egg

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.

People are talking as if families or communities being pushed into voting the same way is a new thing. Mining families would have told their own to vote labour, and that they'd be out of the door if they voted for Maggie. I've had someone tell me recently that I'm a nonce sympathiser and apparently want his daughter raped because I don't support reform or agree with flags on lamps - impressionable kids will be hearing that message in homes, pubs, building sites, wherever.

Indeed. I don't agree with any organised religions. All are flawed, and divisive. It's staggering though that people refuse to accept that in a world where racism, anti Semitism, and the like, are recognised as a thing, that they refuse to acknowledge the existence of an anti muslim equivalent, and focus on the word attributed to. Odd.

You raised the sectarianism not me! The alleged sectarianism referenced Islamaphobia. Commenting on your previously expressed views on that issue is entirely appropriate. As I've said, I'll engage with you no more, but waste your time having the last word if that makes your morning.

I think the term is poor, but if there's racism, anti-Semitism, etc, it must follow that there's an anti Muslim equivalent. What it's called is irrelevant, but it's a thing, and it exists.

Me pointing out your views is not silliness, and if you find that uncomfortable, that's not my issue. There's a discussion going on, and I'll engage with you no further.

Don't deflect from your ignorance of, and possible support for, Islamaphobia.

Yep. Division with weed and incense is still division.

The Greens want to legalise E's so no drama that some of us throw a random E in.

Because the 'sectarianism' you are complaining about referenced ending 'islamaphobia', something you dispute as being an actual thing. I would have preferred Labour too fwiw. The Greens ain't my cup of herbal tea at all.

It tells us that the lurch to Reform isn't as strong as opinion polls suggest, and it also tells us that when it counts (voting) the public are more sensible than the opinion polls suggest. We were led to believe that this was bloody close, but in the event, it wasn't.