Is it kicking off big time or is this just everyday stuff they deal with or a bit of both?

 

15 hours ago, kent_white said:

Play the ball, not the man. Do you think what he's saying is incorrect. And if so - why do you think the US sanctioned the Israeli attacks on Iran, knowing that it would likely lead to a collapse in the planned nuclear negotiations? 

No. In this case I'll play the man. Absolute guttersnipe who would risk letting the Iranians develop a WMD purely for ideological reasons. He's a meaningless non-entity these days anyway - just like Comrade Jeremy.

As far as your question, I have no doubt that the majority of the western world has offered tacit support. This is a tumour which should never have been allowed to grow to the size it has and needs removing pronto.

14 hours ago, Casino said:

that always works well

No comparison and most of you lot know this.

Iraq and Libya were massive mistakes borne of "those poor people' sentiments. Bliars bullshit about WMD's was purely an excuse to attack strong leaders. No WMD's existed. This bunch of bloodthirsty fanatics are getting close and can't be allowed to complete.

If we get another breeding ground for more primitive savages being let loose upon the world we will just have to weigh bombings, stabbings and beheading numbers against those deaths which would result from a nuclear attack and further, where a nuclear attack might lead in terms of world destruction.

12 hours ago, kent_white said:

That's Hamas/BBC/Gary Lineker/Keir Starmer/woke/Guardian Newspaper/Sadiq Khan/snowflake propaganda though. And is categorically not happening. Or if it is - it's only because Hamas are hiding at the food distribution centre, therefore making the civilians an acceptable target/collateral damage. Unless of course they're Israeli civilians in which case it's an act of unforgivable terrorism. And anyway - don't forget that the Palestinians deserve it because of when a minority of them voted Hamas in 20 years ago. If anything - these 17,000 odd children are culpable. Even though there's not really 17,000 dead kids because that is just Hamas/BBC/Gary Lineker/Keir Starmer/woke/Guardian Newspaper/Sadiq Khan/snowflake propaganda. 

Or something? 

If it wasn't you, I'd be reaching for the 'ignore' function.

10 hours ago, Zico said:

see, I knew they could be more precise and targetted when they want to be

like with the pagers

this is how it should be done

If only it could be concrete instead of water.

6 hours ago, royal white said:

Well it doesn’t help when you speak shite, how am I suppose to respond? 
 

I said it’s not a competition when dazbob asked how many were killed not in response to how many were killed which Kent posted.

 

As for differences, I’ll tell you what the biggest difference is. Israel’s retaliated after Palestine invaded their country, killed over a thousand in the matter of hours, whilst taking hostages who have since been raped tortured and in some cases killed.

We invaded countries on the back of a lie! You’re expecting Israel to go in a lot harder against a real enemy. 

Laughable how some of this lot think that a 'count' means anything at all. When you are fighting for your very survival, counting is not even a consideration.

Just going back to Blair and Iraq- whilst the wmd thing was a bit of an illusion, Salam had used them previously against his own people, and I think that gets lost at times.

Fast forward to Iran, and we see a state where its own people are starved of freedoms in so many ways, and would no doubt welcome a new, more democratic and open governance. 

There appears to be no desire to go into Iran, deploying troops to eject these evil leaders from power.

It is simply an attempt to degrade nuclear and military facilities and at the same time, if that facilitates a popular uprising by the people, then so be it.

There is a balance to be had in terms of enforced regime change versus the risks to the wider region via ballistic missiles that are already capable of reaching much of Europe and the wider middle east (and thus many military bases), and the risk that they may be coupled with nuclear warheads.

Just seen a video smuggled out of Iran and passed to a journalist. It shows total gridlock in Tehran from fleeing people, shops closed and streets largely empty. 

The person filming talks about his hatred for his own leadership, and also a lack of belief that Israel cares about him and the people. He also says he's staying and trying to continue his daily business.

Such a mass movement won't sit easy with the leadership, and perhaps indicates the potential for uprising being greater.

6 hours ago, bolty58 said:

If only it could be concrete instead of water.

It was concrete?

1 hour ago, Zico said:

It was concrete?

 I wondered who it would be.

Surely they can't fill every tunnel with concrete? Cost a fucking fortune.

The tree huggers will be furious at the amount of cement used. London Wanderer will be apoplectic. His buddies hidey holes being ruined AND effect on global warming.

Mushroom risotto tonight.

it got lively last night 

8 hours ago, bolty58 said:

No comparison and most of you lot know this.

Iraq and Libya were massive mistakes borne of "those poor people' sentiments. Bliars bullshit about WMD's was purely an excuse to attack strong leaders. No WMD's existed. This bunch of bloodthirsty fanatics are getting close and can't be allowed to complete.

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

 I wondered who it would be.

Surely they can't fill every tunnel with concrete? Cost a fucking fortune.

The tree huggers will be furious at the amount of cement used. London Wanderer will be apoplectic. His buddies hidey holes being ruined AND effect on global warming.

Mushroom risotto tonight.

You’ve a wild imagination 💙

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Just going back to Blair and Iraq- whilst the wmd thing was a bit of an illusion, Salam had used them previously against his own people, and I think that gets lost at times.

Fast forward to Iran, and we see a state where its own people are starved of freedoms in so many ways, and would no doubt welcome a new, more democratic and open governance. 

There appears to be no desire to go into Iran, deploying troops to eject these evil leaders from power.

It is simply an attempt to degrade nuclear and military facilities and at the same time, if that facilitates a popular uprising by the people, then so be it.

There is a balance to be had in terms of enforced regime change versus the risks to the wider region via ballistic missiles that are already capable of reaching much of Europe and the wider middle east (and thus many military bases), and the risk that they may be coupled with nuclear warheads.

Just seen a video smuggled out of Iran and passed to a journalist. It shows total gridlock in Tehran from fleeing people, shops closed and streets largely empty. 

The person filming talks about his hatred for his own leadership, and also a lack of belief that Israel cares about him and the people. He also says he's staying and trying to continue his daily business.

Such a mass movement won't sit easy with the leadership, and perhaps indicates the potential for uprising being greater.

Can’t disagree with much of this. A good post.

For all my criticism of the current extremists running Israel & their oppression of Palestine, & for all Trump’s faults, it’s hard to find an issue with targeted attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. I can see why the US have jumped at the opportunity. Deals can be broken & take decades. This really could make the Middle East a safer place within a few months. Even if there is a risk it goes the other way.

Regime change would be a bonus, but can’t see it. Such a nice country, with a lot of great people, completely ruined by Islamists.

The risk is if it escalates & the US end up with troops on the ground. Don’t want anyone else getting sucked into this one. 

 

The cunts are falling out again 😂

 

Them hypersonic missiles are genuinely fucking terrifying to watch

how come the US or whoever seem to get to decide who gets to have nuclear weapons or not?

2 minutes ago, Zico said:

how come the US or whoever seem to get to decide who gets to have nuclear weapons or not?

So that other, less reliable, terrorist regimes don't get to make such calls.

21 minutes ago, Zico said:

how come the US or whoever seem to get to decide who gets to have nuclear weapons or not?

They’re the only country to ever use one too . 
cheeky cunts they are, “ you can’t have one of these, you might do what we did “ 😁

29 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

So that other, less reliable, terrorist regimes don't get to make such calls.

Like Russia?

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

So that other, less reliable, terrorist regimes don't get to make such calls.

define reliable

Russia?

North Korea?

China?

plenty terrorists in Pakistan I bet as well

I woudln't rely on Israel to do the right thing under the current regime either

15 hours ago, bolty58 said:

If it wasn't you, I'd be reaching for the 'ignore' function.

You love me too much to put me on ignore 😉😘😁

2 minutes ago, kent_white said:

You love me too much to put me on ignore 😉😘😁

You never know - you might be on 3 strikes and out? Keep trying and come and join us liberal elites! 😂

There is a reason America and Russia have more than anyone else. They both nicked the German scientists after the war. We and France nicked a few as well. Imagine if Germany managed to hold out a few more years! Germany don’t have any. 

1 hour ago, Zico said:

define reliable

Russia?

North Korea?

China?

plenty terrorists in Pakistan I bet as well

I woudln't rely on Israel to do the right thing under the current regime either

You can't do anything about those that already have them- that's pretty obvious. 

Historically, they haven't used them- they being a deterrent.

As they are with Israel, who I have every faith wouldn't use them as an offensive weapon. Even Putin hasn't.

In the hands of a terrorist state, that might not be so clear.

Especially one whose interest isn't governing its people for the better, but to destroy the state of Israel.

Remember, there are plenty of virgins waiting for them if they cop for a nuke in return.

It's pretty clear why they shouldn't have them.

There'll be a few on here would be happy let Israel have them.

... And then when they use them say, "Well, these things happen in war."

3 hours ago, Zico said:

 

I woudln't rely on Israel to do the right thing under the current regime either

Probably would have caused less carnage if they’d nuked Gaza.

 

A half joke ….

Edited June 18, 20251 yr by London Wanderer