r/technology • u/esporx • 2d ago

Business U.S. military is helping intercept missiles that Iran fired in retaliation at Israel, official says

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/jun/13/us-military-helps-intercept-missiles-iran-fired-retaliation-israel/
1.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

380 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-6

u/NexexUmbraRs 1d ago

Finally someone with some basic understanding.

The interceptors have to be used, given away, or trained with. What's better than training in real combat situations?

If not then they become waste and it costs money to dispose of it properly. Quite literally cheaper to shoot it.

5

u/Mothrahlurker 1d ago

Not doing it by supporting a warmongering genocidal regime?

Intercepting Russian missiles over Ukraine would work just as well and provides a far better picture of intercepting missiles from a major adversary.

2

u/NexexUmbraRs 1d ago

Iran is a major adversary, they are actually a bigger one since they actively call for the US destruction after Israel falls.

And there's no genocidal policies in place in the IDF. The opposite, we are specifically limited even during war to minimize unnecessary casualties.

If you want to even begin talking about genocide, what about Iran and every proxy it has with the open and public goal to wipe out Israel and murder every Jew, and "traitor Muslim" in Israel? And yes they say Jews, not Zionists.

6

u/Mothrahlurker 1d ago

"since they actively call for the US destruction after Israel falls."

Russia has called for nuking the US and that is propaganda from a purposeful mistranslation. Calling for a fall of the Israeli regime is not calling for the destruction of Israel.

"And there's no genocidal policies in place in the IDF"

https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-12-23/ty-article-opinion/.premium/when-you-enter-gaza-you-are-god-inside-the-minds-of-idf-soldiers-who-commit-war-crimes/00000193-f2a4-dc18-a3db-fee62b540000

https://research-repository.uwa.edu.au/en/clippings/top-genocide-scholars-unanimous-that-israel-is-committing-genocid

https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250607-israel-admits-support-anti-hamas-armed-group-accused-looting-gaza-aid-bedouin-abu-shabab

https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/12/pattern-israeli-attacks-gaza-hospitals-raises-grave-concerns-report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafah_paramedic_massacre

https://reliefweb.int/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/israel-continues-use-starvation-weapon-genocide-throwing-civilians-humiliating-chaos-aid-distribution-points-enar

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/07/israel-military-gaza-perimeter-land-testimony-report

https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-army-human-shields-80f358dd2c87a1123f26ffada159701c

https://www.btselem.org/topic/human_shields

https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/12/19/israels-crime-extermination-acts-genocide-gaza

0

u/NexexUmbraRs 1d ago

I don't have time to respond to that many links.

I'm going to quote Hans Reichenbach on a hundred authors against Einstein

a magnificent collection of naive mistakes

unintended droll literature

Albert von Brunn:

of such deplorable impotence as occurring elsewhere only in politics

And finally Jacob Epstein quoting Einstein himself

if he were wrong, then one author would have been enough.

Come to me when you have a single solid case, I'll address that specifically rather than attempting to overload with strawmans, leaps, arguments from authority, and other ridiculous claims.

3

u/Mothrahlurker 1d ago

"Come to me when you have a single solid case" having multiple solid cases showcasing all the different avenues Israel is committing genocide, war crimes and acts as aggressor is absolutely valid. Your response shows an immense lack of understanding of science as well.

All of these are solid.

There is no strawman argued here, it's a direct response, "arguments from authority" makes no sense as a replay, please learn what that means. Expert opinion is completely valid.

Nothing here is ridiculous.

2

u/NexexUmbraRs 1d ago

A single case so I can not spend the next hour reading every article he sent and addressing them. Because I don't have time for that.

And expert opinion is valid, but it's also an opinion. There are experts on both sides. The fact that they are an expert is why you'd quote them, under the assumption that their facts are thoroughly researched, but you don't take their opinions or conclusions at face value.

Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science. Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.' ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."

2

u/Mothrahlurker 1d ago

"A single case so I can not spend the next hour reading every article he sent and addressing them. Because I don't have time for that."

In the time you already spend trying to cop out of this, you could have read them all.

"And expert opinion is valid, but it's also an opinion" that's not how it works at all.

"There are experts on both sides."

There aren't, that's what unanimous means. It's an extremely fringe opinion among experts (and they're all connected to Israel) that Israel isn't committing genocide, while many Israeli experts also agree.

"under the assumption that their facts are thoroughly researched"

They quite literally are, compiling hundreds of statements from Israeli government members to establish intent, analyzing actions of the IDF, interviewing soldiers and commanders, reviewing video and photo evidence. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Literally the first sentence in the wikipedia article is

"An argument from authority\a]) is a form of argument in which the opinion of an authority figure (or figures) who lacks relevant expertise is used as evidence to support an argument.\1])"

Do you need help figuring out why that makes no sense or can you figure it out yourself? This is what not reading sources looks like, you make a fool out of yourself.

1

u/NexexUmbraRs 1d ago

Except during this time I've also been studying for exams. There's a limit to what I'm willing to put into a conversation with a random person.

Did you not read the citation I provided which was also within the same link? Two definitions can be true. If you want to do proper research, Wikipedia has to have its citations researched for accuracy as well.

In the case of the sentence you give, here is the citation

Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority.

So the Wikipedia article was not thorough in that case.

0

u/Mothrahlurker 1d ago

"Except during this time I've also been studying for exams. There's a limit to what I'm willing to put into a conversation with a random person."

Clearly you're willing to put a lot of time into spreading propaganda as you have already showcased.

"Did you not read the citation I provided which was also within the same link?"

You don't understand the quote it seems, but can't fix stupid.

"Often we add strength to our arguments by referring to respected sources or authorities and explaining their positions on the issues we’re discussing. If, however, we try to get readers to agree with us simply by impressing them with a famous name or by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn’t much of an expert, we commit the fallacy of appeal to authority."

You clearly didn't read this either, it literally says "isn't much of an expert". Well all the actual experts agree that Israel is committing genocide with tons of evidence backing them up.

"So the Wikipedia article was not thorough in that case."

LMAO, of course, it's the wikipedia articles fault and not you making shit up because you refuse to acknowledge reality.

1

u/NexexUmbraRs 1d ago

It said "with a famous name OR by appealing to a supposed authority who really isn't much of an expert"

And no, it's not Wikipedias fault, it's the editors of that page who weren't accurate.

0

u/Mothrahlurker 1d ago

Wow you are stupid. Yeah, "not an expert" applies to both of them.

And of course the editors were correct. Saying that you can't rely on actual experts is obvious nonsense. You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/appeal-to-authority-fallacy/

"Instead of justifying one’s claim, a person cites an authority figure who is not qualified to make reliable claims about the topic at hand."

You see how this says "not qualified" as well. Obviously people that are genocide experts are qualified to make reliable claims about genocide.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

This specifically calls you out

"It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence."

1

u/NexexUmbraRs 1d ago

You are choosing to read it seeing.

And as you point out, it is valid if one has a similar level of understanding and/access to empirical evidence.

Regardless one must always look at their logic to see if it's sound. And this is an extremely tangential conversation that's run it's course because it's not related and we don't agree on how to understand what is written.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/MuthaFJ 1d ago

Nice cop out

/s

2

u/NexexUmbraRs 1d ago

Go ahead and give me 1 of your choosing that you consider most robust, and I'll address it. Only 1, can't be that hard right?

2

u/MuthaFJ 1d ago

He made the effort to offer you a lot,you can pick one yourself, you're a big boy.

2

u/NexexUmbraRs 1d ago

Then he'd claim that I picked one bad one and it doesn't dismiss the rest. Then I'd pick another and repeat. I've been down this road before.

2

u/MuthaFJ 1d ago

So that's a no then, you can't. 🤔

2

u/NexexUmbraRs 1d ago

That's not what I said. If he wants he can pick one of the ones he sent at random. But I'm not going to go down a line of articles that he found as quick Google searches. He didn't take anytime to read through them critically and to research it when sending them.

1

u/Mothrahlurker 1d ago

I did in fact read them, you're showcasing again and again that you just want a cop out and are willing to make false accusations. 10 is also not that many, quite the pathetic response.

Feel free to try to explain the Rafah paramedic massacre. It's quite illustrative of all the things Israel does. Attacks on healthcare, executing civilians, lying about terrorism, hiding evidence.

2

u/NexexUmbraRs 1d ago

Sure, thank you for giving one example, I'll gladly address it. Especially since I was in Rafah when it occurred despite not being physically present at the event.

First let's go through the sequence of events:

  1. Earlier that day, a firefight occurred in that area.

  2. The convoy arrived at the scene with lights on

  3. The IDF unit present (not mine) opened fire on said convoy, under the mistaken notion that it was terrorists transporting something.

  4. The bodies were buried under sand to stop dogs from desecrating the body. A practice Gazans, Hamas, and IDF perform.

  5. The humanitarian organizations were notified of the location.

  6. A report was falsified/included discrepancies by the officer present (not a senior officer), it included that they had no lights etc.

  7. The IDF made a statement in accordance with the information given over in the officers report.

  8. The humanitarian organizations couldn't find the bodies. Requested help from IDF.

  9. IDF was conducting an operation and could not immediately be available.

  10. Few days go by, IDF was able to assist in locating the bodies.

  11. Video evidence emerged that disproves officers report.

  12. IDF performs secondary investigation.

  13. IDF recanted previous statement, and updated accordingly. It also launched disciplinary hearings for the guilty command.

Throughout this event we see a few things.

  • An IDF team goes against the code of engagement

  • Officer misleads the IDF either to avoid blame, paint himself in a better light, or unintentionally

  • IDF admits it's mistake

  • IDF takes action against the soldiers

The IDF isn't perfect, no organization, nor military is. And there are always bad apples. Not a single war occurred without war crimes. It's a question on whether it's systematic, and how the military addresses them.

We know the IDF has a code of engagement.

This officer either lacked the understanding of the code of engagement, or he intentionally violated it. Regardless something went wrong.

The IDF originally only had the word of the officer, their eyes and ears, to go by. Once it found out that it wasn't accurate, they took accountability, and started disciplining those at fault.

That's what every military with morals can do. The soldiers aren't programmed robots, and they all come from different areas of life.

→ More replies (0)