Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[pood]

Whu is it so important to you that Hamas stays in power?

Why is it so important to you that Israel keep starving Gazan children? Why is it so important you to smear others on this forum as anti-Semites and pro-Hamas?

Everyone will notice, of course, that this awful slaughter has been going on for nearly two years, and many hostages are dead or not returned, and Hamas is still in power. But what is really going on here is that Netanyahu’s savage war sates his blood lust and that of his fans.

 

[laughing dog]

So what have I said that is bullshit?

From the same post:

These are not people that can be reasoned with. The 7/10 attack proved that.

It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.

 

[Gospel]

The question is not whether they are building a bomb, but whether they are in a position to build a bomb.

That’s just recycled panic dressed up as strategy. If Iran isn’t building a bomb, then spinning 'what if' scenarios is nothing but fear-mongering. Plenty of nations, Japan, Germany, Brazil, have the capability to build one, but we don’t treat them like threats. Why? Because intent matters.

This isn’t about the bomb. Israel isn’t targeting Iran because of uranium, it's because Iran’s leadership is hostile and reckless, especially toward Israel. If Iran were an ally, no one would care if they had ten bombs. The nuclear claim is just the convenient excuse for doing what Israel has always wanted: dismantle a regime it sees as dangerous. The justification doesn’t matter, it could be a bomb, a boat, or a balloon. The goal stays the same, and honestly, I don’t blame them for wanting to put an end to this madness. The idea that we’d never reach this point if Iran didn’t have a nuclear program is naive at best. The tension isn’t about the bomb, it’s about the regime.

 

[pood]

Shall we recall that the United States and Great Britain instigated a coup against the Iranian government in 1953 to protect their oil interests? And that the coup led to the autorcratic, dictatorial Shah, but that was A-OK with us because while he was a bastard and he our was our bastard? And that this led to the Iranian revolution of 1979? Can we finally learn to MOOB (Mind Our Own Business)?

 

[TomC]

Shall we recall that the United States and Great Britain instigated a coup against the Iranian government in 1953 to protect their oil interests?

Pood and I so rarely agree in this thread that I must give that a "like".
And I will take it a step further. Suppose we and Iran were now 10 years down the path towards peace that Obama attempted to put us on? I'm absolutely sure that the situation in the middle east would be extremely different and much better.
Tom

ETA ~ The part Sec of State Clinton must have played in the peace deal improved my opinion of her as well.~

 

[Gospel]

Shall we recall that the United States and Great Britain instigated a coup against the Iranian government in 1953 to protect their oil interests? And that the coup led to the autorcratic, dictatorial Shah, but that was A-OK with us because while he was a bastard and he our was our bastard? And that this led to the Iranian revolution of 1979? Can we finally learn to MOOB (Mind Our Own Business)?

You know what I find hard to take seriously? Arguments that dismiss history in the region as ancient or irrelevant, when it’s directly tied to the realities we’re facing today. Take Iran: the 1953 U.S.-backed coup didn’t just remove a leader, it set off a chain reaction that led to authoritarian rule and, eventually, the rise of the Islamic Republic. Pretending that has no bearing on today’s regime is dishonest.

The same applies to the Israel-Palestine conflict. For instance, Hamas didn’t rise in a vacuum. Israel, under Netanyahu’s leadership, once saw Hamas as a useful counterbalance to the Palestinian Authority, and in doing so, helped legitimize them politically. That short-term strategy became a long-term crisis.

On the other side, Palestinian leadership has made catastrophic errors too, corruption, internal divisions, and violent tactics have undermined their own cause and alienated potential allies. Meanwhile, Israel’s settlement expansion and disproportionate use of force have fueled resentment and delegitimized its claims of purely defensive intent.

None of this happened overnight. The current chaos didn’t emerge from thin air, it’s the result of decades of bad choices, missed opportunities, and cynical maneuvers on both sides with civilians caught in the middle.

So keep waving your pom-poms from the safety of your screen, Zoidberg, because at the end of the day, you’re just another cheerleader screaming for blood, no different from the ones on the other side doing the same. There will be no peace for Israeli men, women, and children, or for Palestinian men, women, and children, so long as armchair warriors like you keep vomiting bile and calling it virtue.

 

[Gospel]

Still disgusted by the nerve of Zoidberg accusing me of supporting Hamas, this clown whispering sweet nothings about 'human shields' like it’s some moral insight. But what does he do? He hides behind Israeli children just the same, using their suffering to justify the mass punishment of other children who simply had the misfortune of being born on the wrong side of the fence. The truth is, he doesn’t hate the tactic, he just can’t get off on it once he sees how grotesque it looks reflected back at him with Hamas’ face in the mirror.

 

[bilby]

And then the people have to buy into it. The Shah's grandchild is out there talking for regime change. Yeah... the Iranians not going for that.

It's a well established fact that you cannot make people hate their leadership by bombing their country. Quite the reverse.

If you want citizen-driven regime change in another country, the second most counterproductive thing you can do is to bomb that country.

The only more counterproductive thing you could do is to invade.

 

[pood]

Meanwhile, nutbag narcissist Netanyahu, in front of an Israeli hospital hit by an Iranian missile, likens Israel’s burden to that of London during the blitz (omitting to note that Britain did not start its war with Germany) and then shares his own agonizing personal burden because of the war, his own huge sacrifice, which is …

His son had to postpone his wedding for security reasons.

There is fury in Israel.

 

[pood]

Meanwhile, earlier in this thread, Derec was slavering over using a bunker-buster bomb on Fordo. One big problem: It likely won’t work. A tactical nuclear weapon would likely be required. Since the general consensus among experts seems to be that if Fordo is not destroyed, Iran’s nuclear program would likely emerge largely intact, more and more Israel’s attack is looking like a colossal blunder in addition to being illegal. But let’s count on Dr. Zoidberg saying, “go go Israel” another puke worthy number of times.

Furthermore, Trump has postponed a decision on intervention (even though it is not his decision, it is Congress’s fucking decision) for two weeks — which is what he always does. .

 

[TomC]

likens Israel’s burden to that of London during the blitz (omitting to note that Britain did not start its war with Germany)

Why would he point out the obvious?
That's one of things about all this that is maddening. Israel, like Britain, are fighting a defensive war. They were attacked. Germany and the GWM are the attackers.

But a ton of people want to handwave the basic responsibility for the current situation with "both sides" nonsense.

Israel didn't build military installations under hospitals. Pretending that hitting an Israeli hospital is the same as hitting a military fortress with a hospital above it is profoundly bigoted and immoral.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

likens Israel’s burden to that of London during the blitz (omitting to note that Britain did not start its war with Germany)

Why would he point out the obvious?
That's one of things about all this that is maddening. Israel, like Britain, are fighting a defensive war. They were attacked. Germany and the GWM are the attackers.

But a ton of people want to handwave the basic responsibility for the current situation with "both sides" nonsense.

Israel didn't build military installations under hospitals. Pretending that hitting an Israeli hospital is the same as hitting a military fortress with a hospital above it is profoundly bigoted and immoral.
Tom

Tom, what's maddening is how easily you reduce a deeply complex, decades-long conflict into a fairy tale of good guys and bad guys. No one’s excusing Hamas' crimes, but pretending that Israel's hands are clean, or that this is some black-and-white 'defensive war' ignores years of blockade, occupation, and asymmetric power dynamics.

And calling 'both sides' arguments immoral? What’s actually immoral is using one side’s atrocities to justify ignoring the suffering of civilians on the other. If your morality only applies when your preferred team gets hurt, it’s not morality, it’s tribalism dressed up in outrage.

 

[pood]

likens Israel’s burden to that of London during the blitz (omitting to note that Britain did not start its war with Germany)

Why would he point out the obvious?

Why would he “point out” the unobvious? Israel’s suffering under Iran attack isn’t even a fraction of what London endured, and besides, he started this war. Did he think Iran would not strike back? Or in his monstrous hubris did he imagine that Israel’s air defenses were totally impregnable?

But just think of his shared suffering with Israelis who have died or lost loved ones: his son had to postpone his wedding!

 

[Derec]

As usual, bullshit.

Speak for yourself!

Trump’s own director of national intelligence said US intel shows Iran is NOT close to building a bomb.

That's who you put your trust in? That airhead Tulsi Gabbard? The same Tulsi Gabbard who was a supporter of the Assad regime in Syria? The regime that was incidentally allied with the Ayatollah regime?

The reality is, of course, very different.
Iran has enough uranium for six nuclear weapons, IAEA warns

There is also no non-weapon reason for Iran to enrich Uranium to 60%.

The orange monster’s response? “I don’t care what she says.”

He should never have appointed her in the first place. Same goes for RFK Jr., Hegseth and (almost) everyone in his cabinet. Why are you taking anything anybody from this cabinet of curiosities says as in any way authoritative?

 

[Derec]

Why would he “point out” the unobvious? Israel’s suffering under Iran attack isn’t even a fraction of what London endured, and besides, he started this war.

Just because the Ayatollah regime used vassals such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis to attack Israel does not mean that they did not start the war against Israel.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lauren, the irony in your response is almost impressive. You accuse me of proposing “magical answers,” then turn around and suggest that indefinite military rule, mass civilian casualties, and open-ended occupation somehow lead to peace. That’s not realism. That’s delusion weaponized.

You continue to commit exactly the same mistake.

You continue to present evidence that the current situation is very ugly, and that somehow proves there's a better answer. But it doesn't prove anything.

You say violence doesn’t come from repression but from funding? Tell that to the history of every occupied people who resisted with stones long before they had backers. Extremism thrives where hope dies—and when you bomb shelters, close borders, and turn humanitarian aid into a bargaining chip, you’re not defeating terrorists. You’re manufacturing them.

We do not have direct information on what Hamas spends on military operations. But the tunnels alone add up to a higher percent of GDP than the US military spends. The only country in the world that's in the same ballpark is North Korea.

You claim that calling for elections or ceasefires is naïve. But what’s your alternative? A permanent boot on the neck of a stateless population? That’s not stability. That’s a recipe for perpetual resistance. You point to UN failures in Lebanon, as if every flaw justifies total abandonment of diplomacy, law, and international coordination. That’s not analysis. That’s surrender dressed as strategy.

And once again, "what's your alternative?" That doesn't prove anything.

I am not saying to abandon diplomacy, but I'm saying it's not going to provide an answer because one side has absolutely no reason to resolve it.

And when I ask why not support elections, reconstruction, or regional diplomacy, your answer is that Iran won’t show up—so the entire concept is void? That’s not a plan. That’s an excuse. Iran isn’t the only actor in the region, and pretending their absence justifies total war is like saying if one party walks out of negotiations, you burn down the whole conference hall.

Iran is the one providing the money. If they don't sign off on peace there will not be peace.

You accuse me of handing power to “the most evil.” But here’s what you miss: when you level cities and justify every civilian death as unfortunate but acceptable, you become indistinguishable from the very evil you claim to fight. There is no moral high ground when you bury it under rubble.

Completely ignoring that evil has quantities.

You insist this hasn’t “ended yet,” so reconstruction isn’t relevant. But that’s the problem. You don’t want it to end. You’ve embraced a worldview where every alternative is dismissed as impossible, every diplomatic option laughed off, and every legal standard discarded—because you’ve decided that only dominance counts as peace. That’s not hard-nosed realism. That’s ideological rot.

I'd like it to end, I just don't believe that that's going to happen.

This is another standard mistake that I keep running into: expecting X is not the same as wanting X!

And finally, the most chilling part of your argument is how easily you normalize mass civilian death. As if it’s just the cost of doing business. As if there’s no difference between neutralizing a combatant and incinerating a child in a “known shelter zone.” You talk about moral clarity—then excuse policies that erase the distinction between terrorist and toddler.

It's not that I normalize it, it's that I don't let it blind me to reason.

So no, Lauren, I don’t believe in magic. I believe in law, restraint, and the idea that not every atrocity needs to be met with a bigger one. You’ve chosen a future where the only answer is escalation. I haven’t. That’s the difference.

But you do believe in magic. The notion that you can magically make buzzwords work.

 

[Gospel]

Why would he “point out” the unobvious? Israel’s suffering under Iran attack isn’t even a fraction of what London endured, and besides, he started this war.

Just because the Ayatollah regime used vassals such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis to attack Israel does not mean that they did not start the war against Israel.

I agree, but that’s the kind of statement you could apply to just about any nation. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Given the broader sweep of history, how do you possibly land on Iran as the one who started this war?

 

[laughing dog]

Lauren, the irony in your response is almost impressive. You accuse me of proposing “magical answers,” then turn around and suggest that indefinite military rule, mass civilian casualties, and open-ended occupation somehow lead to peace. That’s not realism. That’s delusion weaponized.

You continue to commit exactly the same mistake.

You continue to present evidence that the current situation is very ugly, and that somehow proves there's a better answer. But it doesn't prove anything.

You present a narrative that the current situation is very ugly but unavoidable, so there are no possible better choices. But that doesn’t prove anything.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren, your response just digs the hole deeper. You’ve gone from misunderstanding the Geneva Conventions to outright rewriting their purpose. Let me be clear: international law does not vanish because your opponent is evil.

You claim the Geneva Conventions assumed “everyone would be trying to avoid improper strikes.” That’s flatly false—and dangerously naïve. The Geneva Conventions were created precisely because not all parties respect the rules of war. They don’t depend on reciprocity. They don’t suspend protections because one side behaves like a death cult. They’re designed to constrain the powerful, especially when the enemy is lawless.

You realize that Geneva technically only applies to others who signed the treaty? It wasn't meant to protect those who don't care about the rules, but the world has generally applied it anyway.

Let’s get specific. Article 19 of the Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilian hospitals even if they’re being misused—unless due warning is given and a reasonable time has passed without cessation. That’s not a suggestion. That’s binding law. You don’t get to say “they’re bad, so we ignored the rules.” If warnings are futile, you document them. You follow the law anyway. That’s what accountability means.

And Israel hasn't reported the military use of the hospitals????

Sure, not in a formal notice to Hamas, but both sides know what's going on. You're trying to bring a technicality into it--but if you want technicalities there's no Geneva protections in Gaza anyway because Hamas didn't sign the treaty.

And this idea that it’s “trivially obvious” there was misuse because the IDF met resistance? That’s not a legal argument—it’s a military rationalization. Combat occurring near or in a facility doesn’t automatically strip it of protection. You still have to prove direct, active use for hostile acts. You still have to apply proportionality. You don’t get to drop bombs on schools or shelters and call the aftermath proof of justification.

Non-combatant means non-combatant. If there are defenders that's clear proof of active use for hostile acts.

Meanwhile, how about an actual violation of Geneva?

Iran crowing about attacking Israel

True Promise III: Iran rains down missiles, drones on critical Israeli military targets

Iranian armed forces carried out the new phase of Operation True Promise III on Thursday, unleashing a barrage of ballistic missiles on key Israeli military targets.

www.presstv.ir

In a statement, Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) said strategic missiles and suicide drones were used in tandem on Thursday, primarily targeting a key command and intelligence center of the Israeli military near one of the hospitals, making the direct impact.

But what did they hit?

Heavy damage, injuries as Iranian missile hits Beersheba hospital; dozens hurt in central cities

30 missiles fired in early-morning barrage, warhead causes extensive damage to Soroka, southern Israel's main hospital; Israel calls attack a war crime; 6 people seriously injured in Ramat Gan and Holon

www.timesofisrael.com

And note that there's nothing military within several CEPs of the hospital. They hit exactly what they aimed for: the hospital.

And you don’t get to call it “blasphemy” when someone corrects your legal fiction. You’re not defending a tough position—you’re defending impunity. If you really believed in the values you claim—peace, stability, law—you’d insist those values be upheld precisely when they’re hardest to follow.

No, I'm saying that my words go against your faith and thus you are not understanding what I'm saying.

 

[laughing dog]

As usual, bullshit.

Speak for yourself!

Trump’s own director of national intelligence said US intel shows Iran is NOT close to building a bomb.

That's who you put your trust in? That airhead Tulsi Gabbard? The same Tulsi Gabbard who was a supporter of the Assad regime in Syria? The regime that was incidentally allied with the Ayatollah regime?

The reality is, of course, very different.
Iran has enough uranium for six nuclear weapons, IAEA warns

There is also no non-weapon reason for Iran to enrich Uranium to 60%.

The orange monster’s response? “I don’t care what she says.”

He should never have appointed her in the first place. Same goes for RFK Jr., Hegseth and (almost) everyone in his cabinet. Why are you taking anything anybody from this cabinet of curiosities says as in any way authoritative?

Having sufficient material is not the same as having the technical ability to construct. There is no necessary inconsistency between Gabbard’s statement and the IAEA report. Ms Gabbard may be mistaken or repeating what the US intelligence community reports.

If one thinks there is no reason to believe Ms Gabbard, then there is certainly no reason to believe Mr. Trump either.

Since Israel is making decisions on its own, it doesn’t matter what either so, only how they act.