Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Gospel]

But here I disagree. I do not believe he wants Hamas around. Rather, he's suffering from leftist ideology: There is an answer if you look hard enough. The failure to find the answer is proof you're not trying hard enough.

No one’s claiming there’s a perfect solution. But dismissing every attempt at diplomacy as naïve or ideologically blind is just another way of justifying a status quo that, let’s be honest, has failed to deliver peace, security, or justice for anyone involved.

What’s the plan after Hamas is removed from Gaza? Israel , while the legalities are debatable, seems to be aiming at what it views as the root of the problem: Iran’s leadership. Their actions suggest a push for regime change, presumably to create a more favorable diplomatic environment, though even that is highly debatable.

That “no more talking, just kill everyone” mindset? We’ve seen that before, right after 9/11, when the U.S. charged into Afghanistan and then Iraq under the illusion that overwhelming force could fix everything. We toppled regimes, but what did we build? Twenty years later, trillions spent, thousands dead, and both countries are still unstable.

That wasn’t strength, it was fear, vengeance, and the illusion of control masquerading as strategy. It’s the same absolutist thinking being repeated today, and it doesn’t lead to peace, just endless cycles of destruction.

A nuclear program we had full access to , until the “own the libs” movement decided sabotaging Obama was more important.

I wouldn't say "full access" to, but definitely providing us a great deal more access and intel we wouldn't have otherwise had. As well as camel nosing under the tent for other things in Iran.

Agreed , I can get a bit hyperbolic when I’m fired up.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Israel vows to prevent an aid boat carrying Greta Thunberg and other activists from reaching Gaza

Israel’s government has vowed to prevent an aid boat carrying Greta Thunberg and other activists from reaching the Gaza Strip.

apnews.com

Well, duh!

Either they stop it or next time it's full of weapons.

Another one of your favorite fallacies of the excluded middle,. The IDF can check the vessel and let it through if there are no weapons.

The IDF is its own worst PR nightmare.

Check it how??

You realize they're using great x-ray machines that image a whole truck? Such things aren't exactly portable. Nor is it practical to either move the x-rays to the ship, nor the goods to a vessel with the x-ray. Ship to ship transfers of large amounts of material pretty much do not happen outside military operations and even then it's limited. (Which has been in the news occasionally--all of our VLS-equipped ships can only rearm in port.)

 

[Derec]

A nuclear program we had full access to , until the “own the libs” movement decided sabotaging Obama was more important.

Not really true. The deal only lasted for 10 years, which means that it would have expired by now anyway.
And it made no provisions for Iranian missile development and stockpiles, nor did it address the funding and support for terrorist organizations by the Tehran regime. In return for conceding very little, Tehran got sanction relief, plus $400M in frozen funds that actually belong to the Shah government, not to the ayatollahs.

 

[NoHolyCows]

This isn’t about a zoning dispute or someone accidentally pouring concrete on the wrong lot. The Israeli government—not just “some Israelis”—has officially authorized and subsidized settlement construction across the West Bank for decades, in clear violation of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention. These aren’t rogue contractors; they’re government-backed expansions into occupied territory, complete with military protection, roads barred to Palestinians, and legal systems that separate two populations based on ethnicity.

Authorized? No, recognized what has happened.

As for home demolitions, the “they built illegally” excuse collapses under scrutiny. In Area C of the West Bank, which is under full Israeli control, Palestinians are denied over 98% of building permit applications. So what you’re calling “illegal construction” is often the only way families can build a home at all. Then those homes are demolished—not because of a mistake, but because the system is designed to make Palestinian presence unviable. Meanwhile, Israeli settlements—built without permits or in defiance of court orders—are routinely retroactively legalized.

98% is supposed to prove something? Flood of garbage, blame Israel when it's denied.

This isn’t about enforcing property rights. It’s about using bureaucracy as a weapon of displacement. So if your defense is “well, they didn’t have a permit,” you’ve missed the point entirely—or chosen not to see it. Either way, it’s not the Paul Harvey version. It’s the propaganda version.

That says nothing about whether it improved the overall situation.

What it says is that you’re measuring “improvement” by how much quieter it got for the occupier—not how much worse it got for the occupied.

I'm measuring improvement in people not dying.

Splitting Palestinian leadership between Hamas and the PA wasn’t some incidental development—it was actively leveraged to weaken Palestinian political unity, stall negotiations, and entrench the status quo. You call that concentrating the problem. But the only reason Gaza became “the problem” is because it was isolated, blockaded, and punished collectively.

Gaza became the problem because Hamas was more radical than Fatah and thus gets most of the money.

So if your standard of success is fewer disturbances in the West Bank while Gaza descends into rubble and starvation, then you’re not judging the situation by human dignity or justice. You’re judging it by how manageable the crisis became for Israel.

Gaza only descends into rubble and starvation when they attack.

And no, that’s not peacekeeping. That’s containment. With a body count.

And it's not proper to contain a problem?

It's not just the charter. It was their announced policy of going to war if they won. As with so much of this stuff all you need to do is actually listen to what they are saying, rather than paying attention to what they say they are saying.

Then apply that same standard to both sides. Because if we’re judging legitimacy by what parties say they’ll do, Israel has long announced its refusal to accept a Palestinian state with full sovereignty. It has declared intentions to expand settlements, annex land, and impose “eternal” control over Jerusalem—all open, unapologetic policies. And yet, no one argues that Israel forfeits its legitimacy because of those positions.

Of course they won't---because a state with full sovereignty could freely import weapons. And they're not going to allow that.

But when Hamas—before taking office, under pressure, with no functioning state apparatus—expresses militant rhetoric, you use that as grounds to blockade an entire civilian population indefinitely.

No. They specifically said they would attack, they did so. What's so hard to understand about that?

You say, “Just listen to what they say.” I am. I’m also listening to what the blockade has done: decimated an economy, crippled hospitals, poisoned water supplies, and reduced over 2 million people—half of them children—to a life of permanent emergency.

Hamas wants that. Israel isn't in a position to prevent Hamas from getting that.

So let’s be clear: this wasn’t about protecting peace. It was about punishing democracy the moment it didn’t go the way Western powers and Israel wanted. And if you think the ballot only counts when it favors your preferred party, you’re not defending democracy. You’re dressing authoritarianism in the language of self-defense.

It's somehow wrong to react to a quasi-state declaring war??

I consider "success" to be minimizing the death toll.

Then you should be the first to condemn policies that inflame violence rather than contain it. Because the occupation of the West Bank hasn’t minimized the death toll—it’s created a pressure cooker. Arbitrary arrests, child detentions, home demolitions, land seizures—these aren’t peacekeeping. They’re systemic humiliation. And humiliation doesn’t breed peace. It breeds resentment, radicalization, and the very violence you claim to oppose.

Standard water carrying for the terrorists. The violence follows the money.

If the goal is truly to minimize deaths, then justice has to be more than force without resistance. It has to be equity, dignity, and the ability for people to live without the daily threat of displacement or dehumanization. Otherwise, what you’re calling “success” is just the temporary silencing of a people with no voice left to resist. That’s not peace. It’s pressure before the next explosion.

Hamas won't accept equality.

Of course it wasn't. But what you are missing is they absolutely do not want sovereignty. To actually become a state would require specifying what they are and that would leave them with an impossible choice. Either they admit they want all of Israel, or they in effect give up on conquering Israel. The latter is treason by their own laws.

And this is exactly the kind of self-justifying loop that ensures permanent conflict. You claim Palestinians “don’t want sovereignty” based on the impossible conditions imposed on them—conditions created and maintained precisely to prevent them from achieving it. You frame their political paralysis as intrinsic, rather than the result of decades of occupation, manipulation, and externally enforced fragmentation.

No. I'm not saying anyone is imposing a condition on them, I'm saying reality is. To declare a state would force them to answer the question about where the border should be. As it stands they can pretend they want two state.

You’ve built an argument so circular it guarantees permanent conflict. You claim Palestinians don’t want sovereignty—not because they’ve said so, but because declaring a state would supposedly force them to admit they either want all of Israel or none at all. But that’s not a fact. That’s a projection. And more importantly, it’s a trap. Because when Palestinians make overtures for peace, you call them insincere. When they negotiate, you say they’re buying time. When they resist, you call it terrorism. And when they’re silent, you accuse them of complicity. You’ve set the terms so that no matter what they do, you can say they’ve failed the test. But maybe the test was never honest to begin with.

Let’s talk about reality. In Area C of the West Bank, under full Israeli control, over 98% of Palestinian building permit applications are denied. That’s not urban planning—it’s engineered displacement. Settlements continue to expand in direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, while Palestinians are punished not just for building without permits, but for existing in a system that makes legal construction nearly impossible. Israeli settlers who build illegally see their outposts retroactively legalized. Palestinian families who build on their own land are met with bulldozers.

Meanwhile, Gaza was sealed off not after rocket fire, but after the wrong political party won an election. The blockade that followed didn’t just isolate Hamas—it crushed hospitals, poisoned water supplies, and shattered the economy for two million people, half of them children. That wasn’t security. That was retribution against a population for voting the wrong way.

You claim to value minimizing the death toll. But every policy you defend has raised it. The occupation hasn’t reduced violence—it has institutionalized it. Home demolitions, child detentions, sniper shootings at protests—this isn’t peacekeeping. It’s humiliation codified into daily life. And humiliation doesn’t bring stability. It breeds despair, resentment, and eventually explosion. If you think containing Gaza with bombs and fences is a “solution,” then your goal isn’t peace. It’s managed subjugation.

You say Hamas doesn’t want equality. Fine. But equality was never on offer. Sovereignty was never on offer. A viable state with control over its borders, airspace, and economy was never on offer. And when Palestinians tried diplomacy—when they recognized Israel, signed Oslo, renounced terrorism—it was met with stalled negotiations, expanding settlements, and a process deliberately stretched until it broke.

And yet when Israel walks away from talks, you call it caution. When Palestinians walk away, you call it proof of bad faith. You’ve created a standard where Palestinian legitimacy is always conditional, always just out of reach, while Israeli impunity is always assumed. That’s not a double standard. That’s the absence of a standard altogether.

You say your measure of success is fewer deaths. Then start measuring the policies that manufacture them. Don’t blame oppression on the oppressed. Don’t call siege warfare “containment.” And don’t act like resistance to injustice only counts when it’s convenient for you.

I’m not defending Hamas. I’m defending the principle that civilian life is not expendable—no matter who governs them, no matter what flag flies above their homes. You’ve asked me to look at what Hamas says. Fine. I have. But I’ve also listened to what the bombs say, what the checkpoints say, what the bulldozers say, and what the walls say. And all of them say the same thing: that Palestinian freedom is always a threat to be managed, never a right to be honored.

You can rationalize that if you want. But don’t confuse it for justice. And don’t pretend it leads anywhere but back here—again and again—because a people denied dignity will never stay quiet forever.

NHC

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's just Geneva was written as guidelines for avoiding inadvertent harm to civilians, it didn't envision the deliberate harm to civilians that Hamas engages in.

Do you have any actual independent evidence (not some sort of narrative from your imagination) to support that observation?
Under the assumption your observation is valid, then the civilized manner is to follow the conventions while working to get them changed. If that makes waging war more difficult, so be it.

Otherwise, observers have every legitimate reason to object to the violation of the Geneva convention.

Yes, your absolutely right—and your point exposes just how dangerously uninformed Loren Pechtel’s reading of the Geneva Conventions truly is.

Loren claimed:

“It’s just Geneva was written as guidelines for avoiding inadvertent harm to civilians, it didn’t envision the deliberate harm to civilians that Hamas engages in.”

That’s not just incorrect. It shows a deep misunderstanding of both the purpose and the structure of international humanitarian law (IHL).

The Geneva Conventions—and their Additional Protocols—were not written as mere “guidelines” to help nations avoid accidents. They are binding legal obligations ratified by nearly every country in the world, including Israel. They exist precisely because warfare often involves parties who do deliberately harm civilians—whether state or non-state actors—and they are meant to limit that harm, even (and especially) when one side disregards those rules.

To say Geneva “didn’t envision” deliberate civilian targeting is a bit like saying the criminal code wasn’t written to handle murder. It’s nonsense. The conventions were born out of the horrors of World War II and deliberately crafted to anticipate the worst of human behavior. That’s why terms like grave breaches, collective punishment, and protection of civilian populations appear so explicitly in the legal texts.

Yeah, I know it's hard to comprehend blasphemy. Try anyway!

The issue is with notification for misuse. Geneva was written with the notion that everybody would be trying to avoid improper strikes.

Hamas is actively trying to encourage "improper" strikes. Thus sending notice over misuse isn't going to make one bit of difference. I care about what influences the outcome and this is not something that influences the outcome.

And it's trivially obvious in most cases that there was misuse. If they were truly staying out of it the IDF would walk in, look around, leave. There would be no fighting. You want to claim protected status, you stay out of it. Entirely.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"carrying pilgrims". Big yellow flag right there, I was already expecting deception when I played the video.

"I was already expecting deception when I played the video." Can't much get a stronger admission of prejudice. And the word pilgrim simply means a person who journeys to a sacred place for religious reasons. More prejudice.

Reading. Try it sometime!

I pointed out why I expected an issue: "carrying pilgrims". Very unlikely and thus a strong suggestion it was a setup. When they go out of their way to portray something as innocent figure it probably is not.

Doing something like putting that bus there is a standard ambush technique, clipping the corner of the bus instead of allowing it to stop them and bunch them up is pretty standard in hostile territory. US forces would have done the same thing in Iraq.

There was another car parked directly in front of the bus. The bus was going nowhere.

Assuming every car on the road is a possible attack so that gives the IDF the right to destroy private property. Yup, that's hostile territory alright. Direct hostility to West Bank residents. And people wonder why the Israelis are hated so much.

As I said, we would have done the same thing in Iraq.

 

[Derec]

I thought MAGA supporters, some even here, were telling us that Trump would keep us out of war?

There were even memes like these.

However, because of TACO, we are safe. Even if there is some limited US engagement with Iran, Trump lacks the follow-through to make anything major out of it. Certainly no boots on the ground, much less anything that will require a draft. Remember when he offed Soleimani? Nothing came off that, and there were WWIII memes circulating back then too. Of course, 2020 turned out very different.

Quite clearly, Israel’s attack on Iran was a violation of the UN charter,

The Tehran regime has repeatedly threatened Israel with destruction. They are working on developing a nuclear weapon. And they have funded and supported puppets (such as Hamas and Hezbollah) that have been attacking Israel for decades.
How is it suddenly Israel's fault for fighting back?

as are their illegal settlements in the West Bank and their ethnic cleansing in Gaza.

Judea and Samaria are core Israelite land historically, which makes them disputed territory. Why is it ok for Arabs to build settlements there?

The U.S. is party to all these things and if it directly involves itself in the attack on Iran, this is a violation not just of the UN charter but also of the U.S. Constitution, which requires all military action to be preceded by a declaration of war by Congress.

Using B2 bombers to deliver GBU-57A/B MOPs to Iranian nuclear sites would be a very good idea. Iranian nuclear program needs to be dismantled, and if all this leads to a regime change, so much the better.
And the constitution does not AFAIK talk about "all military action" but specifically about declaring war.

Unfortunately a lot of that has gone out the window since Truman got is into the Korea quagmire without a declaration but on the basis of the UN.

About last time the UN was actually useful. Too bad the northern part of the Peninsula was not liberated then as well, but imagine the Kims keeping all of Korea under their yoke.

The attack on Iran is blatantly illegal regardless of what anyone thinks of their government or nuclear program.

I guess the courts would have to decide that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You assert there’s “no international body in a position to be credible.” That’s convenient, isn’t it? When every mechanism of accountability is dismissed as inherently compromised, what you’re really advocating for is impunity. If only the IDF is allowed to judge the IDF, then you’re not defending law—you’re defending authority without oversight. That’s the logic of authoritarianism, not justice.

I'm not saying only the IDF is allowed to judge. I'm saying nobody is adequately judging.

You claim the 35,000+ death toll means nothing because 4,000 entries were “clearly bogus.” Yet neither Israel, the U.S., nor any credible analyst has claimed that the overall civilian toll is fabricated. The U.S. has publicly stated that thousands of children have been killed. But you cherry-pick anomalies to discard the entire dataset. It’s the same logic flat-earthers use: find one cloud shaped weirdly and declare NASA a fraud.

Once again, you utterly fail to put the pieces together correctly.

My point is that all of the supposed checking failed to note obviously bogus data. Even when Israel pointed it out. Thus the only possible conclusion is that they aren't actually checking. And thus everyone who says they are checking is lying.

It’s not war. It’s a failure of imagination, of responsibility, and of conscience.

You’ve already surrendered to the idea that nothing better is possible. I haven’t.

And history won’t remember the people who justified impunity under the guise of realism. It will remember the civilians buried beneath their certainty.

NHC

You want a magical answer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Quite clearly, Israel’s attack on Iran was a violation of the UN charter,

The Tehran regime has repeatedly threatened Israel with destruction. They are working on developing a nuclear weapon. And they have funded and supported puppets (such as Hamas and Hezbollah) that have been attacking Israel for decades.
How is it suddenly Israel's fault for fighting back?

I'd agree that Israel lives in an asterisk sort of world regarding the UN and preemptive military force. There has been an overhanging threat on Israeli security caused by Arab nations for decades. I think this UN asterisk exists for preemptive military force, however, in part because Israel has historically been extremely surgical with how they use it. Netanyahu is starting to color outside the lines with much more blunt crayons.

The U.S. is party to all these things and if it directly involves itself in the attack on Iran, this is a violation not just of the UN charter but also of the U.S. Constitution, which requires all military action to be preceded by a declaration of war by Congress.

Using B2 bombers to deliver GBU-57A/B MOPs to Iranian nuclear sites would be a very good idea. Iranian nuclear program needs to be dismantled, and if all this leads to a regime change, so much the better.

I think you are crazy if you believe US military action in Iran will lead the people to overthrow the theocratic regime.

And the constitution does not AFAIK talk about "all military action" but specifically about declaring war.

I'll let Sen. Tuberville field this one, regarding Congressional oversight.

We should have some say so about it, especially if it’s in — involves possible World War Three, which it could. This is getting very touchy over there.

Some say... if it involves WWIII. Some say.

 

[Derec]

Looks like our psychotic president, in a psychotic social media post, is confirming illegal U.S. involvement in Israel’s illegal war on Iran.

Why illegal? It is Iran that has been threatening Israel for decades, and are now close to being able to build several nuclear weapons. The Tehran regime is a clear and present danger.
IAF does not have bunker busters of the big-ass variety, nor aircraft capable of delivering them. I really hope US sends some B2 bombers with GBU-57A/B MOPs to take out Iranian undergrounds nuclear facilities. This is a 15 ton "massive ordinance penetrator" bomb.

 

[Gospel]

A nuclear program we had full access to , until the “own the libs” movement decided sabotaging Obama was more important.

Not really true. The deal only lasted for 10 years, which means that it would have expired by now anyway.
And it made no provisions for Iranian missile development and stockpiles, nor did it address the funding and support for terrorist organizations by the Tehran regime. In return for conceding very little, Tehran got sanction relief, plus $400M in frozen funds that actually belong to the Shah government, not to the ayatollahs.

Yes, the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (the JCPOA) did allow Iran to enrich uranium on its own soil. But the point of the deal wasn’t to stop enrichment entirely; it was to limit it to safe levels (3.67%, below weapons-grade) and impose tight restrictions on how much uranium Iran could stockpile and what kinds of centrifuges they could use. On top of that, the deal put in place the most intrusive inspections regime the IAEA has ever implemented. So no, it wasn’t Obama “giving in”, it was a calculated diplomatic trade-off to stop a nuclear bomb without starting another war.

As for the deal “only lasting 10 years,” that’s not the full story. Different parts of the deal had different expiration dates. Some restrictions were set to expire after 10–15 years, but others, like the IAEA inspections and Iran’s obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, were permanent. Plus, the deal included a “snapback” mechanism to reimpose sanctions if Iran broke the terms. That structure was working, until the U.S. unilaterally pulled out in 2018, breaking the agreement and setting everything on fire.

It’s also true that the JCPOA didn’t cover Iran’s ballistic missile program or its support for militant groups like Hezbollah. That’s because it was intentionally a nuclear-only deal. Critics at the time said it should’ve been broader, but diplomats kept the scope narrow on purpose to make a deal even possible, with the idea that other issues would be addressed separately.

And yes, Iran got sanctions relief and access to about $400 million in frozen funds. But that money wasn’t a bribe or payout, it was a legal settlement tied to an arms deal Iran paid for back in the 1970s, before the Islamic Revolution. The U.S. settled to avoid a much bigger international court judgment, and the total payment with interest was $1.7 billion. Iran wasn’t gifted anything, they got what they were already owed.

Bottom line: Most of what you said is true, but it’s framed in a way that leaves out all the nuance.

Now, this part isn’t necessarily in direct reply to your post , but it’s worth saying.

The JCPOA was far from perfect, but it effectively curbed Iran’s nuclear weapons development while it was in place. According to every IAEA report, Iran complied with the deal until the U.S. unilaterally pulled out (to own the libs). It didn’t solve every issue, but it bought time, reduced tensions, and kept the nuclear threat in check, which is more than we can say for whatever passes as diplomacy now.

Israel’s attack on Iran is like kicking a beehive. Sure, for now it might look like things are under control, but what’s the long-term plan? Do you really think Iran will just roll over and accept it? Or is it more likely they’ll double down and accelerate their nuclear weapons development in response? And if they do the latter what's next?

Draw the USA into direct war with Iran? That's inevitable under Trump, guys not bright at all. Predicable in fact.

I have no sympathy for Iran’s leadership, it’s a repressive and aggressive regime. But it’s not suicidal. Iran has consistently avoided direct war with more powerful nations, and contrary to some fear-driven narratives, it doesn’t have a religious mission to destroy infidels. They just use groups that do as a proxy for their agendas.

Hezbollah hates America, and Iran wants to preserve its regime without engaging in direct war. So yes, from their perspective, funding groups like Hezbollah and others makes strategic sense. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What kind of policies could make groups like Hamas or Hezbollah obsolete? Honestly, I don’t have an answer. and there may well not be one. But if we don’t at least discuss alternatives, we’re left with only one option: “Kill them all.” (again this is not in response to Derec) If that’s your position, just admit it and step aside so that other people can explore other ideas.

 

[pood]

Looks like our psychotic president, in a psychotic social media post, is confirming illegal U.S. involvement in Israel’s illegal war on Iran.

Why illegal? It is Iran that has been threatening Israel for decades, and are now close to being able to build several nuclear weapons. The Tehran regime is a clear and present danger.
IAF does not have bunker busters of the big-ass variety, nor aircraft capable of delivering them. I really hope US sends some B2 bombers with GBU-57A/B MOPs to take out Iranian undergrounds nuclear facilities. This is a 15 ton "massive ordinance penetrator" bomb.

As usual, bullshit. Trump’s own director of national intelligence said US intel shows Iran is NOT close to building a bomb. The orange monster’s response? “I don’t care what she says.”

 

[pood]

In any case, it is deranged to think that Iran would build a nuclear weapon AND use it on Israel. That would be an act of national suicide.

We got the same BS in the prelude to the Iraq war, in which we were assured U.S. intel said Saddam had WMDs. The difference is that in THIS case, the intel shows that Iran is NOT close to a bomb.

And for those of who slobbering over the prospect of the U.S. joining this war, are you calling for a formal declaration of war by Congress? If not, you favor the further destruction of what is left of our constitution.

 

[pood]

Let’s keep in mind, too, that Trump does not even READ intel briefings; that came out during his first term. Instead they try different things, like little picture flash cards for kindergartners to try to get important info to him. And this is the guy who scrapped the Obama deal in 2018. You war mongers here trust THIS guy to do the right thing?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. I'm saying they are doing better than anyone else, I feel they are meeting the burden.

You keep saying this and you have been asked before. Who are you making this comparison to to declare "They are doing better"?

Everyone. Including the US.

 

[pood]

Looks like our psychotic president, in a psychotic social media post, is confirming illegal U.S. involvement in Israel’s illegal war on Iran.

Why illegal? It is Iran that has been threatening Israel for decades, and are now close to being able to build several nuclear weapons. The Tehran regime is a clear and present danger.
IAF does not have bunker busters of the big-ass variety, nor aircraft capable of delivering them. I really hope US sends some B2 bombers with GBU-57A/B MOPs to take out Iranian undergrounds nuclear facilities. This is a 15 ton "massive ordinance penetrator" bomb.

Incidentally, I may have you confused with someone else here, but was it not you who in 2024 was posting about how Trump was more likely to keep us out of war, and praising him for that?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In any case, it is deranged to think that Iran would build a nuclear weapon AND use it on Israel. That would be an act of national suicide.

Iran having a nuke isn't as much an issue with Israel as it is Saudi Arabia. The brotherhood of Islam is a lie and these two hate each other. Iran gets a bomb, Saudi Arabia gets one. That isn't good.

We got the same BS in the prelude to the Iraq war, in which we were assured U.S. intel said Saddam had WMDs. The difference is that in THIS case, the intel shows that Iran is NOT close to a bomb.

I think you are getting ahead of yourself. Iran likely isn't close to getting a bomb. But Iraq and Iran are two different puppies. Iraq was a cakewalk compared to what an invasion of Iran would be. War with Iran isn't likely. But I'm not exactly certain what the goals of Netanyahu are here. He is derailing from the general script.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Chomsky’s statement on the war in Gaza: It is not a war, it is murder.

I don't care about the opinions of celebrities very much, so I will just ask.

Is it a murder by the Gazans who launched the assault or the Israelis defending themselves against the assault?
Tom

Yeah. My impression is that he actually knows what he's talking about with language. But he's known for saying leftist things that he has no expertise in.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Looks like our psychotic president, in a psychotic social media post, is confirming illegal U.S. involvement in Israel’s illegal war on Iran.

Why illegal? It is Iran that has been threatening Israel for decades, and are now close to being able to build several nuclear weapons. The Tehran regime is a clear and present danger.

You seem to be taking Trump's word on the nuclear weapon very seriously. Not much else in US Intelligence agrees with his assertion.

Clear and Present danger? We've killed more Iranians than Iranians have killed Americans in the last 40 years. We splashed a civilian jumbo jet! Saudi Arabia had their hands in the attack that killed nearly 3,000 people on 9/11.

Iran does not pose any threat to the US.

IAF does not have bunker busters of the big-ass variety, nor aircraft capable of delivering them. I really hope US sends some B2 bombers with GBU-57A/B MOPs to take out Iranian undergrounds nuclear facilities. This is a 15 ton "massive ordinance penetrator" bomb.

That would be a needless gamble.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You keep asking “what’s the relevance?” as if history and legal precedent are distractions. But that’s exactly what they are meant to prevent—a world where those in power rewrite the rules as they go.

You said: “Srebrenica, My Lai, Nuremberg—what’s the point of those examples?”

The point is this: every one of those crimes was justified at the time by their perpetrators with the same kind of language you’re using now. They cited provocation. They denied intent. They claimed military necessity. They questioned the data. They said the critics didn’t understand war. And every time, the international legal system cut through those excuses and held them to account. That’s the relevance.

Some tried to rationalize them.

You say “there’s no targeting of civilians.” But the law doesn’t require someone to say “I’m aiming at a child” to violate it. It requires militaries to avoid civilian harm wherever feasible—and to avoid actions where civilian death is expected to outweigh the military gain. When entire families die in shelters, when convoys are bombed, when starvation is used as pressure—those are not technical mishaps. They are violations of duty.

You keep making claims that aren't supported.

You ask for “evidence of punishment.” Look around. The blockade isn’t about just blocking weapons—it’s about controlling electricity, water, fuel, and food. People aren’t being punished because they’re armed; they’re being punished because they’re there. That’s collective punishment. It’s written into the text of Geneva IV, Article 33. It’s not emotional rhetoric—it’s black-letter law.

And you still have not addressed the reality of Geneva.

And yes, we don’t have perfect data. That’s always the case in war. But the absence of certainty doesn’t reverse the burden of proof. You can’t say “maybe the numbers are wrong” and then treat every dead civilian as a probable combatant. That’s not how any legal standard works. If that logic were accepted, then no war crime would ever be provable. Ever. Because the accused could always say “the numbers are flawed.”

I'm not.

You keep saying “Israel is doing better than anyone else.” But “better” is not a defense when the baseline is already horrific. If an action would be illegal for Syria, for Russia, or for any other state, it’s not suddenly legal because Israel does it more precisely. That’s not a legal standard—it’s moral relativism.

You continue to make an unsupported jump from bad things happened to war crimes.

And this idea that critics are just idealists “who don’t understand how war works”—that’s not an argument. It’s an evasion. Geneva was written precisely because we know how war works. It was written after the world saw what unregulated, total war does to civilians. It wasn’t meant to be a nice suggestion. It was meant to be a restraint on exactly this kind of logic.

So no—it’s not about emotions. It’s about law, pattern, and accountability. If we throw all that out because we think this war is too complicated for rules, then we’re not defending civilization. We’re undoing it.

You have shown exactly what I'm talking about.

You see results you don't like, you immediately jump to accusations of war crimes. You're blinded by the horrors and not using reason to understand the situation--exactly as Hamas intends.