all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 19 points 7 months ago (3 children)

... and could again if the ceasefire falls apart.

isreal's already broken the ceasefire conditions, but cnn is pretending that it hasn't already happened.

part of me is glad that social media that's not controlled by the united states exists to make me aware of how much propanda is piped in front of our faces all day, every day.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    China, please Send them that plane that shoots a drone swarms, I'd love to see that boy in action.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    “If China does that, China will have big problems, OK?” he said as he left the White House for Florida."

    What are you going to do about it ya big baby?

  • source
  • 24 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 31 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child)
    • Attack and bomb a country during ongoing negotiations.
    • Wipe out a truckload of their air defences
    • Use air superiority to bomb thousands of civilians
    • Propose ceasefire without having achieved any political goals at all
    • The country immediately starts rebuilding their decimated air defences to prevent you from bombing them during the ongoing negotiations
    • shockedpicatchu.jpg
    • this_is_a_provocation.wav
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I knew it. As soon as rumors started circling that China is leaning on Iran to cease fire, I reasoned that China must have offered something in return, due to Iran's extremely strong leverage. I thought expanded trade but weapons make sense too.

    Excellent news either way.

    Hopefully they're effective enough against Israeli jets. If they are, this could serve as wiping Trump's ass from being unable to force Iarael to obey the ceasefire. If Iran can defend itself against Israeli bombings, Trump can the off-ramp knowing Israel won't drag him in again.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Air defense weapons are "provocative"? That's like a rapist saying it's provocative for women to buy pepper spray.

    it's pretty trivial to avoid a nation's air defenses. Effortless in fact.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    Fair take but I'm not a fan of funding the Iron Dome (air defence weapon) for the reason it allows Israel to wage war with impunity against its neighbours. My logic could be used against Iran too, although Iranian responses seem to have been solely reactionary. My point being that yes, they can be seen by some as provocative, especially if misused (i.e. using them to instigate on weaker enemies).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago*

    Anything that might bring down jets blowing up schools and hospitals is a good thing, regardless of who fired them or where they came from. Thats just a fact.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago

    US Intelligence is an oxymoron at this time. Please ignore.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    So defensive weapons are provocative now? Wasn't that part of the excuse Russia used to invade Ukraine?

  • source
  • Water is wet.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    With all those EV sales they got dick swinging money now.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (9 children)

    Can always use more data on the CCP's anti-air capabilities (even if it's just the stuff they're willing to part with) for the main event.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    The CCP, being a political party, does not in fact have anti-air capabilities. The country they run, China, has anti-air capabilities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Isn't the Chinese army in fact subordinate to (or a branch of) the CCP though? I mean, it's a one-part system, so it doesn't make much of a difference, but I seem to remember that the army is in fact formally controlled by the party, not the government.

    PS. Note: I'm not at all sure, just drawing off an old, possibly incorrect, memory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (1 child)