egg Posted June 20 Author Posted June 20 1 hour ago, hypochondriac said: If I were surrounded by 5 houses that didn't want me as a neighbour, instead of setting fire to all 5 houses and plead innocence, I'd just move house. Explain to me how that is supposed to work with Israel? Sometimes I wonder if you're an MLG alt login.
Farmer Saint Posted June 20 Posted June 20 2 hours ago, hypochondriac said: If I were surrounded by 5 houses that didn't want me as a neighbour, instead of setting fire to all 5 houses and plead innocence, I'd just move house. Explain to me how that is supposed to work with Israel? I'm sure the US would take them. They're planning to do the same with the Palestinian's, but the Palestinian's really don't seem to be the issue in all this...
iansums Posted June 20 Posted June 20 23 hours ago, whelk said: Israel clearly don’t fuck around and overly care about collateral damage but estimated Palestinian deaths are 57k and of those thought to be 11-13k Hamas fighters. Population of Gaza Strip is 2.1million. So as barbaric as some of the IDF tactics seem if they were just wilfully wanting to kill hospital patients and innocents those casualties would be massively higher. As genocides go, it’s a pretty poor effort
benjii Posted June 21 Posted June 21 US B2 bombers heading to Diego Garcia (it seems). I'd say US strike on Iran tomorrow or Monday is quite likely. 1
egg Posted June 21 Author Posted June 21 2 hours ago, benjii said: US B2 bombers heading to Diego Garcia (it seems). I'd say US strike on Iran tomorrow or Monday is quite likely. 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. 1
whelk Posted June 22 Posted June 22 (edited) Not the most important issue but why are UK reporters now saying Irarrnians not Iraynians? Edited June 22 by whelk
egg Posted June 22 Author Posted June 22 29 minutes ago, whelk said: Not the most important issue but why are UK reporters now saying Irarrnians not Iraynians? An attempt to show that the UK can actually change something in the conflict? 3
whelk Posted June 22 Posted June 22 5 minutes ago, egg said: An attempt to show that the UK can actually change something in the conflict? Yeah quite funny how Uk news keep talking about our influence. We are not significant. And definitely no influence over the anti-war US president 1
egg Posted June 22 Author Posted June 22 1 minute ago, whelk said: Yeah quite funny how Uk news keep talking about our influence. We are not significant. And definitely no influence over the anti-war US president The little EU/Iran meeting was a proper waste of time. At least we can rely on our journalists to make us relevant. 1
Weston Super Saint Posted June 22 Posted June 22 13 minutes ago, whelk said: Yeah quite funny how Uk news keep talking about our influence. We are not significant. And definitely no influence over the anti-war US president Not according to the Russians! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr30jx6x0vo Quote At the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, a Russian MP came up to me. "Are you going to bomb Iran?" he asked. "I'm not planning to bomb anyone!" I replied. "I mean you, the British…" "Don't you mean Donald Trump?" "He's told what to do by Britain," the man smiled. "And by the deep state." 2
whelk Posted June 22 Posted June 22 7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: Not according to the Russians! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr30jx6x0vo Well obviously the ultimate decision is passed down from Bill Gates 2
egg Posted June 22 Author Posted June 22 14 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said: Not according to the Russians! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdr30jx6x0vo Jeez. The mind boggles.
Gloucester Saint Posted June 22 Posted June 22 2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said: He did it... 🤯 Very risky not only internationally but domestically for his coalition. The isolationist faction, and it is a large faction, won’t support this and if Iran or more like it’s proxies start attacking US facilities and citizens, he’s heading straight down the road of George W Bush.
egg Posted June 22 Author Posted June 22 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. 1
benjii Posted June 22 Posted June 22 27 minutes ago, egg said: 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. Sounds like it was written by a 16 year old. Meanwhile…. Vladimir Putin tells a news conference in St Petersburg ‘I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours… There is an old rule: Where a Russian soldier sets foot, that is ours.’ 1
whelk Posted June 22 Posted June 22 41 minutes ago, egg said: Doubtless several on here will disagree with the above, but facts is facts. I do
egg Posted June 22 Author Posted June 22 17 minutes ago, benjii said: Sounds like it was written by a 16 year old. Meanwhile…. Vladimir Putin tells a news conference in St Petersburg ‘I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours… There is an old rule: Where a Russian soldier sets foot, that is ours.’ 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.
benjii Posted June 22 Posted June 22 27 minutes ago, egg said: 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. Absolutely, Iraq war being right up there and Blair / Campbell, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld have a disastrous legacy, even if they won't admit it. BUT... that doesn't render every intervention wrong.
egg Posted June 22 Author Posted June 22 4 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said: More lies here huh. https://ibb.co/TqnXsdmZ 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? 1
hypochondriac Posted June 22 Posted June 22 1 hour ago, whelk said: I do Sounds like the ramblings of someone who would welcome Iran getting their hands on nukes because it will promote peace. Also known as a lunatic.
egg Posted June 22 Author Posted June 22 5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: Sounds like the ramblings of someone who would welcome Iran getting their hands on nukes because it will promote peace. Also known as a lunatic. 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. 1
whelk Posted June 22 Posted June 22 1 minute ago, egg said: 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. Do you know much about Iran?
egg Posted June 22 Author Posted June 22 4 minutes ago, whelk said: Do you know much about Iran? I suspect no less than you. Tell me what you know that I don't justifies what's just happened, and what makes you believe that Iran were actually building a nuke. However you cut it, there was no evidence that Iran were not complying with the JCPOA before Trump abrogated the agreement. 1
whelk Posted June 22 Posted June 22 7 minutes ago, egg said: I suspect no less than you. Tell me what you know that I don't justifies what's just happened, and what makes you believe that Iran were actually building a nuke. However you cut it, there was no evidence that Iran were not complying with the JCPOA before Trump abrogated the agreement. Couldn’t resist
whelk Posted June 22 Posted June 22 8 minutes ago, egg said: I suspect no less than you. Tell me what you know that I don't justifies what's just happened, and what makes you believe that Iran were actually building a nuke. However you cut it, there was no evidence that Iran were not complying with the JCPOA before Trump abrogated the agreement. I don’t know much but do know it’s a tyrannical regime supports Russia and various Islamic proxies and want to wipe Israel out completely. And they have zero time for any western liberal values and oppress their population and is a police state. So a regime I detest. I actually have no idea about the status of their nuclear program and we could easily be being mislead. I have no time for Trump but stop implying Iran are an ok country being victimised, they are not. They are weak at the mo thanks to Israel’s aggression and taking advantage when their retaliation is limited is not necessarily a bad thing. 1
benjii Posted June 22 Posted June 22 1 hour ago, egg said: I suspect no less than you. Tell me what you know that I don't justifies what's just happened, and what makes you believe that Iran were actually building a nuke. However you cut it, there was no evidence that Iran were not complying with the JCPOA before Trump abrogated the agreement. There's literally no reason to enrich uranium to that level other than to build a nuke. It has no other purpose. 3
benjii Posted June 22 Posted June 22 54 minutes ago, whelk said: I don’t know much but do know it’s a tyrannical regime supports Russia and various Islamic proxies and want to wipe Israel out completely. And they have zero time for any western liberal values and oppress their population and is a police state. So a regime I detest. I actually have no idea about the status of their nuclear program and we could easily be being mislead. I have no time for Trump but stop implying Iran are an ok country being victimised, they are not. They are weak at the mo thanks to Israel’s aggression and taking advantage when their retaliation is limited is not necessarily a bad thing. Quite. Their idiot Hamas stooges have rapidly precipitated, directly or indirectly, the degrading of Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and the demise of Assad. They are unpopular at home. Plus Putin is busy and China aren't stupid. They have been sponsoring attacks against the West for decades. They have massively weakened themselves and the "nuclear deterant" was their last big hope. They've spent huge amounts on enriching uranium far beyond what is needed for an civil nuclear program. 4
benjii Posted June 22 Posted June 22 (edited) https://www.eurasiantimes.com/first-freight-train-from-china-wheels-into-iran/?amp China will be keeping a close eye on this, though. Their lack of energy independence is what currently restrains them in the Pacific. Edited June 22 by benjii 1
hypochondriac Posted June 22 Posted June 22 (edited) 4 hours ago, benjii said: Sounds like it was written by a 16 year old. Meanwhile…. Vladimir Putin tells a news conference in St Petersburg ‘I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours… There is an old rule: Where a Russian soldier sets foot, that is ours.’ "The irresponsible decision to subject the territory of a sovereign state to missile and bomb attacks, whatever the arguments it may be presented with, flagrantly violates international law” Sounds like only a minority on here (thankfully!) agree with this statement. Edited June 22 by hypochondriac
Farmer Saint Posted June 22 Posted June 22 A clever and evil man manipulates a stupid and evil man to bomb an evil regime. I hope they all kill each other with minimal collateral damage, although we all know that won't happen. 3
benjii Posted June 22 Posted June 22 38 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: "The irresponsible decision to subject the territory of a sovereign state to missile and bomb attacks, whatever the arguments it may be presented with, flagrantly violates international law” Sounds like only a minority on here (thankfully!) agree with this statement. It's clearly in violation of international law, but international law seems to have died over the last few years anyway. 2
egg Posted June 22 Author Posted June 22 3 hours ago, whelk said: I don’t know much but do know it’s a tyrannical regime supports Russia and various Islamic proxies and want to wipe Israel out completely. And they have zero time for any western liberal values and oppress their population and is a police state. So a regime I detest. I actually have no idea about the status of their nuclear program and we could easily be being mislead. I have no time for Trump but stop implying Iran are an ok country being victimised, they are not. They are weak at the mo thanks to Israel’s aggression and taking advantage when their retaliation is limited is not necessarily a bad thing. Ok country, no, but the scourge of the middle east, no. They were parties to the JCPOA and there was no evidence that they breached their agreement, thus they were complying with their nuclear agreements and not building a nuke. There wouldn't be an Iran to oppose if Israeli action in the West Bank and Gaza hadn't been tolerated for so long, and the west hadn't undermined them leading to this regime. The west are dealing with western created problems in western ways, but, if there was enriched uranium way above energy levels, and no willingness to roll back to appropriate levels, then they were a problem. However, if it's the case (which it seems to be) that the US were insisting on no enrichment whatsoever, then it's hard to understand the US position and it appears that Iran were being set up to fail. I'd like to know what the true position was re the Iran/US stance on enrichment. 2 1
hypochondriac Posted June 22 Posted June 22 23 minutes ago, egg said: Ok country, no, but the scourge of the middle east, no. They were parties to the JCPOA and there was no evidence that they breached their agreement, thus they were complying with their nuclear agreements and not building a nuke. There wouldn't be an Iran to oppose if Israeli action in the West Bank and Gaza hadn't been tolerated for so long, and the west hadn't undermined them leading to this regime. The west are dealing with western created problems in western ways, but, if there was enriched uranium way above energy levels, and no willingness to roll back to appropriate levels, then they were a problem. However, if it's the case (which it seems to be) that the US were insisting on no enrichment whatsoever, then it's hard to understand the US position and it appears that Iran were being set up to fail. I'd like to know what the true position was re the Iran/US stance on enrichment. Why do you think Iran enriched uranium to that level in the first place?
Farmer Saint Posted June 22 Posted June 22 2 hours ago, hypochondriac said: Why do you think Iran enriched uranium to that level in the first place? As a deterrent to protect themselves from Israeli and Western aggression. 1
hypochondriac Posted June 22 Posted June 22 35 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said: As a deterrent to protect themselves from Israeli and Western aggression. How does enriching uranium to that extent provide that?
Mixedkebab Posted June 22 Posted June 22 7 hours ago, Farmer Saint said: A clever and evil man manipulates a stupid and evil man to bomb an evil regime. I hope they all kill each other with minimal collateral damage, although we all know that won't happen. Hey I don’t know, hey maybe it will happen hey? If we can get all these evil guys to stand in a desert pointing guns at each other hey, like in that Clint Eastwood movie?? Hey, then maybe they will wipe each other out and peace can be achieved!
Farmer Saint Posted June 23 Posted June 23 (edited) 10 hours ago, hypochondriac said: How does enriching uranium to that extent provide that? The same way other countries have a nuclear deterrent. They're still a step or two behind. It's tongue in cheek anyway, I don't want them to have a nuclear presence, but to me this is feeling more and more like Iraq. Edited June 23 by Farmer Saint
hypochondriac Posted June 23 Posted June 23 1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said: The same way other countries have a nuclear deterrent. They're still a step or two behind. It's tongue in cheek anyway, I don't want them to have a nuclear presence, but to me this is feeling more and more like Iraq. Except that the wmd stuff was invented. Iran actually has the enriched uranium which is a clear attempt to make nukes so it's not the same at all. 1
Farmer Saint Posted June 23 Posted June 23 (edited) 19 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: Except that the wmd stuff was invented. Iran actually has the enriched uranium which is a clear attempt to make nukes so it's not the same at all. Well, we're told they do. Either way, they don't have the weapons yet, do they? Edited June 23 by Farmer Saint
benjii Posted June 23 Posted June 23 40 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said: Well, we're told they do. Either way, they don't have the weapons yet, do they? Let's wait until they do? The concern isn't that they build a great big WWII nuke and drop it on Israel, the concern is that they develop a small, briefcase nuke of sorts, and give it to Al Qaeda or one of their offshoots. 3
hypochondriac Posted June 23 Posted June 23 43 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said: Well, we're told they do. Either way, they don't have the weapons yet, do they? They were clearly along the path towards a nuclear bomb. If you don't want them to get one at what point is it acceptable to intervene? 2
Farmer Saint Posted June 23 Posted June 23 (edited) 4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said: They were clearly along the path towards a nuclear bomb. If you don't want them to get one at what point is it acceptable to intervene? I think we should only intervene with diplomatic solutions unless we have proof of what is happening. I think the main issue is I struggle to agree with what's happening considering Trump and Netanyahu are behind this. But then I guess Hitler probably had some policies that would be agreeable to reasonable people. Edited June 23 by Farmer Saint 1
Farmer Saint Posted June 23 Posted June 23 7 minutes ago, benjii said: Let's wait until they do? The concern isn't that they build a great big WWII nuke and drop it on Israel, the concern is that they develop a small, briefcase nuke of sorts, and give it to Al Qaeda or one of their offshoots. Don't Pakistan have nukes though?
Weston Super Saint Posted June 23 Posted June 23 28 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said: Don't Pakistan have nukes though? Yes. But they don't want roughly half of the Western world to not exist. 1
leesaint88 Posted June 23 Posted June 23 (edited) 23 hours ago, egg said: 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. I'm not 100% sure on that - Some years ago I worked with a number of Iranians who once in a position to speak freely, they certainly didn't care much for the regime and the women were even more critical of them. Many watch western TV shows and news (at the time they could access the BBC world service) they wished the country was more open and liberal. Whilst they don't want to be trapped by the west, they know that with the vast wealth in Iran they could easily become a super state in the gulf with western investment. Edited June 23 by leesaint88 3
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now