• fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 days ago

          Massive payback can be commensurate with the attack on Israel, while still not escalating. Was Iran escalating when it directly attacked Israel for the second time? Or was that a measured response to the deaths of members of their proxies in other countries?

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 days ago

            That’s a very strange interpretation of the word ‘massive’ you’re using there. In fact, it’s a usage of the word I’ve never seen before.

            • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              8 days ago

              I truly don’t understand what you think I’m saying. I think that a response to a second direct attack being massive does not preclude it from not escalating (unless there’s a less conventional definition specific to military responses I’m not familiar with). Is Iran’s second direct attack on Israel not considered an escalation, and do you think that is not massive, despite rhetoric from the Ayatollah?

              Or is Israel not supposed to respond to this?

              • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                8 days ago

                There is a big difference between “proportional response” and “massive payback” and I’m not sure why you are unable to see that difference.

                • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 days ago

                  I’m certain there’s no quantifiable way to address the difference between those phrases, and that this is rather a matter of opinion regarding what one thinks “massive” means in terms of military/political rhetoric. I think my point was made, despite my questions going unanswered.

                  Thanks for the discussion!

                  (I’m not continuing this discussion, since the interest here seems to be quibbling over one word of rhetoric.)

                  Edit:

                  https://www.dw.com/en/what-comes-next-for-iran-after-strike-on-israel/a-70387376

                  Tehran is waiting for Israel’s response to a massive missile attack as the conflict in the Middle East threatens to escalate.

                  Sounds commensurate to me :)

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Israel is a lunatic state. We should stop funding them. Let them see what it’s like to provoke your neighbors without a bigger sibling coming to your defense.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days ago

      The West will continue to support Israel until its leaders are convinced that the heathen Mahometan hoardes won’t be storming into their lands and raping their women or whatever.

      So that probably won’t be happening.

  • Cruxifux@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    So what’s the worse case scenario here? Israel attacks Iran, price of oil goes way up, China moves in to defend Iran and their oil interests, US moves in to defend Israel, WW3 ensues?

  • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    8 days ago

    Israel is going to “payback” iran after continually terrorizing them for decades?

    Axios = imperial drivel.