Iran

[whelk]

9 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Bet all those ex-pats in Dubai aren't worried about their inheritance tax now...

Trapped but at least the have plenty of shopping malls

[Lighthouse]

15 minutes ago, egg said:

You were waffling as per so it wasn't easy to see the wood for the trees. Thanks for clarifying. If the Iranians strike a school, I assume you'll give them the same benefit of the doubt. 

There was no waffle, my point was exactly as I described it. Iranian weapons I would bet my house on being less sophisticated and advanced than American and Israeli ones, so as such I’d say an incident like this is, if anything, more likely to happen. Yes I would give them the benefit of the doubt in saying that, given choice, 100% of weapons fired would hit an Israeli or American military target.

4 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Bet all those ex-pats in Dubai aren't worried about their inheritance tax now...

A friend who works in the Middle East sent me a video a couple of hours ago and holy f**k, neither side is playing around.

[whelk]

1 hour ago, egg said:

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? 

You seem to be incredibly biased from the start. We are witnessing from afar so won’t know anything for definite but you seem to have made your mind up

Edited 10 hours ago by whelk

[egg]

15 minutes ago, whelk said:

You seem to be incredibly biased from the start. We are witnessing from afar so won’t know anything for definite but you seem to have made your mind up

Biased, no, just not so naive as to believe that the US are protecting it's interests and/or acting in the interests of the Iranian people. It staggers me that people buy that nonsense. The US and Israel together, in this mood, make the world a more dangerous place than Iran do imo. Other views are available. 

[egg]

19 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

There was no waffle, my point was exactly as I described it. Iranian weapons I would bet my house on being less sophisticated and advanced than American and Israeli ones, so as such I’d say an incident like this is, if anything, more likely to happen. Yes I would give them the benefit of the doubt in saying that, given choice, 100% of weapons fired would hit an Israeli or American military target.

A friend who works in the Middle East sent me a video a couple of hours ago and holy f**k, neither side is playing around.

Oh, you weren't clear in saying that this was Iranian fire in your view. Blimey. So no chance it was Israeli, whether deliberately or inadvertently? 

[Lighthouse]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Oh, you weren't clear in saying that this was Iranian fire in your view. Blimey. So no chance it was Israeli, whether deliberately or inadvertently? 

What in the blue f**k are you talking about? You literally just asked me what my opinion would be if the Iranians struck a school, I told you, and now you're pretending we're talking about the original incident.

[badgerx16]

57 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I think Israel needs to change there code for their missiles from "target = schools" to "target <> schools".

Just editted the targetting instructions from 'Palestinians' to 'Iranians'.

[egg]

47 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

What in the blue f**k are you talking about? You literally just asked me what my opinion would be if the Iranians struck a school, I told you, and now you're pretending we're talking about the original incident.

You're an angry chap mate. Calm it. You're clear in your own head only. 

[badgerx16]

I don't necessarily think the IDF deliberately target civilians, but I suspect they can't be arsed to put any effort into avoiding them.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

You're an angry chap mate. Calm it. You're clear in your own head only. 

It was very clear what he meant. No need for the gaslighting.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

I don't necessarily think the IDF deliberately target civilians, but I suspect they can't be arsed to put any effort into avoiding them.

That may well be true.

[Sir Ralph]

3 hours ago, egg said:

Biased, no, just not so naive as to believe that the US are protecting it's interests and/or acting in the interests of the Iranian people. It staggers me that people buy that nonsense. The US and Israel together, in this mood, make the world a more dangerous place than Iran do imo. Other views are available. 

As a westerner, I will be glad if this actions works out and the Iranian government is removed from power. Most Iranians will also be glad, even if you were correct that the US was solely acting in its own interests (which I don’t agree is the case). Thats the funny thing, I suspect most Iranians would disagree with the statement you made above ironically and they are the ones most impacted! The US and Israelis don’t appear to have motive for targeting the civilian population anyway it’s the government they want to remove. The want the population to rise up against the government so killing the same people would be a bit of a bad idea
 

Unfortunately with these types of military actions there are casualties which shouldn’t be diminished but there is a greater good that will be achieved if the military action is successful. As a westerner I’m sure you’re not saying that the military action and removal of the Iranian government is a bad thing in the round

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Lighthouse]

Anyway...

Surely there's no backing out of this now, from either side. Iran have gone for the Armageddon option and basically retaliated against everyone in the region. UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, Bahrain, Iraq and Qatar have all copped a few today and I can't imagine they're too pleased about it, US bases or otherwise.

[Farmer Saint]

Sounds like the Supreme Leader is smashing his virgins in the sky...

[egg]

11 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

As a westerner, I will be glad if this actions works out and the Iranian government is removed from power. Most Iranians will also be glad, even if you were correct that the US was solely acting in its own interests. Thats the funny thing, I suspect most Iranians would disagree with the statement you made above ironically and they are the ones most impacted!
 

Unfortunately with these types of military actions there are casualties but there is a greater good that will be achieved if the military action is successful. As a westerner I’m sure you’re not saying that the military action and removal of the Iranian government is a bad thing.

I think it's fair to say that neither of us know how the average Iranian feels, or what they want. They probably want this regime gone, but not, I suspect, at the expense of foreign (US) interference and/or instability. 

Would I prefer to see the Iranian regime replaced, absolutely, but we've seen time and time before how it goes when the US enforce regime change. There'll be al sorts of fallout and instability - look at Libya and Iraq as examples. 

In short, there shouldn't be enforced regime change in this way. There also shouldn't have been killings of kids, and the indiscriminate response from Iran. There's also a sad irony of the military being used to do this being under the control of two appalling leaders who lead pretty messed up regimes. 

The wider picture is why Israel and the US want a compliant Iran. Whilst they want to be safe at the hands of the proxies, understandably, another way of putting that is that they don't want any armed opposition to the IDF. If the Iranian regime are toppled and Iran weakened, which seems likely, I'd bet you a pound to a penny that Israel's expansion will go up a notch. 

[Sheaf Saint]

Drone attack on a residential building in Bahrain, just a few km from where my brother lives...

 

 

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, egg said:

I think it's fair to say that neither of us know how the average Iranian feels, or what they want. They probably want this regime gone, but not, I suspect, at the expense of foreign (US) interference and/or instability. 

Would I prefer to see the Iranian regime replaced, absolutely, but we've seen time and time before how it goes when the US enforce regime change. There'll be al sorts of fallout and instability - look at Libya and Iraq as examples. 

In short, there shouldn't be enforced regime change in this way. There also shouldn't have been killings of kids, and the indiscriminate response from Iran. There's also a sad irony of the military being used to do this being under the control of two appalling leaders who lead pretty messed up regimes. 

The wider picture is why Israel and the US want a compliant Iran. Whilst they want to be safe at the hands of the proxies, understandably, another way of putting that is that they don't want any armed opposition to the IDF. If the Iranian regime are toppled and Iran weakened, which seems likely, I'd bet you a pound to a penny that Israel's expansion will go up a notch. 

What way should the regime be changed? Bearing in mind the context that thousands were recently slaughtered for attempting to protest against the regime. 

Edited 6 hours ago by hypochondriac

[hypochondriac]

21 minutes ago, egg said:

I think it's fair to say that neither of us know how the average Iranian feels, or what they want. They probably want this regime gone, but not, I suspect, at the expense of foreign (US) interference and/or instability. 

Would I prefer to see the Iranian regime replaced, absolutely, but we've seen time and time before how it goes when the US enforce regime change. There'll be al sorts of fallout and instability - look at Libya and Iraq as examples. 

In short, there shouldn't be enforced regime change in this way. There also shouldn't have been killings of kids, and the indiscriminate response from Iran. There's also a sad irony of the military being used to do this being under the control of two appalling leaders who lead pretty messed up regimes. 

The wider picture is why Israel and the US want a compliant Iran. Whilst they want to be safe at the hands of the proxies, understandably, another way of putting that is that they don't want any armed opposition to the IDF. If the Iranian regime are toppled and Iran weakened, which seems likely, I'd bet you a pound to a penny that Israel's expansion will go up a notch. 

Edit: double post.

Edited 6 hours ago by hypochondriac

[AlexLaw76]

Let’s hope the regime are with the great prophet 

 

[Lighthouse]

17 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Drone attack on a residential building in Bahrain, just a few km from where my brother lives...

 

 

The video from the Fairmont on Palm Jumeirah was quite chilling, I went there for dinner and drinks on West Palm Beach with some mates last time I was out there. It seems weird seeing a Shahed drone smacking into the side of it.

[Colinjb]

Iran disputing the death of the Supreme Leader.

So, who is lying more effectively? 

[egg]

14 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What way should the regime be changed? Bearing in mind the context that thousands were recently slaughtered for attempting to protest against the regime. 

It's not for countries to enforce regime change on others. When has it ended well after US meddling? Would the average Iraqi or Libyan prefer what they had pre western enforced change, or what they've had since? How did it go on Afghanistan? Years of war, displacements, etc, and back where they started. I bet they're dead grateful for that. 

[Sir Ralph]

47 minutes ago, egg said:

I think it's fair to say that neither of us know how the average Iranian feels, or what they want. They probably want this regime gone, but not, I suspect, at the expense of foreign (US) interference and/or instability. 

Would I prefer to see the Iranian regime replaced, absolutely, but we've seen time and time before how it goes when the US enforce regime change. There'll be al sorts of fallout and instability - look at Libya and Iraq as examples. 

In short, there shouldn't be enforced regime change in this way. There also shouldn't have been killings of kids, and the indiscriminate response from Iran. There's also a sad irony of the military being used to do this being under the control of two appalling leaders who lead pretty messed up regimes. 

The wider picture is why Israel and the US want a compliant Iran. Whilst they want to be safe at the hands of the proxies, understandably, another way of putting that is that they don't want any armed opposition to the IDF. If the Iranian regime are toppled and Iran weakened, which seems likely, I'd bet you a pound to a penny that Israel's expansion will go up a notch. 

Im sure there are some that want the regime to stay but based on the uprisings and the subsequent killings it appears that most people want the government to go. Whilst theoretically regime change by the population would be ideal that’s not realistic. The only way this happens is US / Israeli involvement which is what is happening. I’d be surprised if they didn’t need military on foot achieve the objective though. The revolutionary guard ain’t going to go easily I imagine. If the regime fails I suspect they won’t be the most popular fellows so they have a lot to lose.

Whilst regime change hasn’t been successful elsewhere, the context of some of that interference is different. In this case it appears that the majority of the population want change. I can see the difference with Iran but time will tell

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Would the average Iraqi or Libyan prefer what they had pre western enforced change, or what they've had since?

Iraqi - Since. No question. Saddam was bad enough but Uday was one of the most sick, twisted, depraved psychopaths ever to walk to Earth. A country run by that monster would simply not be worth living in.

[Baird of the land]

The 20th Century lack of commitment to regime change is the problem. So yeah as much as i'd be happy to see Iranian regime fall, i can't summon up much hope for this effort by the US and Israel.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Iraqi - Since. No question. Saddam was bad enough but Uday was one of the most sick, twisted, depraved psychopaths ever to walk to Earth. A country run by that monster would simply not be worth living in.

Our friends at ChatGPT are between us: 

"Many Iraqis are relieved that Saddam Hussein is gone, especially groups that suffered most under his regime. But widespread disappointment with instability, corruption, and violence after 2003 means that satisfaction with how things turned out is far from universal".

In short, regime change hasn't gone down a storm. 

[Sir Ralph]

 

1 minute ago, egg said:

Our friends at ChatGPT are between us: 

"Many Iraqis are relieved that Saddam Hussein is gone, especially groups that suffered most under his regime. But widespread disappointment with instability, corruption, and violence after 2003 means that satisfaction with how things turned out is far from universal".

In short, regime change hasn't gone down a storm. 

The reasons for removing saddam were weapons of mass destruction and I don’t recall there being uprising against him in advance. The Iranian population seems ready to get rid of the current regime and this is one of the reasons for removing them. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

The reasons for removing saddam were weapons of mass destruction and I don’t recall there being uprising against him in advance. The Iranian population seems ready to get rid of the current regime and this is one of the reasons for removing them. 

The point is the instability etc post regime change. I doubt Iranians will want the instability that other Muslim countries have suffered, and US / Israeli interference. 

[Sir Ralph]

What a fanny....is he vying for the role of the new Leader of the Islamic Republic. If this wally is allowed anywhere near Government, we are properly, properly screwed. 

Meanwhile Zack Polanski, leader of the Greens, dubbed the attack 'illegal' and 'unprovoked'.

He wrote: 'This is an illegal, unprovoked and brutal attack that shows once again that the USA and Israel are rogue states. 

'The UK must end our cosy relationship with the USA and our ongoing support for Israel.'

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

The point is the instability etc post regime change. I doubt Iranians will want the instability that other Muslim countries have suffered, and US / Israeli interference. 

I agree but my point is that the instability maybe lessened if the population wants change anyway, rather than resisting the change.

[ChrisPY]

52 minutes ago, Colinjb said:

Iran disputing the death of the Supreme Leader.

So, who is lying more effectively? 

The one with the speaking leader?

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

It's not for countries to enforce regime change on others. When has it ended well after US meddling? 

WW2 went okay from what I've read.

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, egg said:

It's not for countries to enforce regime change on others. When has it ended well after US meddling? Would the average Iraqi or Libyan prefer what they had pre western enforced change, or what they've had since? How did it go on Afghanistan? Years of war, displacements, etc, and back where they started. I bet they're dead grateful for that. 

My father in laws parents were killed by Saddam. He would have taken what came after him 100%. The country is not great now but much much better than it was under Saddam.

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Colinjb said:

Iran disputing the death of the Supreme Leader.

So, who is lying more effectively? 

The problem we have now with the rise of AI is that the Iranian regime could produce a totally convincing video to 'prove' that the Ayatollah is still alive.

[Baird of the land]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

What a fanny....is he vying for the role of the new Leader of the Islamic Republic. If this wally is allowed anywhere near Government, we are properly, properly screwed. 

Meanwhile Zack Polanski, leader of the Greens, dubbed the attack 'illegal' and 'unprovoked'.

He wrote: 'This is an illegal, unprovoked and brutal attack that shows once again that the USA and Israel are rogue states. 

'The UK must end our cosy relationship with the USA and our ongoing support for Israel.'

Should have just stuck to trying to making women’s breasts bigger with the power of his kind.

[whelk]

2 hours ago, Colinjb said:

Iran disputing the death of the Supreme Leader.

So, who is lying more effectively? 

At the possibility of sounding racist these ayatollahs all look the bloody same

[egg]

53 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

WW2 went okay from what I've read.

Took a while, with a few casualties.  

[hypochondriac]

Looks like the Iranian supreme leader is dead. Good.

[Saint86]

3 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Drone attack on a residential building in Bahrain, just a few km from where my brother lives...

 

 

Reminds me of the nazis, they're going down and they just want to see the world burn - the more they can take down the better 😕

Edited 3 hours ago by Saint86

[LGTL]

Looks like the Burj Al Arab and the International Airport have been hit in Dubai, albeit without too much damage. 

[Saint86]

3 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

He wrote: 'This is an illegal, unprovoked and brutal attack that shows once again that the USA and Israel are rogue states. 

'The UK must end our cosy relationship with the USA and our ongoing support for Israel.'

The state of that man - can't believe i am seeing any mainstream UK party leader picking sides with the Iranian regime over the UK's allies. He has truly swallowed the crazy pills if this is his outlook. You have Iranians all over the world begging the USA to save the people from the regime ffs, videos getting out of civilians rejoicing and laughing at Khamenei's compound being hit, and its a regime that has just butchered 40,000 of their own people in a month, with millions more living under one of the most oppressive regimes in the world... But I guess he has voters to keep happy 

Edited 2 hours ago by Saint86

[Sarnia Cherie]

4 hours ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Drone attack on a residential building in Bahrain, just a few km from where my brother lives...

 

You must be so worried. I hope he's ok.