- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
So what’s preventing them from intercepting missiles targeting innocent Palestinians?
Why would they intercept their own missiles?
So they can sell Israel more?
What color are the people those missiles are heading towards?
If that’s the extent of your hot take, then the same logic would mean Russian missles to Ukraine should all be shot down.
Ah but you see, if Ukraine wins too favorably, then there is less power to wield over the profits of the oil and gas fields
Racism. Biden is an avowed Zionist and has no problems with Arabs being slaughtered. So is Trump, just to be clear.
Begin said he was shocked at how passionately Biden supported Israel’s invasion when Biden “said he would go even further than Israel, adding that he’d forcefully fend off anyone who sought to invade his country, even if that meant killing women or children.” Begin said, “I disassociated myself from these remarks,” adding: “I said to him: No, sir; attention must be paid. According to our values, it is forbidden to hurt women and children, even in war. Sometimes there are casualties among the civilian population as well. But it is forbidden to aspire to this. This is a yardstick of human civilization, not to hurt civilians.” The comments were striking from Begin, who had been notorious as a leader of the Irgun, a militant group that carried out some of the worst acts of ethnic cleansing accompanying the creation of the state of Israel, including the 1948 Deir Yassin massacre.
The US spent a billion dollars protecting Israel for the consequences of its actions. =
Quite suitable website name for this kind of news.
To all you lesser evil voters: This is where your tax dollars are going. Demand better, or you’re complicit.
Are you suggesting that hundreds of dead Israeli citizens would be a better state of affairs?
If your position is that we should not support military action that blatantly violates standard rules of engagement, that would apply to the Iranian military just as much as it applies to the IDF. There’s no contradiction in criticizing IDF action in Gaza for not trying to minimize civilian casualties while also working to minimize civilian casualties in Israel as a result of Iranian action.
Bombing a nazi state currently committing a genocide is, in fact, a good thing.
There’s also barely any “civilians” in occupied Palestine except the children. Half the population are IDF conscripts; most of the other half are fascist zionists just the same. And all are settler colonizers.
Until the colonial “state” has been dismantled, all violence — Palestinian or not — against the occupation is justified.
If they were allowed to face the consequences for their actions and not get backing of one of the most bloodthirsty regimes in human history than they never would have been allowed to get as far as they have (and continue to do so) with their genocide.
So, yes, it’s “I think more civilian deaths would be good”.
I think I’ll just let that speak for itself. Cheers.
Settlers are not civilians, they are an occupying force.
Jumping to “All Israelis deserve to die” is not helping you the way you think it is, but by all means, keep digging if you want.
The amount of bad faith here… Yeah, i’m out.
Can you read?
Interesting you mention civilian deaths since Iran targeted non civilian buildings. But guess who’s been actively targeting civilians for past six months? And yes, Israel needs to face consequences if we want their genocide and state terrorism to end.
The US is supplying the weapons of the genocide, you know this right?
I think it’s good that the interception worked so well at preventing civilian death and Iran launched its attack knowing this would be the case, but let’s be real about the law: Iran had a legal right to defend itself after Israel commited an act of war by directly attacking its diplomatic mission in Syria. The Israeli regime has no such right against rebellious factions within its illegally occupied territories. Quite the opposite, as the Palestinians have the right to resist their foreign occupation under international law, even through armed resistance.
the fuck is wrong with you
If you’re going to be utilitarian about this (which I applaud btw): those billions of dollars could have gone to aid for Gaza to save far, far more lives. Or the U.S. could have condemned Israel’s invasion of Gaza to begin with.
Yes, saving Israeli lives is a good thing. But you have to look at the pattern in which the U.S. is selecting which good things to do in order to spot the evil.
According to Israeli sources, the defense was very costly for Israel. "Israel’s interception of hundreds of Iranian missiles and drones overnight has cost Tel Aviv around $1.35 billion (up to 5 billion shekels), Israeli media reported. On Sunday, the daily Yedioth Ahronoth quoted Brig. Gen. Ram Aminach, the former financial advisor to the Israeli chief of staff, as saying that “the cost of defence last night was estimated at between 4-5 billion shekels ($1.08-1.35B).”
What I’m wondering is: if the US did most of the interception, is the price tag for that to US taxpayers included in that quote or did they pay even more? The USA pays for a lot of Israel’s Iron Dome defense to start, so what’s the final price tag for Americans?
Edit: I kept looking but couldn’t find any info beyond different versions of what I already linked. I guess it’s just a question to think about for now. For me, the large expense is yet another reason among several why Israel should let not continue this back-and-forth with Iran.
How much do the drones cost Iran? $10M a piece to take them down is crazy expensive. If Iran can churn these out at $1m a pop, they can out produce the defense.
I don’t have a source for the drones or missiles used in this recent attack, but Forbes has an article from February titled, “$375,000 - The Sticker Price For An Iranian Shahed Drone”. “Its delta-winged Shahed-131/136 variants are believed to have a range of approximately 500 to 900 miles.” and “The documents show that a single Shahed costs $375,000 to produce.” I’m not sure that’s long enough of a range to make it to the Israeli targets though, so take it with a grain of salt.
The New Arab’s article today about cost reports, “It is not known how much Iran spent on its attacks, though ballistic missiles in the country can cost up to $99,937 (₤80,000), The Guardian said.”
Politico has an article from December called “A $2M missile vs. a $2,000 drone: Pentagon worried over cost of Houthi attacks”. “The cost of using expensive naval missiles — which can run up to $2.1 million a shot — to destroy unsophisticated Houthi drones — estimated at a few thousand dollars each — is a growing concern, according to three other DOD officials.” and “The cost offset is not on our side,” said one DOD official." I’m guessing those are the bottom end drones and likely not capable of crossing the distance between Iran and Israel. It does give an idea of how much it might cost for Iranian-backed groups closer to Israel to use drones in the future though.
It’s hard to estimate the cost, as it is internal to Iran and a government effort. But in general, air defense tends to be more expensive than whatever it is shooting down. In this case, I am certain it is orders of magnitude difference. Iran’s economy is in shambles, so they focus on cheap weaponry.
Iran excels in cheap weaponry, threw a bunch of them at Israel, overwhelming their systems by shear number, and costing billions to shoot them down.
Israel does not care because US pays the bill. US doesn’t care because taxpayer pays the bill. The taxpayer does not care because they think they can make the country better by voting, while the system slaves them away 40+ hours a week to serve the safety of a genocidal state.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The extent of the U.S. military operation is unbeknownst to the American public, but the Pentagon coordinated a multination, regionwide defense extending from northern Iraq to the southern Persian Gulf on Saturday.
intelligence estimates that half of the weapons fired by Iran failed upon launch or in flight due to technical issues,” a U.S. Air Force senior officer told The Intercept.
Asked to comment on the United States shooting down half of Iran’s drones and missiles, the Israel Defense Forces and the White House National Security Council did not respond at the time of publication.
According to a statement by IDF spokesperson Adm. Daniel Hagari, some 25 cruise missiles “were intercepted by IAF [Israeli Air Force] fighter jets outside the country’s borders,” most likely over Jordanian territory.
Despite the low number of munitions successfully landing, the dramatic spectacle of hundreds of rockets streaking across the night sky in Syria, Iraq, and Iran has left Tehran contented with its show of force.
In a call immediately following Iran’s attack, Biden reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Israel really came out far ahead in this exchange” and warned of the “risks of escalation” — as if that hadn’t already happened.
The original article contains 1,136 words, the summary contains 200 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Given how well calculated this attack was to have no casualties and that it’s reported that half of the missiles/drones failed mid flight, I wonder whether they failed or whether they were detonated mid flight in order to increase the chances of interception to 99%?
There were a couple of failures but I did not see solid evidence that its half.
Iran intentionally uses cheap weaponry. Their economy is struggling. They can’t afford to spend billions on an attack like the US and Israel do.
I mean we have all of the codes to their ordinance since we sold it to them
Edit: we = the USA. I don’t agree with it, but the USA sells weapons to everyone. The US has its fingers in every pie.
Who’s we, who’s them? Are you from DoD or IDF?
Edited. I’m in the US, my ingrained “everything revolves around the USA” kicked in.
Edit for homonyms.
You made me look this up, so now you have to know as well: https://grammarist.com/spelling/engrain-ingrain/
