News   Apr 02, 2026
Early Work Commencing on St Clair-Old Weston Station
 2.6K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2026
Cranes Up, Foundations Underway at Peter Gilgan Mississauga Hospital
 1.1K     0 
News   Apr 02, 2026
City Council March, 2026 Settlements: Negotiations Advance Projects Across Toronto
 2.8K     2 

News from the Middle East

Admiral Beez said:
From what I see online, the E-3 Sentry was hit by a ballistic missile, not a drone. The only way to keep the Sentries safe is to park them away from the warzone.
Click to expand...

Full Metal Junkie said:
Yes, the aircraft that will cost $700M to replace should have probably been kept either away or in one of the hangars that exist on the airfield. I was more talking about the other forward-deployed aircraft that can benefit from such cover.

Also, while the the tent hangar will not have stopped the ballistic missile, it would have offered an element of concealment. These strikes were targeted using satellite intel. It's hard to tell on the satellite imagery which tents are housing which planes at what time. And if you have 100 tents to chose from and one ballistic missile, the odds of you striking something as important as an E3 Sentry are quite small.
Click to expand...

Y'all are misunderstanding what happened. The aircraft was parked on a taxi way. And it's regularly flying. Knowing where it's parked and when it's on the ground is not easy intelligence for a country with no high visit rate intelligence satellites.

I'll also note that there's unconfirmed rumours that some Compass Call aircraft were hit. You'd have to be a pro to identify a Compass Call from other Hercules aircraft, from a space or drone image.

China or Russia (more likely).gave them that intelligence.
 
kEiThZ said:
Y'all are misunderstanding what happened. [...] Knowing where it's parked and when it's on the ground is not easy intelligence for a country with no high visit rate intelligence satellites.
Click to expand...
kEiThZ said:
China or Russia (more likely).gave them that intelligence.
Click to expand...

*Gasps*
Sir, I do declare!

Full Metal Junkie said:
And something tells me timing this attack when the refuelers are back at base and in close proximity to each other - that required live satellite intel to pull off. And it's not that hard to guess which country may have provided such valuable intel to the Islamic Republic.
Click to expand...
 
Another step towards a total war against Iran - they've started going after civilian infrastructure:

https://twitter.com/x/status/2039711009133183222

This is bad. From the very start of this campaign, US/Israel did not discriminate between IRGC and Artesh military targets. Heck, they sunk 3/4 of Artesh Navy but left the IRGC speedboats mostly alone. And now they are overtly destroying civilian targets.

This is not how you fight the theocratic dictatorship in Iran. This is how you get people of Iran to rally around the flag and support the government that oppressed them for decades.

And this is how you dig yourself into an even deeper hole.
 
Richard White said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this a violation of international law?

Something to do with attacking civilians or civilian targets.
Click to expand...

As usual, it's complicated.

In general, destroying civilian infrastructure is considered a war crime under International Humanitarian Law of the Geneva Conventions.

The key principles involved here:

Protection of Civilian Objects: Civilian objects (e.g., homes, schools, power plants, water facilities) cannot be the target of attacks.
Prohibition of Starvation: It is strictly prohibited to attack, destroy, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as drinking water installations, food supplies, and power plants.
Principle of Proportionality: Attacks that cause excessive incidental damage to civilians or civilian property compared to the direct military advantage anticipated are prohibited.
Collective Punishment: Targeting civilian infrastructure to put pressure on a government is viewed as collective punishment, which is prohibited under the laws of war.
Click to expand...
Buth there are some notable exceptions to these protections:

Dual-Use Infrastructure: Infrastructure that is typically civilian (like power plants or bridges) can become a legitimate military target if it contributes directly to military action and its destruction offers a definite military advantage.
Loss of Protection: If civilian objects are used for military purposes, they may lose their protection. However, the attack must still follow the principle of proportionality.
Click to expand...

US is justifying the destruction of the bridge under dual-use clause - it was supposedly used to transport military equipment. Iran can argue that it's an action that disproportionately affects civilians.

Anyway, the destruction of the bridge is not a war crime to lose your sleep over. It's when they start bombing power plants and desalination plants (as Donnie has promised), that's when we'll have a real humanitarian catastrophe on our hands.
 
DSCToronto said:
Apparently one US pilot rescued, one injured and 'in custody'.

www.bbc.com

Search under way for US fighter jet shot down in Iran, US media report

Verified video, pictured above, appears to show a US search and rescue operation in southern Iran. The US is yet to comment on the reports.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

Click to expand...

For Jimmy Carter this ended his presidency effectively.

Flip side, Trump called those serve "suckers and losers" and said John McCain (who refused early release from captivity) was only a hero because he got captured. Those comments come to mind.

I also know that there's nothing that any air force worries about more than downed aircrew. This is the nightmare that all fear.
 
Full Metal Junkie said:
As usual, it's complicated.

In general, destroying civilian infrastructure is considered a war crime under International Humanitarian Law of the Geneva Conventions.

The key principles involved here:


Buth there are some notable exceptions to these protections:



US is justifying the destruction of the bridge under dual-use clause - it was supposedly used to transport military equipment. Iran can argue that it's an action that disproportionately affects civilians.

Anyway, the destruction of the bridge is not a war crime to lose your sleep over. It's when they start bombing power plants and desalination plants (as Donnie has promised), that's when we'll have a real humanitarian catastrophe on our hands.
Click to expand...

Mostly accurate. Proportionality and intent are major drivers. This is why there's usually a lawyer in the room when targeting decisions are made. But with this admin, good only knows what the instructions are and whether law and ethics are actually considered.

Should be noted that powerplants can be temporarily disabled using graphite bombs. They short circuit the grid. Can be repaired in a day. That's not a war crime. Bombing them "back to the stone age"? That's a war crime.

On a practical level. I don't understand what this does. Unleashing a wave of refugees as happened in Syria would be absolutely destabilizing the region and even bad for American interests. But I mean most of what Trump does isn't for America anymore so.....
 
kEiThZ said:
But with this admin, good only knows what the instructions are and whether law and ethics are actually considered.
Click to expand...
How did Hegseth put it?
"No more woke rules of engagement"
"Maximum lethality"
"Violent effect, not politically correct"

You have an MoD who rebranded himself as "Secretary of WAAARrRRrrrr" and cosplays a Twitch gamer every time he speaks:
artworks-000763774543-44cybl-t500x500.jpg


What laws and ethics is there to talk about?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top