201 Comments
Comment removed
Apr 14
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Highly possible.

Expand full comment

Reconciliation with the Arab world outside of Israel but not with the Palestinians inside Israel. Seems his goal was to isolate the Palestinians so that he could push them around and avoid a two state solution.

Regarding Gaza, Netanyahu’s goal isn’t genocide, it’s to return control of Gaza to Israel. He never agreed with Sharon’s decision to pull out of Gaza. This is his chance to reverse the policy. If a lot of Palestinians die in the process that’s just a happy side effect .

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Apr 16
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Nope. But, Netanyahu wholeheartedly supported Hamas - and that for nearly 20 years., Was profiting from the resulting business, too.

Expand full comment

"Not a single sane person doubts that on October 7 it was Putin who unleashed his friends in order to divert the attention of the West from Ukraine"

LMAO. Where do you people come up with this delusional pap? Ah, yes, the whole world is but a stage for Putin, the omnipotent global puppet master. Every country plays his part and dances to his tune. Good grief. Even Washington wouldn't make this reach, as much as they'd have desired to. They wouldn't even tie it to Iran even though that would have been easier and infinitely more believable. No, this is the kind of idiot tea that only a dumb guy with access to the internet can brew. One daftie who think's he's not + internet connection = Paul. Nah, but, seriously, keep posting. It's a laugh at least.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Apr 14
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Because the IRGC is as 'modern-minded' as Zionists. It's just so that systematic indoctrination by the politics and media has created an impression where 'Zionists = good and progressive' and 'IRGC = medieval thinking and barbaric aggressiveness'.

While, actually, both are exactly the same. Just speaking a different language - and having a fundamentally different influence upon our politics and the media.

***

BTW, '30 years ago' (actually: 40 years ago) - Iran launched domestic production of spares for its F-14s. In industrial facilities it bought from the USA in the 1970s, and with help of personnel trained in the USA and Western Europe.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Apr 14
Comment removed
Expand full comment

1.) So, because you've never heard of hundreds of Zionist terrorist attacks, nor about state-sponsored terrorism by Israel, ethnic cleansing of millions, aggressions on neighbouring countries (and beyond), repeated land grabs etc. ....or because you prefer not to consider Zionist/Israeli terror for terror - it never happened?

2.) ....and if Iran has purchased dozens (if not hundreds) of US and Western-made industrial facilities for production and maintenance of aircraft, helicopters, engines, guided weaponry, etc. in the 1970s - including the first industrial clean room in the Middle East ever - but you haven't heard of that, it never happened?

3.) You've also never heard about massive US and West European investments and technology transfers to the PRC since the 1980s ('but', especially of the last 15-20 years), and thus cannot but wonder how comes the Chinese are not only reaching the Western technological levels, but about to surpass them?

Interesting concept... 🙄

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Apr 15
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Paul,

I do understand that this blog might create a different impression, but, and actually: I'm a quiet, polite, patient, even diplomatic person. This is so because I'm of the 'you're OK, I'm OK'-kind: somebody with plentiful of empathy, and certainly ready to at least listen to, and to acknowledge anybody's points and POVs.

'However', I'm 'severely' allergic of racism, chauvinism, and any other kind of extremist ideologies of supremacism or religious idiocies of one or the other sort.

....which is why I'm allergic about your use of 'barbarians'.

Indeed, when somebody comes to me with such statements and quasi-questions like yours, I cannot but conclude that the person in question is either

- a) suffering from a massive volume of Dunning-Krugger Syndrome, or

- bI) intentionally trying to impress some sort of an agenda.

....and that's when I stop being polite, patient, and diplomatic.

Explanations like 'but that was Zionist terrorism before Israel came into being, therefore this doesn't matter' are typical, idiotic BS. Nothing else. Because that terror has created Israel. And because that terror is maintaining that country precisely in position envisaged by the very same Zionist terrorists from 'before 1948': that of economic and military hegemony over the Middle East (and, thanks to such like AIPAC and similar: well beyond, too).

Moreover, if you would have any kind of clue about what are you talking about here, you would know that the very same terror is ever since indoctrinated at schools in Israel. In form of Zionist ideology. So much so that the country is not only a terror state, but also (and by far) the most chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, self-obsessed, arrogant, unprincipled, and spoiled nation on this planet.

All of which is why we all - including you and your nation, and me an my nation - are constantly paying (literally and metaphorically) for all the Israeli fuck-ups (including the Arab terror provoked by Zionist terror) and that for decades already.

And nope: I didn't come to the idea to say this because somebody else did so, or told me so, or because I'm an 'anti-Semite' or 'full of hatred' (just quoting from so many illiterate idiots describing me as such over the decades), but because of plentiful of first-hand experiences, and then doing a lot of what you (and plenty of others) obviously never did: reading a lot of books by _top Israeli historians_ (see: Morris, Pappe, Sand etc.).

I've explained all of this already some 3-4 times on this blog alone. Still, people like you are all ignoring what I've said in this regards. Therefore, this is going to be my final reply - to you, and to few others here who are sharing your 'viewpoints' (regardless how worthless these are) - in this regards.

If you are as clueless, or (though worse yet) as intentionally ignorant as to prefer ignoring all the Zionist terror and all the resulting Israeli and Western fuck-ups: fine with me, but please, do that somewhere else.

And regarding your question 'why are Western high technologies transferred to barbarians'....?

Because those selling these high technologies are arseholes that can't hear, see, nor think about anything else but _PROFIT_. Regardless if it's about developing passenger aircraft that crash because they must save money for R+D in order to extract more profit (and thus cash their bonuses), or about selling high-tech to whoever is ready to pay more.

So, now tell me more about who is a 'barbarian' here....

Expand full comment

Paul, Iran is Not a barbaric state. Persia can run circles around our US in terms of historical significance and contribution to the world as we know it. As Tom said, we made it so that they have constraints, but their capabilities are vast.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Apr 14
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Israel is practicing actual f***ing genocide at a level Iran would never achieve , your hatred of Muslems and Arabs does not justify genociding them

Expand full comment
Apr 14Edited

Without saying, that what is Izrael doing is not wrong ir horrific, but how come it is genocide? I mean Gazan (gazian? People from Gaza) genocide, ok, maybe. But Gazian is not a thing. And Palestinians live in the west bank and nothing is done to them. So maybe war crimes, horrific actions art. But why genocide?

Expand full comment

Cutting food and water on people is the basis of the definition genocide not to mention systematic reduction of peoplation centers and indiscriminate murder of non combatants and most importantly the announcements of Israeli political and military leaders not least of which Netanyahu's calling them Amalycs , a biblical term for people that was utterly exterminated including thier babies and livestock

Expand full comment

Then all wars are genocidal. But they are not called like that for a reason. There words like atrocities, masacre, etc. Thousands of civilians lost their lives in Gaza. But you have to also agree, that Hamas did everything in their power to enhance the palestinian casulties and even increase their suffering.

Expand full comment

Nothing is done to the palestinians on the West Bank? Is that a serious comment? They are slowly driven alway from their homes, constantly invaded by Israelian settlers or the IDf, their youths are being imprisoned (hostages?), and they live under different laws than the Israelians. Didnt you know?

Expand full comment

Hardly a genocide? This comment you are reffering to was made in a genocide discussion. But settlers are a huge problem which should be solved (like in Gaza). Curently they are even expanded. But again - this is hardly a genocide.

Expand full comment

"Genocide at a level Iran would never achieve". Interesting. Your afirrmation (containing the word "never") is based on what?

Expand full comment

Based on the fact Iran would not have the full support and protection of the entire Western world to enact such a genocide with total immunity .

Expand full comment

Are you sure Iran needs or wants protection of the Western World? I am afraid they don't give a shit. Stop believing that the non-Western think like you. They do not, and will surprise you. Also, are you suggesting that the Western world supports genocide?

Expand full comment

Yes, that's barbaric. Which is why I'm considering the IRGC a 'terrorist movement'.

BTW, exactly the same you've said for Iran is valid for Israel. Which is why Zionism is also a 'terrorist movement'.

Expand full comment

Looks like Israel is planning their own "final solution" in middle east. I suppose the idea is that if Israel attacks Iran enough times then Iran will eventually "overstep" with their retaliation and they can get the USA to destroy them.

Expand full comment

IRCG and it's puppets are attacking Israel for months already.

Expand full comment

The IRGC and its puppets came into being because of relentless and intentional Israeli strikes on the Shi'a population of southern Lebanon, back in the 1970s...

Expand full comment

I don't know if this sounds like a lame excuse just to me, but 1970s were 50 years ago, where even most current Iranian generals were still babies.

Anyway, hopefully this will help us getting rid of infantile Biden and get someone who'd deal with Iran properly.

Expand full comment

Who says they ever stopped using this scheme of violence against their neighbors and then crying uncle when the neighbors retaliate? They never had a reason to stop. They sure don't have a reason today.

Do you think they'll finally have a reason to stop when 'iran is dealt with properly'?

I highly doubt it.

Expand full comment

The issue was that of 'who started'. I've said, 'it wasn't Tehran'. Marmot says that it's IRGC and its puppets - to which I've replied how the IRGC and its puppets came into being: because of intentional Israeli attacks on the Shi'a population of Lebanon.

Now, of course, hardly anybody involved can recall who exactly has started, but that is not changing the facts about who has started (and even less so is that diminishing any of atrocities on civilians).

Expand full comment

Yes, it futile to argue who has started back to 19th century. Point is, before Oct 7, 2023, IRCG and it's puppets were shelling north of Israel time from time. So, civilians living there took a shelter and then could continue to live. And Israel retaliated time from time. But since Oct 7, 2023 the attacks increased sharply, so it's unbearable to live there. That's why Israel has attacked those responsible for that. It's not a final solution, they just want to stop the shelling or at least to return it to pre Oct 7, 2023 level.

Note: I am just explaining the reasons of Israel attack. Not assessing if that's a good solution or not, or labeling who is good or bad.

Expand full comment

Seeing how USA shot down missiles and drones aimed at Israel, I find it so frustrating that they won’t do the same in ukraine. Seems to me it is possible to patrol much of the country at a low risk to planes and pilots. Leave front line areas to ukraine but nato could secure the areas behind.

Expand full comment

At least in western ukraine they must do that. All the cruise missiles 100 km radius (especially the ones entering Polish airspace) must be shot down. If it is flying towards NATO airspace - shoot it down.

Expand full comment

They could do this in western, most of central, and even some of eastern ukraine. You can stay quite far from Russia/conflict line and still protect most of the country.

Expand full comment

Russia does not want the western part or the central part, it only wants the east with the russian population. The Ukrainians do not want the russian people anyways so it should work out.

Expand full comment

And yet they bomb western and central ukraine regularly (I live here and have experienced countless explosions).

I don’t agree with your premise in general. They went for kyiv and got stopped (central ukraine) and Putin still says ukraine shouldn’t exist so it seems he still has his long term goal set on the whole country.

Expand full comment

How do you know what Russia wants? First they wanted only Crimea. Then they wanted only Donbass, now they wanted only Odessa , Kharkov and Zapporizha. They want to eliminate Ukraine as a state and then restore USSR.

Expand full comment

Nonsense, Russia wants to ruin Ukrainian independence. There is no "Russian population" anywhere in Ukraine, there are regions where part of Ukrainian citizens speak Russian. Ethnic Russians are not "Russian population". It is just the same as to consider ethnic Italians in the USA "Italian population" and to have some claims on the part of New York city.

Expand full comment

First of all - yes, they do. They want maximum of what they can take now and more tlwhen they will be able to later. Second, and why should we care what russia wants? If I want only your car it is ok? Are you gining it to me then? And if you do, why should i stop wanting something else of yours?

Expand full comment

Well, If you had stopped keying my car and slicing my wheels I would not have wanted your car.

Expand full comment

Ok, so again let's make it more related to the case. First of all - still illegal for you to take someone's elses car. Second - no one ever came close to your car, as no one did anything to russia. No one was trying to annex or attack Kaliningrad, Belgorod, Vladivostok etc.

Expand full comment

This has nothing to do with ethnicity.

It is just part of Putin's (so far failed) effort to recreate the Soviet Union, but in a Russian nationalist format. The Baltics and Central Asia will be next.

And if we allow him, it will just encourage Iran, North Korea and China to pursue their expansionist plans.

The same thing happened in the 1930s.

First there was war in Ethiopia, then China, then Spain, then land grabs by Germany, culminating in the conquest of Poland and world war.

Neglect one crack in the dam, and eentually teh whole edifice collapses.

Expand full comment

Spot on, but unfortunately we're paralyzed by our collective selfishness and ignorance.

Expand full comment

Well, Iran has no nukes that could reach the US yet and Ukrainians in the US are donating to little looks like.

Expand full comment

They could reach not only the mass of US bases in the Middle East, but even Diego Garcia.

....at least the latter was the 'primary objective' for the Iranian missile R+D about 10 years ago...

Expand full comment

Definitely that would be an issue, but not on the same large scale as the Russians could cause problems.

Expand full comment

You really think Russia is going to Nuke the USA because they shot down some drones and cruise missiles? No, they’re not going to do that…

Expand full comment

Not the first step, but the last. They could try to think US ships as retaliation or attack some other US base somewhere. Russians do have more options.

Expand full comment

They’d do something… but it wouldn’t be a direct attack on USA or any of our military. That would be an huge escalation from something small like shooting down a missile. In fact, we’re already helping ukraine shoot down missiles with patriot system, so it would be more of the same by different methods.

Expand full comment

Many thanks, exactly the transparent report, which some depth, that I was hoping for.

Hope you have a relaxing Sunday, nevertheless!

Expand full comment

The numbers are already known. The attack involved 185 drones (185 shot down), 110 ballistic missiles (103 shot down), and 36 cruise missiles (36 shot down).

Expand full comment

So there should be only 7 videos with explotions in Izrael? I think there are more

Expand full comment

Sure, there are multiple videos from different angles.

Expand full comment

And even of places hundreds of km apart

Expand full comment

The seven ballistic missiles that got through could have had multiple warheads each. So more than seven explosions for sure. Also much of what gets shot down still falls and explodes to some degree still possibly causing great damage.

Expand full comment

Yup, according to official Israel:

- 185 drones

- 36 cruise missiles

- 110 IRBMs

= total: 331 (fired from Iran, Iraq, and Yemen).

Expand full comment

103 out of 110 is a very high success rate, do you hvae a source for this?

Expand full comment

IDF spokesman.

Expand full comment

I suppose the main distinction between the fascistic IRGC and the fascistic people on the other side is the IRGC don't have a large DC lobbying operation. This would, if Israel or the US had done it in response to a similar provocation, probably be called a "calibrated strike" wouldn't it.

Expand full comment

The National Iranian American Council is a NGO based in Washington, D.C. NIAC Action PAC is its political action committee and was formed in 2015.

It is widely viewed as the de-facto "Iran Lobby" due to its history of lobbying for stances on behalf of, and aligned with, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Expand full comment

How influential is the NIAC in comparison to - just for example - the AIPAC?

Expand full comment

NIAC beats AIPAC

Underdog Iranian Americans knock out war resolution in U.S. Congress

https://iranian.com/main/2008/niac-beats-aipac.html

Probaly as relaible as your IDF spokesperson

Expand full comment

Hm... one case from 2008... not sure that's illustrative for the current situation.

Expand full comment

AIPAC influence is overrated often (you know that old story how Jewish rule the world is still not dead.) The real big weight in influence in US are American evangelicals and some fanatic part of them support ultra-right Israelis for obscure religious reasons, e.g. see film Til Kingdom Come.

And these guys support Trump and are behind Capitol attack in 2021. So, imagine what may happen in the Near East if Trump wins.

Expand full comment

The fact such a thing exists doesn't mean anything. I mean, c'mon, you cannot possibly compare the reach and influence of this "Iranian lobby" to that of AIPAC. But maybe I missed all those times presidential candidates spoke at NIAC. Gonna go look up the videos of, say, Hillary Clinton or Trump speaking at the National Iranian American Council where they assure the audience that Iran is America's greatest ally and they will keep sending them guns and money forever and ever amen.

Expand full comment

Actually the main difference is that the Iranian regime has a stated goal of annihilating Israel. Israel has no goal of annihilating Persia.

Expand full comment

Israel is practicing actual genocide unlike Iran

Expand full comment

Not so. You've got nutters on both sides. Iran has a goal of abolishing Israel as a state in the same way that Israel has a goal of expanding from the Nile to the Euphrates, i.e., some hardliners say that.

Israel too has a clear agenda of pursuing regime change in Iran and abolishing it as the state currently constituted. And the Iranians have experienced foreign regime change on themselves and their neighbours within living memory.

Expand full comment

I think most of the Western world would like to see regime change in Iran. Not necessarily non religious but at least a moderate theocracy that is truly in control of all factions

Expand full comment

IDF spokesperson reminds me Konashenkov. VS RF has intercepted and struck all targets too.

Expand full comment

" as if it was Tehran who started". No, it was not started by Tehran. It was started by Tehrans supported Hamas. Should have finished with Izraels respons NOT involving leveling the Gaza and killing so much civilians of course. But Tehran kinda did start it, willingly or not.

Expand full comment

Hamas came into being through Israel supporting Islamist Palestinians to counter the secular Fatah and PLO. Hamas flourished for two decades thanks to extensive and substantial Israeli political and financial support, too.

The IRGC was created with help of such predecessors of the Hezbollah like Murabiton, in southern Lebanon of the second half of the 1970s - and Murabiton and similar Shi'a militias came into being in reaction to relentless and intentional Israeli atrocities against the Shi'a population of southern Lebanon of the same period.

(Heck... it was already the Shah of Iran who began sending religious experts from Qom to Lebanon, to help the Shi'a there - and that at the same time he was entering cooperation with Israel to develop nukes and ballistic missiles....)

Thus, sorry: Tehran didn't start it.

Expand full comment

I am not trying to get to the bottom of Izraeli and Palestinian conflict (I don't think you are either with the "not Tehran comment"). My point: this epiaode has started not from "consulate" bombing, but from Hamas atack in October. And I agree with the view, that it was done becouse Iran did not like a deal between saudis and izraelis. No proof here of course. So it was started either by Hamas, or by Tehran instigating Hamas, not Izraelis. And again - could it have been finished by izraelis acting more rationally - yes. But that is rarelly the case...

Expand full comment

Tom, while I hugely respect your Ukrainian commentary, I cannot believe you are taking Armchair Warlord bullshit at face value when it comes to Israel, knowing full well he is a desperate Russian troll., pushing any kind of misinformation. Furthermore, those videos show zero proof any airbase was hit in Israel and any damage was done

Expand full comment

Is OK. Ignore everything I've written above because of one link. The IRGC didn't hit anything at all in Israel: 99% of rockets were shot down. Fine with me.

Expand full comment

It seems to me the Iranians are reluctant to get into open conflict with Israel while the Israelis definitively want that big regional war.

In any case this seems to me like a strategic catastrophe for Ukraine. With the Iranians capable to launched hundreds UAV and missiles at once, the Americans will want to dedicate all of their air defence capabilities & production to Israel. Maybe even lobby the Europeans to do the same.

Edit : I forgot a question. Does Israel has the capacity to strike directly on Iranian soil on its own ? Or can it do so only in a dual Israeli - US operation ?

Expand full comment

Good part is, that the Iran would be more reluctant to provide ballistic missiles to Russia.

Expand full comment

IMO Iran and Russia are massively producing missiles; NK and probably China contributed as well, so we could see this kind of attacks quite often. While we think WW3 has not started yet, for those countries it is already ongoing for some time.

Expand full comment

Yes, some says, WW3 in not going to be a massive war like WW1 or WW2, but many regional conflicts of various intensity instead.

Expand full comment

Nope, Iran is not providing ballistic missiles to Russia. Is a complex story but, in essence:

- IRGC wanted a strategic alliance with Russia, but Putin does not want this,

- thus the IRGC entered a strategic alliance with the PRC instead

- Putin then started buying Shaheds and other stuff, but

- IRGC is not going to sell ballistic missiles to Russia as long as Putin wouldn't let the IRIAF get all the documentation and specifications necessary to not only maintain, but actually manufacture Su-35s in Iran.

Expand full comment

Then it's on Reuters to show evidence for what they say.

Expand full comment

Reurters said they did and they have been reliable in the past. But:

Budanov immediately said that didn't happen back in February.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2024/02/25/7443618/

This article said the UK Defense Secretary "signalled" that Iran delivered ballistic missiles to Russia. In the article, he was asked if he had information on Iran's reported delivery of ballistic missiles and he said, "I do".

https://news.sky.com/story/iran-supplying-russia-with-ballistic-missiles-shows-they-are-bad-influence-in-europe-grant-shapps-signals-13087514

This March 15 article says that the G7 is concerned about Iran considering sending ballistic missiles to Russia and threatens consequences if they do.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/15/politics/g7-iran-russia-missile-warning/index.html

The Reuters article said 400 Iranian missiles were to be sent and shipments began in January, some by plane and some by ship. The most compelling evidence that this didn't happen is that there has been no evidence that Russia fired any Iranian ballistic missiles and the G7 is still warning them against sending any. North Korea only sent 40 and when they were used it was announced right away.

Expand full comment

What kind of relevance would you say Su-35 has for Iran right now? Would they make much difference, if, say, the IAF was tasked to knock out Bushehr?

Expand full comment

About Israelis I am not that sure. About Netanyahu I am a 100% certain.

Expand full comment

Bibi definetly hopes for escalation. It is only war that saves him as pirime minister now. Unfortunately he is not nutters, just totally amoralsk, and allied with Even more amoral people.

Expand full comment

So let me get this straight - if needed, USAF and RAF can be directly involved in the defense of a non-NATO county? They can use interceptors and SAMs (obviously operated by their personnel) to shoot down enemy missiles and UAVs? Like won't this cause tension, escalation and lead to WW3 against a nuclear country? Won't ayatollah's face be in need of saving? What about oil prices after all?

Expand full comment

Yes, of course. Same in the case of Taiwan. NATO is only one of the American interests. Only Europe is a prisoner of NATO. And Europe is not a priority for the Americans now.

Expand full comment

Yup. Of course they can. After all, ExxonMobile and Chevron have no business ties to Iran.

....they do have them to Putin, though, just like Netanyahu is one of his closest buddies.

....and each of them - ExxonMobile and Chevron - makes more billions a year than Ukraine.

Expand full comment

Are these two companies the biggest players in the oligarchy with respect to hindering Ukraine's defense?

Expand full comment

Perhaps the biggest single corporations - and definitely two with close ties to Putin.

There are lots of private interests, too.

Expand full comment

This might help push Johnson to launch the aid bill for Ukraine and Israel.

Expand full comment

Not sure about that. The Congress could easily find a way to vote an Israel-only bill.

Expand full comment

I think Johnson was already looking for a way to bring some form of the aid bill up for a vote while minimizing the political fallout from the MAGA faction. Given the history of compromise within the Freedom Caucus, I don't think he can avoid the fallout.

Expand full comment

I like your phrase "the history of compromise..." You nailed his problem!

Expand full comment

Thank you so very much. The Netanyahu governments and the actif support of this horrible man by the West have led Israel into a terrible situation with its neighbours. And Netanyahu's actif support of Putin always showed what kind of criminal he is.

Expand full comment

Yes, Iran do not want to escalate it, USA do not wan to escalate it, maybe Netanjahu would like to escalate, but good of Israelis not, Iran and Israel are thousand km away, and so my opinion is, that's not going to be so hot. Bad part is, that USA would send more Patriots missiles to Israel and not Ukraine, the oil price would rise, so Russia would earn more.

Expand full comment

So Iran launch 100+ ballistics missiles, not counting drones . And 3rd wave of this strike arrive mostly unopposed from SAM's. And yet dozens of unintercepted missiles did not cause enough damage to some of it become publicly known? When in Ukraine or Russia someone hit airbase or any facility of importance next day horde of people scrutinize commercial satelite images to every pixel, some images inevitably leak to media etc. It should be hell a lot of destruction in multiple places.I don't get it.

Expand full comment

I think we will see this satellite images lately, in one or two days. Commercial satellites cannot send pictures instantly.

Expand full comment

You really expect MAXAR and similar instances to start publishing sat photos of damage on (US-constructed-) military facilities in Israel?

That would be 'support of terrorism'...

Expand full comment

No, it wouldn't be, unless Iran purchases them. If CNN purchases them I don't see how "supporting terrorism" would be even relevant. I'd ask if you can cite some authorities to support your position, but it's pretty obvious it's just bullshit.

Expand full comment

OK. Then go on and buy sat photos of Nevatim and Ramon as of this morning.

BTW, what authorities should I quote for what of my positions?

Expand full comment

https://x.com/AuroraIntel/status/1779499412189786326

and yet there are already pictures. Waiting to see if they sensor the high res ones

Expand full comment

Destruction, not distraction?

Expand full comment

Cmon bruh. I only use English like once a week in comments somewhere. Have mercy on me. (edited ty)

Expand full comment

No worries. I understood, but I wrote for clarification. How do you edit the comments, because I didn't find a way?

Expand full comment

Bottom right corner of comment. Three dots. To the right of like/reply

Expand full comment

My only options on the 3 dots are share link, hide comment and delete comment. No edit, I don't know why :((

Expand full comment

Try desktop or web version on the phone. My only guess

Expand full comment

"When in Ukraine or Russia someone hit airbase or any facility of importance next day horde of people scrutinize commercial satelite images to every pixel, some images inevitably leak to media etc."

At this point you should have noted most of English OSINT-ers are ridiculously partial and refuse to cover Israel out of sympathy/alignment to Israel's war of conquest.

This is the reason why they are always curiously silent on Israel countless crimes. Including those who usually cover Israeli air strikes in Syria.

Expand full comment

Guess i need a little patience to know what they achieved then. And maybe israelis better in opsec. If let's say 5 cruise missiles hit something around 50 km of my city. In the next day every stray dog in the city would know where and what without satelites or osinters.

Expand full comment

Exactly. But this is in our world, it does not apply to autocratic states. See Russia - based on your way of thinking we should know what happens there in the next day, yet we don't, because common people are afraid to speak the truth. Are 90% of the Russians with Putin, as resulted in the elections? I bet they don't. Israel is also a special case - common people there are trained to keep their mouth shut.

Expand full comment

So if they comment on Ukraine, they MUST comment on Israel? Msut theybdo that for all the conflicts in Africa too? Or are YOU not interested in those?

Expand full comment

It's easy: from the standpoint of Israel - and this is supported by all of the Western media - the IRGC 'can't', and 'never has' targeted, nor hit anything of military value in Israel.

IRGC is 'terrorist', thus they either miss or can only harm civilians... 🙄

Expand full comment

They hit civilians that were on the base redressing into civilian clothes or so...

Expand full comment

Western media supporting Israel? Wow... BBC don't even call Hamas terrorists (or did not when this last part started). NYT was the one with fake news how Izrael bombed the hospital and killed 500 civilians?

Expand full comment