if the regime does not surrender after all this, a nuke could still be used.
    - lostlogin 7mo ago
      > destroy their only source of revenue (oil fields) That’s the worlds source or revenue.
    - subscribed 7mo ago
      You don't use nuke on the regime, you use it on the civilians, FFS. Genocidal freaks. As if Hiroshima didn't teach you anything.
    - lm28469 7mo ago
      Lmao, from "we're here to bring democracy" to "let's destroy their civilian infrastructure" to "let's nuke them" real quick If that's the US way, why are Russians the bad guy again?
    - amunozo 7mo ago
      Think about what you're saying. That causes hundreds of thousands of deaths of innocent civilians. Suffering of millions. Weren't you supposed to help the Iranian people? This is the opposite.
      - afroboy 7mo ago
        We all know he doesn't care about civilians he just want Muslims to be killed in masses and that's it, and Israel/US are carrying his dream and 50% of Americans dream to annihilate the faith of people who don't like.
PepperdineG 7mo ago
Never get involved in a land war in Asia but only slightly less well-known is never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
- me_smith 7mo ago
  Inconceivable!

applfanboysbgon 7mo ago

You didn't have to take their word for it. It was self-evident from the fact they never did anything like this before, and now they are. Notably, the previous guy issued a religious decree against the development of nuclear weapons. Despite American's favorite propaganda tool for manufacturing consent, "but the WMDs", we have no reason to believe that was ever actually being violated. But you'd better believe it will be now if they think they can pull it off.

mytailorisrich 7mo ago
There is a difference between not doing something and being unable to do something. Clearly there were able but only showed it now and their previous claim was BS (again, assuming those missiles did fly "far"). No-one believes that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, either... or that they wouldn't if they had developed the capability.
gambutin 7mo ago
Ayatollah Khomeini admitted that he had lied about plans to make Iran democratic. This practice is known as taqqiya. It’s ok to lie if you’re deceiving the enemy.
- subscribed 7mo ago
  Did he also released a religious decree stating as much? Because otherwise you're comparing apples to mushrooms. Not even themselves kingdom.
rayiner 7mo ago
Do the missiles Iran has been raining down on other countries for decades not count as WMDs?
- jl6 7mo ago
  No. There’s a definition from the UN here if you’re interested: https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/view/UNHQ/9626F6CEB2A92C9B85256A0000078872 https://unterm.un.org/unterm2/en/view/UNHQ/9626F6CEB2A92C9B8...

breppp 7mo ago

> On the other hand if Iran was to fire a missile at continental Europe I would hope that the consequence for them would be to be flattened Iran have been attacking uninvolved NATO member Turkey for a while now and nothing happens. The USA is already fully engaged into this war while Europe can hardly deal together with Russia, it is doubtful they'd do anything even if it rained down on their territory

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
mda 7mo ago
Attacking as in a couple of rockets heading US bases which were intercepted. Of course nothing would happen, why would Turkey (or other European countries) join this pointless war?
- breppp 7mo ago
  This is an attack on Turkish territory regardless if there's a US base, and Iranian missiles usually miss the bases anyway. Turkey is led by a strongman leader and these are very sensitive to acts of public humiliation. So that's unwise when thinking about any negligible strategic advantage they may gain from these attacks
  - mda 7mo ago
    Iran is Turkey's neighbor and had relatively good relations for very long time, even with the strongman it doesn't make a shred of sense to change this. Especially for USA which has a tendency to back stab Turkey in any occasion (They could not get away from the time when Turkey did not allow them to invade Iraq from north, the previous BS war)
    - breppp 7mo ago
      Hence my point that Iran's "strategy" is very questionable
7mo ago

throwaway27448 7mo ago

What incentive would Iran have to lie? Their entire security model revolves around believable deterrence—apparently far more believable than either Israel or the US understood.

chasd00 7mo ago

Idk, I don’t think Europe has the capacity to do anything except launch their nukes. If missiles started falling on London they’d run to the UN and start writing letters. It would take months for NATO to start having planning meetings to figure out how to plan the response. I feel like the only military capability is maybe the SAS and nukes. There’s nothing in between.

amunozo 7mo ago
That's ridiculous, but Europe has no reason to intervene in this craze. If attacked, things would change. Europe has participated in previous wars like Irak or Afghanistan, why wouldn't we be able to act now?