egg

Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya give a flavour of what the US leave behind mate. Sad carry on.

Some of us don't share your view that the Israeli regime are decent humans mate. What's your view - Iranian BS, friendly fire, or something else?

Of course, but I'm in no doubt this was a deliberate hit by the IDF. There'll be some excuse that people will buy.

So friendly fire? FFS.

This has nothing to do with improving things for the Iranian people. They'll endure death, destruction, displacement and instability. Regime change only gives a subservient state who'll be powerless to react to whatever Israel get up to in Gaza, West bank (Inc inevitable US approved annexation), Lebanon, and wherever else they want to meddle.

Who are smart, and in this case, demonstrably callous.

With their precision, are you suggesting it was potentially inadvertent? 51 kids dead now.

More kids targeted by Israel, and in pre emptive strikes that weren't actually pre emptive. Doubtless someone will suggest an IRGC bloke was seen in the vicinity. "Number of students killed in Israeli attack on school in southern Iran rises to 24 We have reported earlier that an Israeli strike hit an elementary girl’s school in Minab, a city in the Hormozgan province of southern Iran, killing five people. Now, Iran’s Fars news agency is reporting that the number of students killed rose to 24".

Either way, it's a shocking attempt at justifying this, and rather ignores the US supply and support of Israel. The bottom line re the latest aggression is that the pretext of protecting the US is utter bollox.

George Galloway of all people talking sense. Trump wouldn't take yes for an answer is a great line. "Israel has launched an attack on Iran. Air raid sirens are wailing throughout Israel. All is unclear at this stage except this: once again US negotiations were a low-down trick. Nothing the Iranians could have done would have avoided war. Trump wouldn’t take yes for an answer. This is a lesson to all who still have faith in negotiations with the USA. In this lawless world political power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Trump’s words are not his bond they are merely more lies. George Galloway In Exile"

What do you believe they want? Nuclear, no way, but the mediatior said pre attack that they had agreed to get rid of their enriched uranium and break it down to fuel. What else should they give up? How do you think it would play out if things stayed as they were, but with uranium removed from the equation?

Of course, nor Israeli dominance. It's about peace. Fancy Iran moving it's country within range of those US bases which are all there just for peaceful purposes. I'm going to keep repeating that Iran was peaceful, democratic and prosperous until the US and the UK decided it shouldn't be any more. Whatever angle people have on this conflict, the fact is that Iran is the only middle eastern/arabic nation of note that hasn't either been smashed up or coerced into being an ally, so taking it down at some point was inevitable. My only surprise is that it's taken so long.

If SoG posted similar you'd be laughing it off. On subject, as much as many Iranians want regime change, none will want their military deterrent decimated and/or for them to suffer an Iraq esque downfall. People shouldn't kid themselves that the US and Israel want Iran to be a free and prosperous nation - people forget that it was before the US and Britain meddled years ago essentially creating what they now oppose.

What's that got to do with the US and Israel not being peacemakers? The middle east is all about Israel and US hegemony, you know that.

The attack was always going to happen with ever changing US/Israel goalpost shifting. Don't make Israel and US out to be the peacemakers.

Negotiations ongoing, Iran had conceded all of it's uranium stockpile as per Oman's mediator bloke, Israel then strikes saying that the date had been decided weeks ago. That doesn't suggest any desire on the US/Israeli part to have peace, or it suggests that Israel were concerned about the prospect of a deal so did it's thing.

You talk like voter persuasion is a new thing, and limited to brown people. That's bollox.

We're doing a little campervan trip at whit from Dunkirk. Was looking for an option not too far from Amsterdam, and Utrecht may fit the bill.

It is. Communities and individuals feel discriminated against. Why you feel the need to focus on the word to describe that discrimination I don't know. They could call bollockism for all I care, it's the issue that matters, not the title. Genuinely, I'll leave this here because it's absolutely pointless doing this with you.

I'm not going down a pointless rabbit hole of a conflation of the term and the interpretation of it. As Sheaf has said, your points can be attributed to anti Semitism - example, people who speak out against the conduct of the IDF/Israeli government are deemed anti Semitic, which is bollox. It was obvious what the propaganda issued in this by election meant, and it does you no favours to dismiss it by focus on the word used, rather than addressing the issue behind it.

They only have to read the Israel thread mate.

Do you believe there discrimination of Muslims based on them being Muslims? It's a yes or no answer kind of question. If yes, what name should be attributed to that?

Emergency

Quite. Hypo's allegiances are clear. In his world anti semitism is rife, but Islamaphobia isn't even a thing. Both exist, and anyone who only believes one or neither exists, or focuses on the terminology as reason to dismiss, needs to give their head a wobble.

Behave. The word is irrelevant, and you are over analysing it. The point remains - and I'll raise it because you have - that the sectarianism you raised included a request that people vote against Islamaphobia. Sensible people understand what is meant by Islamaphobia, and the moral compass of anyone who refuse to acknowledge that anti muslim ism (for want of a better phrase ) is a thing, doesn't point in the right direction. The title is absolutely irrelevant to most people, but the issue behind the titie does matter. If people are to be discouraged from voting along racial, cultural, or religious lines, any objection should be universal, not targeted as per the commentary on this thread.