Iran has launched missiles at Israel

[BlueOak]

3 hours ago, Raze said:

It’s the opposite, all these decisions were sensible, but only from a limited perspective. 

That's most of what makes intelligence useful, holding a wider perspective. The further back you are, or the wider your perspective, the more you can see and take into account. This is why allies' or friends' voices are crucial in making the correct choices when you are emotionally too close to a subject.

The people making these decisions on a strategic level will have a mind with a capacity greater than mine. Emotion is an excuse, but it's not a very good one for a professional in these positions.

[MarkKol]

50 minutes ago, Twentyfirst said:

Is that what you will do when chaos comes to your lands? Run away?

That's actually the first thing I'd do, It's much better to live without some crappy concept of pride because I fought against the bad guys, and stay alive. Then be dead because of human pettiness.

The lands, are not worth it. Every war is forgotten about, including all your efforts.

This is the perfect opportunity to move to a 1st world democracy for Israelis, It's clear that you won't be accepted where you are for a long time, there's no winning this war or any future attacks made on Israel. These people literally want you dead, they won't take such drastic measures as starting wars and then completely change their minds in the next 50 years.

I'm not super-educated on the Middle East, or it's politics, or whatever. But this is just obvious.

Edited April 14 by MarkKol

[Twentyfirst]

15 minutes ago, MarkKol said:

That's actually the first thing I'd do, It's much better to live without some crappy concept of pride because I fought against the bad guys, and stay alive. Then be dead because of human pettiness.

The lands, are not worth it. Every war is forgotten about, including all your efforts.

This is the perfect opportunity to move to a 1st world democracy for Israelis, It's clear that you won't be accepted where you are for a long time, there's no winning this war or any future attacks made on Israel. These people literally want you dead, they won't take such drastic measures as starting wars and then completely change their minds in the next 50 years.

I'm not super-educated on the Middle East, or it's politics, or whatever. But this is just obvious.

So you are loyal to a country until the day you can't leech of it anymore? 

You think this is a fight over land? Land is just the landscape that a nation uses to be a nation

It's about people. You can't abandon your own people. That's what traitors do 

[Ulax]

I don't really get the outrage from world leaders. Israel attacked Iran via their syrian consulate. Then Iran attacked back, in a more symbolic way than anything else.

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems a bit strange to me.

[MarkKol]

1 minute ago, Twentyfirst said:

So you are loyal to a country until the day you can't leech of it anymore? 

You think this is a fight over land? Land is just the landscape that a nation uses to be a nation

It's about people. You can't abandon your own people. That's what traitors do 

If you wanna call it "leeching" then the country leeches off me too, patriotism is not something everyone is born with.

I'm certainly glad that you don't share my perspective because somebody has to fight for the people. What I said Is something I'd say to my daughter or someone I loved, not to everyone.

[Raze]

32 minutes ago, Ulax said:

I don't really get the outrage from world leaders. Israel attacked Iran via their syrian consulate. Then Iran attacked back, in a more symbolic way than anything else.

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems a bit strange to me.

There is a huge lobby paying them directly or indirectly to try and trigger a war with them.

[Raze]

I see two possibilities. Israel does a small strike designed to save face but avoid war like Iran, striking on hezbollah and then trigger hezbollah to respond rather than Iran to return to status quo of trading strikes with hezbollah and avoid regional war with Iran.

Or they do a full on mass strike on Iran to try and trigger a war.

The former makes sense for Israel as they won’t really lose anything and can focus on Gaza and the West Bank, the latter makes sense for Netanyahu, the embassy strike served no real military role so it seems like he could genuinely want to start a full scale war to retain power.

The problem is the US seems to be giving mixed messages about supporting them. If Israel has to fight Iran without US major intervention they will be in trouble, especially if Iran can get Lebanon and Syria to join them.

 

Edited April 15 by Raze

[Twentyfirst]

9 hours ago, MarkKol said:

If you wanna call it "leeching" then the country leeches off me too, patriotism is not something everyone is born with.

I'm certainly glad that you don't share my perspective because somebody has to fight for the people. What I said Is something I'd say to my daughter or someone I loved, not to everyone.

How do you know that wherever your fleeting to will be any better?

[BlueOak]

13 hours ago, Ulax said:

I don't really get the outrage from world leaders. Israel attacked Iran via their syrian consulate. Then Iran attacked back, in a more symbolic way than anything else.

Maybe I'm missing something but it seems a bit strange to me.

I think it's because I refused to believe that the people making decisions wanted things to get to this point. I was trusting their emotions were what drove them, even though I knew better. It's obvious theater meant for the masses.

The people who thought, let's do this and get it over with, won out months ago. It's been obvious from the pattern. 

Damaging Iran can delay its nuclear threat.
Takes a military ally away from BRICS for a while.
Hurts their influence throughout the Middle East (threats to fuel and trade).
Stops drone shipments to Russia.

If I had to predict, it would be an excuse to hit various Iranian proxies that threaten trade, Iranian weapon/drone factories, and their nuclear sites.

It does require Iran to keep doing what Israel, America, and the UK leadership want them to do. Responding on cue.

Please note all of this is still stupid, in no way do I support WW3 starting, which has a much-increased chance during this period.

Edited April 15 by BlueOak

[Ulax]

5 hours ago, BlueOak said:

I think it's because I refused to believe that the people making decisions wanted things to get to this point. I was trusting their emotions were what drove them, even though I knew better. It's obvious theater meant for the masses.

The people who thought, let's do this and get it over with, won out months ago. It's been obvious from the pattern. 

Damaging Iran can delay its nuclear threat.
Takes a military ally away from BRICS for a while.
Hurts their influence throughout the Middle East (threats to fuel and trade).
Stops drone shipments to Russia.

If I had to predict, it would be an excuse to hit various Iranian proxies that threaten trade, Iranian weapon/drone factories, and their nuclear sites.

It does require Iran to keep doing what Israel, America, and the UK leadership want them to do. Responding on cue.

Please note all of this is still stupid, in no way do I support WW3 starting, which has a much-increased chance during this period.

I see. interesting take. Hadn't thought about it that way. But makes sense.

[Raze]

I’m actually changing my analysis.

I think Israel is going to do a large strike on Hezbollah and declare war on them.

It makes sense.

1) Netanyahu’s cabinet already told him to after oct 7, he refused, probably because he wanted to wait and see how the Gaza operation went 

2) though the Gaza operation failed to save the hostages and end Hamas, Israel’s population still supports it and hasn’t revolted despite IDF being pulled from most of Gaza

3) Israel now has the perfect excuse to justify a hezbollah war with their population because they were spooked by Iran, and Iran can’t defend Hezbollah as it’ll cause a wider war which they clearly fear.

4) a full scale war with Hezbollah could last years, this gives Netanyahu plenty of time to try and get Israel to rally around him and improve his popularity, and avoid prosecution from when he gets out of office. 

Edited April 15 by Raze

[Nivsch]

@Raze Israel only need to repel Radwan forces dozens of km northern the lebanese border, in order to them not being a threat to Israelis residents in the North, what could otherwise become a second oct 7th like attack. This is a serious threat caused Northern Israel residents to leave their homes in the beginning of the war.

Edited April 15 by Nivsch

[Danioover9000]

@Raze

1 hour ago, Raze said:

I’m actually changing my analysis.

I think Israel is going to do a large strike on Hezbollah and declare war on them.

It makes sense.

1) Netanyahu’s cabinet already told him to after oct 7, he refused, probably because he wanted to wait and see how the Gaza operation went 

2) though the Gaza operation failed to save the hostages and end Hamas, Israel’s population still supports it and hasn’t revolted despite IDF being pulled from most of Gaza

3) Israel now has the perfect excuse to justify a hezbollah war with their population because they were spooked by Iran, and Iran can’t defend Hezbollah as it’ll cause a wider war which they clearly fear.

4) a full scale war with Hezbollah could last years, this gives Netanyahu plenty of time to try and get Israel to rally around him and improve his popularity, and avoid prosecution from when he gets out of office. 

   It does make sense when in the past Israel did invade Lebanon before, they may does so now or soon.

[Nivsch]

@Danioover9000 If Israel won't succeed in its attemps to fend off Radwan forces far away from the borders through negotiations, then a war against Hezbollah might be necessary, even if neither of the sides wanted it to happen.

Edited April 16 by Nivsch

[tvaeli]

I think we need a very, very complex process to avoid Third World War, which definitely comes as a problem for almost all. There seems to be a polarity in the World, involving two parties more or less of the same size, and they are able to harm each others.

I think the thread "what separates HAMAS from innocent palestinians" is very important thing in this - we need the "innocent people" of the world to create something big and united, which would be everywhere locally friendly, and in total, globally friendly - to raise higher the lowest point, where those wars could get us all, by having at least some general understanding of all sides being backed up. That the countries have some part of them dedicated to war is unavoidable, but the other parts need to find the good aspects in others, back up the existence of positive alchemistry and find out the ways about how the problems fought in war could be tackled with process of mutual understanding - in case such process is faster, the war could be avoided. We cannot do much business and help between transatlantic zone and russia, and we cannot have many physical processes of help, but to find the psychology, which could tackle the same problems in higher ways, is necessary.

For me it's hard to see, how the world would tolerate such war. The causes of the war seem to be almost inevitable - thinking about all the sides and their level of development (how they solve problems) it's hard to see, how they avoid the conflict; but thinking in terms of conflict psychology - they can get so far that there are many people, who see better solutions. In terms of the world and it's resources, it's said that when we have another grand conflict, maybe there are not enough resources for humankind to create a civilization again - but we want to reach other planets, to make humankind more stable, and there should be plenty of space for everyone; also as religions develop, they are less agressive towards each others.

Islam is the youngest religion - one and half thousand years old - and in this phase the religions, which follow god, see their god in narrow fashion (this is why Buddha remained silent about God); Christianism had this phase also about in the same age - it had many wars - and jews are in ways older and more cosmopolitan, but they should still think about times, when they were younger - did they fight kind of stupid wars for "their God". Older religions like Hinduism and Buddhism, they do not have religious wars and they have a peaceful, non-conquering strategy, which integrates other religions and listens to them, uniting Bön, Shinto, Hinduism, Confucionism and Taoism into very connected complex with many others. It also denotes that you have to find out about God in older age, not when you are young and think very narrow about God. Atheism seems to bear the same conception, where God could be found only after a lot of philosophy, where you cannot fall into such a narrow picture any more - God is about Everything and it's appearing in various forms as contradictionary as all the things in the world, and it's natural for Nations to fight about "their Gods", whereas we see God appearing in reincarnations, manifestations and miraces in different times and places in both testaments, as well as in other parts of the world, as well as in Pagan traditions. God is always around, and there is one God, or no God at all - then, the experiences of synchronicity and love and truth can still be studied, and people reach models, which have many relations to God, and see God as possible simple solution for many compex matters. In this sense I don't like to be very clear about whether there is God, or whether you should study all those things like synchronicity and union, and find some paradox - for example, God might not exist for people, who have to do it themselves, and then it's not a good part of their model.

Jews should consider that Islam is a very young religion, doing mistakes and being more agressive, where olders have been calming down, and look traces and reasons in their history, where they were more agressive as well. Old man should be able to handle the agressive strategies of younger man with more peace and understanding, and to be more safe and to guide them in more understanding ways, understanding their needs and promises and cases, where they do not want to attack. They should understand that they psychology of evolving religions is not too different, and the differences are often related to the physical and material needs and starting point of the places and nations, where they evolved; and God or the Natural Law should indeed give very different rules to find out the same peace, love and unity of nations. They should see that ideals of Islam are kind of very similar to their own. With this calm, maybe they could achieve a strategy and help their "younger brother".

[tvaeli]

It's all about younger men of younger branches of younger religions.

Also, the Spiritual Branches of religions are more Cosmopolitan - for example, Kaballah and Sufis could work out more things with each other and others, like Buddhism, without betraying their own Truth, Religions and Nations. There are other more international centers of world, which are generating the world peace - in case of war, the losses of all sides would be smaller, whereas the general distribution of power fould be similar, where those forces are in play. Indeed, they cannot simply solve it as they also have to go through all the problems and find all the solutions before they can move it even a little bit, so it's not a complete solution. Maybe there are more brances in addition to spiritualism, which does similar job - as all the religions have end-philosophy of uniting the Nations into peace.

We have a lot of low vibrations and dark energies to go through, and we should find more enlightened conflicts - https://spireason.neocities.org/Healthy Conflict Psychology.pdf I wrote here how I got more enlightened about conflict.