No tags, links or clips by myself

Just a recommendation which I've mentioned before 

Watch Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis 

It's the closest explanation I've seen to our relatively modern fucked up world

12 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Aye.

Devil and the deep blue sea though here.

Can't allow them nuclear weapons. 

Thankfully, there is a diverse range of people there, and the majority seem to want regime change.

Clear the way for them to sort it themselves. 

I agree with that point, but it's less than year ago that Trump was telling us he'd destroyed all their facilities and set them back at least 20 years, so nukes presumably aren't the issue 

There is a point re the lack of availability of weapons for the people, but I think if there is sufficient degradation of the security forces, then I can see much of it crumbling, with many leaving or disappearing into the general populous. 

As for their nuclear ambitions; I'm not sure anyone knows the true state of their programme, but they have clearly stated they will continue to produce one.

Therefore act now, whilst they are weak.

11 hours ago, Sweep said:

I agree with that point, but it's less than year ago that Trump was telling us he'd destroyed all their facilities and set them back at least 20 years, so nukes presumably aren't the issue 

I think you are correct. Just a pretext for regime change.

A mistake in past cases but greatly needed in this case.

11 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

I think you are correct. Just a pretext for regime change.

A mistake in past cases but greatly needed in this case.

I think you're correct on both points. I just wonder what the US can realistically do without commiting troops. 

That British couple on their early retirement trip across to Oz have been sentenced to 10 years each.

Like Azaneen-Ratcliffe(?) they could be in for the long haul of FO negotiations.  Her detention was linked with several hundred million dollars the UK govt still owed to the Shah! At least Boris won't be anywhere near these negotiations. 

If Trump does attack, then we should send the SAS in to rescue the couple.

Fuck paying millions to kidnapping terrorists- just clean them out as necessary. 

13 hours ago, bolty58 said:

I think you are correct. Just a pretext for regime change.

A mistake in past cases but greatly needed in this case.

I agree...

Until they start all their tribal infighting, and some other despotic regime takes charge, who is even worse than the current.

Just head that off at the pass, and completely flatten the place 

5 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

If Trump does attack, then we should send the SAS in to rescue the couple.

Fuck paying millions to kidnapping terrorists- just clean them out as necessary. 

Nice sentiment, but I'm not sure we should be risking our troops to rescue anybody - if Trump attacks, hopefully it'll be the US and the US only (although no doubt we'll be dragged into it) - no way will Iran just roll over, they'll fight, and I suspect they'll fight dirty

46 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Nice sentiment, but I'm not sure we should be risking our troops to rescue anybody - if Trump attacks, hopefully it'll be the US and the US only (although no doubt we'll be dragged into it) - no way will Iran just roll over, they'll fight, and I suspect they'll fight dirty

That is one of the roles of the SAS though- to rescue hostages.

As for Iran itself, it will get battered, and quickly.

Yes it may launch some ballistic missiles, but America has had plenty of time to put extra air defences on their bases.

Moreover, I'm fairly sure that America will know precisely where most of these are located, and will destroy most very quickly.

Folk thought Iran would boot off after the Anerican/Israel attack, but they offered almost nothing.

 

9 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

That is one of the roles of the SAS though- to rescue hostages.

 

 

True, but this couple, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, were arrested in January 2025........the FCDO has advised against travelling to Iran since 2023, for fairly obvious reasons.

So to my mind, fuck them, they shouldn't have been there in the first place, they must have known the risks, but thought they knew better, so why risk the lives (and expense) of our troops rescuing them, and the possible reprisals? 

1 hour ago, Sweep said:

True, but this couple, Lindsay and Craig Foreman, were arrested in January 2025........the FCDO has advised against travelling to Iran since 2023, for fairly obvious reasons.

So to my mind, fuck them, they shouldn't have been there in the first place, they must have known the risks, but thought they knew better, so why risk the lives (and expense) of our troops rescuing them, and the possible reprisals? 

I'm probably in the same camp.

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

That is one of the roles of the SAS though- to rescue hostages.

As for Iran itself, it will get battered, and quickly.

Yes it may launch some ballistic missiles, but America has had plenty of time to put extra air defences on their bases.

Moreover, I'm fairly sure that America will know precisely where most of these are located, and will destroy most very quickly.

Folk thought Iran would boot off after the Anerican/Israel attack, but they offered almost nothing.

 

Do they rescue 'hostages' in jail?

Might not be so straight forward as we never sent the SAS in to rescue that other woman who was nicked in Iran for a while

We'll join the fight I have no doubt. And whilst Iran may struggle to defend itself, it will surely activate some sleeper cells across Europe, Middle East and North America and there may be some pretty devastating attacks.. If we have boots on the ground in Iran, there will be repercussions at home

8 minutes ago, boltonboris said:

We'll join the fight I have no doubt. And whilst Iran may struggle to defend itself, it will surely activate some sleeper cells across Europe, Middle East and North America and there may be some pretty devastating attacks.. If we have boots on the ground in Iran, there will be repercussions at home

I don't doubt it

2 hours ago, DirtySanchez said:

Do they rescue 'hostages' in jail?

Might not be so straight forward as we never sent the SAS in to rescue that other woman who was nicked in Iran for a while

Situation is different now though.

If there is the possibility of conflict and uprising, then get them out.

Won't be easy, but if their security services are being degraded, then it's as good a time as any.

As for any action- I don't think we will he involved directly, but will provide logistic support etc 

A bit more information:

I thought I remembered Starmer saying we wouldn't be involved in any action. Iirc he also intimated he wouldn't be upset if the regime fell.

Now it is reported that he has refused to let America use bases here, and Diego Garcia for any US attacks.

Seemingly he is worried about the legality. What a surprise. 

Consequently, Trump has reversed his thoughts, and now says us giving the Chagos away is bad.

Which is sort of understandable. 

3 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

A bit more information:

I thought I remembered Starmer saying we wouldn't be involved in any action. Iirc he also intimated he wouldn't be upset if the regime fell.

Now it is reported that he has refused to let America use bases here, and Diego Garcia for any US attacks.

Seemingly he is worried about the legality. What a surprise. 

Consequently, Trump has reversed his thoughts, and now says us giving the Chagos away is bad.

Which is sort of understandable. 

What a fucking imbecile. A time to eradicate the worlds biggest sponsor of terrorism and the incertitudinal fool wants to point to a paragraph in some international law tome.

I am absolutely sure that Iran will consult the same volume before it does anything 

I dont really think much distinction will be made by these guys between us not allowing direct strikes from UK bases, but hosting literally hundreds of logistics and support aircraft as they pass through on the way to the ME

2 minutes ago, Marc505 said:

I dont really think much distinction will be made by these guys between us not allowing direct strikes from UK bases, but hosting literally hundreds of logistics and support aircraft as they pass through on the way to the ME

Aye, a huge build up of support forces have passed through our bases, I have a feeling folk are falling for Trump bollocks again.

18 hours ago, Winchester White said:

Aye, a huge build up of support forces have passed through our bases, I have a feeling folk are falling for Trump bollocks again.

It isn't bollocks that Starmer has made the decision he has.

Trump's reaction may be typical Trump, but that doesn't alter the fact.

Yes, as Marc says, a lot of logistical support has and will continue to happen, nevertheless if it is the case that Starmer is concerned about the legality of a conflict, then surely allowing logistical support is a contribution to a war effort.

Protests on Iranian university campuses likely to lead to crackdowns may be the final straw that stops The Don backing off.

Meanwhile in another corner of the god forsaken sandpit Pakistan launching air strikes into Afghanistan. 

34 minutes ago, green genie said:

Protests on Iranian university campuses likely to lead to crackdowns may be the final straw that stops The Don backing off.

Meanwhile in another corner of the god forsaken sandpit Pakistan launching air strikes into Afghanistan. 

Those two stans have been at it for a while.

Heard yesterday that Iranian protestors are still being executed, just with less coverage. 

Military reporters etc were suggesting the likely day for military action was today- so maybe that's why more protests are likely.

Clearly no deal being done, and Trump has backed himself into a corner.

Something has to give soon.

On 19/02/2026 at 22:28, bolty58 said:

What a fucking imbecile. A time to eradicate the worlds biggest sponsor of terrorism and the incertitudinal fool wants to point to a paragraph in some international law tome.

I am absolutely sure that Iran will consult the same volume before it does anything 

You are aware that incertitudinal isn't actually a word? 😁

7 hours ago, kent_white said:

You are aware that incertitudinal isn't actually a word? 😁

Greig Clifford disagrees 

So Trump has just confirmed the US is involved in the attack on Iran that’s starting up, not just Israel.

I thought there would be no more wars with America First. MAGA won’t like it.

Must be desperate for more Epstein distractions. 

Edited February 28Feb 28 by Bertie