I've been thinking about @Arethosemyfeet's interesting observation that Israel 'needs' Iran and Iran 'needs' Israel as an 'other' with which to define themselves against.
By extension, I'm wondering whether Putin's Russia 'needs' the West as its bogey-man and vice-versa, the West 'needs' Russia and China as its bogey-men.
Which isn't to say that any of them aren't an actual threat to one another but the older I get the bleaker things appear in the Orwellian sense and the more 'Quakerly' I become in my attitude towards armed conflict - although I think out and out pacifism is pragmatically untenable.
Coming back to the current war, it's looking almost conclusive now that US munitions destroyed the school in southern Iran, despite Trump's lying that it was Iran.
Hegseth appears to have been more circumspect and I imagine the Trump administration will have to come clean that it was one of their missiles, although on previous form it may take them a while to admit a mistake.
The former head of the British Army was unequivocal as to where the blame should lie when interviewed on BBC Radio 4 this lunchtime. Of course he toed the usual line that the UK's default position should generally be to support the US, but not without caveats and misgivings about the current operation.
When a senior military figure voices an opinion like that then it should give pause to anyone justifying this ill-considered campaign.
The worst outcome he could envisage was the fragmentation of Iran with civil war and anarchy and the destabilisation of the region.
The least worst or 'luckiest' outcome would be for the Iranian regime to continue in some form, weakened but with essentially the same people in charge and the same set of policies.
Thanks President Trump. Thanks Netanyahu. You've right royally buggered everything up and made a bad situation worse.
The least worst or 'luckiest' outcome would be for the Iranian regime to continue in some form, weakened but with essentially the same people in charge and the same set of policies.
There is an outside chance that the new Supreme Leader has been keeping his powder dry on a secret reformist agenda a la Gorbachev but I don't think we're that lucky and he'd have to be very cautious about it not to get offed by the IRGC.
Because of the export of terrorism ( October 7 attacks on Israel and ongoing terrorism by Hamas?) and killing of their people during demonstrations? Not to mention appalling treatment of women?
Neither Hamas nor the October 7 attacks were sponsored by Iran. As has been pointed out already Hamas are Sunni whereas Iran are Shia.
I'm not sure where you're getting your information from but my understanding that it is widely known Iran sponsors terrorists organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah and have for ages.
Seems like Iran doesn't care whether they are Sunni or not.
The least worst or 'luckiest' outcome would be for the Iranian regime to continue in some form, weakened but with essentially the same people in charge and the same set of policies.
There is an outside chance that the new Supreme Leader has been keeping his powder dry on a secret reformist agenda a la Gorbachev but I don't think we're that lucky and he'd have to be very cautious about it not to get offed by the IRGC.
It sounds like he's much more of a hardliner (similarly the chances that any one of the next leaders sticking by the current fatwa against developing nuclear weapons is slimmer than it was).
I've heard he's spent most of his time in seminary and hasn't any practical experience of running anything but I'd imagine he'd be something of a figure-head.
I walked past a loud crowd of maybe 500 people in the centre of Birmingham yesterday. They appeared to be celebrating the war and consisted of people with both Israeli and Iranian flags. There was a smaller Palestinian protest a little way away and the groups were separated by two lines of police.
Over the past several months the US army has been testing a laser system that is supposed to shoot down drones in the Loredo Texas area. From the sound of it, it can be pretty effective. It shot down some party balloons that had drifted over the border, and it also shot down a DHS surveillance drone at the border as well. Other hits are likely classified. Maybe they can deploy the weapon in the middle east. Certainly would be a lot cheeper to shoot down drones with high energy concentrated light beams than million dollar missles.
As I was driving home from the Doctor's office today, I heard a discussion on what Iran might do to disrupt the our country's 250th Independence Anniversary. The thought is, they might disrupt one or two parades, but that would be sufficient Then there are the world cup matches. They have yet to have security funding. And there is discussion of cyberattacks which Iran has been pretty skilled at in the past.
Regards: the World Cup. It is my understanding Iran was to represent the Middle East, but it appears they are not coming. Probably one of the other nations in the area.
And then there was an incident at Gracie Manson, the home of the New York City mayor. It started out as an anti-Muslim protest, but, then, two young middle eastern men threw two IED devices into the crowd. None of them exploded. The men were arrested. It is not known if they were connected with ISIS or Iran or another group at least according to the 7 AM CBS morning report.
Regards the Iranian Girls School bombing. Iranian TV has shown what appears to have been a US Tomahawk Missile hitting a Naval target nearby. The thought is the blast could have leveled the nearby school. Very upsetting. But Trump continues to blame Iran for the destruction of the school.
Word is, @Gramps49 that the BBC and other news agencies have been showing the footage to munitions experts who have all confirmed it was a Tomahawk missile which neither Israel nor Iran possess.
The footage doesn't show the Tomahawk hit the school but smoke is seen rising from it and there appear to have been a cluster of strikes around the target, which happened to be close to the school.
Unless Trump knows something nobody else does, which is very unlikely, then it's almost a dead certainty it was a US missile.
Rather than come clean about that he's trying to bluster his way out of it.
The school wouldn't have been deliberately targeted of course but the Trump administration's callous disregard for what is euphemistically called 'collateral damage' is reprehensible in the extreme.
Like Herod Trump and Hegseth have innocent blood on their hands.
Does he ? He’s in the CREC which at least on its surface isn’t dispensationalist and generally takes a post-millennial stance.
The concern is not that Hegseth personally made the Armageddon statements, but that his department may have tolerated or failed to correct such messaging.
While the CREC is post millennial they do see Armageddon as a cosmic conflict which will be resolved in Christ's victory but not necessarily the current US-Iran war
Does he ? He’s in the CREC which at least on its surface isn’t dispensationalist and generally takes a post-millennial stance.
The concern is not that Hegseth personally made the Armageddon statements, but that his department may have tolerated or failed to correct such messaging.
Well, you said: “Hegseth believes this war will bring about Armegedon, don't ya know.” Based on what you said, the concern is not what his department may or may not have tolerated, but whether Hegseth actually believes what you asserted he believes, that this war will bring on Armageddon.
The school wouldn't have been deliberately targeted of course but the Trump administration's callous disregard for what is euphemistically called 'collateral damage' is reprehensible in the extreme.
But Lewis said it's more likely that the strike was the result of an error. Satellite images show that the school and clinic buildings were both once part of the base. The school was separated from the base by a wall between 2013 and 2016. The clinic was walled off between 2022 and 2024.
Lewis believes it's possible American military planners had not updated their target sets.
If this is the case, then the bombing of the school was deliberate in the sense that someone deliberately targeted a missile at the building and hit exactly what they were aiming at.
On the other hand every time Pete Hegseth talks to the media he brags about the loose rules of engagement the U.S. is operating under and implies that wars are won by whoever commits the most war crimes, so . . .
Does he ? He’s in the CREC which at least on its surface isn’t dispensationalist and generally takes a post-millennial stance.
The concern is not that Hegseth personally made the Armageddon statements, but that his department may have tolerated or failed to correct such messaging.
Well, you said: “Hegseth believes this war will bring about Armegedon, don't ya know.” Based on what you said, the concern is not what his department may or may not have tolerated, but whether Hegseth actually believes what you asserted he believes, that this war will bring on Armageddon.
I would have thought, given what I said, and how I said it, especially with the "don't ya know?" ending, I was being a little flippant. That said, I do think he thinks the Iranian war is a holy war. At least he has fostered an environment under him that allows for this rhetoric.
Does he ? He’s in the CREC which at least on its surface isn’t dispensationalist and generally takes a post-millennial stance.
The concern is not that Hegseth personally made the Armageddon statements, but that his department may have tolerated or failed to correct such messaging.
Well, you said: “Hegseth believes this war will bring about Armegedon, don't ya know.” Based on what you said, the concern is not what his department may or may not have tolerated, but whether Hegseth actually believes what you asserted he believes, that this war will bring on Armageddon.
I would have thought, given what I said, and how I said it, especially with the "don't ya know?" ending, I was being a little flippant.
Flippancy often doesn’t convey in an online medium. To me it came across as “you know he believes this war will start Armageddon.”
The school wouldn't have been deliberately targeted of course but the Trump administration's callous disregard for what is euphemistically called 'collateral damage' is reprehensible in the extreme.
But Lewis said it's more likely that the strike was the result of an error. Satellite images show that the school and clinic buildings were both once part of the base. The school was separated from the base by a wall between 2013 and 2016. The clinic was walled off between 2022 and 2024.
Lewis believes it's possible American military planners had not updated their target sets.
If this is the case, then the bombing of the school was deliberate in the sense that someone deliberately targeted a missile at the building and hit exactly what they were aiming at.
On the other hand every time Pete Hegseth talks to the media he brags about the loose rules of engagement the U.S. is operating under and implies that wars are won by whoever commits the most war crimes, so . . .
Ok.
I get that.
I s'pose it might be more accurate to say that the school wasn't hit because it was a school but because targeting information wasn't up to date.
Which is scant consolation.
On the way Hegseth presents things, Kemi Badenoch said on a BBC Radio 4 interview that American politicians tend to be more 'theatrical' in the way they present material than British ones.
I'm not sure that's uniformly the case.
He does seem to taking a kind of adolescent video game approach though, which is entirely inappropriate.
There's also been speculation (and, I stress it doesn't seem to be any more than that) that both US and Israeli commanders (possibly following instructions from above) wanted an element of shock and awe, taking out as many targets as possible in the first couple of days. That needed a large target list being drawn up quickly, and that AI systems were employed to help develop that list of targets. Which would be consistent with out of date information being fed into the AI system.
This is an adaptation of a shot in Dr. Strangelove (1964) in which Slim Pickins rode a nuclear bomb over supposedly Russia. Not an AI adaptation, likely just photoshopped. You remember that technique?
I imagine Israel would say taking over more territory was in response to attack at the foundation of the state to broaden the strike zone. Reasonable to do.So self defence.
That's neither the facts nor the historical reality. Israel was given a state to return its diaspora to its original homeland. It is allowed to defend itself from Palestinian attacks.
If Iran and other countries think the state of Israel should be removed because it is the aggressor simply by existing it has to deal with historical facts.
You can argue about who attacked who first but you're missing the point that Israel has a right to be there, which is not the Iranian or Hamas position.
You can argue the allies were wrong to grant the state and therefore Israel will always be the aggressor because they don't belong there but you're not taking the whole history into consideration are are ignoring the rights of Israel to exist.
Perhaps you could address my post re lots of people on this thread saying they don't want trump to be involved in choosing the next leader but they want him to solve all Iran's problems post war.
Perhaps you could identify exactly who has said they want Trump to solve all Iran’s problems post-war, and exactly where they said it.
Can you show us where “lots of people on this thread” have said this, or should we just assume it’s a straw man?
Not worth it Nick. Would take quite some time to copy and paste and would make little difference. It's easy to see which way the wind is blowing on this thread.
I imagine Israel would say taking over more territory was in response to attack at the foundation of the state to broaden the strike zone. Reasonable to do.So self defence.
That's neither the facts nor the historical reality. Israel was given a state to return its diaspora to its original homeland. It is allowed to defend itself from Palestinian attacks.
If Iran and other countries think the state of Israel should be removed because it is the aggressor simply by existing it has to deal with historical facts.
You can argue about who attacked who first but you're missing the point that Israel has a right to be there, which is not the Iranian or Hamas position.
You can argue the allies were wrong to grant the state and therefore Israel will always be the aggressor because they don't belong there but you're not taking the whole history into consideration are are ignoring the rights of Israel to exist.
No country has an inherent "right to exist", and no-one had a right to ethnically cleanse huge chunks of Palestine of its native population in order to create a sectarian ethno-state. That said, Israel could make peace tomorrow if it withdrew to its internationally recognised borders and stopped blockading and attacking Palestinian territory. Yes, there would be a hard core of absolutists but without ongoing Israeli oppression they would dwindle to nothingness.
Israel claims Palestine and Palestinians don't exist. That position is malleable, so is Hamas's stated view of Israel (as demonstrated in the revision of their charter).
I imagine Israel would say taking over more territory was in response to attack at the foundation of the state to broaden the strike zone. Reasonable to do.So self defence.
That's neither the facts nor the historical reality. Israel was given a state to return its diaspora to its original homeland. It is allowed to defend itself from Palestinian attacks.
If Iran and other countries think the state of Israel should be removed because it is the aggressor simply by existing it has to deal with historical facts.
You can argue about who attacked who first but you're missing the point that Israel has a right to be there, which is not the Iranian or Hamas position.
You can argue the allies were wrong to grant the state and therefore Israel will always be the aggressor because they don't belong there but you're not taking the whole history into consideration are are ignoring the rights of Israel to exist.
No country has an inherent "right to exist", and no-one had a right to ethnically cleanse huge chunks of Palestine of its native population in order to create a sectarian ethno-state. That said, Israel could make peace tomorrow if it withdrew to its internationally recognised borders and stopped blockading and attacking Palestinian territory. Yes, there would be a hard core of absolutists but without ongoing Israeli oppression they would dwindle to nothingness.
Israel claims Palestine and Palestinians don't exist. That position is malleable, so is Hamas's stated view of Israel (as demonstrated in the revision of their charter).
Just confirming, you don't think the Jews have a right to return to their homeland?
Then your beef is with the UN and a long history of Jews in Israel.
I imagine Israel would say taking over more territory was in response to attack at the foundation of the state to broaden the strike zone. Reasonable to do.So self defence.
That's neither the facts nor the historical reality. Israel was given a state to return its diaspora to its original homeland. It is allowed to defend itself from Palestinian attacks.
If Iran and other countries think the state of Israel should be removed because it is the aggressor simply by existing it has to deal with historical facts.
You can argue about who attacked who first but you're missing the point that Israel has a right to be there, which is not the Iranian or Hamas position.
You can argue the allies were wrong to grant the state and therefore Israel will always be the aggressor because they don't belong there but you're not taking the whole history into consideration are are ignoring the rights of Israel to exist.
No country has an inherent "right to exist", and no-one had a right to ethnically cleanse huge chunks of Palestine of its native population in order to create a sectarian ethno-state. That said, Israel could make peace tomorrow if it withdrew to its internationally recognised borders and stopped blockading and attacking Palestinian territory. Yes, there would be a hard core of absolutists but without ongoing Israeli oppression they would dwindle to nothingness.
Israel claims Palestine and Palestinians don't exist. That position is malleable, so is Hamas's stated view of Israel (as demonstrated in the revision of their charter).
Just confirming, you don't think the Jews have a right to return to their homeland?
Then your beef is with the UN and a long history of Jews in Israel.
I don't think Jews have an exclusive right to it. I also think the idea of a "homeland" that you can't even trace your family tree back to is more than a little dubious. The UN never endorsed the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. I think, in general, that people should be able to live where they want, but also shouldn't be allowed to force other people from their homes to achieve that. What began with the Nakba in 1948 is ongoing now in the West Bank and Gaza. The attempt by the allies to ameliorate their guilt at refusing Jewish refugees and failing to prevent the Holocaust should not have been bought with the land and lives of the people of Palestine.
There's a level of farce in that Trump claimed that any number of countries could have launched the missile (was it a Tomahawk?) including Iran. A reporter came back and asked how that was possible given Iran did not have the missiles and Trump said that he did not know.
So apparently it is possible that Iran is firing missiles they don't have at their own schools and the country that does have the missiles and is currently firing at them cannot be held responsible for using them on civilians. And probably who cares even if it did hit a school.
I also note that Trump saying the war is over and won is rather contradicted by Trump saying they have not yet 'won enough'. It seems like Iran still has weapons which can cause damage, so until it is clear that they no longer have those then oil tankers will not be moving as normal.
Perhaps you could address my post re lots of people on this thread saying they don't want trump to be involved in choosing the next leader but they want him to solve all Iran's problems post war.
Perhaps you could identify exactly who has said they want Trump to solve all Iran’s problems post-war, and exactly where they said it.
Can you show us where “lots of people on this thread” have said this, or should we just assume it’s a straw man?
Not worth it Nick. Would take quite some time to copy and paste and would make little difference. It's easy to see which way the wind is blowing on this thread.
Your choice, of course. But for my money, when someone makes an assertion like the one you made and then is unwilling to provide even one example that would back that assertion up—no copying and pasting needed, the quote button makes it easy, and just identifying a shipmate and a post is another option—I tend to assume that someone isn’t interested in actually engaging in discussion. I also tend to assume that it means what they say can’t be trusted.
Perhaps you could address my post re lots of people on this thread saying they don't want trump to be involved in choosing the next leader but they want him to solve all Iran's problems post war.
Perhaps you could identify exactly who has said they want Trump to solve all Iran’s problems post-war, and exactly where they said it.
Can you show us where “lots of people on this thread” have said this, or should we just assume it’s a straw man?
Not worth it Nick. Would take quite some time to copy and paste and would make little difference. It's easy to see which way the wind is blowing on this thread.
Hostly hat on
This is a discussion board @WhimsicalChristian. As it says in the Purgatory Board description, this is a space for proper debate. Proper debate requires you to back up your assertions.
I imagine Israel would say taking over more territory was in response to attack at the foundation of the state to broaden the strike zone. Reasonable to do.So self defence.
That's neither the facts nor the historical reality. Israel was given a state to return its diaspora to its original homeland. It is allowed to defend itself from Palestinian attacks.
If Iran and other countries think the state of Israel should be removed because it is the aggressor simply by existing it has to deal with historical facts.
You can argue about who attacked who first but you're missing the point that Israel has a right to be there, which is not the Iranian or Hamas position.
You can argue the allies were wrong to grant the state and therefore Israel will always be the aggressor because they don't belong there but you're not taking the whole history into consideration are are ignoring the rights of Israel to exist.
No country has an inherent "right to exist", and no-one had a right to ethnically cleanse huge chunks of Palestine of its native population in order to create a sectarian ethno-state. That said, Israel could make peace tomorrow if it withdrew to its internationally recognised borders and stopped blockading and attacking Palestinian territory. Yes, there would be a hard core of absolutists but without ongoing Israeli oppression they would dwindle to nothingness.
Israel claims Palestine and Palestinians don't exist. That position is malleable, so is Hamas's stated view of Israel (as demonstrated in the revision of their charter).
Just confirming, you don't think the Jews have a right to return to their homeland?
Then your beef is with the UN and a long history of Jews in Israel.
What about the right of Palestinians to return to the homes stolen from them by Israeli settlers? Not a metaphorical stealing but very literally expelling Palestinians from their homes and then forbidding them from ever returning to Palestine when they sought refuge elsewhere. An Irish-American convert to Judaism with zero ethnic Jewish heritage (as an example) has more rights in the occupied West Bank than people who have lived there for centuries.
I find it strange that you are very eager to extol the evils of radical Islam yet awfully silent about Israel's oppression of Palestinian Christians. Does the Israeli destruction of some of the most ancient churches in the world not offend you?
I don't think Jews have an exclusive right to it. I also think the idea of a "homeland" that you can't even trace your family tree back to is more than a little dubious. The UN never endorsed the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. I think, in general, that people should be able to live where they want, but also shouldn't be allowed to force other people from their homes to achieve that. What began with the Nakba in 1948 is ongoing now in the West Bank and Gaza. The attempt by the allies to ameliorate their guilt at refusing Jewish refugees and failing to prevent the Holocaust should not have been bought with the land and lives of the people of Palestine.
I think there are as many explanations for how we reached the current state of affairs as there are discrete periods of history leading up to it. To illustrate, I would go back to the circumstances surrounding the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and the history of Zionism.
As the wikipedia article puts it:
As in the US, England had experienced a rapid growth in their Jewish minority. About 150,000 Jews migrated there from Russia in the period 1881–1914. With this immigration influx, pressure grew from British voters to halt it … Zionism became an attractive solution for both Britain and the Empire.
(Maybe it's significant that this requires a citation, maybe not.) If you want to go back further, I think it's worth remembering that Jews were expelled from England in 1290, which continued until Oliver Cromwell overthrew the monarchy in 1649.
So, one proximate explanation for the Balfour Declaration is that it suited Britain to work towards creating the Nation of Israel so that there was somewhere for all the Jewish immigrants to go back to. I don't think for a minute that this is any more complete an explanation than any other single-factor cause. (But it has a contemporary ring to it.)
For me, the long, long history of intolerance and persecution of Jews across Europe, including deliberate anti-integration policies and practices adopted by many countries at different times, suggest that the creation of a Jewish Nation State was as act of political expediency as much as anything, with little thought about the consequences for the region, or the Jews.
Also from that wikipedia article, I note the following:
Christian Zionism is primarily driven by the belief that the return of Jews to the Holy Land will either lead to their conversion to Christianity or their destruction. … As a result, Christian Zionists have significantly contributed politically and financially to Israeli nationalist forces, with the understanding that Israel's role is to facilitate the Second Coming of Christ and the elimination of Judaism.
Recently a Jewish friend asked me in the wake of the Manchester attack "If we can't go to Israel and be safe, where CAN we go."
I wish I had an answer for her. She is no admirer of the current Israeli regime or its actions.
Recently a Jewish friend asked me in the wake of the Manchester attack "If we can't go to Israel and be safe, where CAN we go."
I wish I had an answer for her. She is no admirer of the current Israeli regime or its actions.
The existence of a "safe" Jewish ethnostate relies on antisemitism existing elsewhere.
The issue is not about supporting any particular Israeli government or not, the issue is that nobody is entitled to an ethnostate. This applies to Japan just as much as it does to Israel.
When we start talking about who is taking over whose land, not many of our countries have clean hands.
Given British colonialism's role in establishing the State of Israel, it's even more important for British people to raise awareness of the Nakba etc. Knowing that your country doesn't have clean hands is a very good reason to protest colonialism.
Recently a Jewish friend asked me in the wake of the Manchester attack "If we can't go to Israel and be safe, where CAN we go."
I wish I had an answer for her. She is no admirer of the current Israeli regime or its actions.
The existence of a "safe" Jewish ethnostate relies on antisemitism existing elsewhere.
Do you mean that its "necessity" is "dependent on" antisemitism elsewhere"? Otherwise I cannot make sense of that sentence. In any case it is clear (and was even clearer in 1947) that intense antisemitism does exist elsewhere, so this seems more of a truism than an objection.
The issue is not about supporting any particular Israeli government or not, the issue is that nobody is entitled to an ethnostate. This applies to Japan just as much as it does to Israel.
Whereas this seems like it might be a very broad statement, depending on your definition of "entitled" and "ethnostate". Does it also apply (say) to Ireland, or Pakistan? Besides, I imagine Japanese people have less reason to fear that someone will try to delete their nation-state, or indeed their nation.
The least worst or 'luckiest' outcome would be for the Iranian regime to continue in some form, weakened but with essentially the same people in charge and the same set of policies.
There is an outside chance that the new Supreme Leader has been keeping his powder dry on a secret reformist agenda a la Gorbachev but I don't think we're that lucky and he'd have to be very cautious about it not to get offed by the IRGC.
It sounds like he's much more of a hardliner (similarly the chances that any one of the next leaders sticking by the current fatwa against developing nuclear weapons is slimmer than it was).
I'm late to this and perhaps this is now common knowledge - the new leader was chosen by a conclave of 88 (I think) clerics in short order; he is the son of the previous leader killed by US/Israeli strikes. His wife and daughter also died in those attacks. It therefore seems unlikely that he will be minded to be conciliatory, and the fact he was chosen sends a strong message regarding the political direction chosen in response to the attacks, which appears to be to confirm that the Iranian state intends to persist.
Word is, he is likely more hardline than his father. Personally, I would not like the target the Israelis have put on him. It is only a matter of time before a missile or drone will find him.
It's not surprising that the Iranian establishment selected a hardline supreme leader, that's just human nature. When faced by an external threat, and especially when that threat becomes realised, most nations (or, at least that part of the nation who has a say) want strong leadership who will be seen to stand up for their nation. If the US and Israel wanted to encourage a more moderate Iranian leadership then they would need to make threats to the Iranian leadership seem more distant, ie: to engage in negotiations and accept some compromises and concessions for the sake of peace.
Recently a Jewish friend asked me in the wake of the Manchester attack "If we can't go to Israel and be safe, where CAN we go."
I wish I had an answer for her. She is no admirer of the current Israeli regime or its actions.
The existence of a "safe" Jewish ethnostate relies on antisemitism existing elsewhere.
The issue is not about supporting any particular Israeli government or not, the issue is that nobody is entitled to an ethnostate. This applies to Japan just as much as it does to Israel.
The issue is not about supporting any particular Israeli government or not, the issue is that nobody is entitled to an ethnostate. This applies to Japan just as much as it does to Israel.
Whereas this seems like it might be a very broad statement, depending on your definition of "entitled" and "ethnostate". Does it also apply (say) to Ireland, or Pakistan? Besides, I imagine Japanese people have less reason to fear that someone will try to delete their nation-state, or indeed their nation.
Hmm. History, and the very existential nature of nuclear weapons, suggests to me that reason is only part of the picture. (Wikipedia):
On 6 and 9 August 1945, the United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, during World War II. The aerial bombings killed 150,000 to 246,000 people, most of whom were civilians, and remain the first and only uses of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict.
Many nations still worry when the US gets unpredictably bellicose, and consider nuclear weapons programmes of their own.
Since the reliability of U.S. security guarantees shapes Japan's nuclear policy, a strong American nuclear umbrella is necessary to prevent Japan from developing nuclear weapons of its own. Since the 1960s, however, Japanese confidence in U.S. security guarantees has been influenced by American foreign policy shifts, from Nixon's "Guam Doctrine" to Trump's desire for allies to provide more of their own security. … There is historical precedent for the U.S. to be complacent regarding Japan building nuclear arms …This was the case for France and the United Kingdom, when they developed their own nuclear weapons after the end of the Second World War despite American deterrence.
It's also worth bearing in mind Japan's comparatively recent history as an imperial coloniser, during which time they occupied what are now North (and South) Korea and parts of China.
Strategic nuclear weapons mean that no-one's homeland is "safe", more so if it's limited in area. Nuclear weapons are both a cause of existential threat/fear, and a rational/irrational response.
It's not surprising that the Iranian establishment selected a hardline supreme leader, that's just human nature. When faced by an external threat, and especially when that threat becomes realised, most nations (or, at least that part of the nation who has a say) want strong leadership who will be seen to stand up for their nation. If the US and Israel wanted to encourage a more moderate Iranian leadership then they would need to make threats to the Iranian leadership seem more distant, ie: to engage in negotiations and accept some compromises and concessions for the sake of peace.
The trouble is that the Iranian regime doesn't really have much to lose that they have not already lost. The leadership seems to crave martyrdom so it seems like the war will likely continue as long as they retain sufficient military hardware to fight back. On the other side it seems like carpet bombing until nothing moves is likely on the agenda, although I still think Trump will likely move on to other targets before too long.
Perhaps you could address my post re lots of people on this thread saying they don't want trump to be involved in choosing the next leader but they want him to solve all Iran's problems post war.
Perhaps you could identify exactly who has said they want Trump to solve all Iran’s problems post-war, and exactly where they said it.
Can you show us where “lots of people on this thread” have said this, or should we just assume it’s a straw man?
Not worth it Nick. Would take quite some time to copy and paste and would make little difference. It's easy to see which way the wind is blowing on this thread.
Hostly hat on
This is a discussion board @WhimsicalChristian. As it says in the Purgatory Board description, this is a space for proper debate. Proper debate requires you to back up your assertions.
North East Quine, Purgatory host Hostly hat off
Ok. Below are quotes about there is no game plan, no endgame, Trump is in the dark. Then responses to his wanting to be involved in regime change as egotistical and flabbergasting.
But really I avoided Nick because he's not very involved in this discussion and he's just coming after me personally, like he has randomly on a hell thread.
amma Gamaliel Shipmate
March 5
A pundit on BBC Radio 4's World at One this afternoon opined that the Trump administration may be shifting back from regime change to simply reducing Iran's capacity to harm its neighbours or US interests in the region.
That way it becomes easier to claim victory after a few weeks bombing.
I suspect the White House would be happy with that as an outcome but even if Iran's navy is sunk and its ballistic missile capacity is 'degraded', it wouldn't stop low-level reprisals and terrorist attacks on 'soft' targets around the region and here in the West.
During the Vietnam War I think it was General Westmorland - 'Waste-more-land' - who said that the US should 'bomb Cambodia back into the Stone Age.'
That didn't end well.
No clear war aims, no game plan.
We've been this way before.
Bullfrog Shipmate
March 5 edited March 5
I honestly don't think the man has a plan. He's flailing, and the way his mind is I'm not sure if he's swinging things or being swung, like some kind of really awkward multi-posted flail.
That likely means that this is going to be some very expensive flailing.
So much for "fiscal responsibility."
•
• quetzalcoatl Shipmate
March 4
It's unclear what Trump's endgame is now. Well, I guess the collapse of the Iranian regime would be something, but then you wonder at what would happen next. A pro-western regime? Another possibility is anarchy. There is a chilling reminder that when Libya broke into pieces, the West abandoned it. I guess Trump is in the dark.
•
Gramps49 Shipmate
March 6
I am thinking the Kurds do not want to do American's bidding because, frankly, they are tired of war; and they do not want to lose any more territory than they already have. They just lost a big chunk of land in Syria. They do not want the Iraqis to do the same. Just lie low, let the big boys play.
When the US says it will be striking deeper into Iran, I am thinking it is still thinking of an arial campaign, much like what we tried to do in North Vietnam--and will probably be just as ineffective. (Shades of 1984)
Iran has shown long tunnels of Shahed drones and missile batteries, It appears they think they can outlast the current Israeli/American campaign.
I imagine Israel would say taking over more territory was in response to attack at the foundation of the state to broaden the strike zone. Reasonable to do.So self defence.
That's neither the facts nor the historical reality. Israel was given a state to return its diaspora to its original homeland. It is allowed to defend itself from Palestinian attacks.
If Iran and other countries think the state of Israel should be removed because it is the aggressor simply by existing it has to deal with historical facts.
You can argue about who attacked who first but you're missing the point that Israel has a right to be there, which is not the Iranian or Hamas position.
You can argue the allies were wrong to grant the state and therefore Israel will always be the aggressor because they don't belong there but you're not taking the whole history into consideration are are ignoring the rights of Israel to exist.
No country has an inherent "right to exist", and no-one had a right to ethnically cleanse huge chunks of Palestine of its native population in order to create a sectarian ethno-state. That said, Israel could make peace tomorrow if it withdrew to its internationally recognised borders and stopped blockading and attacking Palestinian territory. Yes, there would be a hard core of absolutists but without ongoing Israeli oppression they would dwindle to nothingness.
Israel claims Palestine and Palestinians don't exist. That position is malleable, so is Hamas's stated view of Israel (as demonstrated in the revision of their charter).
Just confirming, you don't think the Jews have a right to return to their homeland?
Then your beef is with the UN and a long history of Jews in Israel.
I don't think Jews have an exclusive right to it. I also think the idea of a "homeland" that you can't even trace your family tree back to is more than a little dubious. The UN never endorsed the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. I think, in general, that people should be able to live where they want, but also shouldn't be allowed to force other people from their homes to achieve that. What began with the Nakba in 1948 is ongoing now in the West Bank and Gaza. The attempt by the allies to ameliorate their guilt at refusing Jewish refugees and failing to prevent the Holocaust should not have been bought with the land and lives of the people of Palestine.
The Jews were happy to share. The Arabs weren't.
The day after the British left, all Israel's neighbours attacked them.
The end of that particular war that Israel won, saw the West Bank and Gaza under their military control.
When we start talking about who is taking over whose land, not many of our countries have clean hands.
Given British colonialism's role in establishing the State of Israel, it's even more important for British people to raise awareness of the Nakba etc. Knowing that your country doesn't have clean hands is a very good reason to protest colonialism.
No. The point is colonialism goes back to the dawn of human history.
The Brits could demand reparations from the Celts, angles, saxons, vikings, romans etc etc etc etc.
This modern idea of European colonialism is completely lacking historical context.
I imagine Israel would say taking over more territory was in response to attack at the foundation of the state to broaden the strike zone. Reasonable to do.So self defence.
That's neither the facts nor the historical reality. Israel was given a state to return its diaspora to its original homeland. It is allowed to defend itself from Palestinian attacks.
If Iran and other countries think the state of Israel should be removed because it is the aggressor simply by existing it has to deal with historical facts.
You can argue about who attacked who first but you're missing the point that Israel has a right to be there, which is not the Iranian or Hamas position.
You can argue the allies were wrong to grant the state and therefore Israel will always be the aggressor because they don't belong there but you're not taking the whole history into consideration are are ignoring the rights of Israel to exist.
No country has an inherent "right to exist", and no-one had a right to ethnically cleanse huge chunks of Palestine of its native population in order to create a sectarian ethno-state. That said, Israel could make peace tomorrow if it withdrew to its internationally recognised borders and stopped blockading and attacking Palestinian territory. Yes, there would be a hard core of absolutists but without ongoing Israeli oppression they would dwindle to nothingness.
Israel claims Palestine and Palestinians don't exist. That position is malleable, so is Hamas's stated view of Israel (as demonstrated in the revision of their charter).
Just confirming, you don't think the Jews have a right to return to their homeland?
Then your beef is with the UN and a long history of Jews in Israel.
I don't think Jews have an exclusive right to it. I also think the idea of a "homeland" that you can't even trace your family tree back to is more than a little dubious. The UN never endorsed the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. I think, in general, that people should be able to live where they want, but also shouldn't be allowed to force other people from their homes to achieve that. What began with the Nakba in 1948 is ongoing now in the West Bank and Gaza. The attempt by the allies to ameliorate their guilt at refusing Jewish refugees and failing to prevent the Holocaust should not have been bought with the land and lives of the people of Palestine.
The Jews were happy to share. The Arabs weren't.
The day after the British left, all Israel's neighbours attacked them.
350K Palestinians had been displaced by groups like Haganah prior to the British leaving - there are plenty of quotes from prominent figures to the effect that they regarded expulsion of the existing Palestinian population from within Israel's proposed 1948 borders as a primary aim.
Firstly, @WhimsicalChristian my previous post was to point out that a response such as Not worth it Nick. Would take quite some time to copy and paste and would make little difference. It's easy to see which way the wind is blowing on this thread. is not acceptable in Purgatory.
Secondly, Commandment 4 states that If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell..
Your comment But really I avoided Nick because he's not very involved in this discussion and he's just coming after me personally, like he has randomly on a hell thread.
has no place in Purgatory.
North East Quine, Purgatory host Hostly hat back off
Comments
How would anyone here know anything they hadn't seen in the news? We don't seem to have a DOD insider on this forum.
By extension, I'm wondering whether Putin's Russia 'needs' the West as its bogey-man and vice-versa, the West 'needs' Russia and China as its bogey-men.
Which isn't to say that any of them aren't an actual threat to one another but the older I get the bleaker things appear in the Orwellian sense and the more 'Quakerly' I become in my attitude towards armed conflict - although I think out and out pacifism is pragmatically untenable.
Coming back to the current war, it's looking almost conclusive now that US munitions destroyed the school in southern Iran, despite Trump's lying that it was Iran.
Hegseth appears to have been more circumspect and I imagine the Trump administration will have to come clean that it was one of their missiles, although on previous form it may take them a while to admit a mistake.
The former head of the British Army was unequivocal as to where the blame should lie when interviewed on BBC Radio 4 this lunchtime. Of course he toed the usual line that the UK's default position should generally be to support the US, but not without caveats and misgivings about the current operation.
When a senior military figure voices an opinion like that then it should give pause to anyone justifying this ill-considered campaign.
The worst outcome he could envisage was the fragmentation of Iran with civil war and anarchy and the destabilisation of the region.
The least worst or 'luckiest' outcome would be for the Iranian regime to continue in some form, weakened but with essentially the same people in charge and the same set of policies.
Thanks President Trump. Thanks Netanyahu. You've right royally buggered everything up and made a bad situation worse.
Why are we not surprised?
There is an outside chance that the new Supreme Leader has been keeping his powder dry on a secret reformist agenda a la Gorbachev but I don't think we're that lucky and he'd have to be very cautious about it not to get offed by the IRGC.
It sounds like he's much more of a hardliner (similarly the chances that any one of the next leaders sticking by the current fatwa against developing nuclear weapons is slimmer than it was).
He'll have plenty of enemies.
There was a lot of shouting and gesticulating.
As I was driving home from the Doctor's office today, I heard a discussion on what Iran might do to disrupt the our country's 250th Independence Anniversary. The thought is, they might disrupt one or two parades, but that would be sufficient Then there are the world cup matches. They have yet to have security funding. And there is discussion of cyberattacks which Iran has been pretty skilled at in the past.
Regards: the World Cup. It is my understanding Iran was to represent the Middle East, but it appears they are not coming. Probably one of the other nations in the area.
And then there was an incident at Gracie Manson, the home of the New York City mayor. It started out as an anti-Muslim protest, but, then, two young middle eastern men threw two IED devices into the crowd. None of them exploded. The men were arrested. It is not known if they were connected with ISIS or Iran or another group at least according to the 7 AM CBS morning report.
Regards the Iranian Girls School bombing. Iranian TV has shown what appears to have been a US Tomahawk Missile hitting a Naval target nearby. The thought is the blast could have leveled the nearby school. Very upsetting. But Trump continues to blame Iran for the destruction of the school.
The footage doesn't show the Tomahawk hit the school but smoke is seen rising from it and there appear to have been a cluster of strikes around the target, which happened to be close to the school.
Unless Trump knows something nobody else does, which is very unlikely, then it's almost a dead certainty it was a US missile.
Rather than come clean about that he's trying to bluster his way out of it.
The school wouldn't have been deliberately targeted of course but the Trump administration's callous disregard for what is euphemistically called 'collateral damage' is reprehensible in the extreme.
Like Herod Trump and Hegseth have innocent blood on their hands.
And they don't seem to care.
The concern is not that Hegseth personally made the Armageddon statements, but that his department may have tolerated or failed to correct such messaging.
While the CREC is post millennial they do see Armageddon as a cosmic conflict which will be resolved in Christ's victory but not necessarily the current US-Iran war
I guess that depends on what you mean by "deliberately".
If this is the case, then the bombing of the school was deliberate in the sense that someone deliberately targeted a missile at the building and hit exactly what they were aiming at.
On the other hand every time Pete Hegseth talks to the media he brags about the loose rules of engagement the U.S. is operating under and implies that wars are won by whoever commits the most war crimes, so . . .
I would have thought, given what I said, and how I said it, especially with the "don't ya know?" ending, I was being a little flippant. That said, I do think he thinks the Iranian war is a holy war. At least he has fostered an environment under him that allows for this rhetoric.
Ok.
I get that.
I s'pose it might be more accurate to say that the school wasn't hit because it was a school but because targeting information wasn't up to date.
Which is scant consolation.
On the way Hegseth presents things, Kemi Badenoch said on a BBC Radio 4 interview that American politicians tend to be more 'theatrical' in the way they present material than British ones.
I'm not sure that's uniformly the case.
He does seem to taking a kind of adolescent video game approach though, which is entirely inappropriate.
https://www.borowitzreport.com/p/send-these-people-to-iran?
This is an adaptation of a shot in Dr. Strangelove (1964) in which Slim Pickins rode a nuclear bomb over supposedly Russia. Not an AI adaptation, likely just photoshopped. You remember that technique?
I imagine Israel would say taking over more territory was in response to attack at the foundation of the state to broaden the strike zone. Reasonable to do.So self defence.
That's neither the facts nor the historical reality. Israel was given a state to return its diaspora to its original homeland. It is allowed to defend itself from Palestinian attacks.
If Iran and other countries think the state of Israel should be removed because it is the aggressor simply by existing it has to deal with historical facts.
You can argue about who attacked who first but you're missing the point that Israel has a right to be there, which is not the Iranian or Hamas position.
You can argue the allies were wrong to grant the state and therefore Israel will always be the aggressor because they don't belong there but you're not taking the whole history into consideration are are ignoring the rights of Israel to exist.
Not worth it Nick. Would take quite some time to copy and paste and would make little difference. It's easy to see which way the wind is blowing on this thread.
No country has an inherent "right to exist", and no-one had a right to ethnically cleanse huge chunks of Palestine of its native population in order to create a sectarian ethno-state. That said, Israel could make peace tomorrow if it withdrew to its internationally recognised borders and stopped blockading and attacking Palestinian territory. Yes, there would be a hard core of absolutists but without ongoing Israeli oppression they would dwindle to nothingness.
Israel claims Palestine and Palestinians don't exist. That position is malleable, so is Hamas's stated view of Israel (as demonstrated in the revision of their charter).
I assumed you would hear Australian new over there. Wrong assumption perhaps. We do get a little ignored.
A report from The Australian Defence force here
I just think this request is pretty odd. Have any other countries been asked by the gulf states or UAE?
Just confirming, you don't think the Jews have a right to return to their homeland?
Then your beef is with the UN and a long history of Jews in Israel.
I don't think Jews have an exclusive right to it. I also think the idea of a "homeland" that you can't even trace your family tree back to is more than a little dubious. The UN never endorsed the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. I think, in general, that people should be able to live where they want, but also shouldn't be allowed to force other people from their homes to achieve that. What began with the Nakba in 1948 is ongoing now in the West Bank and Gaza. The attempt by the allies to ameliorate their guilt at refusing Jewish refugees and failing to prevent the Holocaust should not have been bought with the land and lives of the people of Palestine.
So apparently it is possible that Iran is firing missiles they don't have at their own schools and the country that does have the missiles and is currently firing at them cannot be held responsible for using them on civilians. And probably who cares even if it did hit a school.
But as I say, your choice.
Hostly hat on
This is a discussion board @WhimsicalChristian. As it says in the Purgatory Board description, this is a space for proper debate. Proper debate requires you to back up your assertions.
North East Quine, Purgatory host
Hostly hat off
What about the right of Palestinians to return to the homes stolen from them by Israeli settlers? Not a metaphorical stealing but very literally expelling Palestinians from their homes and then forbidding them from ever returning to Palestine when they sought refuge elsewhere. An Irish-American convert to Judaism with zero ethnic Jewish heritage (as an example) has more rights in the occupied West Bank than people who have lived there for centuries.
I find it strange that you are very eager to extol the evils of radical Islam yet awfully silent about Israel's oppression of Palestinian Christians. Does the Israeli destruction of some of the most ancient churches in the world not offend you?
As the wikipedia article puts it: (Maybe it's significant that this requires a citation, maybe not.) If you want to go back further, I think it's worth remembering that Jews were expelled from England in 1290, which continued until Oliver Cromwell overthrew the monarchy in 1649.
So, one proximate explanation for the Balfour Declaration is that it suited Britain to work towards creating the Nation of Israel so that there was somewhere for all the Jewish immigrants to go back to. I don't think for a minute that this is any more complete an explanation than any other single-factor cause. (But it has a contemporary ring to it.)
For me, the long, long history of intolerance and persecution of Jews across Europe, including deliberate anti-integration policies and practices adopted by many countries at different times, suggest that the creation of a Jewish Nation State was as act of political expediency as much as anything, with little thought about the consequences for the region, or the Jews.
Also from that wikipedia article, I note the following:
I wish I had an answer for her. She is no admirer of the current Israeli regime or its actions.
The existence of a "safe" Jewish ethnostate relies on antisemitism existing elsewhere.
The issue is not about supporting any particular Israeli government or not, the issue is that nobody is entitled to an ethnostate. This applies to Japan just as much as it does to Israel.
Given British colonialism's role in establishing the State of Israel, it's even more important for British people to raise awareness of the Nakba etc. Knowing that your country doesn't have clean hands is a very good reason to protest colonialism.
Do you mean that its "necessity" is "dependent on" antisemitism elsewhere"? Otherwise I cannot make sense of that sentence. In any case it is clear (and was even clearer in 1947) that intense antisemitism does exist elsewhere, so this seems more of a truism than an objection.
Whereas this seems like it might be a very broad statement, depending on your definition of "entitled" and "ethnostate". Does it also apply (say) to Ireland, or Pakistan? Besides, I imagine Japanese people have less reason to fear that someone will try to delete their nation-state, or indeed their nation.
I'm late to this and perhaps this is now common knowledge - the new leader was chosen by a conclave of 88 (I think) clerics in short order; he is the son of the previous leader killed by US/Israeli strikes. His wife and daughter also died in those attacks. It therefore seems unlikely that he will be minded to be conciliatory, and the fact he was chosen sends a strong message regarding the political direction chosen in response to the attacks, which appears to be to confirm that the Iranian state intends to persist.
Im sure this post would give her great comfort.
Many nations still worry when the US gets unpredictably bellicose, and consider nuclear weapons programmes of their own.
It's also worth bearing in mind Japan's comparatively recent history as an imperial coloniser, during which time they occupied what are now North (and South) Korea and parts of China.
Strategic nuclear weapons mean that no-one's homeland is "safe", more so if it's limited in area. Nuclear weapons are both a cause of existential threat/fear, and a rational/irrational response.
The trouble is that the Iranian regime doesn't really have much to lose that they have not already lost. The leadership seems to crave martyrdom so it seems like the war will likely continue as long as they retain sufficient military hardware to fight back. On the other side it seems like carpet bombing until nothing moves is likely on the agenda, although I still think Trump will likely move on to other targets before too long.
Ok. Below are quotes about there is no game plan, no endgame, Trump is in the dark. Then responses to his wanting to be involved in regime change as egotistical and flabbergasting.
But really I avoided Nick because he's not very involved in this discussion and he's just coming after me personally, like he has randomly on a hell thread.
amma Gamaliel Shipmate
March 5
A pundit on BBC Radio 4's World at One this afternoon opined that the Trump administration may be shifting back from regime change to simply reducing Iran's capacity to harm its neighbours or US interests in the region.
That way it becomes easier to claim victory after a few weeks bombing.
I suspect the White House would be happy with that as an outcome but even if Iran's navy is sunk and its ballistic missile capacity is 'degraded', it wouldn't stop low-level reprisals and terrorist attacks on 'soft' targets around the region and here in the West.
During the Vietnam War I think it was General Westmorland - 'Waste-more-land' - who said that the US should 'bomb Cambodia back into the Stone Age.'
That didn't end well.
No clear war aims, no game plan.
We've been this way before.
Bullfrog Shipmate
March 5 edited March 5
I honestly don't think the man has a plan. He's flailing, and the way his mind is I'm not sure if he's swinging things or being swung, like some kind of really awkward multi-posted flail.
That likely means that this is going to be some very expensive flailing.
So much for "fiscal responsibility."
•
• quetzalcoatl Shipmate
March 4
It's unclear what Trump's endgame is now. Well, I guess the collapse of the Iranian regime would be something, but then you wonder at what would happen next. A pro-western regime? Another possibility is anarchy. There is a chilling reminder that when Libya broke into pieces, the West abandoned it. I guess Trump is in the dark.
•
Gramps49 Shipmate
March 6
I am thinking the Kurds do not want to do American's bidding because, frankly, they are tired of war; and they do not want to lose any more territory than they already have. They just lost a big chunk of land in Syria. They do not want the Iraqis to do the same. Just lie low, let the big boys play.
When the US says it will be striking deeper into Iran, I am thinking it is still thinking of an arial campaign, much like what we tried to do in North Vietnam--and will probably be just as ineffective. (Shades of 1984)
Iran has shown long tunnels of Shahed drones and missile batteries, It appears they think they can outlast the current Israeli/American campaign.
And, now Trump is saying he must be involved in the appointment of the next Iranian leader. Talk about grandiose thinking. https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/iran-war-us-israel-trump-03-05-26
Sandemaniac Shipmate
March 6
Gramps49 wrote: »
And, now Trump is saying he must be involved in the appointment of the next Iranian leader. Talk about grandiose thinking. https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/iran-war-us-israel-trump-03-05-26
There's a fellow chum of Epstein currently without a job that I'm sure Britain could spare for him.
More seriously, the egotism is just flabbergasting.
The Jews were happy to share. The Arabs weren't.
The day after the British left, all Israel's neighbours attacked them.
The end of that particular war that Israel won, saw the West Bank and Gaza under their military control.
No. The point is colonialism goes back to the dawn of human history.
The Brits could demand reparations from the Celts, angles, saxons, vikings, romans etc etc etc etc.
This modern idea of European colonialism is completely lacking historical context.
350K Palestinians had been displaced by groups like Haganah prior to the British leaving - there are plenty of quotes from prominent figures to the effect that they regarded expulsion of the existing Palestinian population from within Israel's proposed 1948 borders as a primary aim.
Firstly, @WhimsicalChristian my previous post was to point out that a response such as
Not worth it Nick. Would take quite some time to copy and paste and would make little difference. It's easy to see which way the wind is blowing on this thread. is not acceptable in Purgatory.
Secondly, Commandment 4 states that If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell..
Your comment But really I avoided Nick because he's not very involved in this discussion and he's just coming after me personally, like he has randomly on a hell thread.
has no place in Purgatory.
North East Quine, Purgatory host
Hostly hat back off