Israel

[hypochondriac]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

Depends on your outlook, and what propaganda you swallow.

Iran are no more likely to use a nuke in anger than any other nuclear power imo. They want a deterrent as per North Korea. Pakistan and India will never go toe to toe on large scale due to their mutual nuclear threat. The same would apply re Israel and Iran, but the last god knows many years have been about building Israel (and to an extent Saudi) as the only real strength in the middle east, and bringing down any threat to that. You've only got to see the clear run that Israel now have to Iran, with the Iraqi airspace patrolled by the US.

As Farmer says, regime change in Israel is much more necessary than Iran. 

The less nukes in the world the better. The less nukes in the world in the hands of Islamist extremists who hate my country and culture also good. The method of achieving that is not necessarily a good thing and may lead to very bad consequences. No one in the West should be happy with Iran having nukes and they will have known that they wouldn't be allowed to have them. 

[benjii]

7 minutes ago, egg said:

I just don't see that given the inevitable consequences - Iran and it's people would be destroyed. Wanting Israel to not exist, but nuking it, are different things. I think the perceived Iranian threat has been instilled so much over so long that people see it as more than it is imo. The damage in that region is and has been caused by allowing the Israeli regime to do wtf they like with impunity for 50+ years, not from those opposing that conduct. 

Yeah, it would be a crazy act for anyone to use it, but we cant live in a world where non-state actors like Hezbollah / Houthis / Shia militia in Iraq potentially have access to a nuclear bomb. Nothing stopping them trafficking on to Al Qaeda, other extremists groups and the like.

That's, if you excuse the blunt metaphor, a ticking time bomb. 

Edited yesterday at 07:28 by benjii

[benjii]

What is quite interesting is Iran's apparent complete inability to defend itself from this attack even though everyone knew it was coming.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, benjii said:

What is quite interesting is Iran's apparent complete inability to defend itself from this attack even though everyone knew it was coming.

I suspect the October strikes weakened them big time. 

[Farmer Saint]

12 minutes ago, benjii said:

What is quite interesting is Iran's apparent complete inability to defend itself from this attack even though everyone knew it was coming.

Their air defences were fucked last year by the Israeli's.

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, benjii said:

So, the Iran nuclear attacks have happened. This has always really been a question not of "if", but "when". 

US denying any involvement or support. 

Big question now is whether Iran's response is limited to attacks on Israel or whether things kick off in other countries.

Meanwhile, the issues in LA have dropped way down the pecking order in the news cycles  

[whelk]

30 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Meanwhile, the issues in LA have dropped way down the pecking order in the news cycles  

I wouldn’t be surprised if Starmer hasn’t been pushing for this to distract from economic growth figures.

[whelk]

You got to respect Israel’s intelligence to be able to take out 3 of Iran’s top military commanders.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, egg said:

The damage in that region is and has been caused by allowing the Israeli regime to do wtf they like with impunity for 50+ years, not from those opposing that conduct

Take it you’d rather live in Iran than Israel then?

[hypochondriac]

13 minutes ago, whelk said:

Take it you’d rather live in Iran than Israel then?

Clearly. Almost certifiable to suggest that the damage in the region is solely down to Israel. I wonder if Mahsa Amini might have something to say about how evil Israel was really responsible for her death, Not a surprise that some posters on here would think that though!

Edited yesterday at 08:54 by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, whelk said:

You got to respect Israel’s intelligence to be able to take out 3 of Iran’s top military commanders.

Indeed and with that pager operation from last year they really are the best in the world at this sort of thing. You could argue they've had a lot of practice.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, benjii said:

What is quite interesting is Iran's apparent complete inability to defend itself from this attack even though everyone knew it was coming.

It may actually moderate Iran's response if they know their air defences are fucked and are effectively sitting ducks. 

[egg]

9 minutes ago, whelk said:

Take it you’d rather live in Iran than Israel then?

As a citizen, Israel would offer more, but that's got zero relevance to the behaviour of the Israeli leadership. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

It may actually moderate Iran's response if they know their air defences are fucked and are effectively sitting ducks. 

On that we agree. The path across Iraq and Syria leaves them exposed geographically. Throw in the likely decimation of air defences and air force last year, the lack of Syrian air support, and the US owning Iraqi airspace, and they are very much a wounded animal. 

[egg]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Clearly. Almost certifiable to suggest that the damage in the reason is solely down to Israel. I wonder if Mahsa Amini might have something to say about how evil Israel was really responsible for her death, Not a surprise that some posters on here would think that though!

That's stupid even by your standards. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

On that we agree. The path across Iraq and Syria leaves them exposed geographically. Throw in the likely decimation of air defences and air force last year, the lack of Syrian air support, and the US owning Iraqi airspace, and they are very much a wounded animal. 

But you're cool with someone like that having nuclear weapons because you don't like the opponent?

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

That's stupid even by your standards. 

Not wanting extremist Islamist regimes to possess nukes and being happy if they are prevented from having them is swallowing propaganda according to you. I wouldn't be so quick to call others stupid. 

[egg]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

But you're cool with someone like that having nuclear weapons because you don't like the opponent?

Like what? They have a questionable domestic policy, and a loathing for Israel, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that they'd nuke Israel only to face decimation. 

No nation has used a nuke in over 80 years. That's only because those they'd want to harm have nukes. We all know that. 

We were told forever that North Korea having nukes would be devastating. That's proven to be bollox. They want to be left alone, and militarily they will be, although financially they won't be as they've not done as they're told. 

[egg]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Not wanting extremist Islamist regimes to possess nukes and being happy if they are prevented from having them is swallowing propaganda according to you. I wouldn't be so quick to call others stupid. 

That wasn't what I replied to. It was your nonsensical mention of Iranian domestic policy and the killing of an Iranian woman in the context of the wider dispute and nukes. It was stupid. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

Like what? They have a questionable domestic policy, and a loathing for Israel, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that they'd nuke Israel only to face decimation. 

No nation has used a nuke in over 80 years. That's only because those they'd want to harm have nukes. We all know that. 

We were told forever that North Korea having nukes would be devastating. That's proven to be bollox. They want to be left alone, and militarily they will be, although financially they won't be as they've not done as they're told. 

What does any of that have to do with being OK with them having nuclear weapons? I'm supportive of there being less world ending weapons in the world generally as there is then less chance of someone taking the wrong decision one time, accidentally causing a disaster or some rogue agent getting their hands on one and firing one off in the name of Allah to prove a point. 

If we take your point to its logical conclusion, should we be OK with every nation on Earth having a few nuclear weapons each? Clearly that's going to make the chance of something awful happening much higher, particularly when religion is involved. Are you seriously suggesting that you'd be OK with any nation that wants nuclear weapons from having them with the logic being that no one was fired one yet?

[Lighthouse]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

As a citizen, Israel would offer more, but that's got zero relevance to the behaviour of the Israeli leadership. 

That's just mental gymnastics to avoid the fact that the Iranian leadership has a long history of brutal oppression of its own people which, although a conservative country, they don't have in Israel. The Iranian leadership has persistently gone to a lot of effort to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible, either through missile strikes or propping up other militia in the area?

As awful as many of Israel's actions have been, I'd much rather see Iran's government topled.

[hypochondriac]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

That wasn't what I replied to. It was your nonsensical mention of Iranian domestic policy and the killing of an Iranian woman in the context of the wider dispute and nukes. It was stupid. 

Laying the blame entirely at the feet of Israel for the damage in the region is either the most stupid thing I've seen written on this thread or is just masking something a lot uglier. Either that or you're just saying ridiculous things to provoke reactions. 

Edited yesterday at 09:16 by hypochondriac

[egg]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

That's just mental gymnastics to avoid the fact that the Iranian leadership has a long history of brutal oppression of its own people which, although a conservative country, they don't have in Israel. The Iranian leadership has persistently gone to a lot of effort to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible, either through missile strikes or propping up other militia in the area?

As awful as many of Israel's actions have been, I'd much rather see Iran's government topled.

However you cut it, as a (western) person, it's obvious that Israel would be a better place to live. However, their government is barbaric, and I don't much like the Iranian domestic policies either. Re governments, we still, imo, come back to much of these issues being solved if the Israelis stop their Zionist approach, and facilitate a 2 state solution, but that ship has well and truly sailed. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Laying the blame entirely at the feet of Israel for the damage in the region is either the most stupid thing I've seen written on this thread or is just masking something a lot uglier. Either that or you're just saying ridiculous things to provoke reactions. 

I think you interpret what you read and hear, whether here or elsewhere, to suit your narrative. The depth and extent of thus issue is lost on you. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

I think you interpret what you read and hear, whether here or elsewhere, to suit your narrative. The depth and extent of thus issue is lost on you. 

"The damage in that region is and has been caused by allowing the Israeli regime to do wtf they like with impunity for 50+ years" 

 

Nothing to do with with anything I have read or heard elsewhere. I'm challenging you on what you actually said in your own words. In light of these and similar statements, it's absolutely incredible that you would accuse others of bias. No one else on here that I have seen have made similar statements to that or that they would be OK with Iran getting some nukes and that they wouldn't be an issue if Israel just cooperated. Quite astonishing statements to make. 

[skintsaint]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Their air defences were fucked last year by the Israeli's.

Plus the Mossad teams in Iran deploying ATGMs shooting up the Iranian air defence too before last nights attack.

[egg]

18 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What does any of that have to do with being OK with them having nuclear weapons? I'm supportive of there being less world ending weapons in the world generally as there is then less chance of someone taking the wrong decision one time, accidentally causing a disaster or some rogue agent getting their hands on one and firing one off in the name of Allah to prove a point. 

If we take your point to its logical conclusion, should we be OK with every nation on Earth having a few nuclear weapons each? Clearly that's going to make the chance of something awful happening much higher, particularly when religion is involved. Are you seriously suggesting that you'd be OK with any nation that wants nuclear weapons from having them with the logic being that no one was fired one yet?

I'm not sure you've thought through why nuclear armed states have become nuclear armed. Since WW2, it's been for a direct threat and then deterrence purposes. India and Pakistan is much more stable with the them both having equality of arms. Sure, you'd like them to live in eternal peace nuclear free, but one is nuked so understandable that the other is and serious war between them is about as likely as war between the US and Russia, and that's for one reason only. 

Edited yesterday at 09:31 by egg

[hypochondriac]

Just now, egg said:

I'm not sure you've thought through why nuclear armed states have become nuclear armed. It's always been, since WW2, to match a direct threat and for deterrence purposes. India and Pakistan is much more stable with the them both having equality of arms. Sure, you'd like them to live in eternal peace nuclear free, but one is nuked so understandable that the other is and serious war between them is about as likely as war between the US and Russia, and that's for one reason only. 

I don't want nuclear armed and unstable extremist Islamist regimes with mad religious ideas who can oppress their own people with impunity free from any chance of being removed because they got world ending weapons. If the roles were reversed, would you be happy with Israel getting nukes to counter Iranian nukes? Would there ever be a number of countries with nukes where you would think there may be a few too many?

[egg]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

"The damage in that region is and has been caused by allowing the Israeli regime to do wtf they like with impunity for 50+ years" 

 

Nothing to do with with anything I have read or heard elsewhere. I'm challenging you on what you actually said in your own words. In light of these and similar statements, it's absolutely incredible that you would accuse others of bias. No one else on here that I have seen have made similar statements to that or that they would be OK with Iran getting some nukes and that they wouldn't be an issue if Israel just cooperated. Quite astonishing statements to make. 

Are you comfortable with a nuclear armed Israel having a clear path to a weakened Iran? Do you think that the chances of Israel using a nuke against Iran would be reduced or increased by Iran having a nuclear deterrent? I know that you can't accept Israel as an aggressor, but they are. 

[egg]

2 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I don't want nuclear armed and unstable extremist Islamist regimes with mad religious ideas who can oppress their own people with impunity free from any chance of being removed because they got world ending weapons. If the roles were reversed, would you be happy with Israel getting nukes to counter Iranian nukes? Would there ever be a number of countries with nukes where you would think there may be a few too many?

Ah ok, so the white people can have them, but not the brown Muslims. Gotcha. 

And yes, if Iran were nuked up, then absolutely, Israel ought to have a nuclear deterrent but they've got nukes anyway so it's a pointless question. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Are you comfortable with a nuclear armed Israel having a clear path to a weakened Iran? Do you think that the chances of Israel using a nuke against Iran would be reduced or increased by Iran having a nuclear deterrent? I know that you can't accept Israel as an aggressor, but they are. 

Firstly that has nothing at all to do with my post. Secondly I'd rather no one had nuclear weapons but I'm happiest if no one else has any more. The rest of your post was covered in my subsequent questions so I will await your reply on that. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

Ah ok, so the white people can have them, but not the brown Muslims. Gotcha. 

And yes, if Iran were nuked up, then absolutely, Israel ought to have a nuclear deterrent but they've got nukes anyway so it's a pointless question. 

Absolutely bizarre, particularly because Mulsim isn't a race. I would prefer that no one had nuclear weapons but it's the most mad logic to think that because one group has a load of apocalyptic world ending weapons that the best thing to do would be to get loads more for everyone. 

It's the logic that second amendment fans use that the best way to keep Americans safe is for everyone to get more and more guns. Eventually the number of guns go up and up and strangely the risk from guns goes up as well. 

You didn't answer my question either. Is there a number of countries where you think we should stop regarding nuclear weapons? If Iran should have the right then should it also be the right of every single country on Earth? 

Edited yesterday at 09:41 by hypochondriac

[egg]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Firstly that has nothing at all to do with my post. Secondly I'd rather no one had nuclear weapons but I'm happiest if no one else has any more. The rest of your post was covered in my subsequent questions so I will await your reply on that. 

Poor swerve. Please answer:

Are you comfortable with a nuclear armed Israel having a clear path to a weakened Iran? Do you think that the chances of Israel using a nuke against Iran would be reduced or increased by Iran having a nuclear deterrent? I know that you can't accept Israel as an aggressor, but they are

[egg]

3 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Absolutely bizarre, particularly because Mulsim isn't a race. I would prefer that no one had nuclear weapons but it's the most mad logic to think that because one group has a load of apocalyptic world ending weapons that the best thing to do would be to get loads more for everyone. 

It's the logic that second amendment fans use that the best way to keep Americans safe is for everyone to get more and more guns. Eventually the number of guns go up and up and strangely the risk from guns goes up as well. 

No, but the Islamists you mention probably are Muslim. Ditto teh Iranians. 

Feck me. 

Edited yesterday at 09:43 by egg

[Lighthouse]

Iran would be much more inclined to launch nuclear weapons at Israel than vice versa.

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

Poor swerve. Please answer:

Are you comfortable with a nuclear armed Israel having a clear path to a weakened Iran? Do you think that the chances of Israel using a nuke against Iran would be reduced or increased by Iran having a nuclear deterrent? I know that you can't accept Israel as an aggressor, but they are

I don't consider it likely that either side will use nuclear weapons at this point but I'd consider Iran more likely to than Israel if they had the capability. What I do know is that increasing the amount of nuclear weapons for any country will increase the likelihood that they will be used- either by a rogue country or others. I don't want nuclear weapons to be used by any country and I would support in general nuclear weapons being reduced globally.  I don't know what you mean by "Israel having a clear path to a weakened Iran." The Iranian regime is a despicable one that oppresses it's people- particularly women and minorities- and if there is regime change in the future then I would cross my fingers that there is able to be someone in charge who can return Iran at least in part to what they had a few decades ago before this fundamentalist poison. I haven't seen any evidence that Israel is seeking to conquer Iran. 

Edited 23 hours ago by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

No, but the Islamists you mention probably are Muslim. Ditto teh Iranians. 

Feck me. 

You're the one who mentioned brown skin for some reason, not me- as if the colour of their skin has any bearing on my opposition to them having nuclear weapons. 

[egg]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Iran would be much more inclined to launch nuclear weapons at Israel than vice versa.

And that belief (stated as a fact, which it isn't) is at the centre of the populist belief on here. Which military has shown themselves to be more aggressive towards civilians and other nations? There's a clear winner. 

[egg]

6 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

You're the one who mentioned brown skin for some reason, not me- as if the colour of their skin has any bearing on my opposition to them having nuclear weapons. 

There aren't many white Islamists mate. You know what you meant. It's what you always mean. 

[hypochondriac]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

There aren't many white Islamists mate. You know what you meant. It's what you always mean. 

This is why your responses are generally worthy only of derision and contempt. Imagine the wailing you'd be doing if I said the only reason you hate Israel is because you hate Jews. You're better off not engaging with me if your replies are as pathetic as that. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, egg said:

However you cut it, as a (western) person, it's obvious that Israel would be a better place to live. However, their government is barbaric, and I don't much like the Iranian domestic policies either. Re governments, we still, imo, come back to much of these issues being solved if the Israelis stop their Zionist approach, and facilitate a 2 state solution, but that ship has well and truly sailed. 

Do you think Israel just disappear people? I am no fan of Netanyahu but it is still a democracy

[egg]

22 minutes ago, whelk said:

Do you think Israel just disappear people? I am no fan of Netanyahu but it is still a democracy

We could debate the bad parts of each regime all day and probably disagree at the end! However, their domestic policy, as bad as it is, is exactly that. This discussion is mostly about Israel and it's policies in Gaza, and now it's foreign policies into the wider region. If there's a suggestion that the west should seek to impose regime change on other countries and states just because we don't like it, we absolutely shouldn't. 

[skintsaint]

Old orange face has waded in:

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, skintsaint said:

Old orange face has waded in:

Jesus fucking Christ. Someone take him out already.

[revolution saint]

1 hour ago, skintsaint said:

Old orange face has waded in:

Nike adverts are getting a bit extreme now.

[tdmickey3]

1 hour ago, skintsaint said:

Old orange face has waded in:

Someone will be along shortly to defend that disgusting shit.... 

[Farmer Saint]

More strikes, this time going for a nuclear plant...

[skintsaint]

50 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

More strikes, this time going for a nuclear plant...

Iran hitting Tel Aviv.

#fistfightstarted

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, skintsaint said:

Iran hitting Tel Aviv.

#fistfightstarted

It feels very David Vs Goliath (in more ways than one) except David has a missile launcher.

[whelk]

Imagine if there was social media in WW2