- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Were we wrong about Iran's strike on Israel?
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:43 am
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:43 am
Scott Ritter was on with JImmy Dore on youtube, 32 minutes.
I haven't seen other reports that go along with the things Ritter said, so...take it with a grain of salt.
Here is a synopsis:
- Iran's strike was a huge success. I gathered that, by success he primarily means that Iran showed it could penetrate Israel's air defense network, in very critical areas. Unless I missed it, Ritter did not give specifics on damage assessment and I assume he doesn't have any of that information.
- Some of what Iran targeted was an air base where Israel positions its F35's, along with advanced radar.
- Iran launched just a handful of missiles at this site, and most got through. (5 of 7 iirc)
- This shows vulnerability in the Iron Dome.
- Iran did not launch hypersonic missiles or the latest and greatest from its inventory, so this spells trouble for Israel. Ritter said Iran launched about 100 missiles, but has about 3000 in the inventory.
- JImmy asks if this might produce a reduced risk of war in the region, and Ritter says 'maybe' but Bibi is a wild card in this.
- Ritter suggested that if Israel retaliates here, that Iran would/could launch missiles as soon as they detect the launch of Israeli aircraft. He also said that these leaps in missile technology surpass air defense capabilities, meaning that if Israel presses this issue, Iran could target US facilities in the region and there is no way to defend against these attacks. Israel would also get hit hard, naturally.
- Ritter said the back story to Trump's refusal to go after Iran during his term was different than what people think. He said that Trump wanted to go after Iran for shooting down our drone. Ritter said the Pentagon told Trump about the inability to stop these newest missiles and that strikes on Iran would bring strikes against US troops in the region, with no way to defend themselves, so Trump backed down.
Seems most of us here thought Iran was launching for show more than anything but Ritter is suggesting there was more to it. Maybe we'll get more insight if Israel retaliates, or if they choose not to.
I haven't seen other reports that go along with the things Ritter said, so...take it with a grain of salt.
Here is a synopsis:
- Iran's strike was a huge success. I gathered that, by success he primarily means that Iran showed it could penetrate Israel's air defense network, in very critical areas. Unless I missed it, Ritter did not give specifics on damage assessment and I assume he doesn't have any of that information.
- Some of what Iran targeted was an air base where Israel positions its F35's, along with advanced radar.
- Iran launched just a handful of missiles at this site, and most got through. (5 of 7 iirc)
- This shows vulnerability in the Iron Dome.
- Iran did not launch hypersonic missiles or the latest and greatest from its inventory, so this spells trouble for Israel. Ritter said Iran launched about 100 missiles, but has about 3000 in the inventory.
- JImmy asks if this might produce a reduced risk of war in the region, and Ritter says 'maybe' but Bibi is a wild card in this.
- Ritter suggested that if Israel retaliates here, that Iran would/could launch missiles as soon as they detect the launch of Israeli aircraft. He also said that these leaps in missile technology surpass air defense capabilities, meaning that if Israel presses this issue, Iran could target US facilities in the region and there is no way to defend against these attacks. Israel would also get hit hard, naturally.
- Ritter said the back story to Trump's refusal to go after Iran during his term was different than what people think. He said that Trump wanted to go after Iran for shooting down our drone. Ritter said the Pentagon told Trump about the inability to stop these newest missiles and that strikes on Iran would bring strikes against US troops in the region, with no way to defend themselves, so Trump backed down.
Seems most of us here thought Iran was launching for show more than anything but Ritter is suggesting there was more to it. Maybe we'll get more insight if Israel retaliates, or if they choose not to.
33
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:50 am to POTUS2024
no proof of any major damage. Some may have gotten through but I would not call some a success.
Part of the process. Israel just has to defend as always (trust its systems), take the few hits that may come, and continue forward hitting Iran harder crippling them to nothing
quote:
that Iran would/could launch missiles as soon as they detect the launch of Israeli aircraft. He also said that these leaps in missile technology surpass air defense capabilities, meaning that if Israel presses this issue, Iran could target US facilities in the region and there is no way to defend against these attacks. Israel would also get hit hard, naturally.
Part of the process. Israel just has to defend as always (trust its systems), take the few hits that may come, and continue forward hitting Iran harder crippling them to nothing
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:51 am to POTUS2024
Sounds like Ritter is trying to sell us on the need for a more sophisticate anti-missile technology. I wonder how many checks he has cashed from companies aligned with the Military Industrial Complex?
My money is on Bibi. Bibi is about to change the Middle East!!
My money is on Bibi. Bibi is about to change the Middle East!!
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:53 am to POTUS2024
Iran seems mad, is it because of the lack of attention or are they really embracing to take down Israel? As they continue it’s clear they were behind the initial attack along with a few other shithead nations.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:54 am to POTUS2024
It's hard to know what to believe anymore when you delve into that alt media world and compare it to MSM. Larry Johnson was saying similar things, although he pretty much echoed Ritter. I think MacGregor did, too.
MSM certainly wasn't emphasizing this much:
LINK
This guy did a deep dive into some of the technical aspects.
Tehran's strike was not symbolic and it can happen again.
MSM certainly wasn't emphasizing this much:
quote:
A senior American official told ABC News that at least nine Iranian missiles penetrated Israeli air defenses and hit two Israeli air bases.
He added that five ballistic missiles hit the Nevatim Air Base, causing damage to a C-130 transport plane, a runway, and storage facilities.
The official said that four additional ballistic missiles hit the Nevatim Air Base.
LINK
This guy did a deep dive into some of the technical aspects.
Tehran's strike was not symbolic and it can happen again.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 8:56 am
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:55 am to POTUS2024
Scott Ritter is a Russian mouthpiece. Iran is a critical Russian partner. It makes sense that he would weigh in to Iran's benefit.
There has been no evidence to support what Ritter is selling here.
There has been no evidence to support what Ritter is selling here.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:55 am to POTUS2024
You're in the wrong place to suggest anything other than "Iran is terrible and Israel is superior in every way." 
They are not the most formidable conventional military by any stretch, but there's a reason why Iran has been a pain in everyone's arse for years, yet nobody has ever done anything about it.
They are not the most formidable conventional military by any stretch, but there's a reason why Iran has been a pain in everyone's arse for years, yet nobody has ever done anything about it.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:56 am to POTUS2024
Sounds like the same spin as Tet in Vietnam…
It was a total failure with regards to its actual gains but it showed that they could run an operation that does XYZ.
Tet was a total fricking failure from a military perspective, destroying the VC as a fighting force, but it was a PR bonanza for the North.
It was a total failure with regards to its actual gains but it showed that they could run an operation that does XYZ.
Tet was a total fricking failure from a military perspective, destroying the VC as a fighting force, but it was a PR bonanza for the North.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:57 am to POTUS2024
quote:
Seems most of us here thought Iran was launching for show more than anything but Ritter is suggesting there was more to it.
I've been saying all week (on a thread in MT) that I believe this was more than posturing by Iran, that they were testing the Iron Dome against a zerg attack. Nothing about it came across as being the same message that Iran tried sending to the US in 2020.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:58 am to Bunk Moreland
If Iran hit a very few things and did virtually no damage, does that help or hurt their argument?
Unless they were using the equivalent of a “Bang!” flag, they were using live ammo to do damage and didn’t do anything of significance.
Unless they were using the equivalent of a “Bang!” flag, they were using live ammo to do damage and didn’t do anything of significance.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:58 am to POTUS2024
Take all of this as a huge grain of salt from two guys that are anti Israel.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:58 am to Longhorn Actual
quote:
They are not the most formidable conventional military by any stretch, but there's a reason why Iran has been a pain in everyone's arse for years, yet nobody has ever done anything about it.
I don't disagree with you at all. Iran is a large country. In the Iran/Iraq war, more than a million combatants were killed on both sides and ultimately nothing was gained or lost. Iran presents a significant risk for anyone who wants to fight them.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:59 am to Bard
Iran trying a Zerg rush against Israel only works if they get a kill shot in IMHO.
If they don’t, the Israeli response will frick then up.
If they don’t, the Israeli response will frick then up.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 8:59 am to POTUS2024
quote:
This shows vulnerability in the Iron Dome.
I stopped here. Iron Dome is not designed or intended to intercept ballistic missiles.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 9:00 am
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:00 am to POTUS2024
I do believe he is mistaken. Israel has a state of the art defense system. None of Irans missiles would have a chance, much less 70%. That is a joke.
https://english.mod.gov.il/About/Innovative_Strength/Pages/IMDO_Israel_Missile_Defense_Organization.aspx
https://english.mod.gov.il/About/Innovative_Strength/Pages/IMDO_Israel_Missile_Defense_Organization.aspx
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:01 am to POTUS2024
quote:
Iran could target US facilities in the region
That would be the stupidest thing that they could do. We'll never put boots on the ground in Iran on a large scale, but we have the standoff capability to turn their entire petroleum infrastructure and every government building into rubble from a distance.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:02 am to POTUS2024
quote:
- Iran launched just a handful of missiles at this site, and most got through. (5 of 7 iirc)
The Pro-Palestinians are my jam crowd: "Uh, yeah, Israel just let those get through so they could bomb more civilians."
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:07 am to rebeloke
quote:
None of Irans missiles would have a chance, much less 70%. That is a joke.
What are you talking about? They had missiles get through, they just didn't target anything.
Any AD system can be overwhelmed, no matter how good it is.
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:08 am to momentoftruth87
It's because they have nukes now, the U.S. is weak, and they know they can push back on Israel and the U.S. more, poke the bear, and get away with it. IMO.
They flexin'.
They flexin'.
This post was edited on 4/17/24 at 9:14 am
Posted on 4/17/24 at 9:11 am to Longhorn Actual
quote:
You're in the wrong place to suggest anything other than "Iran is terrible and Israel is superior in every way."
You're right. Take that commie leftist "muh colonialist evil Israel is committing genocide on those sweet innocent, helpless lil' Palestinians who have never done anything wrong," oppressor/oppressed victimhood narrative BS to Reddit.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News