- 135 Posts
- 254 Comments
12·18 hours agoThank you for confirming I said exactly not that.
How about you take another stab at it?
I don’t get the reference.
No other way… Huh odd.
I said that?
Til Wikipedia untrustworthy.
Interesting characterization.
You should let Wikipedia know then.
Ah yes, historic grievances again. The context of the article is clearly spelled out, as described previously. My discussion of the matter is pertinent to the content of the article, and I myself am not attempting to broaden context in order to force an angle the article isn’t making.
I find none of this funny. And I’m similarly finding no justification for hiding behind civilians.
At least I know what side Russia and Turkey are on, and that’s incredibly telling information to me.
This appears to be a clear false dichotomy to me (and wildly speculative opinion), there is obvious room between those two positions, and I won’t respond to what I consider bad faith discussion.
Have a good day!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
A false dilemma, also referred to as false dichotomy or false binary, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available. The source of the fallacy lies not in an invalid form of inference but in a false premise. This premise has the form of a disjunctive claim: it asserts that one among a number of alternatives must be true. This disjunction is problematic because it oversimplifies the choice by excluding viable alternatives, presenting the viewer with only two absolute choices when, in fact, there could be many.
Considering Hamas hid behind them (and Palestinian civilians), I wholeheartedly disagree with your opinion.
When Russia, Turkey, Hamas, and Iran condemn you, I find little reason to believe their collective arguments.
Russia also criticized Israel for killing Nasrallah, with a statement from the country’s foreign ministry saying it “decisively condemn[s] the latest political murder carried out by Israel” and “once again insistently urge[s] Israel to immediately cease military action.”
Rich coming from the guy who failed to assassinate Zelensky. This really puts all this into perspective for me.
This criticism seems pedantic considering the “rest” of the quote. I’m pretty over this discussion.
Have a good day!
Agree, the dispute over which was it’s use militarily. Israel escalated in that attack, and Iran escalated further in it’s response by directly attacking a sovereign state. Cool that you’ve been to the middle east.
I’m honestly confused by the rest of your comment. Including the need to mention your travels.
Yes I understand Iran objectively lied and never told us, directly or indirectly, based on the evidence. The rest of this sounds like your opinion. And as though mistrust should be taken towards our officials.
Well, I believe them, and I agree with their stance on Iran.
This is no longer a factual discussion, and I won’t be continuing.
And I picked up on the attempt to incorrectly frame what was said in the quote. Miller did not say all the things you’re claiming.
Thank you for confirming that Iran did not tell US officials about the attack. Your sources definitely helped me reach the factual conclusion.
And I’m providing substance to the discussion. What did I say that was discrediting something? Unless something in that quote, you feel, attacks one of your points?
Where is Damascus? Unless that’s in Iran, directly attacking Israel the first time seems like an escalation to me…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel
The attack was the largest attempted drone strike in history, intended to overwhelm anti-aircraft defenses. It was the first time since Iraq’s 1991 missile strikes that Israel was directly attacked by the military of another state. Iran’s attacks drew criticism from the United Nations, several world leaders, and political analysts, who warned that they risk escalating into a full-blown regional war. Israel retaliated by executing limited strikes on Iran on 18 April 2024.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/13/middleeast/iran-drones-attack-israel-intl-latam/index.html
In a statement released on Telegram, Iran’s Foreign Ministry claimed the attack showed Iran’s “responsible approach to regional and international peace and security at a time [of] illegal and genocidal actions by the Zionist apartheid regime against the Palestinian people.”
However, a host of countries from the Middle East to Europe and Latin America voiced concerns over the possibility for escalation, many of them condemning Iran’s actions.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, saying he was “deeply alarmed about the very real danger of a devastating region-wide escalation.” Regional powers Saudi Arabia and Egypt voiced similar concerns, with Egypt saying it was in contact with “all concerned parties to try to contain the situation.”
Various European countries condemned the attack and expressed support for Israel, with the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Josep Borrell, describing it on X as “an unprecedented escalation and a grave threat to regional security.”
The UK and France both reiterated their commitments to Israel’s security, with British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak saying Iran had “once again demonstrated that it is intent on sowing chaos in its own backyard.”
The Netherlands, Austria and the Czech Republic also condemned the attack and expressed support for Israel, while Spain and Portugal called for de-escalation.
China has also expressed “deep concern” over the escalation, calling on “relevant parties to exercise calm and restraint to prevent further escalations.” It called the attack a “spillover of the Gaza conflict” and urged an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.
Over the past months, American officials have urged Beijing to use its leverage over Iran to help prevent a regionwide conflict. China has been Iran’s biggest trading partner for the past decade and buys 90% of Iran’s oil exports.
In Latin America, Chile and Mexico both condemned the use of force, while Argentina’s President Javier Milei cut short a trip to Denmark to fly back to his country and form a crisis committee. His spokesperson Manuel Adorni said the meeting was to “take charge of the situation and coordinate actions with the presidents of the Western world.”
I’m truly lost here, I don’t get where this is coming from (or really understand the first part). I’m not denying any sovereign country a right to self defense.