Iran has come out of the shadows and attacked Israel directly. **Read OP before posting**

beeker1

Well you need Sam mcallister to get you booked on newsnight , your more in the know than US & British military intelligence !

Brussels Sprout

Iran announcing the departure of the drones on their news was a bit of a tell as to their strategy here.

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1779284354176258058

ToweringPerformance

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020056#Comment_122020056

Iv'e no problem with that, iv'e also no problem with the Iranians taking out the Israeli government as they are a genocidal regime of epic proportions.

Beasty

Danzy threadbanned

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020050#Comment_122020050

the Canadian embassy building they also attacked was not involved in any such conspiracy theory. And those allegations still require proof. Can you show me the chapter and verse where it says attacking an embassy is okay under those circumstances

Beasty

Donald Trump threadbanned

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020091#Comment_122020091

The Canadian embassy thats not in use and had a few windows blown out? It was not "also attacked" by Israel, implying it was targeted for attack. It was damaged in the blast from the attack on the actual target. Where is your proof it was targeted for attack?

Do you think the Iranian consulate was hosting a meeting to discuss a joint order for stationary?

Where was the chapter and verse for your claim about their protected status? So what convention are you basing your claim on?

Its behind a paywall but according to this Economist article:

There are exceptions to inviolability under international law, too. The Vienna Convention only refers to the responsibilities of the host state, but says nothing about a third-party attack. Also, under the laws of armed conflict, embassies lose their protections if they are used for military purposes. That may mean that the recent strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus was legal.

https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2024/04/09/why-are-embassies-supposed-to-be-inviolable

tayto lover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122019667#Comment_122019667

As i told you before Sean, the Israel actions against the Palestinian people ie letting settlers steal their land, treating Palestinians as 'human animals, locking children up without trial, murdering people etc etc is the cause of all the trouble. And you know this but choose to ignore all Israel's crimes. Maybe some day they'll try being nice to their neighbours. Israel and Iran used to be the best of pals until 1979. Iran was one of the first countries to recognise Israel as a country too.

timmyntc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020067#Comment_122020067

Exactly. They gave almost a weeks notice that they were going to respond by striking Israel, and even warned civilian aviation in the region & warned their neighbours in advance of the action.

Nothing more than a "look what we can do", not an attempt to actually hit anything. The fact that 7 missiles got through despite all that warning and intervention from US, UK, France, Jordan, Saudi Arabia et al is worrying though for Israel. The public's idea that they are untouchable because of the dome and other defences has been diminished.

Beasty

beeker1 threadbanned

tayto lover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122019705#Comment_122019705

Hamas, Isis and Israel's IDF all criminals.

cheezums

No one talking about genocide and dead aid workers today and the liberal west rowing in behind Israel and berating Iran for destabilizing the region. No mention of the attack on the embassy from anyone. You know, the attack against international law that Iran was directly responding to, with a measured and telegraphed attack and a statement that there would be no more.

mission accomplished from Israel. Masterful. And all it cost was a genuine potential for WW3. AH well. we had a good run.

tayto lover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122019751#Comment_122019751

That's exactly what he thinks.

irishgeo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020135#Comment_122020135

Perhaps the 7 missiles got through because they sent all the slow moving drones to keep iron dome busy.

tayto lover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122019874#Comment_122019874

And who trained the Savak death squads? A crowd very good at murdering ….. Mossad.

cheezums

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020155#Comment_122020155

that's bullshit. it was a quote from last night from some official, before the US calmed them down.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020107#Comment_122020107

so instead of citing the conventions themselves you’re going off some US article. Biased source under the circumstance.

“Targeted” or not Canadas embassy was attacked and damage and is sovereign Canadian territory.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020155#Comment_122020155

war mongers. They should be waging elections, not wars.

Beasty

Guilderstern threadbanned

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020214#Comment_122020214

The warmongers are the Iranian leadership.

ToweringPerformance

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020194#Comment_122020194

okay my mistake no need for the bad language i'll remove. 👌

igCorcaigh

UNSC meeting now, being covered by Al Jazeera, for those who wish to watch.

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020220#Comment_122020220

it’s not an either or, and if you were being honest, you entirely know that.

Bibi’s government was under deep scrutiny and he was under criminal investigation a year ago. Nothing to wonder about why he wants to plunge Israel into breathless warfare, or why he chose to attack a consulate immediately following critical losses of international and domestic support. Sure attacking the Embassy and provoking Iran to respond was great craic for getting the Israeli election protests out of the news cycle.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020205#Comment_122020205

I'll ask you again:

Where was the chapter and verse for your claim about their protected status? So what convention are you basing your claim on?

It seems a bad faith argument to demand "chapter and verse" from others of a standard you do not attempt to provide yourself.

I have no reason to doubt the content of the Economist article.

And here is the New York Times along similar lines:

Diplomatic buildings are entitled to broad protections from attack or other interference by the host country under international customary law, codified in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations… But while those rules of diplomatic relations are a bedrock principle of international law, they actually have little force in the case of the Damascus bombing, experts say, because they only refer to the responsibilities of the “receiving State” — in this case, Syria — and say nothing about attacks by a third state on foreign territory.

An embassy can lose those protections, however, if it is used for a military purpose, as is true of schools, homes, and other civilian buildings during wartime.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html

boetstark

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122019751#Comment_122019751

What about when those Republican sympathisers in dublin attacked and burnt the British embassy

Overheal

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020245#Comment_122020245

you’re answering a question with a question. That’s bad faith argument.

Again you aren’t citing the convention just an American source with a bias against Iran in this case.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020251#Comment_122020251

The question is directly related to the original claim made.

I've cited two reputable news outlets, you have no real response to the content of the articles except in one case to say it is an American source.

And you aren't citing the convention either. You haven't even said which convention you are basing your claim on. So it is an entirely reasonable question to ask what the 'convention' you are basing your claim on says about their use for military purposes?

At this stage, you've provided exactly nothing of substance to support either your claim or refute the content of the two cited news articles. Your claims have no credibility, and you demand a level of proof from other posters you yourself does not even attempt to provide.

cheezums

does anyone actually believe the embassy was harboring the architects of the Oct 7 attack? Israel want a war with Iran to distract from their genocide and bring their US handlers fully on board. They are that psychotic. And they are going to possibly start WW3.

concerned_tenant

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020251#Comment_122020251

With a bias against Iran?

The theocratic fascist entity that governs the country — against its own people, as well as to the region at large?

For sure, I'm against such a fascist state structure that has openly called for the the state of Israel to be wiped from the map.

Rugbyf565

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122020145#Comment_122020145

Hamas are criminals but you have to understand that they’re a product of the effects of consistent historical colonisation and repression of their people and land. Being forced from your home in the middle of the night would radicalise anyone. So naturally you feel a bit more sympathy for them than for the Israeli state who are bankrolled by the billions by the Americans and Brits.