egg

Sounds like someone who's been persuaded that Iran are the aggressor and that the west have played with a straight bat. Also known as an idiot.

Err, but Trump dropped the bombs mate. You do realise that enrichment doesn't = building a nuke and that having a nuke doesn't = using a nuke?

Ha! No denying what's happened though Benji. The west have always wanted a compliant Iran and that began in 1953. The Iranians didn't like that hence the revolution. Western meddling, as always, has caused all sorts of issues.

That debut was something else. Not sure I've witnessed a more inept performance. And that includes the infamous one.

How was the plum duff?

I saw this earlier and thought it was well written. My only comment to add relates to the language being used, and the trust it puts on the reality. Trumps words re Iran giving up - they've been attacked! "The American President Donald Trump has confirmed airstrikes on three locations inside Iran early in the morning today , following a week before Israeli attacks on Iran that killed Iranian scientists , officials, and their families, including women children . In response, Iran has retaliated an act that comes under UNO law of self-defense According to the UN Charter, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against another sovereign state, except in self-defense (Article 51) or with UN Security Council authorisation. The U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran were neither defensive (in the legal sense) nor authorised, making them violations of international law. Iran, in contrast, may invoke its right to self-defense if attacked. Importantly, this is not the first time America has violated Iranian sovereignty. From the 1953 CIA-backed coup to the assassination of General Soleimani in 2020, Iran has faced decades of covert and overt aggression. This fits into a broader pattern of U.S. foreign policy: Iraq (2003), Libya (2011), Syria, Afghanistan, and other cases where Washington used military force without UN approval often with devastating consequences there is a full list on which Western public and media becomes blind and purposely put under the carpet and hide the facts. Western mainstream media contributes to this double standard. It portrays the U.S. and Israeli military actions as defensive or strategic, while labelling similar actions by adversaries like Iran or Russia as aggressive and unlawful. This bias shapes public opinion and shields powerful countries from accountability. The hypocrisy is stark. The same nations that condemn Russia for violating Ukraine’s sovereignty routinely violate the sovereignty of others without legal justification. If international law is applied selectively, its legitimacy collapses. If can not uphold the rule of law by violating it whenever it suits one's interests. If Iran’s retaliation is proportional and in response to an armed attack, it falls within its legal rights under the UN Charter. To condemn it while excusing the illegal strikes that provoked it is not justice it’s moral and legal inconsistency. If the world truly desires peace and stability, it must commit to universal application of international law, uphold UN authority, and reject the use of force as a tool of convenience for powerful states. Without this, international order becomes little more than a tool of the strong against the weak. It is another black day of history ,humanity is suffering . In the last 80 years, America has attacked 26 countries, leaving behind a trail of destruction and millions of lives lost. And now, with its actions toward Iran, that number threatens to rise to 27. Despite this long and deadly history, Western media continues to paint Iran is a threat to thy world, while turning a blind eye to the far greater violence carried out by the U.S. and its ally, Israel alone committed genocide in Gaza, The hypocrisy is staggering. The double standards are not just unfair they are dangerous. How long will the world ignore who the real threat or aggressors are? I pray for the peace, justice, and stability in the world equally for everyone". Doubtless several on here will disagree with the above, but facts is facts.

Jeez. The mind boggles.

The little EU/Iran meeting was a proper waste of time. At least we can rely on our journalists to make us relevant.

Seemed utterly pointless at the time, and so it proved. Yes. Absolute class. Injury free, he'd have been a superstar.

An attempt to show that the UK can actually change something in the conflict?

Yep, now he's persuaded Gabbard to say what he wants her to say, he'll crack on. Enrichment has all of a sudden become bomb building.

In the camper somewhere in Wiltshire. On top of a hill. The breeze is making it quite pleasant. Thought you had storms up north?

The white collar makes it look crap imo. With a round collar on that, it'd look half decent.

I get that, but until the safeguards are nailed down and offer proper safeguards, I can't get behind this. I've watched people die slow painful deaths and I can understand the call for people in their positions to have the option to end their pain with dignity. The risks of people being talked into "choosing" to die before they actually want to is very real though, and I'd want to understand the detail as to how genuine consent is examined, and the extent to which any panel (it should be a Judge - we have the court of protection, the family court, and the health section of the HESC tribunal) can be satisfied that the consent is genuine, and that dying is in the best interests of the individual. It's a very tough subject, and I genuinely don't have any issue with people supporting it.

What's your views on vapour trails from planes Nic? Do you believe they're something more?

The highlighted part is my primary issue. Asking the question is one thing, properly inquiring is another. I hope all of us acknowledge that there will be occasions where people are assisted in their decision, and that some people giving said assistance will be not always have selfless motives.

I understood your point. - it was daft and disrespectful. There are good reasons why the bill is opposed, and those issues should be the focus, not the kind of nonsense in your post. Hopefully the HOL will make amends that address the actual issues.

That's daft, disrespectful, and misses the reason why many people are opposed to this by a country mile.

Aye. I'm a tad surprised. I'd hated to have to have voted on that. I feel for any medic having to get involved in the process.

Sometimes I wonder if you're an MLG alt login.

An analogy by it's very nature isn't literal.

Quite. Israel claims are deemed the truth. Everyone else's aren't. Regardless, bombing hospital's if hostages are there, and patients, seems a somewhat odd tactic.

Policies Reform UK - Reform UK https://share.google/12Tzkq28rTh2kxReN Much of it is in there. Pages 4, 7 and 21 are a start.

Indeed, I disagree. They've said they're targeting Hamas ops (military targets) in hospitals. Iran say that they targeted military targets. Both reprehensible.

Can anyone explain on what basis Israel can justify saying that Khomeini "cannot exist" after Iran hit a hospital, given thay they have smashed up pretty much every hospital in Gaza? It's a mad world.