0laf

“I’ve seen reporting that the Iranian’s meant to fail, that this spectacular & embarrassing failure was all by design, I’ve also seen Iran say they provided early warning to help Israel prepare its defenses and limit any potential damage...all of this is categorically false…it is malarkey…Iran’s intent was clearly to cause significant destruction and casualties…the aim was to get as many of them (drones/missiles) through Israel’s defenses as possible.” - John Kirby

Kommer opprinnelig fra Sabereen, en nyhetskanal som trolig har koblinger til Irans Quds. Kun videreformidlet av Jokerman, i og med at de fleste av oss leser litt dårlig farsi, og ikke er på Telegram. Er dog enig i at Iran er omtrent like troverdige som 4chan.

Nja, dette er ubekreftet, og ser ut til å komme fra iranske medier, som har en agenda, og kanskje overdriver noe. Generelt har det ikke vært like dårlig forhold mellom Russland og Israel, som mellom de fleste vestlige land og Russland, og mange jøder i Israel kommer fra Russland. Jeg tror dette enten er propaganda fra Iran, for å forsøke å slippe et angrep, og dersom det faktisk kommer fra Russland, så er det en viss sannsynlighet for at de kommer med trusler for å roe ned gemyttene, som de neppe vil gjennomføre. Russland ønsker å lede oppmerksomhet bort fra Ukraina, men dersom Iran utsettes for massive angrep, så er det ikke sikkert Khamanei er like glad i Putin. Samtidig virker det lite sannsynlig at Russland vil bidra i angrep på Israel.

Ser ut til å være ubekreftet fra amerikansk hold, men det er vel ingen overraskelse at Russland trolig står bak en del av Irans terror.

Hamas makes it clear it doesn't want a ceasefire: On Saturday night, Hamas officially rejected the latest ceasefire proposal. Last night, Ynet quoted a senior White House official who said Hamas rejected a hostage release/ceasefire offer that included "everything it asked for," proving that Sinwar isn't really interested in reaching a deal. Today, N12News, citing senior Israeli officials, reported that Hamas upped its demands and is now only willing to release ~20 hostages in exchange for a six-week ceasefire and is demanding more Palestinian prisoners be released for each freed hostage, as well as the number of terrorists serving life sentences. Hamas also continues to demand the full withdrawal of the IDF from Gaza.

Putting U.S. Power Behind Israel Will Keep Iran at Bay ...Iran’s unprecedented attack this weekend, which failed to kill a single Israeli, has perhaps now opened the clerical regime to a major reprisal. The White House clearly does not want Jerusalem to undertake such a response, fearing escalation that could bring the United States into a regional war. But the chances are good that Israel will strike back to deter future direct attacks. And the best way for Washington to limit the expansion of this conflict is to signal clearly its intention to support an Israeli counterattack. It’s the recurring military paradox: To contain a war, a belligerent sometimes needs to threaten its expansion. Iran’s internal situation, its memory about past U.S. military action and a conspiratorial worldview all support this strategy. .... It is time for Washington to feed this conspiratorial thinking. The United States should augment its presence in the Gulf, dispatch admirals and spy chiefs to Israel and undertake joint Israeli-U.S. military exercises that highlight long-range bombing runs. With its darkest conspiracies reconfirmed, Iran’s elite will search for a way out — even if Israel decides on a frontal assault. ... Today, the problem with Washington distancing itself from Jerusalem, as it has over the large-scale civilian deaths and humanitarian suffering in the Gaza war, is that it will not defuse a crisis that puts Iran and Israel in direct confrontation. And Mr. Khamenei will not allow himself to be seen as backing down to Jews — particularly if they are unmoored from superior American power. For the United States, standing by Israel would allow Mr. Khamenei another path, a way to back down without losing face. There is a precedent for such a retreat. Again, the Iran-Iraq war is instructive. The founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ruhollah Khomeini, opted for an armistice with Iraq, a country he had long denigrated, because of the sheer exhaustion of his nation and the fear that the war could simply not be won. The implicit threat of American involvement was a big factor in this decision. Now only the United States can again prompt similar foreboding in Tehran about the intercession of an indomitable force. For years Washington has been doing, more or less, just the opposite. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/15/opinion/israel-iran-united-states-war-gaza.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Nja, til en viss grad, men dette er i følge Wien-konvensjonen. Shah Reza Pahlavi signerte konvensjonen i 1961, men prestestyret har aldri fulgt opp Wien-konvensjonen, og startet jo sin periode med diktatur i 1979, når de avsatte shah'en, og holdt amerikanske gisler i ambassaden i Tehran i 444 dager, og de har heller aldri ratifisert Wien-konvensjonen, så de har vel egentlig ingen rett til å hevde seg beskyttet av Wien-konvensjonen. Forøvrig må det være et reellt konsulat, som ikke brukes til andre ting, i henhold til konvensjonen. “consular premises” means the buildings or parts of buildings and the land ancillary thereto, irrespective of ownership, used exclusively for the purposes of the consular post; Når det kommer til ambassader (diplomatic mission), er det noe annerledes formulert: The premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission as laid down in the present Convention or by other rules of general international law or by any special agreements in force between the sending and the receiving State. Jeg ville hevde at IRCG hovedkvarter, hvor terror planlegges, faller utenfor bruk som er i tråd med internasjonal lov.

Exposed: UNRWA’s Rigged “Independent” Review En (mye) lengre artikkel her -> https://unwatch.org/exposed-unrwas-rigged-independent-review/ ______ A Report on The Extreme Bias of the Colonna Group Investigating UNRWA’s Terror Ties On February 5, 2024, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres announced the appointment of an “Independent Review Group” with the stated purpose of assessing whether UNRWA “is doing everything within its power to ensure neutrality and to respond to allegations of serious breaches when they are made.” The announcement came shortly after 18 top donor states to UNRWA suspended funding to the agency, due to revelations that at least 12 UNRWA staffers participated in the October 7th massacre and that hundreds of the agency’s employees are operatives of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Catherine Colonna, the former French Minister of Foreign Affairs, was selected to lead the Review Group, which also consisted of the following three Scandinavian research institutions: The Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI) in Norway; The Raoul Wallenberg Institute in Sweden, and The Danish Institute for Human Rights. .... A brief examination of all of the parties involved in the review group confirms that they are not unbiased, objective observers. Rather, Ms. Colonna, the three organizations, and many of their staff have previously issued statements, published content, and liked social media posts demonstrating their positive feelings towards UNRWA and its work, often even after the newfound allegations of UNRWA’s links to Hamas post-October 7th, and their animosity towards the State of Israel. .... On February 21, UN Spokesman Stéphane Dujarric said that Secretary-General Guterres named Catherine Colonna to lead the Review Group in order to “reassure those donors who may have doubts.” Likewise, on February 22, Ms. Colonna herself stated that that the entire purpose of her investigation is to ensure that donations to UNRWA continue... Speaking at a UN press conference on February, Colonna said: “The aim of this important and delicate mission, entrusted to us by the Secretary General, is to enable donors, the largest among them, but in fact everyone, to regain confidence, when they have lost it or when they have doubts, in the way UNRWA operates.” These statements confirm that a predetermined outcome to ensure the reinstatement of funding was in mind for both the UN and Ms. Colonna. .... Secretary-General Guterres could have chosen from any number of prominent and credible figures who did not have these conflicts, or prior public prounouncements that take a position on the work of UNRWA. But the UN chose Colonna precisely because they were certain that her findings would “reassure the donors.” The impartiality of the Chr. Michelsen Institute (CMI) concerning UNRWA is undermined by the extreme bias of its publications on UNRWA, and by the litany of pronouncements by numerous of its staff and board members accusing Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide.” --- The leading staff and board members of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute (RWI) routinely have been portraying Israel as uniquely evil. Eight years ago, in 2016, RWI Executive Director Peter Lundberg accused Israel of “apartheid.” --- The Danish Institute for Human Rights has demonstrated a sharp anti-Israel and pro-UNRWA bias, as evident by its public statements, pronouncements of its board members and senior staff, and its sole Palestinian partner organization. For example, DIHR applauded South Africa’s ICJ case that accused Israel of “genocide.” ... In addition, the DIHR’s Palestine partner is the Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights (ICHR), a group that hosted at its events members of the US-designated terror groups Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). Multiple staffers of this DIHR partner have voiced support for these terror groups, and its founding members include PFLP members Raja Shehadeh and Raji Sourani. The Director of ICHR’s North Gaza office, Raafat Salha, represented the PFLP at a conference in 2012.

Ikke jeg heller, men ... Jeg mener dette er å støtte Hamas, ikke palestinerne, og at du støtter terror. Hamas-soldatene hadde ordre om å drepe alt og alle, og å ta med så mange gisler som mulig tilbake.

Trenger ikke være nøytral, for å ha rett !

Vel, det ser ut som det er en del i vesten, og også på dette forumet, som mener det er legitim motstandskamp, og at alt Hamas egentlig vil er å få sin egen stat, og være i fred, selv om Hamas uttaler noe helt annet, og åpenbart er terrorister, både mot Israel og palestinerne. Iran på sin side, er enda verre, ettersom de driter i hele palestina og Hamas, de er kun nyttige idioter for Iran, som bidrar til å lage problemer i midtøsten. Prestestyret i Iran er mislikt av alle, også de fleste araberstatene, som ikke har den samme trofastheten ovenfor persere, som de har for arabere, selv om de er muslimer. For mange av araberlandene er også Iran "feil" muslimer. Generelt har landene i midtøsten samlet seg rundt hatet mot Israel, men det ser ut til å snu, ettersom mange av araberlandene har tatt innover seg at de ikke blir kvitt Israel, og at det er langt mer fordelaktig å samarbeide med det fremste landet i området, enn å tape krig etter krig. Prestestyret i Iran kommer nok aldri til å inngå noen fred med Israel, selv om mesteparten av folket ønsker det. Tvert i mot, er de nære på å få atomvåpen, som kommer til å bli en katastrofe av de sjeldne. Iran må "håndteres", desto før, desto bedre, og det iranske folket må få landet tilbake. For palestinerne virker det som om det er motsatt, PA har i stadig større grad samarbeidet med Israel, mens mesteparten av folket fremdeles tror de skal vinne en imaginær krig med Israel, som de tror har pågått siden 1948, og de støtter derfor terroristene i stedet for PA.

Ja, Idi Amin ble uvenner med Israel fordi de ikke ville gi han våpen. Noen år etter når PLO kapret dette flyet, så lot Idi Amin de få lande i Uganda, og beskyttet de. IDF gikk inn å hentet gislene med makt, utover de tre som ble drept i skuddvekslingene, og denne damen som ble tatt til sykehus og ikke var til stede når IDF tok flyplassen, men som senere ble drept av ugandiske soldater på ordre fra Idi Amin.

Godt spurt, husket kun at et gissel ble drept av Uganda på sykehus, så måtte slå det opp. "Dora Bloch was an Israeli hostage on Air France Flight 139 on 26 June 1976. ... Bloch, who had become ill during the flight, was taken to a hospital in Kampala and was therefore not among the 102 hostages who were rescued when Israel executed Operation Thunderbolt on 4 July 1976. She disappeared shortly after the hostages were rescued; her status as a British citizen and Amin's complicity in the hijacking resulted in the United Kingdom severing diplomatic ties with the Commonwealth country. In 1979, during the Tanzanian invasion of Uganda, Bloch's body was discovered by Tanzanian soldiers at a sugar plantation near Kampala and subsequently returned to Israel, where she was buried in Jerusalem. In February 2007, declassified British government documents confirmed that she had been murdered by Ugandan authorities on Amin's orders in retaliation for Operation Thunderbolt, during which Israeli commandos killed all of the hijackers and over 100 Ugandan soldiers. **" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Dora_Bloch ** Her mener jeg det er en feil, og at det alltid har blitt opplyst at 45 ugandiske soldater ble drept, ikke 100, men litt usikker.

Den gikk rundt i sosiale medier, fra en rekke verifiserte kontoer på Twitter, men det virket noe pussig at Jordan skulle ha opplyst om noe sånt. På den andre siden har Jordan bekreftet at de skjøt ned en rekke droner, og prinsessen er jagerflypilot i det jordanske luftforsvaret, som sin far og sin farfar før henne, så det er vel heller ikke helt utenkelig, selv om innlegget på Twitter tydeligvis ikke er basert på reell informasjon.