• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

Ziggurat said:
You don't know what's happening in the South China Sea, do you? You also don't know what they did in Vietnam either.

And yet, it was trying to develop nuclear weapons.
How gullible are you?

Is that what you call suicide bombers and child soldiers? A "moral compass"?

Bwahahahahahaha!

You say that like it's a point in their favor.

It isn't.

God damn, but that's willful blindness.
Click to expand...
I think you are the one who is ignorant of the facts, multiple independent assessments are that iran was not trying to develop nuclear weapons. The supreme leader / Grand Ayatollah had made clear that WMD such as atomic bombs were Haram.

China had a brief war with Vietnam that lasted 4 months. That is the most aggressive China has been? cf Afghanistan, Iraq, iran, Vietnam, South America, How many countries has the US attacked?

I absolutely condemn the use of children (and adults) in war. Yes, Iran had children involved in the war with iraq. That is wrong. Iran however was not the aggressor. They are the only country since WW2 subject to attack with WMD (by a client state of the US.) Iraq was never censored for the use of WMD by the US.

The object of war in most cases (although statements by the US administration are an exception) is clear. it is gain territory, resources not just to kill people.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I'm not sure they understand the size of US stockpiles. I'm not going to research every item in there, but for consideration your article cites 1,080 JDAM munitions deployed by the US. That sounds like a lot until you realize we've got upward of 200,000 of them.
Click to expand...
The article does specifically chart the proportion of each weapon group used if you read it.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
You are joking.
The US killed millions in Iraq
Click to expand...
First off, EC was talking about Afghanistan, since she was responding to a claim about Afghanistan. Afghanistan isn't Iraq. Do you know the difference?

Second, no, we didn't kill millions in Iraq. A couple of sources estimate the number of excess deaths at around half a million (not millions), but those estimates don't assign responsibility to any specific actors, and it's absurd to say we killed them all. They weren't even all violent deaths.
 
Planigale said:
I think you are the one who is ignorant of the facts, multiple independent assessments are that iran was not trying to develop nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
Bwahahahahaha!

No. It was. There are only two reasons to enrich uranium to 60%. One is to build a nuclear bomb. The other is to power a naval reactor. Iran had no naval reactors. Iran had no plans for naval reactors. Iran had nothing to put a naval reactor in, nothing to use a naval reactor for.

They were working on getting a nuclear bomb. And only an idiot would think otherwise.
Planigale said:
The supreme leader / Grand Ayatollah had made clear that WMD such as atomic bombs were Haram.
Click to expand...
www.norwich.edu

Khamenei’s Nuclear Fatwa: Religious Ruling or Political Strategy?

Disclaimer: These opinion pieces represent the authors’ personal views, and do not necessarily reflect the official policies or positions of Norwich University or PAWC.
www.norwich.edu www.norwich.edu

"Khamenei’s fatwa against nuclear weapons is not a binding or permanent prohibition. It is subject to change and applies only to his followers, not all Iranian decision-makers. Furthermore, the distinction between religious rulings and political mandates creates ambiguity regarding its enforcement. Given these uncertainties, relying on a religious decree as the basis for international agreements is impractical.​
​
While the fatwa is a useful diplomatic tool for Iran, its effectiveness as a genuine legal constraint remains doubtful. The study concludes that a fatwa — a flexible and personal interpretation of Islamic law — should not be treated as a definitive commitment in nuclear negotiations. The international community should consider Iran’s actions, not just its religious pronouncements when assessing its nuclear ambitions."​

Don't just listen to what they say. Look at what they do. And what were they doing? They were take the steps necessary to build a nuclear weapon, including steps that were completely unnecessary for a civilian nuclear program.
Planigale said:
China had a brief war with Vietnam that lasted 4 months.
Click to expand...
It lasted 4 months because that's how long it took Vietnam to kick their ass. China has historically been weak. And weakness, not any kind of moral virtue, has been the primary constraint on their aggression.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Iran, who actively funds massive terror organizations that routinely attack western countries... is a country you consider to be the victim here?

And you think aggression comes only in the form of military power? I suppose we'll just pretend that the persistent organized data thefts, identity thefts, system infrastructure hacks, cyberattacks, and ransomware engagements over the past couple of decades are all being done by counterculture college kids.... And let's not forget to mention IP theft, industrial espionage, and counterfeiting.

Yeparoo. Iran is the victim and China is the good guys.


Your paper claims between 4.5M and 4.7M directly or indirectly attributable to warfare in the ME. Those are absolutely NOT all attributable to the US. The linked paper for that count is including deaths from economic collapse & food insecurity, Public Service & Health Infrastructure destruction, Environmental contamination, and a host of other things as attributable to the war.

Are you actually - with a straight face - claiming that a person in rural afghanistan who kills their neighbor for food is the fault of the US, when the taliban is the one who stole all the provisions in the village? You're laying every person that terrorists killed at the feet of the US?

"Look what you made me do. If you didn't make me so mad I wouldn't have to hit you" vibes from that.
Click to expand...
If you seize the countries money, impose sanctions on the country so they cannot trade, yes I think you have responsibility for deaths from infectious diseases because of limitations on pharmaceutical manufacture. Actions have consequences. Deaths won't all be from misdirected drones killing a family collecting water. They will be from indirect consequences of economic warfare. Can you provide any evidence of the Taliban stealing all the provisions in a village?

I am saying that the US has to accept that people will die in Cuba because they are preventing oil reaching Cuba and that means there is no power for hospitals and people will die. Those are deaths directly caused by US actions. Not military deaths, but deaths.

If we are getting into cyber attacks, Israel is perhaps the specialist in that.

FWIW I do think the West needs to be much better at securing IT against China. I am no fan of China. Surprisingly a lot of Chinese are pro-China; I favour the Hong Kong pro-democrats. I think the UK (and other commonwealth countries) did the right thing by allowing free access to Hong Kong residents.

The US can be bad as well as China, Russia and Iran. Norway in comparison is a good guy; but I wouldn't have said so a thousand years ago during the Viking raids.
 
Planigale said:
If you seize the countries money, impose sanctions on the country so they cannot trade, yes I think you have responsibility for deaths from infectious diseases because of limitations on pharmaceutical manufacture. Actions have consequences. Deaths won't all be from misdirected drones killing a family collecting water. They will be from indirect consequences of economic warfare. Can you provide any evidence of the Taliban stealing all the provisions in a village?

I am saying that the US has to accept that people will die in Cuba because they are preventing oil reaching Cuba and that means there is no power for hospitals and people will die. Those are deaths directly caused by US actions. Not military deaths, but deaths.
Click to expand...
Cuba is welcome to increase the amount of oil they purchase from the US.
Planigale said:
If we are getting into cyber attacks, Israel is perhaps the specialist in that.

FWIW I do think the West needs to be much better at securing IT against China. I am no fan of China. Surprisingly a lot of Chinese are pro-China; I favour the Hong Kong pro-democrats. I think the UK (and other commonwealth countries) did the right thing by allowing free access to Hong Kong residents.

The US can be bad as well as China, Russia and Iran. Norway in comparison is a good guy; but I wouldn't have said so a thousand years ago during the Viking raids.
Click to expand...
Hey, I never claimed the US was good. But it sure as hell isn't worse than China, Russia, or Iran.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Strait of Trump

Trump: "They have to open up the Strait of Trump-- I mean, Hormuz. Excuse me. Such a terrible mistake. The fake news will say, 'He accidentally said--' No. There's no accidents from me."
Click to expand...
Lol, our President is such an arrogant ass in a way I really don't approve of from a President... but that's ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hilarious as a joke.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Where do state-funded terrorist organizations fit in your definition of "war"?
Click to expand...
In general they are resistance movements e.g. French resistance in WW 2, Hamas in Gaza, or Hezbollah in Lebanon. Or attempts to overthrow an extant government e.g. Contras, or US funded Islamist groups in Syria or Afghanistan, or MEK in iran. There is evidence that the US supported right wing terrorist groups to destabilise left wing governments in Italy did the mean that the US was waging war on a NATO ally?

In general these are not included in the definition of war.

 
Emily's Cat said:
:unsure: I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Are you using a technical meaning of armoured as opposed to the colloquial "has strong stuff on the exterior that protects the interior from really fast moving and explody things"
Click to expand...
China's ships are made from the same kind of steel as everyone else's ships.

Armour has a specific meaning. Hardened steel added to a ship to protect it.

The last ships to have armoured hulls were built in WW2. Battleships and Cruisers were theoretically armoured to protect them from penetration by the size of gun they carried themselves at expected battle ranges. This was in a belt along the hull sides and to a lesser extent the deck.

A modern warship will carry some minimum splinter proofing on magazines.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom