Farmer Saint

Luckily for Israel they tend to congregate around the aid centre's, along with women and children, so it's very easy to mow them down.

That can't be true - @hypochondriac and @benjii have built their whole arguments around that.

So if we're to believe Independent agencies like the IAEA carte blanche, does that mean we should also take into account rulings from independent agencies and courts like the ICC?

Yes, we all know what Trump does, but that statement is about Iran.

What an utter cunt that man really is. I hope Iran suitcase nuke him.

No, we argue for not attacking sovereign states.

“This time we were in the middle of negotiations again when this attack took place,” Mohajerani said. “Therefore, as our officials have already stated, as long as there are attacks, negotiations will be meaningless. When the attacks stop, we will think about it.”

The long and short of it is, Iran said they'd come to the table if Israel stopped bombing. Israel didn't stop bombing, because theirs and the US's objective is regime change. Israel because they fear Iran and their ME influence, and the US because of oil. And this is all dressed up nicely in an Iraq style WMD present 🎁

I doubt it, not without Israeli/US help. The Iranian army is fucking massive, the people wouldn't dare rise up against it. The only way would be military coup, and that is likely to be worse than what we have now.

It's coming...and if you hate the regime that much surely that's what you want?

Probably could have got them, hiding out in Pakistan, because Muslims.

But you're not getting what it is about. It's about attacking a sovereign nation based on that. We've had this before with Iraq, and we were lied to, by far more trustworthy politicians than we have now, and it created fucking havoc. Why are we doing it again?

I also wouldn't allow Donald Trump, Netanyahu, Vlad Putin, Kim Jong Un, Zardari or Modi have them, and yet...

Ah, but Sunni Muslims. The same as in Pakistan.

Fine, I don't think they would use them, if they were developing them, not enough that it justified attacking a sovereign country. That was a really long winded way to have this debate.

I'm sorry, but who's staying they're not? And who's siding with Iran? What were trying to understand is why Hypo thinks they shouldn't have nuclear weapons. We're also told this isn't about regime change.

Ah, but you're also not saying they will use them, because that would be insane. I thought this was a binary choice?

But you don't think they'll use them anyway, because that would be an insane thing to say, so it's not really an issue.

Oh, ok, I didn't realise there was a hypo league table of nuclear use probabilities. I must have missed that on the BBC Verify page. So with that in mind, you think they're more likely than anyone else in the world to use them, or just everyone who has them? And why are they higher than countries like Pakistan?

To be fair, it's actually quite nice to have a debate on here without insults being thrown about, so yay, go us!

He's tying himself up in knots here. I think we should give him some time to untie himself and actually decide what his opinion is.

Why? It would have stopped Russia invading Ukraine. Or preferably, no-one has one.

It's like arguing with the fucking riddler. So in that case what is the issue with them having one? Won't they just be like Pakistan?

Yes, probably.

So, would it be a better comparison to compare them to Pakistan? Sunni Muslims. When did they last use a nuclear weapon, or hand one off to a terrorist?