Palestinian Resistance Launch Major Attack on Israel: What Happened? – LIVE BLOG

Stucky

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
5,946

 

Stucky

Superstar
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
5,946
What bombs did Israel use on the al-Mawasi ‘safe zone’ in Gaza?

Al Jazeera’s verification agency Sanad reports US-made MK-84 bombs may have been used by Israeli warplanes on displaced people’s tents in southern Gaza’s al-Mawasi area.

The three bombs dropped on Tuesday left enormous craters and myriad questions about the use of such large munitions on such a densely populated space.

At least 19 people were killed and 22 are reported missing, assumed to have been vaporised by the intensity of the blast.

Read more here.

INTERACTIVE-Israeli attack on al-Mawasi camp -2- September 10, 2024 (1)-1725973880



No evidence that slain UN staffers are Hamas members: UN

The spokesman for the UN secretary-general says he’s shocked, outraged and condemns this attack that killed six UNRWA employees – now raising the death toll for the number of UNRWA staff members killed in Gaza by Israel to 220 in the last 11 months.

The secretary general says this UN school had been turned into a shelter where desperate Palestinians were receiving food, water and medical aid – anything they needed to continue to survive this ongoing onslaught by Israel in the besieged Gaza Strip.

Israel says some of the UNRWA employees were part of Hamas. We asked the spokesperson about this, and he said there’s no evidence of this whatsoever. Israel is also saying it targeted a “Hamas command and control centre”. The spokesperson said the UN is calling for an investigation into this, but as of right now, it has no evidence this is indeed the case.

Normally in a situation like this, the secretary-general might pick up the phone and call Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss the situation. But both men have spoken zero times in the last 11 months. We’re told by the UN that Netanyahu is not accepting any calls from the secretary-general.
 

Karlysymon

Superstar
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
7,324
2002
Given these developments, i decided to check news reports to see if there's anything about AUMF. Strangely, no major American publication has reported on Lindsey Graham's bill....Jewish Insider ran this story like 10hrs ago....and i've used multiple search engines but nothing from Wapo, NYT, USAToday, etc. Ofcourse, something like this is very controversial given the previous AUMF acts of 2001/2 and i don't see how congress would even pass another act unless there is a major terror attack on CONUS and this is why they need a draft because there aren't millions of Pat Tillmans waiting to be swept up in patriotic fervor and voluntarily sign up for another Mid-East war or deployed to another theater.
1726243044965.png


Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) introduced a war powers resolution on Wednesday aimed at pushing the U.S. to take action to curb Iran’s expanding nuclear program.

Graham said that the Authorization for Use of Military Force would “be triggered if the president determines that Iran possesses uranium [that is] enriched to the weapons-grade level, a nuclear warhead or were to possess a delivery vehicle capable of delivering a nuclear device against Israel or other allies or the United States.”


He unveiled the resolution just ahead of the Senate’s August recess, with plans to attempt to force Senate floor consideration when lawmakers return in September.

“I just read the director of national intelligence report regarding the status of the Iran nuclear program, and I would urge every member of the House and the Senate to read it,” Graham said during a press conference at the Capitol.

“Iran will keep going until somebody tells them to stop. It’s time to put red lines on their nuclear program and enforce them. The idea of ambiguity is not working. As we talk about their program, their program gets larger and more lethal. After viewing the ODNI report, I believe that if we do not change course, Iran will possess a nuclear weapon very soon,” he continued.

Asked if he thought a conflict with Iran or Hezbollah would require U.S. boots on the ground, Graham replied, “No, not from us.”

The South Carolina senator also introduced a resolution stating that “any escalation by Hezbollah against Israel that leads to a major confrontation should be viewed as an attack carried out and executed by Iran,” referring to the Israeli strike that targeted Fuad Shukr, Hezbollah’s senior commander, in southern Beirut earlier this week. He said he plans to try and force floor consideration of this resolution in September as well.

“I am going to ask the body to take up this resolution in September and see where the Senate is on the idea that Iran and Hezbollah are the same. Without Iran, Hezbollah has no money, they have no technology, no weapons to wage war against Israel,” Graham said.

“It is time to end the charade that the world is playing when it comes to Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. They are one and the same. We held the Soviet Union liable for any attack coming from Cuba because Cuba was a proxy of the Soviet Union. That same doctrine should apply to Iran,” he added. “Not only should Israel hold Iran accountable for any escalation by Hezbollah, the United States should do the same.”

Graham developed the resolutions as part of his broader effort to crack down on Tehran’s nuclear program and continued backing of Hamas, Hezbollah and other terror groups that target the U.S. and Israel.

He introduced legislation last week that would impose tariffs on countries that buy crude oil or petroleum products from Iran which, if implemented, would serve as an obstacle to Tehran being able to export their petroleum to countries that engage with the United States.

Iran uses its oil profits to fund terrorism and its expanding nuclear program. Earlier this month, Secretary of State Tony Blinken revealed that Iran had narrowed its nuclear breakout time — how long it would take to produce enough weapons-grade uranium to produce a nuclear bomb — to approximately one to two weeks.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was not supportive of Graham’s proposal.


“I would be very cautious about an AUMF,” he told Jewish Insider on Wednesday during a meeting with journalists, pointing to the other long-standing AUMFs from 2001 and 2002, which he said have been overused by administrations well beyond their intended purposes. “Any AUMF, for me to support it, it’s going to have to be very limited in time and very specific as to the authorities that are needed.”

He added that AUMFs generally come in response to requests from the administration: “I’ve never seen Congress give authority the president does not want.”

He said that the U.S. “cannot tolerate” Iran having a nuclear weapon, but noted that the current intelligence assessment is that Iran has not decided to build one.

“If that is changing, that changes our strategies and then we have to consider other options,” Cardin said.


Cardin also noted that there are additional steps, beyond nuclear breakout, for Iran to actually produce a nuclear weapon, which would take longer than two weeks.
I can't believe i even read this but it's a good reason to take conscription-related news seriously. 2025 is a big year and that's when many countries are activating their programs.
1726242902067.png
A cost-free yet meaningful means of convincing Tehran that it will face consequences for its aggression is for Congress to pass AUMFs against Iran: one explicitly authorizing military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, and the other authorizing force against the designated foreign terrorist organizations backed by Iran, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and possibly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Threats to the United States and its citizens from the Islamic Republic of Iran and its terror proxies have reached a fever pitch, with no clear U.S. policy for how to stop it. Tehran is perched on the nuclear threshold, effectively capable of breaking out at a moment’s notice. Simultaneously, Iran and its proxies have spent 11 months waging a regional war with global repercussions—targeting not just Israel but commercial shipping in the Red Sea and U.S. troops in Iraq, Syria, and Jordan. Iran even attempted to hire assassins to kill a former U.S. president and other former senior U.S. officials on American soil. Taming Iranian nuclear advances and ever-widening aggression will be an urgent priority for the next administration and Congress, with implications for all other U.S. national security interests. A rampaging Iran could fuel the war in Ukraine with more arms shipments, spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, raise energy and shipping costs, and distract U.S. attention and resources from competition with China, all in addition to wreaking more regional bloodshed and havoc.

It is vital that the United States have a comprehensive strategy for blunting Iranian transgressions in all their forms. Congress can help develop and bolster the credibility of such a strategy by approving conditional Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMFs) to prevent a nuclear Iran and deter its further attacks.

The credible threat of military force has been the only tool to effectively and repeatedly convince Iran to back down. Israel’s 2012 nuclear redline, President Donald Trump’s 2020 strike on Quds Force commander Major General Qassem Soleimani after Iranian proxies killed an American, and President Joe Biden’s August 2024 regional force build up in the face of a threatened direct Iranian attack on Israel are all examples of the United States and its partners threatening to punish Iran if it continued its malign behavior—and Iran changing course rather than risk confrontation. Similarly, by now signaling a credible commitment to hold Iran responsible for continued aggression—whether advancing its nuclear program or attacking U.S. troops, citizens, and interests with its proxies—the United States can increase the credibility of consequences for its worst transgressions. A cost-free yet meaningful means of convincing Tehran that it will face consequences for its aggression is for Congress to pass AUMFs against Iran: one explicitly authorizing military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, and the other authorizing force against the designated foreign terrorist organizations backed by Iran, including Hamas, Hezbollah, and possibly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).


Compared to other alternatives, this is an immediate option for bolstering deterrence, reining in Iranian escalation, and slowing Iranian nuclear advances. While effective, maintaining two carrier strike groups in the Middle East for the foreseeable future is both costly and untenable given competing requirements in the Indo-Pacific. Increased sanctions enforcement would take time to bite, and Iran has repeatedly rebuffed American diplomatic overtures when it has perceived there would be no consequences for its intransigence. Meanwhile, congressional passage of AUMFs against Iran would send a clear, unmistakable, and prompt signal to Tehran, without requiring further immediate U.S. action. Nor would an AUMF make U.S. use of force more likely than it currently is. Both Presidents Trump and Biden have struck at Iran-linked targets citing their Article II constitutional authorities without an AUMF. But by giving the president approval to use force, Congress would communicate to Tehran the determination of all branches of power and both political parties to hold it accountable. Contrary to arguments that the only alternative to diplomacy is war, the threat of force against Iran is the best means for avoiding the use of force—both by the United States and Iran.


Taking up an AUMF would have the further salutary effect of restoring the Congress’ constitutional role in national security matters. Members have in recent years repeatedly sought to reclaim their war powers by seeking to rescind existing AUMFs. On March 29, 2023, the Senate voted to repeal the 2002 and 1991 Iraq AUMFs. The Republican-led House of Representatives has yet to consider similar legislation during this Congress but, under Democratic leadership, previously voted to repeal the 2001 AUMF against Al Qaeda passed in the wake of 9/11. Yet as threats around the world rise, Congress cannot claim to be fulfilling its constitutional national defense responsibilities if it only rescinds AUMFs yet shirks away from proactively providing the president with clear, legal authorities for the U.S. military to respond to urgent dangers.


While the president already has authority under Article II to act against the twin threats of Iran’s nuclear program and proxy networks, the president will act with maximum authority with Congress’ affirmative blessing. Specifically, we recommend that:

  • Congress does not repeal the 2001 or 2002 AUMFs unless they are replaced by new measures that strengthen the president’s ability to protect U.S. forces and interests in the Middle East.
  • Congress pass a new, tailored, and conditions-based AUMF for the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program.
    • Conditions that trigger the AUMF could include determination from the intelligence community that Iran is pursuing a nuclear breakout of enrichment and/or weaponization activity.
  • Congress pass a new AUMF or an addition to the 2001 or 2002 AUMFs that specifically authorizes military strikes against Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, other Iranian proxies, and Iranian forces involved in funding, organizing, or equipping terrorist groups.

Click here to read the analysis.

 

Clout

Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2024
Messages
893
Dayan_dangerous.jpg
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup mate, you and your chums are barking mad...:)
"Evildoers...They return at evening: they make a noise like a dog, and go round about the city.."(Psalm 59:6)
 
Last edited:

Clout

Veteran
Joined
Aug 11, 2024
Messages
893
News quote- 'A cost-free yet meaningful means of convincing Tehran that it will face consequences for its aggression is for Congress to pass AUMFs against Iran: one explicitly authorizing military strikes against Iran’s nuclear program'-unquote
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Kamala won't do that because the Dems have already given Iran permission to make nukes-

Kamala_Iran.jpg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Don of course was spot on-

1726249250154.jpeg
 
Top