Thinking of the absolute fury shown by Poland when it claimed that at
least one Russian missile overflew its territory on the way to strike Ukraine, I'm thinking about last night's drone attack by Iran and the
defence by the target nation and it's partners, especially the UK.
Given the relative geographical locations, I think that it is
impossible for Iran's drones not to have overflown other sovereign territories on the way to their targets. Was this use by Iran of
neighbouring airspace consensual or are any of those nations
protesting like Poland?
More to the point, from what I understand about the air-to-air
missiles available to the RAF, to be effective, they almost certainly
must have been launched by aircraft operating beyond the airspace they
were defending and the debris they created must have fallen on
neighbouring territories. Would this have been a new example of
Britain breaking International Law in "A very specific and limited
way"?
Nick
Thinking of the absolute fury shown by Poland when it claimed that at
least one Russian missile overflew its territory on the way to strike Ukraine, I'm thinking about last night's drone attack by Iran and the
defence by the target nation and it's partners, especially the UK.
Given the relative geographical locations, I think that it is
impossible for Iran's drones not to have overflown other sovereign territories on the way to their targets. Was this use by Iran of
neighbouring airspace consensual or are any of those nations
protesting like Poland?
More to the point, from what I understand about the air-to-air
missiles available to the RAF, to be effective, they almost certainly
must have been launched by aircraft operating beyond the airspace they
were defending and the debris they created must have fallen on
neighbouring territories. Would this have been a new example of
Britain breaking International Law in "A very specific and limited
way"?
Nick
On 14 Apr 2024 at 17:40:38 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Thinking of the absolute fury shown by Poland when it claimed that at
least one Russian missile overflew its territory on the way to strike
Ukraine, I'm thinking about last night's drone attack by Iran and the
defence by the target nation and it's partners, especially the UK.
Given the relative geographical locations, I think that it is
impossible for Iran's drones not to have overflown other sovereign
territories on the way to their targets. Was this use by Iran of
neighbouring airspace consensual or are any of those nations
protesting like Poland?
More to the point, from what I understand about the air-to-air
missiles available to the RAF, to be effective, they almost certainly
must have been launched by aircraft operating beyond the airspace they
were defending and the debris they created must have fallen on
neighbouring territories. Would this have been a new example of
Britain breaking International Law in "A very specific and limited
way"?
Nick
For a long time America and Israel in Iraq and Syria have been carrying out military operations completely without reference to the governments of those countries. We, in our official position as America's poodle, do the same. If the governments of Syria and Iraq bothered to protest no doubt some toothless international tribunal would support them.
Thinking of the absolute fury shown by Poland when it claimed that at
least one Russian missile overflew its territory on the way to strike Ukraine, I'm thinking about last night's drone attack by Iran and the
defence by the target nation and it's partners, especially the UK.
Given the relative geographical locations, I think that it is
impossible for Iran's drones not to have overflown other sovereign territories on the way to their targets. Was this use by Iran of
neighbouring airspace consensual or are any of those nations
protesting like Poland?
More to the point, from what I understand about the air-to-air
missiles available to the RAF, to be effective, they almost certainly
must have been launched by aircraft operating beyond the airspace they
were defending and the debris they created must have fallen on
neighbouring territories. Would this have been a new example of
Britain breaking International Law in "A very specific and limited
way"?
Nick
I'm more surprised at the knee-jerk reaction of Iran sending it'sI wonder if the drones were armed?
drones, that were never going to get to their targets.
On 14/04/2024 20:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Apr 2024 at 17:40:38 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote: >>
Thinking of the absolute fury shown by Poland when it claimed that at
least one Russian missile overflew its territory on the way to strike
Ukraine, I'm thinking about last night's drone attack by Iran and the
defence by the target nation and it's partners, especially the UK.
Given the relative geographical locations, I think that it is
impossible for Iran's drones not to have overflown other sovereign
territories on the way to their targets. Was this use by Iran of
neighbouring airspace consensual or are any of those nations
protesting like Poland?
More to the point, from what I understand about the air-to-air
missiles available to the RAF, to be effective, they almost certainly
must have been launched by aircraft operating beyond the airspace they
were defending and the debris they created must have fallen on
neighbouring territories. Would this have been a new example of
Britain breaking International Law in "A very specific and limited
way"?
Nick
For a long time America and Israel in Iraq and Syria have been carrying out >> military operations completely without reference to the governments of those >> countries. We, in our official position as America's poodle, do the same. If
the governments of Syria and Iraq bothered to protest no doubt some toothless
international tribunal would support them.
Some articles claim Israel's attack was on an Iranian Embassy:
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/04/14/iran-and-israels-shadow-war-explodes-into-the-open
I thought embassies had some international protection? Would that
therefore be a war-crime to attack an embassy.
The purpose Israel's attack on Iran's Consulate/Embassy is to deflect >notoriety associated with Gaza and to get the West to rally to Israel's >security. West's policy is to support Israel at all costs due to the
military security it gives the West. The attack has worked incredibly well.
I'm more surprised at the knee-jerk reaction of Iran sending it's
drones, that were never going to get to their targets. An obvious target >would have been the Israel Mission in Ukraine.
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 23:18:23 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid>
wrote:
On 14/04/2024 20:19, Roger Hayter wrote:In my opinion, my questions about British involvement are not intended
On 14 Apr 2024 at 17:40:38 BST, "Nick Odell" <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote: >>>
Thinking of the absolute fury shown by Poland when it claimed that at
least one Russian missile overflew its territory on the way to strike
Ukraine, I'm thinking about last night's drone attack by Iran and the
defence by the target nation and it's partners, especially the UK.
Given the relative geographical locations, I think that it is
impossible for Iran's drones not to have overflown other sovereign
territories on the way to their targets. Was this use by Iran of
neighbouring airspace consensual or are any of those nations
protesting like Poland?
More to the point, from what I understand about the air-to-air
missiles available to the RAF, to be effective, they almost certainly
must have been launched by aircraft operating beyond the airspace they >>>> were defending and the debris they created must have fallen on
neighbouring territories. Would this have been a new example of
Britain breaking International Law in "A very specific and limited
way"?
Nick
For a long time America and Israel in Iraq and Syria have been carrying out >>> military operations completely without reference to the governments of those
countries. We, in our official position as America's poodle, do the same. If
the governments of Syria and Iraq bothered to protest no doubt some toothless
international tribunal would support them.
Some articles claim Israel's attack was on an Iranian Embassy:
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/04/14/iran-and-israels-shadow-war-explodes-into-the-open
I thought embassies had some international protection? Would that
therefore be a war-crime to attack an embassy.
The purpose Israel's attack on Iran's Consulate/Embassy is to deflect
notoriety associated with Gaza and to get the West to rally to Israel's
security. West's policy is to support Israel at all costs due to the
military security it gives the West. The attack has worked incredibly well. >>
I'm more surprised at the knee-jerk reaction of Iran sending it's
drones, that were never going to get to their targets. An obvious target
would have been the Israel Mission in Ukraine.
to distract from the all manner of atrocities which have been
committed by all manner of nations active in that region but those discussions have been full, detailed and wide-ranging elsewhere. I
posted my query in uk.legal.moderated about British involvement
because it seems an area of activity that ought to concern people in
Britain yet doesn't seem to be receiving attention.
On 14/04/2024 23:18, Fredxx wrote:
<snip>
I wonder if the drones were armed?
I'm more surprised at the knee-jerk reaction of Iran sending it's
drones, that were never going to get to their targets.
Some articles claim Israel's attack was on an Iranian Embassy:
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/04/14/iran-and-israels-shadow-war-explodes-into-the-open
I thought embassies had some international protection? Would that
therefore be a war-crime to attack an embassy.
The purpose Israel's attack on Iran's Consulate/Embassy is to deflect notoriety associated with Gaza and to get the West to rally to Israel's security. West's policy is to support Israel at all costs due to the
military security it gives the West. The attack has worked incredibly well.
I'm more surprised at the knee-jerk reaction of Iran sending it's
drones, that were never going to get to their targets. An obvious target would have been the Israel Mission in Ukraine.
On 14/04/2024 23:18, Fredxx wrote:
Some articles claim Israel's attack was on an Iranian Embassy:
https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2024/04/14/iran-and-israels-shadow-war-explodes-into-the-open
I thought embassies had some international protection? Would that
therefore be a war-crime to attack an embassy.
The purpose Israel's attack on Iran's Consulate/Embassy is to deflect
notoriety associated with Gaza and to get the West to rally to
Israel's security. West's policy is to support Israel at all costs due
to the military security it gives the West. The attack has worked
incredibly well.
I'm more surprised at the knee-jerk reaction of Iran sending it's
drones, that were never going to get to their targets. An obvious
target would have been the Israel Mission in Ukraine.
I don't think we're in a position to assess whether Iran's retaliation
was an effective way of warning-off Israel without unduly escalating the military aggression.
Perhaps it demonstrated to Israel that without the support of America
and American technology (which is very expensive) there would have been
more damage to Israeli buildings and lives. And perhaps Israel knows
that Iran does have more powerful missiles and more ways of evading
defence systems, which it has chosen not to use on this occasion.
On 22/04/2024 13:56, The Todal wrote:
I don't think we're in a position to assess whether Iran's retaliation
was an effective way of warning-off Israel without unduly escalating the
military aggression.
Perhaps it demonstrated to Israel that without the support of America
and American technology (which is very expensive) there would have been
more damage to Israeli buildings and lives. And perhaps Israel knows
that Iran does have more powerful missiles and more ways of evading
defence systems, which it has chosen not to use on this occasion.
The Iranian attack was really weird, as they gave 3 days prior warning.
That was enough time for the Americans to send a senior general to
Israel to coordinate the defensive response.
There are different groups within the Iranian ruling group, some quite pragmatic - including Ayatollah Khameini - who are playing a long,
patient game. There are others, who are thirsting to start the 'final battle'. So, the attack had an audience within Iran, and maybe the
purpose was partially to demonstrate to the firebrands that maybe they'd
lose the final battle?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 55:40:19 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,397 |