Public Opinion Survey: Views on Israel's Response to Iran

[EliJelly]

Then it is a pointless analogy

It was a shadow war up until the embassy strike which cornered Iran and they took it to the open.

[AsherO]

Bombing an Embassy/Consulate is a step ahead. Israel has not been doing that before, but just did, according to Iran and others who choose to view the annex building as an attack on the Consulate because it suits their narrative.

[EliJelly]

Rubbish, unless you can back it up.

The building struck was in the Iranian Embassy compound.  Iran will retaliate   throw a temper tantrum.

This was reported all over as an adjacent building used as part of the embassy. The fact that the meeting took place there indicated that the Iranians felt that place had diplomatic immunity. Now I have no idea what the international law actually says on the matter, neither do I particularly care if Israel indeed broke that law to kill some Iranian terror heads, but from reading here it sounded like it was an all flat out lie and libel fabricated by the ever hating pro Hamas mainstream media.

[CountValentine]

According to the US government annex builds are part of the main building.
Some things are facts, and some things are narratives. 
I was already jumped on for having the facts correct. 

[Yehuda57]

Rubbish, unless you can back it up.

The concept of diplomatic immunity has no connection here, and frankly, it's absurd.

An Iraninan diplomat in the Iran consulate in Syria has diplomatic immunity from *Syria*.

A targeted assassination is not a legal procedure that needs to be done in a specific jurisdiction.

Iran declared war against Israel. They have no diplomatic relationship with Israel. Diplomatic immunity, by definition, can only exist between parties that have a diplomatic relationship.

The target was actively engaged in warfare against Israel. You don't have immunity to shoot at your enemy if you're doing it from your consulate.

And again, targeting someone in a consulate in Syria is not as egregious as targeting someone in Iran proper, and they've done that already numerous times.

This attack was not unprecedented, and this kind of talk is only because of the talking points that are trying to turn Israel into the aggressor or an "escalator".

[EliJelly]

The concept of diplomatic immunity has no connection here, and frankly, it's absurd.

An Iraninan diplomat in the Iran consulate in Syria has diplomatic immunity from *Syria*.

A targeted assassination is not a legal procedure that needs to be done in a specific jurisdiction.

Iran declared war against Israel. They have no diplomatic relationship with Israel. Diplomatic immunity, by definition, can only exist between parties that have a diplomatic relationship.

The target was actively engaged in warfare against Israel. You don't have immunity to shoot at your enemy if you're doing it from your consulate.

And again, targeting someone in a consulate in Syria is not as egregious as targeting someone in Iran proper, and they've done that already numerous times.

This attack was not unprecedented, and this kind of talk is only because of the talking points that are trying to turn Israel into the aggressor or an "escalator".

First of all that's entirely different than AserO's false claim that the whole consulate attack is a hoax, you seem to agree that indeed it can very well be considered an attack on a consulate.

Secondly, the idea of immunity is based on the international law that embassies are considered foreign soil, like it's actually part of the country they represent. If you wouldn't attack or raid another country, you wouldn't do that to their embassy as well. The attack was unprecedented since Israel never did so before, because they wouldn't target in Iran directly, only when the operatives were in Syria. Of course Israel can decide to target wherever and the Iranians deserve it, but don't say it's not unprecedented, and be prepared that the Iranians will be cornered by this. This isn't rocket science.

[Yehuda57]

If you wouldn't attack or raid another country, you wouldn't do that to their embassy as well. The attack was unprecedented since Israel never did so before,

Did you not read?  Israel has killed numerous Iranian officials in Iran

[EliJelly]

Did you not read?  Israel has killed numerous Iranian officials in Iran

Come on, that's hit jobs by snipers like Russia always do in London. Totally different than full scale military strikes.

[CountValentine]

This attack was not unprecedented, and this kind of talk is only because of the talking points that are trying to turn Israel into the aggressor or an "escalator".

The flip side is your talking point is it wasn't an escalation.
There is disagreement.

[Jellybelly]

First of all that's entirely different than AserO's false claim that the whole consulate attack is a hoax, you seem to agree that indeed it can very well be considered an attack on a consulate.

Secondly, the idea of immunity is based on the international law that embassies are considered foreign soil, like it's actually part of the country they represent. If you wouldn't attack or raid another country, you wouldn't do that to their embassy as well. The attack was unprecedented since Israel never did so before, because they wouldn't target in Iran directly, only when the operatives were in Syria. Of course Israel can decide to target wherever and the Iranians deserve it, but don't say it's not unprecedented, and be prepared that the Iranians will be cornered by this. This isn't rocket science.

What does international law say about attacking hospitals?
The Israelis are not fighting a regular enemy here.
 Bombing this “consulate “ should not be considered unprecedented....

[CountValentine]

Did you not read?  Israel has killed numerous Iranian officials in Iran

If you are trying to make Israel look like the aggressor you are doing a good job.

[EliJelly]

What does international law say about attacking hospitals?
The Israelis are not fighting a regular enemy here.
 Bombing this “consulate “ should not be considered unprecedented....

It it justified by you and me? Yes. Is it still unprecedented in the shadow war that was going on until now? Yes.
Why do you think Iran was triggered by this more than all previous attacks? I can assure the Israelis don't have this question.

[CountValentine]

What should be the response?
What do you predict the response will be?

1 - No need to respond.
2 - Striking military targets where the launches came from.

[CountValentine]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iran-and-israel-dragged-their-shadow-war-out-of-the-dark-and-it-s-much-more-dangerous-now/ar-BB1lOn3L?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=LCTS&cvid=2e4a889d89e9405ca3ee7c8f627420b6&ei=8

Iran and Israel dragged their shadow war out of the dark, and it's much more dangerous now

[Yehuda57]

This conversation is absurd. Iran is openly at war with Israel, they use the worst forms of terrorism to fight the war. They are pursuing a nuclear bomb.

Literally nothing Israel does could be an escalation or aggression.

You want unprecedented? Oct 7th was pretty darn unprecedented. Iran was largely behind that. And the guy killed was actively working with their terrorist groups to continue the Oct 7th fight.

There is no escalation.
There is no aggression.
There is no diplomatic immunity.

What's left? It's an act of war? Duh. Iran initiated the war more than 40 years ago and continues to prosecute the war in the most inhumane ways imaginable.

Why do you think Iran was triggered by this more than all previous attacks? I can assure the Israelis don't have this question.

Who says they were? They could be using it as a pretense to see how far they can push things.
Who says Israel isn't surprised? Maybe they wouldn't have attacked if they knew this would happen?

[CountValentine]

Literally nothing Israel does could be an escalation or aggression.

I know you truly believe this.
Don't know how it would be possible to discuss with someone who believes that strongly, so I won't.

[Just A Jew]

If you are trying to make Israel look like the aggressor you are doing a good job.

For retaliating for terrorist attacks orchestrated by Iran? And preventing further attacks orchestrated by those individuals?Where I come from they call that defensive maneuvering, but maybe in a world where CORE math makes 1+1 equal a tricycle, that's aggression.

[CountValentine]

For retaliating for terrorist attacks orchestrated by Iran? And preventing further attacks orchestrated by those individuals?Where I come from they call that defensive maneuvering, but maybe in a world where CORE math makes 1+1 equal a tricycle, that's aggression.

Then just bomb IRAN. What is all this bombing of Gaza? Cut the head off the snake!!!

[Yehuda57]

I know you truly believe this.
Don't know how it would be possible to discuss with someone who believes that strongly, so I won't.

How could you not believe this? Iran funds and controls Hamas, Hizbullah, the Houthis, and more. They're literally responsible for tens of thousands of lives, and have openly stated their goal of eradicating Israel for more than 40 years and are not shy about proclaiming how they act on those words.

Short of carpet bombing Theran, what could Israel do that would be an escalation on what Iran has done?

[CountValentine]

What should be the response?
What do you predict the response will be?

1 - No need to respond.
2 - Striking military targets where the launches came from.

Any predictions?