Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

US/Israel conduct airstrikes on Iran again

1357358360362363429

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Would you care to cite the relevant section of treaty as regards the definitions, rights and duties of neutral powers which supports this position?

    Shannon has always been open to aircraft transporting military cargo, it has not usually been picky about whose. It’s handy for US stuff going to Europe, for Soviet/Russian stuff heading for Cuba and LatAm. The definition of neutrality is “not taking sides”, and Ireland has historically been even-handed in its treatment of all nations. By way of example of the principle, see Art. 9 of Hague XIII (. “A neutral Power must apply impartially to the two belligerents the conditions, restrictions, or prohibitions made by it in regard to the admission into its ports, roadsteads, or territorial waters, of belligerent war-ships or of their prizes.“

    IMG_0583.jpeg


    When has Ireland ever chosen to provide facilities or transit rights to one nation in a conflict which it has ever chosen to deny to another nation in that conflict?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Irrelevant? Ask Saudis how they feel about it. Houthis were quite efficient against them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,943 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Bezalel Smotrich represents the "Religious Zionist Party" which has a grand total of 7/120 seats in the Knesset. Seven.

    Religious Zionist Party - Wikipedia

    Mike Huckabee is known primarily as an American Evangelical Christian, he represents no Jews and nobody in Israel, its government or society.

    You need to show:

    1. How many people in Israel even know about the Greater Israel plot, let alone support it, to say nothing of being willing to take action to implement it.
    2. Why Egypt, Jordan etc aren't taking it seriously.
    3. How Israel would seize the territory (e.g. attacking Turkey without immediately causing the latter to invoke NATO Article 5) and how it would administer such a large empire.
    4. Why they would start this when they have their hands full protecting their vulnerable coastal plain, e.g. Tel Aviv.

    This will be made harder by the fact that Israeli government policy is clear:

    IsraelBlessingvsCurse.jpg

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,058 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    If the port was was allowing German vessels to refit and refuel with equipment and resources by prior arrangement, then the British would have been within their rights to attack the Graf Spee while she was in port and also the port itself.

    There were prior arrangements - the rights and duties of neutral ports everywhere.

    Every flight the US takes through Irish airspace has to be approved by the Irish authorities (not that we could stop them). There is no extant agreement allowing them any kind of freedom of action. They are not generally allowed bring munitions beyond small arms.

    The idea that we are complicit or engaged or legitimate targets for Iranian response would be rejected by every single international law lawyer you could ask. If the US is following the agreement we have in place with them, a foreign power absolutely could not attack Shannon Airport without it being a flagrant breach of international law. But some people only care about this when the US does it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,533 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I mentioned no "treaty".

    Ireland, however, has an agreement with that allows military aircraft to land and refuel at Shannon, with strict conditions. Of importance is that the aircraft involved carry no munitions, nor are they to be used in an active war situation.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,058 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Fair enough, on that we are agreed. I think international law is a nice concept that has never fundamentally had any grounding.

    I think talking about Iran thus having a legitimate right to attack Ireland is a pretty perverse view all the same. How do you define legitimacy? We are not involved in the actions against Iran at all. Would you cheer them on as they rain missiles down on Limerick cause some charter planes with US soldiers on them stopped in Shannon a few times? It is an incredibly bizarre thing to say.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭.Donegal.


    This is already an illegal war whether you support it or not. Threatening to destroy their entire power grid starting with the biggest is simply terrorising the civilian population. Look at all threats and demented sh it he has said. If this isn’t a war crime I don’t know what is, it’s all about collective punishment with him.

    And regarding Russia

    On 24 June 2024, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Russian politician and former defense minister Sergei Shoigu and Russian army general Valery Gerasimov. Shoigu and Gerasimov are accused of missile attacks on civilian targets, including power plants.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 9,943 ✭✭✭SeanW


    I would be satisfied by the Ayatollahs losing power in Iran and replacement government not committed to Israel's absolute destruction.

    And FWIW I take "thanks" as a form of agreement. And you're right about the lack of thanks on my posts - defending Jews has never been popular historically.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭patnor1011


    Your problem is pretty simple. Anyone who do not agree with you is "other side" in your rather simplistic narrow view.



  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I have no issue with this statement. I am querying the relevance of it in the context of the definitions, rights, and duties of neutral powers and a claim that it somehow affects it absent other contexts like even-handedness and consistency.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,533 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I think talking about Iran thus having a legitimate right to attack Ireland is a pretty perverse view all the same.

    At present they have no legitimate right to do so. However, if they had intel that showed that aircraft landing at Shannon were on route to active ops against them, that would change and they would have legitimacy, as would any other country.

    In any case, we are in no danger of being attacked by Iran.

    As to international law merely being a "nice concept", it's abandonment leaves the world in a much, much, worse place. We really do ignore the niceties of international law at our peril.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,182 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer




  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,058 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    IHL and the LOAC don't care about the origins of a war so that bit is irrelevant. And I don't support it, it is unbelievably stupid. I just can't stand people pulling "war crimes" cards out of their pocket when they have no idea what the actual laws behind them are.

    Russia has many, many documented clear war crimes in Ukraine. No one is debating whether missile attacks on maternity hospitals are war crimes - but the question of power plants, which quite obviously serve dual purposes is far less clear.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,716 ✭✭✭combat14


    iran is punishing people all around the world by blocking the straits and denying access to oil etc.

    they wont get away it for much longer whether its the US or not bombing their power plants there are many other countries who wont tolerate transport blockages either



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,533 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    My reply was about certain contexts regarding the situation in 1939 with the Graf Spee and it's seeking temporary refuge in Montevideo and how it didn't apply to the situation we have in Shannon.

    I have made no attempt to elaborate about the "definitions, rights and duties of neutral powers".

    The point I was making was that using the example of the Graf Spee with the situation that presents itself today regarding our particular arrangements is a non-starter.

    The Graf Spee was given a brief amount of time to stop at a neutral port to get it's shit together, as it were, before it had to feck off to the certain doom that was awaiting it in international waters.

    This is not the same thing that Shannon airport provides.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 863 ✭✭✭Fuascailteoir


    I think most of the world are blaming two people for this entire mess and one of them is a tango colored paedo and the other has purple hair and six fingers



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,533 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    iran is punishing people all around the world by blocking the straits and denying access to oil etc.

    Which it wouldn't be doing but for the fact that it's been attacked.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,058 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    As to international law merely being a "nice concept", it's abandonment leaves the world in a much, much, worse place. We really do ignore the niceties of international law at our peril.

    Yes, we are much worse off that the US is abandoning any pretence to obeying it, but then Russia and China never much cared to begin with. It has never been much obeyed and enforcement action against those who breach it has always been relatively meaningless. It has only ever applied to non Permanent 5 nations and even beyond those it is questionable.

    US aircraft landing in Shannon have never been involved in active ops against anyone. They are mostly troop transports to other destinations and they would land in the myriad number of airforce bases if part of combat ops.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,718 ✭✭✭Jeff2


    ThThe irony Israel keeps claiming Iran is targeting citizens when they are the ones that kill so many citizens.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,058 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    This is not the same thing that Shannon airport provides.

    Are US aircraft carrying military personnel regularly stopping in Shannon for more than 72 hours?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,533 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    US aircraft landing in Shannon have never been involved in active ops against anyone. They are mostly troop transports to other destinations and they would land in the myriad number of airforce bases if part of combat ops.

    Which is precisely why the comparison with the Graf Spee doesn't apply.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,058 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    This is not a get-out clause for obeying international law. The US was attacked on 9/11 and that doesn't (rightly) stop people commenting upon their adherence to international law in their response. There isn't a "plucky underdog" exception.

    If people are going to use the language of IHL and LOAC they should at least treat it as the legal framework that it is. Otherwise the language of "the US and Israel are villainous powers waging unnecessary war" is available and arguably correct. You don't have to decry everything as a war crime.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,058 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Yes, the US military involvement in Shannon is far less directly applicable to the conflict than the Gree Spee. Yet no one suggested it was ethical or reasonable to bomb Montevideo port.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,533 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I don't know what this collection of words has to do with any of the points I've made.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,288 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Trump stated 'the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!'

    What do you think he meant?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 266 ✭✭rayman10


    It's not Iran's fault that we got rid of our coal fired power station.

    A power station that was built to reduce our oil dependence after the last oil crisis.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,533 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    I've mentioned nothing about "ethics"

    Are you actually following what's being written or are you just replying for the sheer sake of it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,288 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    Iran have closed the straitfor countries who are attacking Iran and those countries who support those attacks. If you do not support the attacks, the strait is open



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,716 ✭✭✭combat14


    perhaps trumps threat to essentially set the entire middle east on flames is a lever to get the west and others to send ships to open the straits

    apparently starmer onto trump tonight agreeing strait must open



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,288 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo




Advertisement
Advertisement