FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Uk officially in on the Iran war
Uk officially in on the Iran war
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will allow US to use bases to strike Iranian missile sites. Starmer couldn’t resist it. " I don't recall there being a referendum on this, or anyone asking me personally. . And I'd say the same thing regardless of which government was currently in charge. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will allow US to use bases to strike Iranian missile sites. Starmer couldn’t resist it. I don't recall there being a referendum on this, or anyone asking me personally. . And I'd say the same thing regardless of which government was currently in charge." With which specific actions, that the UK (Keir Starmer) has indicated that it will take in relation to this war, do you disagree? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will allow US to use bases to strike Iranian missile sites. Starmer couldn’t resist it. " Which is what should have done from the start, yet another u turn by 2TK, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will allow US to use bases to strike Iranian missile sites. Starmer couldn’t resist it. I don't recall there being a referendum on this, or anyone asking me personally. . And I'd say the same thing regardless of which government was currently in charge. With which specific actions, that the UK (Keir Starmer) has indicated that it will take in relation to this war, do you disagree?" I’d probably have stayed well away since it’s a clear and obvious breach of the UN charter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the US attacks are illegal why is KC Starmer actively involving the UK in attacks on Iranian bases. " Because something something special relationship | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmers potentially bringing the prospect of more terror attacks to the Uk with this intervention Will they outlaw protests? " Islamic nut jobs need no excuse to attack us. 'Ndiaga Diagne, the man from Senegal who carried out the Austin, Texas mass shooting today, killing at least three and injuring 14 others, was active on social media. He ranted about "islamophobes" and zionists.' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will allow US to use bases to strike Iranian missile sites. Starmer couldn’t resist it. I don't recall there being a referendum on this, or anyone asking me personally. . And I'd say the same thing regardless of which government was currently in charge. With which specific actions, that the UK (Keir Starmer) has indicated that it will take in relation to this war, do you disagree?" . I'd want to see if the United Nations Security Council authorises force under Chapter VII, then: . -UK assistance would also be lawful in this context. . For all we know, the UNSC might rule that US strikes would likely violate Article 2(4) and if they do, the UK could also be in breach for aiding or assisting an unlawful use of force. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We’ll be expecting and welcoming Iranian refugees, of course. " Why would they come here ? They're to get away from Islamic extremists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK will allow US to use bases to strike Iranian missile sites. Starmer couldn’t resist it. Which is what should have done from the start, yet another u turn by 2TK, " I don’t see why we need to get involved in attacking Iran. Trump has made it clear what he thinks of his current European “allies” so we can let him handle this one. Realpolitik suggests we should offer support to any nation that is attacked by Iran but we don’t need to get sucked into a land invasion. Let the Americans put boots on the ground. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Remember when one of the main selling points of the right was that it was the democrats who were always getting into wars and Trump was the peacemaker? Lmao " Big difference between invading countries and putting boots on the ground, on the back of fake stories of weapons of mass destruction not never existed... I'm all for targeted strikes against despots and drug lord Presidents. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We’ll be expecting and welcoming Iranian refugees, of course. " Yes the Refugee Convention is the core UN treaty, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This is now when we need to start worrying about all those many thousands of illegal undocumented foreign men of fighting age who have entered the UK and currently whereabouts unknown or enjoying the hospitality of the UK taxpayers, whome we know nothing about!" I don’t think Iran has been secretly sending soldiers in under the guise of asylum seekers in order that they can turn on their hosts when the USA and Isreal illegally attack them at some undefined point in the future. I might wrong, like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is now when we need to start worrying about all those many thousands of illegal undocumented foreign men of fighting age who have entered the UK and currently whereabouts unknown or enjoying the hospitality of the UK taxpayers, whome we know nothing about!" It's seems unlikely that Iran have managed to smuggle a crack guerrilla squad into the UK over the years in the vague hope that America might start a war at some point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We’ll be expecting and welcoming Iranian refugees, of course. " At a time of conflict, it would be unwise to allow infiltrators into the country. Iran sympathisers have already attacked an RAF base. Bombs are just as easy to sneak in as paint. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We’ll be expecting and welcoming Iranian refugees, of course. At a time of conflict, it would be unwise to allow infiltrators into the country. Iran sympathisers have already attacked an RAF base. Bombs are just as easy to sneak in as paint. " Not sure what the refugee convention says about that, tbf. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We’ll be expecting and welcoming Iranian refugees, of course. At a time of conflict, it would be unwise to allow infiltrators into the country. Iran sympathisers have already attacked an RAF base. Bombs are just as easy to sneak in as paint. Not sure what the refugee convention says about that, tbf. " I have this vision of you standing in the street next to a mass murderer who’s already killed 100,000 people, he trips over and drops his gun at your feet, you pick it up and he says “hey that’s mine” as he pulls out a new clip of bullets to shoot the crying children begging at his feet for their lives. Their mothers begging you to help them. And you think to yourself, “well he’s right, it is his gun” as you hand it back to him. He then kills the kids, their mothers and of course you. You die happy thinking you did the right thing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We’ll be expecting and welcoming Iranian refugees, of course. At a time of conflict, it would be unwise to allow infiltrators into the country. Iran sympathisers have already attacked an RAF base. Bombs are just as easy to sneak in as paint. Not sure what the refugee convention says about that, tbf. I have this vision of you standing in the street next to a mass murderer who’s already killed 100,000 people, he trips over and drops his gun at your feet, you pick it up and he says “hey that’s mine” as he pulls out a new clip of bullets to shoot the crying children begging at his feet for their lives. Their mothers begging you to help them. And you think to yourself, “well he’s right, it is his gun” as you hand it back to him. He then kills the kids, their mothers and of course you. You die happy thinking you did the right thing. " That’s….quite an imagination you have. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Remember when one of the main selling points of the right was that it was the democrats who were always getting into wars and Trump was the peacemaker? Lmao Big difference between invading countries and putting boots on the ground, on the back of fake stories of weapons of mass destruction not never existed... I'm all for targeted strikes against despots and drug lord Presidents." Oh good for you, guess those 105 school girls and their families can vouch for the difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We’ll be expecting and welcoming Iranian refugees, of course. At a time of conflict, it would be unwise to allow infiltrators into the country. Iran sympathisers have already attacked an RAF base. Bombs are just as easy to sneak in as paint. Not sure what the refugee convention says about that, tbf. I have this vision of you standing in the street next to a mass murderer who’s already killed 100,000 people, he trips over and drops his gun at your feet, you pick it up and he says “hey that’s mine” as he pulls out a new clip of bullets to shoot the crying children begging at his feet for their lives. Their mothers begging you to help them. And you think to yourself, “well he’s right, it is his gun” as you hand it back to him. He then kills the kids, their mothers and of course you. You die happy thinking you did the right thing. " 
How very odd..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is now when we need to start worrying about all those many thousands of illegal undocumented foreign men of fighting age who have entered the UK and currently whereabouts unknown or enjoying the hospitality of the UK taxpayers, whome we know nothing about! It's seems unlikely that Iran have managed to smuggle a crack guerrilla squad into the UK over the years in the vague hope that America might start a war at some point" Unlikely yes, possible also yes. But more likely to be jihadist fighter's committing terrorism. And we can't ignore that this hasn't happened before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is now when we need to start worrying about all those many thousands of illegal undocumented foreign men of fighting age who have entered the UK and currently whereabouts unknown or enjoying the hospitality of the UK taxpayers, whome we know nothing about! It's seems unlikely that Iran have managed to smuggle a crack guerrilla squad into the UK over the years in the vague hope that America might start a war at some point Unlikely yes, possible also yes. But more likely to be jihadist fighter's committing terrorism. And we can't ignore that this hasn't happened before. " If we’re relying on history, then terrorists are far more likely to have been born here than sneaking in disguised as refugees | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK joins the evil side again. Disgusting waste of our taxes. All for Zionism, which actually has nukes. All you have to do is hear what Israel says publicly. Or look at the map on soldiers arm badges of the greater Israel including lots of Egypt etc. Pure evil rules the world " Shalom! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK joins the evil side again. Disgusting waste of our taxes. All for Zionism, which actually has nukes. All you have to do is hear what Israel says publicly. Or look at the map on soldiers arm badges of the greater Israel including lots of Egypt etc. Pure evil rules the world " And when hasn't the world been ruled by evil? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK joins the evil side again. Disgusting waste of our taxes. All for Zionism, which actually has nukes. All you have to do is hear what Israel says publicly. Or look at the map on soldiers arm badges of the greater Israel including lots of Egypt etc. Pure evil rules the world " We restricted certain 'kit' and components to Israel during the Gaza phase.. There's a difference between what some are saying about the second Gulf War and our involvement in that mess and the now.. Iran are randomly launching missiles and drones at other Gulf states where there are apparently 200,000 British citizens.. We have a duty as a country to use whatever we have in the region to try and intercept what Iran are sending.. If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK joins the evil side again. Disgusting waste of our taxes. All for Zionism, which actually has nukes. All you have to do is hear what Israel says publicly. Or look at the map on soldiers arm badges of the greater Israel including lots of Egypt etc. Pure evil rules the world And when hasn't the world been ruled by evil?" Ever the optimist you 🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem?" So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK joins the evil side again. Disgusting waste of our taxes. All for Zionism, which actually has nukes. All you have to do is hear what Israel says publicly. Or look at the map on soldiers arm badges of the greater Israel including lots of Egypt etc. Pure evil rules the world And when hasn't the world been ruled by evil? Ever the optimist you 🤣" Well i hear Genghis Khan was a barrel of laughs and a really nice guy 
Same with the Romans, but I'm not sure what they have ever done for us | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? " New Labour sent 400 British service personnel to their fate in Iraq. Starmer should know better than getting involved again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? New Labour sent 400 British service personnel to their fate in Iraq. Starmer should know better than getting involved again. " Hard agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? " Im not 'comfortable' with many things nationally and globally that occur daily but my sphere of influence is limited with most of them.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hope Starmer knows what he’s doing, Uk is full of Islamic sympathisers. 46 years ago Thatcher ordered the SAS to retake the London Iranian embassy and rescue the hostages from Islamic Iranian terrorists. Labour/USA Iraq war brought three decades of Islamic terror attacks. " Go look at the voting figures, more Labour MPs voted against it than any other party, they did have a majority it's true to say.. The tory party bar 2 voted for it too, had they been in power the vote would have had the same outcome.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? New Labour sent 400 British service personnel to their fate in Iraq. Starmer should know better than getting involved again. " Two totally different situations.. Should we allow Iranian missiles and drones to hit the Gulf States with the possibility of British citizens being injured or killed or trying and intercept using air defences? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? New Labour sent 400 British service personnel to their fate in Iraq. Starmer should know better than getting involved again. Two totally different situations.. Should we allow Iranian missiles and drones to hit the Gulf States with the possibility of British citizens being injured or killed or trying and intercept using air defences? " And why are Iran attacking sites in those Gulf states? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? New Labour sent 400 British service personnel to their fate in Iraq. Starmer should know better than getting involved again. Two totally different situations.. Should we allow Iranian missiles and drones to hit the Gulf States with the possibility of British citizens being injured or killed or trying and intercept using air defences? And why are Iran attacking sites in those Gulf states? " You know full well why as I do.. How far back shall we go? Whatever the history and the now, the reality is the current situation and whether we try and do what we can with what we have in theatre to try and prevent loss of life..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? New Labour sent 400 British service personnel to their fate in Iraq. Starmer should know better than getting involved again. Two totally different situations.. Should we allow Iranian missiles and drones to hit the Gulf States with the possibility of British citizens being injured or killed or trying and intercept using air defences? And why are Iran attacking sites in those Gulf states? You know full well why as I do.. How far back shall we go? Whatever the history and the now, the reality is the current situation and whether we try and do what we can with what we have in theatre to try and prevent loss of life..? " I agree. Ceasefire should be called immediately. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hope Starmer knows what he’s doing, Uk is full of Islamic sympathisers. 46 years ago Thatcher ordered the SAS to retake the London Iranian embassy and rescue the hostages from Islamic Iranian terrorists. Labour/USA Iraq war brought three decades of Islamic terror attacks. " Islamic Terrorism has little to do with the Wests actions. It began in the Muslim world decades ago, killing many thousands in places like Algeria before spreading to the West most promotinently with 9/11, before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Whatever the West does Islamic fundamentalist will be dedicated to the destruction of Israel and exporting their ideology worldwide. Look at their actions in Nigeria at the moment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree. Ceasefire should be called immediately." What's the point of that? It sounds great (no more loss of life), but in the real world, a ceasefire would be about the worst thing for everyone. There needs some sort of conclusion, or the place remains a tinderbox. The last thing the world (and humans in the Middle East) needs is for Iran and Israel to be at each other's throats any more. The current Iranian regime does nobody any good, but also does an immense amount of bad. That bandaid needs to be ripped off. Some might argue the opposite, that Israel needs to get trounced and Iran needs to win. But a ceasefire now would lead to more loss of life and prolonged suffering, however noble the intentions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree. Ceasefire should be called immediately. What's the point of that? It sounds great (no more loss of life), but in the real world, a ceasefire would be about the worst thing for everyone. There needs some sort of conclusion, or the place remains a tinderbox. The last thing the world (and humans in the Middle East) needs is for Iran and Israel to be at each other's throats any more. The current Iranian regime does nobody any good, but also does an immense amount of bad. That bandaid needs to be ripped off. Some might argue the opposite, that Israel needs to get trounced and Iran needs to win. But a ceasefire now would lead to more loss of life and prolonged suffering, however noble the intentions." Bless. We’re creating a power vacuum in the Middle East. Again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? New Labour sent 400 British service personnel to their fate in Iraq. Starmer should know better than getting involved again. Two totally different situations.. Should we allow Iranian missiles and drones to hit the Gulf States with the possibility of British citizens being injured or killed or trying and intercept using air defences? And why are Iran attacking sites in those Gulf states? You know full well why as I do.. How far back shall we go? Whatever the history and the now, the reality is the current situation and whether we try and do what we can with what we have in theatre to try and prevent loss of life..? I agree. Ceasefire should be called immediately." Email the Iranian leadership and ask them as part of any such ceasefire they are prepared to say they no longer call for death to Israel and the USA and will stand down hezbollah.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? New Labour sent 400 British service personnel to their fate in Iraq. Starmer should know better than getting involved again. Two totally different situations.. Should we allow Iranian missiles and drones to hit the Gulf States with the possibility of British citizens being injured or killed or trying and intercept using air defences? And why are Iran attacking sites in those Gulf states? You know full well why as I do.. How far back shall we go? Whatever the history and the now, the reality is the current situation and whether we try and do what we can with what we have in theatre to try and prevent loss of life..? I agree. Ceasefire should be called immediately. Email the Iranian leadership and ask them as part of any such ceasefire they are prepared to say they no longer call for death to Israel and the USA and will stand down hezbollah.." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? New Labour sent 400 British service personnel to their fate in Iraq. Starmer should know better than getting involved again. Two totally different situations.. Should we allow Iranian missiles and drones to hit the Gulf States with the possibility of British citizens being injured or killed or trying and intercept using air defences? And why are Iran attacking sites in those Gulf states? You know full well why as I do.. How far back shall we go? Whatever the history and the now, the reality is the current situation and whether we try and do what we can with what we have in theatre to try and prevent loss of life..? I agree. Ceasefire should be called immediately. Email the Iranian leadership and ask them as part of any such ceasefire they are prepared to say they no longer call for death to Israel and the USA and will stand down hezbollah.." Imagine if it went to Junk Mail and the chance for peace was lost ! 🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? New Labour sent 400 British service personnel to their fate in Iraq. Starmer should know better than getting involved again. Two totally different situations.. Should we allow Iranian missiles and drones to hit the Gulf States with the possibility of British citizens being injured or killed or trying and intercept using air defences? And why are Iran attacking sites in those Gulf states? You know full well why as I do.. How far back shall we go? Whatever the history and the now, the reality is the current situation and whether we try and do what we can with what we have in theatre to try and prevent loss of life..? I agree. Ceasefire should be called immediately. Email the Iranian leadership and ask them as part of any such ceasefire they are prepared to say they no longer call for death to Israel and the USA and will stand down hezbollah.." I mean I’d rather we had experts negotiating this stuff - but as long as the USA and Israel are involved, that seems unlikely. Still, I’m sure negotiations will commence once enough innocent people have been killed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" If by doing so we prevent or reduce our own from being killed where's the problem? So if US and Israeli attacks are ruled illegal (likely), you’re comfortable with the UK being associated with it? New Labour sent 400 British service personnel to their fate in Iraq. Starmer should know better than getting involved again. Two totally different situations.. Should we allow Iranian missiles and drones to hit the Gulf States with the possibility of British citizens being injured or killed or trying and intercept using air defences? And why are Iran attacking sites in those Gulf states? You know full well why as I do.. How far back shall we go? Whatever the history and the now, the reality is the current situation and whether we try and do what we can with what we have in theatre to try and prevent loss of life..? I agree. Ceasefire should be called immediately. Email the Iranian leadership and ask them as part of any such ceasefire they are prepared to say they no longer call for death to Israel and the USA and will stand down hezbollah.. I mean I’d rather we had experts negotiating this stuff - but as long as the USA and Israel are involved, that seems unlikely. Still, I’m sure negotiations will commence once enough innocent people have been killed. " Complicated isn't it.. Until the orange man child is out of office its the way it is.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. " The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We’ll be expecting and welcoming Iranian refugees, of course. " As well as the Ukrainian ones if Putin gets his way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said " The UN Charter is public, yes. The intelligence assessments behind whether something qualifies as imminent self defence aren’t (at least not in full). That was more my point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Kuwait has apparently mistakenly shot down three US F15 fighter planes. All six aircrew ejected safely. Starmer, this is what you’re walking into. " Same happened to UK pilots during the Gulf War. Usually by Americans. Well, at least they're getting operational readiness testing...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Kuwait has apparently mistakenly shot down three US F15 fighter planes. All six aircrew ejected safely. Starmer, this is what you’re walking into. Same happened to UK pilots during the Gulf War. Usually by Americans. Well, at least they're getting operational readiness testing... "$300M of aircraft, must be a couple billon plus to send the strike fleet. Death toll 250-300 so far including friendly fire, fucks ups, and Lebanon Iranians have not ‘risen up’ so there’s no end plan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Death toll 250-300 so far including friendly fire, fucks ups, and Lebanon " Which death toll? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Kuwait has apparently mistakenly shot down three US F15 fighter planes. All six aircrew ejected safely. Starmer, this is what you’re walking into. Same happened to UK pilots during the Gulf War. Usually by Americans. Well, at least they're getting operational readiness testing...
$300M of aircraft, must be a couple billon plus to send the strike fleet.
Death toll 250-300 so far including friendly fire, fucks ups, and Lebanon
Iranians have not ‘risen up’ so there’s no end plan "There was no plan to start with, most likely an intelligence update sold to Trump that they and the Israelis had located where the Auatollah and some of the bad guys would be and this was the moment to strike.. And the Israelis are going to so lets join in and you Donald get the plaudits, lots of you, you saying how good you are.. Its the Donald show till they drag Vance and Hegseth out to explain why theres so many American military lost.. 'The way it is' etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the US attacks are illegal why is KC Starmer actively involving the UK in attacks on Iranian bases. " He's allowed access as a measure to defend Iranian targets kike Dubai where there are thousands of British people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Kuwait has apparently mistakenly shot down three US F15 fighter planes. All six aircrew ejected safely. Starmer, this is what you’re walking into. Same happened to UK pilots during the Gulf War. Usually by Americans. Well, at least they're getting operational readiness testing...
$300M of aircraft, must be a couple billon plus to send the strike fleet.
Death toll 250-300 so far including friendly fire, fucks ups, and Lebanon
Iranians have not ‘risen up’ so there’s no end plan "Oil is the end plan | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Kuwait has apparently mistakenly shot down three US F15 fighter planes. All six aircrew ejected safely. Starmer, this is what you’re walking into. Same happened to UK pilots during the Gulf War. Usually by Americans. Well, at least they're getting operational readiness testing...
$300M of aircraft, must be a couple billon plus to send the strike fleet.
Death toll 250-300 so far including friendly fire, fucks ups, and Lebanon
Iranians have not ‘risen up’ so there’s no end plan
There was no plan to start with, most likely an intelligence update sold to Trump that they and the Israelis had located where the Auatollah and some of the bad guys would be and this was the moment to strike..
And the Israelis are going to so lets join in and you Donald get the plaudits, lots of you, you saying how good you are..
Its the Donald show till they drag Vance and Hegseth out to explain why theres so many American military lost..
'The way it is' etc
"Trump was disgustingly blasé about the loss of life at the start of this shit show, I can’t see him or his compadre’s being remorseful anytime soon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Death toll 250-300 so far including friendly fire, fucks ups, and Lebanon Which death toll?" 3 US service personnel 20 Italian soldiers killed in Iran's attack on a NATO base in Bahrain 165 at the school bombing (stray drone) 31 in Lebanon (as of yesterday) by IDF Aljazeera says the Preliminary figures are 555 dead in Iran, at least 10 in Israel, three US soldiers and five killed in Gulf states | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Kuwait has apparently mistakenly shot down three US F15 fighter planes. All six aircrew ejected safely. Starmer, this is what you’re walking into. Same happened to UK pilots during the Gulf War. Usually by Americans. Well, at least they're getting operational readiness testing...
$300M of aircraft, must be a couple billon plus to send the strike fleet.
Death toll 250-300 so far including friendly fire, fucks ups, and Lebanon
Iranians have not ‘risen up’ so there’s no end plan
There was no plan to start with, most likely an intelligence update sold to Trump that they and the Israelis had located where the Auatollah and some of the bad guys would be and this was the moment to strike..
And the Israelis are going to so lets join in and you Donald get the plaudits, lots of you, you saying how good you are..
Its the Donald show till they drag Vance and Hegseth out to explain why theres so many American military lost..
'The way it is' etc
Trump was disgustingly blasé about the loss of life at the start of this shit show, I can’t see him or his compadre’s being remorseful anytime soon"His language and tone given the loss of lives is disgusting, coming from a President its another low in his time in office but he has previous.. That he hid behind a Doctors note when it was his turn to do his duty won't go down well across the board.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Death toll 250-300 so far including friendly fire, fucks ups, and Lebanon Which death toll? 3 US service personnel 20 Italian soldiers killed in Iran's attack on a NATO base in Bahrain 165 at the school bombing (stray drone) 31 in Lebanon (as of yesterday) by IDF Aljazeera says the Preliminary figures are 555 dead in Iran, at least 10 in Israel, three US soldiers and five killed in Gulf states " Fair. Thought you were referring to US casualties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" His language and tone given the loss of lives is disgusting, coming from a President its another low in his time in office but he has previous.. That he hid behind a Doctors note when it was his turn to do his duty won't go down well across the board.." He's very brave with other people's lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Death toll 250-300 so far including friendly fire, fucks ups, and Lebanon Which death toll? 3 US service personnel 20 Italian soldiers killed in Iran's attack on a NATO base in Bahrain 165 at the school bombing (stray drone) 31 in Lebanon (as of yesterday) by IDF Aljazeera says the Preliminary figures are 555 dead in Iran, at least 10 in Israel, three US soldiers and five killed in Gulf states " A drone won't have killed that number being claimed.. More than likely a missile.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" His language and tone given the loss of lives is disgusting, coming from a President its another low in his time in office but he has previous.. That he hid behind a Doctors note when it was his turn to do his duty won't go down well across the board.. He's very brave with other people's lives." To be fair he's no different to any other leader in that, he just happens to open his mouth lots without thinking.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is aiding Netanyahu who is wanted by ICC for war crimes " Anyone who buys produce from Israeli suppliers too.. I mean we can all make choices in the latter of course but if you think the ICC will ever do anything other than talk in relation to Netanyahu your rather mistaken.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Death toll 250-300 so far including friendly fire, fucks ups, and Lebanon Which death toll? 3 US service personnel 20 Italian soldiers killed in Iran's attack on a NATO base in Bahrain 165 at the school bombing (stray drone) 31 in Lebanon (as of yesterday) by IDF Aljazeera says the Preliminary figures are 555 dead in Iran, at least 10 in Israel, three US soldiers and five killed in Gulf states " Without doubt there are casualties but I would not be looking to Aljazeera as a source ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is aiding Netanyahu who is wanted by ICC for war crimes Anyone who buys produce from Israeli suppliers too.. I mean we can all make choices in the latter of course but if you think the ICC will ever do anything other than talk in relation to Netanyahu your rather mistaken.. " Lovely avocado from Haifa with lunch today 😋 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well it looks like the tango cunt has poked a wasps nest in someone else's back garden and he doesn't give a flying fuck who gets stung. Yes Iran needed dealt with but he shouldn't have left a bunch of lunatics with a very sizable arsenal. What a fucking shit show" On the plus side, it's heartening to see so many regular posters show their concern for Iran.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is aiding Netanyahu who is wanted by ICC for war crimes Anyone who buys produce from Israeli suppliers too.. I mean we can all make choices in the latter of course but if you think the ICC will ever do anything other than talk in relation to Netanyahu your rather mistaken.. Lovely avocado from Haifa with lunch today 😋 " Knew you were middle class.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmer is aiding Netanyahu who is wanted by ICC for war crimes Anyone who buys produce from Israeli suppliers too.. I mean we can all make choices in the latter of course but if you think the ICC will ever do anything other than talk in relation to Netanyahu your rather mistaken.. Lovely avocado from Haifa with lunch today 😋 Knew you were middle class.." Haha 🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Price of imported oil and gas to increase. If only Britain had tons of the stuff in our seas just waiting to be extracted." I think you’ll find the greens will piss on that one. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well it looks like the tango cunt has poked a wasps nest in someone else's back garden and he doesn't give a flying fuck who gets stung. Yes Iran needed dealt with but he shouldn't have left a bunch of lunatics with a very sizable arsenal. What a fucking shit show On the plus side, it's heartening to see so many regular posters show their concern for Iran. "Explain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well it looks like the tango cunt has poked a wasps nest in someone else's back garden and he doesn't give a flying fuck who gets stung. Yes Iran needed dealt with but he shouldn't have left a bunch of lunatics with a very sizable arsenal. What a fucking shit show On the plus side, it's heartening to see so many regular posters show their concern for Iran. "Indeed, some unbelievably bragged about buying in toilet roll, I'm sure the Iranian people suffering will be happy about that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well it looks like the tango cunt has poked a wasps nest in someone else's back garden and he doesn't give a flying fuck who gets stung. Yes Iran needed dealt with but he shouldn't have left a bunch of lunatics with a very sizable arsenal. What a fucking shit show On the plus side, it's heartening to see so many regular posters show their concern for Iran.
Indeed, some unbelievably bragged about buying in toilet roll, I'm sure the Iranian people suffering will be happy about that."Shit happens 🤷 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Price of imported oil and gas to increase. If only Britain had tons of the stuff in our seas just waiting to be extracted. I think you’ll find the greens will piss on that one. " Mad Ed has got there first 🤦♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well it looks like the tango cunt has poked a wasps nest in someone else's back garden and he doesn't give a flying fuck who gets stung. Yes Iran needed dealt with but he shouldn't have left a bunch of lunatics with a very sizable arsenal. What a fucking shit show On the plus side, it's heartening to see so many regular posters show their concern for Iran.
Indeed, some unbelievably bragged about buying in toilet roll, I'm sure the Iranian people suffering will be happy about that.
Shit happens 🤷"" On the plus side, it's heartening to see so many regular posters show their concern for Iran. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said " There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure if it's related. Saw some armed police in the train station I use in central London. Never seen them before. Preventive measures?" Quite normal measures, won’t be any specific threat. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Isn't it funny, how the same people who declare "resistance by any means is legitimate" (including murder and other illegal acts), "juries can acquit based upon their conscience" (i.e. ignore evidence and law and pass verdict as they please) and who try to find any loophole to frustrate immigration law... Suddenly become experts in, and sticklers for, customary international law." Exactly.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.." Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. " Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing..." The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK joins the evil side again. Disgusting waste of our taxes. All for Zionism, which actually has nukes. All you have to do is hear what Israel says publicly. Or look at the map on soldiers arm badges of the greater Israel including lots of Egypt etc. Pure evil rules the world " So the government that has murdered close on 100,000 civilians, many of them women who just wanted to walk down the street without having to wear a tent that covers their whole body except eyes in 50 degree heat, they are the good guys you’re saying? Can you please qualify this in terms we can all understand. Are you saying those innocent, unarmed civilians brought it on themselves? Or were the paramilitary troops doing them a favour putting them out of their misery? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"UK joins the evil side again. Disgusting waste of our taxes. All for Zionism, which actually has nukes. All you have to do is hear what Israel says publicly. Or look at the map on soldiers arm badges of the greater Israel including lots of Egypt etc. Pure evil rules the world So the government that has murdered close on 100,000 civilians, many of them women who just wanted to walk down the street without having to wear a tent that covers their whole body except eyes in 50 degree heat, they are the good guys you’re saying? Can you please qualify this in terms we can all understand. Are you saying those innocent, unarmed civilians brought it on themselves? Or were the paramilitary troops doing them a favour putting them out of their misery? " Ah, I thought it would be too complex for you to understand. Where there’s a bad guy, there doesn’t necessarily mean there’s an equal and opposite good guy to face them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? " Wow. That otherwise tongue in cheek exchange took a dark turn! (Not sure how that last bit followed, actually) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"‘Donald Trump said he was “very disappointed” in Keir Starmer for blocking him from using British bases to carry out strikes on Iran and that he took “far too much time” to change his mind, The Telegraph reports. The UK had previously refused to grant the US permission to conduct strikes from its bases. But Starmer changed course last night, announcing that the UK would allow the US to use British military bases to attack Iranian missile sites – after an unmanned drone had struck the RAF Akrotiri base in Cyprus’ So Starmer caved in to Trump. Not surprising. " Or.. Not taking part in what has been described initially by the UN as unlawful, ( not even a dodgy dossier, how times change eh..) but as its escalated and UK citizens and bases are under threat and have been attacked a reassessment based upon that..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. " Remember the WMD from GW ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? " If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope intelligence services find any 'sleeper' cells before they become activated." Maybe they should have sorted out the imminent threat of retaliation before going in ? Ah well it is the tangerine toddler 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? " Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? " We should suddenly start believing him?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? " We all know hes a lieing cunt, well most apart from his limited fan base here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? " he did yes but its him ..
his word is about as trustworthy and accurate as the Iranian regime at times..
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? We should suddenly start believing him? "Well that’s the conundrum he puts his supporters in, isn’t it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? We should suddenly start believing him?
Well that’s the conundrum he puts his supporters in, isn’t it? "They chose to support him, knowing full well what he is. 🤷♀️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope intelligence services find any 'sleeper' cells before they become activated. Maybe they should have sorted out the imminent threat of retaliation before going in ? Ah well it is the tangerine toddler 🤷♂️" Didn't you call for intervention weeks ago ? 🤔 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? " Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you?" He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? " This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 " Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? " Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope intelligence services find any 'sleeper' cells before they become activated. Maybe they should have sorted out the imminent threat of retaliation before going in ? Ah well it is the tangerine toddler 🤷♂️ Didn't you call for intervention weeks ago ? 🤔" Delusional again ? I'm pretty sure I said that Trump "promised" intervention weeks ago and as usual, delivered it too late after hundreds of thousands were said to have been executed and fucked it up. If I did call for trump to start a terrorist war then I apologize whole heartedly as I must have been d*unk 🤷♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm." If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.." It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Lets hope intelligence services find any 'sleeper' cells before they become activated. Maybe they should have sorted out the imminent threat of retaliation before going in ? Ah well it is the tangerine toddler 🤷♂️ Didn't you call for intervention weeks ago ? 🤔 Delusional again ? I'm pretty sure I said that Trump "promised" intervention weeks ago and as usual, delivered it too late after hundreds of thousands were said to have been executed and fucked it up. If I did call for trump to start a terrorist war then I apologize whole heartedly as I must have been d*unk 🤷♂️" I accept 🤝 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. " I didn't miss any point other than your biases. Definitely a back track...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran)" Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I didn't miss any point other than your biases. Definitely a back track... "Ah, another one on fabs who knows what other people are saying better then they do themselves | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. " I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack." And not forgetting that nuclear sites does not necessarily equal nuclear weapons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. " You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I didn't miss any point other than your biases. Definitely a back track...
Ah, another one on fabs who knows what other people are saying better then they do themselves "Just keep digging... lmao desperately back tracking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? If he has repeatedly threatened you before and during his gym going, you have choices .. After a nuke hits a city in Israel what's the choices for those at the impact point..? Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I didn't miss any point other than your biases. Definitely a back track...
Ah, another one on fabs who knows what other people are saying better then they do themselves "That's what happens when people are intellectually dishonest.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow..." Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack." Listening to the radio on the way home, one of the reasons given was that the Americans warned Iran not to start building new nuclear facilities or try to repair those which were bombed last year. They say that Iran did not heed these warnings which contributed to the decision. Of course it doesn't make it legal or illegal just one of the reasons given | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th." Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.." It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. " When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.." Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack. And not forgetting that nuclear sites does not necessarily equal nuclear weapons." Ha ha. Do you seriously believe that Iran invested in nuclear sites not for weapons? Maybe they were inspired by the Green party to go green? Unfortunately, even the Green party is against nuclear energy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack. And not forgetting that nuclear sites does not necessarily equal nuclear weapons. Ha ha. Do you seriously believe that Iran invested in nuclear sites not for weapons? Maybe they were inspired by the Green party to go green? Unfortunately, even the Green party is against nuclear energy "It’s not about what I or anyone else believes - that’s the problem with debate here. It’s about facts and what can be proven. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack. And not forgetting that nuclear sites does not necessarily equal nuclear weapons. Ha ha. Do you seriously believe that Iran invested in nuclear sites not for weapons? Maybe they were inspired by the Green party to go green? Unfortunately, even the Green party is against nuclear energy
It’s not about what I or anyone else believes - that’s the problem with debate here. It’s about facts and what can be proven. "Nothing except mathematical facts can be "proven" and even those rely on axiomatic assumptions. Every decision you make in your life has some guesswork involved. In geopolitics, the amount of guesswork is even higher. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th?" No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack. And not forgetting that nuclear sites does not necessarily equal nuclear weapons. Ha ha. Do you seriously believe that Iran invested in nuclear sites not for weapons? Maybe they were inspired by the Green party to go green? Unfortunately, even the Green party is against nuclear energy
It’s not about what I or anyone else believes - that’s the problem with debate here. It’s about facts and what can be proven.
Nothing except mathematical facts can be "proven" and even those rely on axiomatic assumptions. Every decision you make in your life has some guesswork involved. In geopolitics, the amount of guesswork is even higher. "And Bias... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reported that Mansoureh Khojaste Bagherzadeh, the wife of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, has been killed “at home”, along with Khamenei’s daughter, grandchild and son-in-law were also killed. Starmers using UK taxpayers money supporting an illegal war and now killing children. " That's some crazy logic you applied there to reach thst conclusion... and I don't even like Starmer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death??" I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack. And not forgetting that nuclear sites does not necessarily equal nuclear weapons. Ha ha. Do you seriously believe that Iran invested in nuclear sites not for weapons? Maybe they were inspired by the Green party to go green? Unfortunately, even the Green party is against nuclear energy
It’s not about what I or anyone else believes - that’s the problem with debate here. It’s about facts and what can be proven.
Nothing except mathematical facts can be "proven" and even those rely on axiomatic assumptions. Every decision you make in your life has some guesswork involved. In geopolitics, the amount of guesswork is even higher. "That’s nonsense. Lots of things can be proven - such as having a nuclear weapon capability. But in order to prove it you need evidence that it exists. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. " No I don't but the terms innocent and guilt are very binary terms. Some sides are most definitely more guilty then others... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack. And not forgetting that nuclear sites does not necessarily equal nuclear weapons. Ha ha. Do you seriously believe that Iran invested in nuclear sites not for weapons? Maybe they were inspired by the Green party to go green? Unfortunately, even the Green party is against nuclear energy "🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Reported that Mansoureh Khojaste Bagherzadeh, the wife of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, has been killed “at home”, along with Khamenei’s daughter, grandchild and son-in-law were also killed. Starmers using UK taxpayers money supporting an illegal war and now killing children. " Apart from your lack of understanding of what we are engaged in your claim doesn't pass the test of when that event took place and the above.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. No I don't but the terms innocent and guilt are very binary terms. Some sides are most definitely more guilty then others... " You just contradicted yourself. If something is binary then one can’t be more of it than another. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ha ha. Do you seriously believe that Iran invested in nuclear sites not for weapons? Maybe they were inspired by the Green party to go green? Unfortunately, even the Green party is against nuclear energy
It’s not about what I or anyone else believes - that’s the problem with debate here. It’s about facts and what can be proven. "No. It's about existential risk and making a decision before it's too late. Please don't ever run a country. For you, in the UK, it's all theoretical - it's easy to "do the right thing" when consequences are at arm's length. If you're a small group being threatened with annihilation... There are no do-overs if you get it wrong. That's why Israel always appears to be the aggressor - they cannot afford the luxury of error in this respect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Ha ha. Do you seriously believe that Iran invested in nuclear sites not for weapons? Maybe they were inspired by the Green party to go green? Unfortunately, even the Green party is against nuclear energy
It’s not about what I or anyone else believes - that’s the problem with debate here. It’s about facts and what can be proven.
No. It's about existential risk and making a decision before it's too late. Please don't ever run a country.
For you, in the UK, it's all theoretical - it's easy to "do the right thing" when consequences are at arm's length. If you're a small group being threatened with annihilation... There are no do-overs if you get it wrong. That's why Israel always appears to be the aggressor - they cannot afford the luxury of error in this respect."That’s why nations could speak with allies, the UN etc, to take advice, no? Rather than jumping in with both feet? (Or in the case of the USA, at least speak with congress to gain permission first) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack. And not forgetting that nuclear sites does not necessarily equal nuclear weapons. Ha ha. Do you seriously believe that Iran invested in nuclear sites not for weapons? Maybe they were inspired by the Green party to go green? Unfortunately, even the Green party is against nuclear energy
It’s not about what I or anyone else believes - that’s the problem with debate here. It’s about facts and what can be proven.
Nothing except mathematical facts can be "proven" and even those rely on axiomatic assumptions. Every decision you make in your life has some guesswork involved. In geopolitics, the amount of guesswork is even higher.
That’s nonsense. Lots of things can be proven - such as having a nuclear weapon capability. But in order to prove it you need evidence that it exists. "No matter what evidence is shared, anyone can find a reason not to trust it. A video? Surely it can be doctored. Maybe the UN officials confirmed it? Surely they can all be bribed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. No I don't but the terms innocent and guilt are very binary terms. Some sides are most definitely more guilty then others... You just contradicted yourself. If something is binary then one can’t be more of it than another." Looks like your now struggling with reading comprehension... in a practical or conceptual sense, one thing can be considered "more binary" than another based on how strictly it adheres to a two-state system, even though "binary" technically means a strict, unchanging dichotomy of two Nice try at being pedantic though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. No I don't but the terms innocent and guilt are very binary terms. Some sides are most definitely more guilty then others... You just contradicted yourself. If something is binary then one can’t be more of it than another. Looks like your now struggling with reading comprehension... in a practical or conceptual sense, one thing can be considered "more binary" than another based on how strictly it adheres to a two-state system, even though "binary" technically means a strict, unchanging dichotomy of two Nice try at being pedantic though "No, that’s just word salad. Guilt is indeed a sliding scale where some are more or less guilty than others, it literally can’t be ‘more binary’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack. And not forgetting that nuclear sites does not necessarily equal nuclear weapons. Ha ha. Do you seriously believe that Iran invested in nuclear sites not for weapons? Maybe they were inspired by the Green party to go green? Unfortunately, even the Green party is against nuclear energy
It’s not about what I or anyone else believes - that’s the problem with debate here. It’s about facts and what can be proven.
Nothing except mathematical facts can be "proven" and even those rely on axiomatic assumptions. Every decision you make in your life has some guesswork involved. In geopolitics, the amount of guesswork is even higher.
That’s nonsense. Lots of things can be proven - such as having a nuclear weapon capability. But in order to prove it you need evidence that it exists.
No matter what evidence is shared, anyone can find a reason not to trust it. A video? Surely it can be doctored. Maybe the UN officials confirmed it? Surely they can all be bribed."That’s how conspiracy theorists live their entire existence though - but I accept your premise as we live in this new world of ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. No I don't but the terms innocent and guilt are very binary terms. Some sides are most definitely more guilty then others... You just contradicted yourself. If something is binary then one can’t be more of it than another. Looks like your now struggling with reading comprehension... in a practical or conceptual sense, one thing can be considered "more binary" than another based on how strictly it adheres to a two-state system, even though "binary" technically means a strict, unchanging dichotomy of two Nice try at being pedantic though
No, that’s just word salad.
Guilt is indeed a sliding scale where some are more or less guilty than others, it literally can’t be ‘more binary’ "Now your at the back tracking again 🤣🙈 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. No I don't but the terms innocent and guilt are very binary terms. Some sides are most definitely more guilty then others... You just contradicted yourself. If something is binary then one can’t be more of it than another. Looks like your now struggling with reading comprehension... in a practical or conceptual sense, one thing can be considered "more binary" than another based on how strictly it adheres to a two-state system, even though "binary" technically means a strict, unchanging dichotomy of two Nice try at being pedantic though
No, that’s just word salad.
Guilt is indeed a sliding scale where some are more or less guilty than others, it literally can’t be ‘more binary’
Now your at the back tracking again 🤣🙈"No, I did however successfully dispute *your* claim that “innocent and guilt are very binary terms” Try to keep up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. No I don't but the terms innocent and guilt are very binary terms. Some sides are most definitely more guilty then others... You just contradicted yourself. If something is binary then one can’t be more of it than another. Looks like your now struggling with reading comprehension... in a practical or conceptual sense, one thing can be considered "more binary" than another based on how strictly it adheres to a two-state system, even though "binary" technically means a strict, unchanging dichotomy of two Nice try at being pedantic though
No, that’s just word salad.
Guilt is indeed a sliding scale where some are more or less guilty than others, it literally can’t be ‘more binary’
Now your at the back tracking again 🤣🙈
No, I did however successfully dispute *your* claim that “innocent and guilt are very binary terms”
Try to keep up. "For clarification, as you’re clearly struggling - innocent is a binary term. You’re either innocent or you’re not. Guilt is a sliding scale - though even at its lowest level it is directly in conflict with innocence in the sense that you can’t be both. ‘More binary’ is a nonsensical term. Binary has a clear definition. You’re welcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. No I don't but the terms innocent and guilt are very binary terms. Some sides are most definitely more guilty then others... You just contradicted yourself. If something is binary then one can’t be more of it than another. Looks like your now struggling with reading comprehension... in a practical or conceptual sense, one thing can be considered "more binary" than another based on how strictly it adheres to a two-state system, even though "binary" technically means a strict, unchanging dichotomy of two Nice try at being pedantic though
No, that’s just word salad.
Guilt is indeed a sliding scale where some are more or less guilty than others, it literally can’t be ‘more binary’
Now your at the back tracking again 🤣🙈
No, I did however successfully dispute *your* claim that “innocent and guilt are very binary terms”
Try to keep up.
For clarification, as you’re clearly struggling - innocent is a binary term. You’re either innocent or you’re not.
Guilt is a sliding scale - though even at its lowest level it is directly in conflict with innocence in the sense that you can’t be both.
‘More binary’ is a nonsensical term. Binary has a clear definition.
You’re welcome.""The Technical Perspective (Binary as a State) In mathematics and computer science, binary is an absolute state. Something is either binary or it is not. The Conceptual Perspective (Binary as a Spectrum) When used to describe human systems, thought processes, or complex data, things can indeed be seen as more or less" Quite clear I wasn't using the term "binary" as an absolute state but rarther using it conceptualy. You are just playing at semantics or having issues with your reading comprehension. Happy to have educucated you though in conceptual terms. You're welcome  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. No I don't but the terms innocent and guilt are very binary terms. Some sides are most definitely more guilty then others... You just contradicted yourself. If something is binary then one can’t be more of it than another. Looks like your now struggling with reading comprehension... in a practical or conceptual sense, one thing can be considered "more binary" than another based on how strictly it adheres to a two-state system, even though "binary" technically means a strict, unchanging dichotomy of two Nice try at being pedantic though
No, that’s just word salad.
Guilt is indeed a sliding scale where some are more or less guilty than others, it literally can’t be ‘more binary’
Now your at the back tracking again 🤣🙈
No, I did however successfully dispute *your* claim that “innocent and guilt are very binary terms”
Try to keep up.
For clarification, as you’re clearly struggling - innocent is a binary term. You’re either innocent or you’re not.
Guilt is a sliding scale - though even at its lowest level it is directly in conflict with innocence in the sense that you can’t be both.
‘More binary’ is a nonsensical term. Binary has a clear definition.
You’re welcome.
"The Technical Perspective (Binary as a State)
In mathematics and computer science, binary is an absolute state. Something is either binary or it is not.
The Conceptual Perspective (Binary as a Spectrum)
When used to describe human systems, thought processes, or complex data, things can indeed be seen as more or less"
Quite clear I wasn't using the term "binary" as an absolute state but rarther using it conceptualy.
You are just playing at semantics or having issues with your reading comprehension.
Happy to have educucated you though in conceptual terms. You're welcome "Oh some things are absolutely spectrum based. Much in life is, to be fair. Innocence, however isn’t one of them. And one can’t be both innocent and guilty. To pretend such is possible is just ludicrous. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. No I don't but the terms innocent and guilt are very binary terms. Some sides are most definitely more guilty then others... You just contradicted yourself. If something is binary then one can’t be more of it than another. Looks like your now struggling with reading comprehension... in a practical or conceptual sense, one thing can be considered "more binary" than another based on how strictly it adheres to a two-state system, even though "binary" technically means a strict, unchanging dichotomy of two Nice try at being pedantic though
No, that’s just word salad.
Guilt is indeed a sliding scale where some are more or less guilty than others, it literally can’t be ‘more binary’
Now your at the back tracking again 🤣🙈
No, I did however successfully dispute *your* claim that “innocent and guilt are very binary terms”
Try to keep up.
For clarification, as you’re clearly struggling - innocent is a binary term. You’re either innocent or you’re not.
Guilt is a sliding scale - though even at its lowest level it is directly in conflict with innocence in the sense that you can’t be both.
‘More binary’ is a nonsensical term. Binary has a clear definition.
You’re welcome.
"The Technical Perspective (Binary as a State)
In mathematics and computer science, binary is an absolute state. Something is either binary or it is not.
The Conceptual Perspective (Binary as a Spectrum)
When used to describe human systems, thought processes, or complex data, things can indeed be seen as more or less"
Quite clear I wasn't using the term "binary" as an absolute state but rarther using it conceptualy.
You are just playing at semantics or having issues with your reading comprehension.
Happy to have educucated you though in conceptual terms. You're welcome
Oh some things are absolutely spectrum based. Much in life is, to be fair.
Innocence, however isn’t one of them. And one can’t be both innocent and guilty. To pretend such is possible is just ludicrous."I never once described either party as more or less innocent then the other. I used the word "guilt". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Hark at us, we’re just ordinary people arguing international law like we’re in the Situation Room, when none of us has access to classified intelligence or really knows what’s going on behind closed doors. The UN charter is available for all to see. Or you can read what the secretary general has said There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Unauthorised and not in the face of imminent attack. Yes, but they're on a journey that they're entitled to take until the end of their choosing... The bloke over the road who doesn’t like me has started going to the gym. I’d better smash his face In before he gets too strong, right? Has that bloke over the road promised death to you and your family, burt efagies if you and paid your neighbours to attack you and throw bricks at you? He’s said Hurty words, yes - but not attacked me. Should I get a preemptive strike in? Not if he's not attacked your previously or used his proxies to do so (like Iran) Well if it’s justified because a neighbour makes you feel threatened and has attacked you previously, you’re justifying the October 6th attacks. You think the October 6th attack was justified? Wow... Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong suit. If you’re justifying Israel an USA attacking Iran because of threats, you’re also justifying Oct 6th. Why? How possibly would that justify Oct 6th? Crazy strawman you chose to use there to be honest. Says alot about you.. It’s the logic of saying an attack is justified if you feel threatened, regardless of intent or legality. It’s literally not a strawman - just because your bias doesn’t allow you to accept the logic. When did Isreal attack Palestine before October the 6th that would have justified a horrific terrorist attack by hammas aimed purely at civilians? Strange and disturbing strawman you chose there and now more back tracking.. Pick a date somewhere past 1948? Are you one of these people who think the conflict started on Oct 6th? No, hence why I thought it strange you picked that date.. Getting back to your original analogy.. do you think Hammas is the innocent neighbour here and Isreal is the murderous gym goer threatening its next door neighbour with death?? I don’t think either side are innocent in that war or this one. Do you? War is seldom binary good vs bad. No I don't but the terms innocent and guilt are very binary terms. Some sides are most definitely more guilty then others... You just contradicted yourself. If something is binary then one can’t be more of it than another. Looks like your now struggling with reading comprehension... in a practical or conceptual sense, one thing can be considered "more binary" than another based on how strictly it adheres to a two-state system, even though "binary" technically means a strict, unchanging dichotomy of two Nice try at being pedantic though
No, that’s just word salad.
Guilt is indeed a sliding scale where some are more or less guilty than others, it literally can’t be ‘more binary’
Now your at the back tracking again 🤣🙈
No, I did however successfully dispute *your* claim that “innocent and guilt are very binary terms”
Try to keep up.
For clarification, as you’re clearly struggling - innocent is a binary term. You’re either innocent or you’re not.
Guilt is a sliding scale - though even at its lowest level it is directly in conflict with innocence in the sense that you can’t be both.
‘More binary’ is a nonsensical term. Binary has a clear definition.
You’re welcome.
"The Technical Perspective (Binary as a State)
In mathematics and computer science, binary is an absolute state. Something is either binary or it is not.
The Conceptual Perspective (Binary as a Spectrum)
When used to describe human systems, thought processes, or complex data, things can indeed be seen as more or less"
Quite clear I wasn't using the term "binary" as an absolute state but rarther using it conceptualy.
You are just playing at semantics or having issues with your reading comprehension.
Happy to have educucated you though in conceptual terms. You're welcome
Oh some things are absolutely spectrum based. Much in life is, to be fair.
Innocence, however isn’t one of them. And one can’t be both innocent and guilty. To pretend such is possible is just ludicrous.
I never once described either party as more or less innocent than the other. I used the word "guilt"."The conversation is right there to see | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmers potentially bringing the prospect of more terror attacks to the Uk with this intervention Will they outlaw protests? " Perhaps we should just continue to ignore the thousands of innocent protesters being murdered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"We’ll be expecting and welcoming Iranian refugees, of course. Why would they come here ? They're to get away from Islamic extremists." 👏 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There not illegal strikes on Iran, there just irregular and undocumented.. Didn’t Trump say that Iran’s nuclear sites had been ‘Obliterated’ 6 months or so ago? This is laughable. One minute you believe the trump administration, if you believe it helps you make a point the next you don't, when it goes against your narrative. Get some integrity.. 🤣 Or, you could perhaps learn about sarcasm. If it was sarcasm why even make the point, as its a mute one. Nice back track.. It’s not a backtrack - it’s ok, you can admit to missing the point, no judgement here. If Trump’s attacks on the nuclear facilities were as successful as he said then there is no nuclear threat in 2026. If there’s a nuclear threat in 2026 then Trump’s attacks in 2025 weren’t as successful as he claimed. Both things can’t be true. I don't think Trump is saying the truth. But both things can be true. Trump said he had attacked three of Iran's nuclear sites. There could be others. And Iran could have gone back to work on new nuclear sites which triggered this attack. And not forgetting that nuclear sites does not necessarily equal nuclear weapons. Ha ha. Do you seriously believe that Iran invested in nuclear sites not for weapons? Maybe they were inspired by the Green party to go green? Unfortunately, even the Green party is against nuclear energy
It’s not about what I or anyone else believes - that’s the problem with debate here. It’s about facts and what can be proven.
Nothing except mathematical facts can be "proven" and even those rely on axiomatic assumptions. Every decision you make in your life has some guesswork involved. In geopolitics, the amount of guesswork is even higher.
That’s nonsense. Lots of things can be proven - such as having a nuclear weapon capability. But in order to prove it you need evidence that it exists.
No matter what evidence is shared, anyone can find a reason not to trust it. A video? Surely it can be doctored. Maybe the UN officials confirmed it? Surely they can all be bribed.
That’s how conspiracy theorists live their entire existence though - but I accept your premise as we live in this new world of ‘fake news’ and ‘alternative facts’"You just have to look at people's reactions to the news from Palestine to know that it's not just conspiracy theory shit. Both sides only believed what they wanted to believe. Everything else either Zionist propaganda or Hamas propaganda. In your opinion, what you believe is a fact and everything else is conspiracy theory. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Starmers potentially bringing the prospect of more terror attacks to the Uk with this intervention Will they outlaw protests? Perhaps we should just continue to ignore the thousands of innocent protesters being murdered. " I think at least one member here is cheering the Iranians on, perhaps even going over there to shoot a few themselves. Was it the UN who said protesting against Muslims should carry the death penalty. For women at least I think? Or just a fab forum member? Won’t be long before they call for it here as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
