Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Derec]

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.

It left them with the technical capability to enrich uranium to much higher levels, 60% as of now.
It also did not address Iran's ballistic missile capabilities nor their funding of terrorist proxies, something that directly led to the 10/7 aggression against Israel, as well as the Houthi takeover of Yemen.
Moreover, it removed sanctions from Iran while only imposing restrictions on its nuclear program for 10 years.

It was a bad deal, and if it really was the best deal Obama could have achieved, then a strike against Iranian nuclear sites then would have probably a better option than a rotten deal like this.

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.

Was it?
From 2016, an article discussing how the regime was granted secret exemptions and loopholes.
U.S., others agreed 'secret' exemptions for Iran after nuclear deal: think tank
In any case, the deal should never have allowed them to have hardened enrichment facilities.
And regardless of any "snapback", the regime got sanction relief and pellets of cash right away in return for a mere promise of not continuing with their nuclear program.

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 again, that made it a very bad deal. It was an exercise in appeasement. Had US been more forceful with the regime then, then maybe 10/7 would have been avoided.

Iran wasn’t gifted anything, they got what they were already owed.

I disagree. The deal was with the legitimate government of Iran, not with the Ayatollah regime that usurped power.

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

The nuance is that it was a bad deal that led us to where we are today.

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.

Bought time for what exactly? For the regime to harden the enrichment facilities more? To bury them deeper into mountainsides?

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?

If their nuclear facilities are destroyed, i.e. if Trump doesn't chicken out again, they will not have the capability to accelerate their nuclear weapons development.

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

A more limited conflict than a war. I am not proposing boots on the ground. Just B2s dropping a few GBU-57s on Fordow.

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.

Their proxies do a lot of destroying of infidels. More than 1000 were destroyed on 10/7.

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.

First step should be to destroy the nuclear enrichment facilities. 60% is way too close for comfort. That would leave US in a much better position to negotiate a more beneficial deal going forward, one that includes funding of terrorists and ballistic missiles.
Third, long term regime change should be pursued.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What you call “magical,” I call moral clarity—and your refusal to engage with it is exactly the problem.

You say no one is “adequately judging,” but that’s not neutral skepticism. That’s strategic erosion of all oversight. If every human rights group, every UN body, every independent monitor is dismissed as either incompetent or biased, then your argument isn’t that justice is elusive—it’s that it’s irrelevant. That’s not caution. That’s a blank check for violence.

You fixate on a data error—4,000 flawed entries—as if that discredits the entire 35,000+ death toll. But even if we accepted that all 4,000 were mistakes (and there’s no evidence they were), that doesn’t erase the other 30,000 lives. It doesn’t undo satellite imagery of mass graves. It doesn’t refute videos of bodies pulled from rubble. It doesn’t erase the statements from the U.S. State Department, the WHO, UNICEF, and every other credible agency acknowledging a catastrophic civilian toll.

Can you respond to what I'm actually saying?

The 4k bad entries (and many are outright fraud, not mistakes) do not say anything about the others. But they utterly discredit any group that purports to have checked the data. You still talk of independent evidence--but the failure to spot those shows there is no independent count.

And no—pointing out one bad data point doesn’t prove that “everyone is lying.” It proves what any analyst knows: data in a war zone is imperfect. You vet it. You correct it. You don’t throw out the entire dataset because it threatens your worldview.

I'm not throwing out the dataset. I'm throwing out any independent "verification" of the dataset. Recognize it for what it is: A Hamas claim, nothing more. No conclusions can be drawn.

The real tell is your last line: “You want a magical answer.” That’s not an argument. That’s a cop-out. You pretend you’re grounded in realism, but what you’re really grounded in is surrender—surrender to the idea that mass killing is unavoidable, oversight is impossible, and accountability is optional.

But I refuse to accept that. Because what you call “realism” is really fatalism with a flag draped over it. And history is full of people who made the same excuses—who claimed oversight couldn’t be trusted, who said the numbers were wrong, who insisted that what looked like atrocity was really just necessity.

It's not fatalism. I'm saying that it's a problem that can only be solved by solving the larger problem it's part of.

 

[Derec]

Having sufficient material is not the same as having the technical ability to construct.

A HEU bomb is relatively simple too construct, unlike a Plutonium bomb. That's why the latter was the one tested at Trinity. There was no doubt Little Boy would work when dropped.

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.

Or maybe she asked ChatGPT ...

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

I don't trust Trump, but I do trust Israeli intelligence.

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

Indeed. Trump talks a lot, but what is needed is action. In particular, this kind of action:

 

[Derec]

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?

No. You did confuse me for somebody else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You keep claiming I “don’t understand Geneva,” but what’s obvious is that you don’t want it to apply—not because it’s unclear, but because its clarity undermines your entire argument.

Let’s deal with your claim about supply diversion. Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention allows a party to withhold relief supplies only if there is serious reason to believe they will be diverted to the enemy. But here’s the catch: even then, the obligation is not erased. The party must work to ensure aid reaches civilians—not just throw up its hands and say, “Hamas might take some, so nobody gets anything.” That’s not law. That’s blockade by excuse.

And where does it say that???

It says relief supplies must be permitted unless it's likely they will be diverted. They are being diverted, thus no obligation is created. Where does it say they have to lift a finger at that point??

And you keep retreating to the idea that mass civilian death is unfortunate but inevitable—as if no one is responsible, because Hamas “engineered” it. But here’s what you’re really saying: when civilians are put in danger, the laws protecting them evaporate. That’s not just wrong. That’s dangerous. Because it legitimizes every tyrant, every despot, every rogue army that claims, “We had no choice.”

I'm not saying no one is. I'm saying Tehran is. But that's not where the streetlight is, you're determined to find an answer in Israel.

You say I “chant about this” instead of addressing the “ground truth.” But the ground truth is this: tens of thousands of civilians—many of them children—are dead. Hospitals bombed. Aid blocked. Refugee camps hit. You want to call that “inevitable”? Fine. But don’t dress it up as moral clarity. It’s a policy choice. And the law doesn’t vanish just because someone broke it first.

You are chanting again. You keep making claims and stepping over the part where you establish guilt.

As for the death toll—no, Israel didn’t “catch the bogus data.” It flagged some anomalies, which were investigated. But that doesn’t invalidate the overall casualty counts—especially when the U.S., the WHO, and other actors continue to confirm widespread civilian deaths. Your entire case is built on the idea that unless every data point is pristine, none of it counts. That’s not skepticism. That’s denial dressed as doubt.

And once again you fail to get it. The failure to catch the data says that the list is purely the unsupported work of Hamas. We simply don't know what's actually going on.

And your obsession with reducing radicalization to “a paycheck” is a fundamental misread of decades of counterterrorism research. RAND, Soufan, CIA assessments—all of them agree that violence often arises from a toxic mix of trauma, humiliation, and lack of alternatives. Yes, extremists exploit grievances. But what makes those grievances persuasive is the reality on the ground. Bombing neighborhoods and strangling an economy strengthens those grievances. It doesn’t defuse them. You want fewer terrorists? Then stop giving them recruitment videos.

Which says absolutely nothing about whether violence can arise from money.

And note that those reports are talking about the belief of those things--doesn't matter if they're real. We see the same thing driving MAGA. A lot of what they are afraid of is bogeymen, but it still radicalizes them.

 

[Derec]

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.

That is not very likely, but certainly not impossible. More likely is that they would "lend" the bomb to one of their proxies that usually do their dirty work (see 10/7). But that is still not the most likely outcome.
The most likely outcome is that they would use the bomb as deterrent to allow themselves to act even more aggressively in wreaking chaos in places like Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Maybe they would go so far as to try to regain control of Syria as a vassal, and also to arm insurgencies in places like Bahrain and parts of Saudi Arabia.
Compare that how West was afraid to support Ukraine too directly out of fear that Russia might escalate and use nuclear weapons. Or how the Kim regime is nigh untouchable because we foolishly allowed them to develop nuclear weapons. We must not make the same mistake with the Ayatollah regime!

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.

Then why are they enriching Uranium 20x more than required for civilian use?

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.

US has not declared war since 1942. Are you saying all of our military interventions since then were unconstitutional? Why would bombing Fordow destroy the constitution when these other operations over the decades did not?
Also, why do you leftists have a soft spot for the Ayatollah regime?

 

[Derec]

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

I am not taking Trump's words very seriously. He is too much of a waffler, and I am still afraid that he will chicken out and not GBU-57 the hell out of Fordow.
But even IAEA had to admit that Iran enriched Uranium to 60%. Not yet enriched enough for a HEU bomb, but it is enriched 20x as much as needed for civilian reactors. And they also admit that they have enough Uranium for six weapons.
Also, clearly Israeli intelligence thinks that the situation is dire enough that direct action was necessary, despite the risks.

Clear and Present danger? We've killed more Iranians than Iranians have killed Americans in the last 40 years.

You have to count actions by the vassals of the Ayatollah regime. They massacred 241 US soldiers in Beirut in 1983 and that's just one attack.

We splashed a civilian jumbo jet!

That was an accident that occurred during the Iraq-Iran war. The aircraft was misidentified as being military.
But that was in 1988. Far more recently, in 2020, IRGC shot down a Ukrainian airliner.

Saudi Arabia had their hands in the attack that killed nearly 3,000 people on 9/11.

Saudi citizens, not the government. That's like saying that that Germany had their hands in the El Al airplane hijacking in 1976.

Iran does not pose any threat to the US.

A nuclear-armed Tehran regime would definitely be a threat to US interests in the region.

That would be a needless gamble.

Why gamble? What's the worst thing that could happen as a result, in your opinion?

 

[TomC]

Then why are they enriching Uranium 20x more than required for civilian use?

My hypothesis is that they want a nuclear deterrent against the the nuclear tipped super power that has been threatening them for many decades.
I would if I were Iranian.
Tom

 

[Derec]

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?

First, let's not pretend that Mossadegh was a democrat. He gave himself powers to rule by decree, and in the 1952 election he stopped voting as soon as the Majlis quorum was reached, because he feared that he would lose the majority if the election was allowed to proceed uninterrupted. He was also a toadie of the Soviet Union.
And Shah was in power since 1941.

And that this led to the Iranian revolution of 1979?

How so? What led to the Islamic Revolution was the shortsightedness of the West. France allowed Khomeini to live there and spread his propaganda throughout Iran.
Khomeini launched a revolution from a sleepy French village
And Andrew Young, Jimmy Carter's UN envoy, thought that Khomeini was a "saint".
Young Praises Islam as ‘Vibrant’ And Calls the Ayatollah ‘a Saint’
Had he been recognized as the monster that he was, maybe the Iranian people could have been spared the 46 (and counting) years of misery.

Can we finally learn to MOOB (Mind Our Own Business)?

If US companies invest a lot of money in a country, and their leader decides to take it away, is that not our business? If he allies himself with USSR, is that not our business?

 

[Derec]

My hypothesis is that they want a nuclear deterrent against the the nuclear tipped super power that has been threatening them for many decades.
I would if I were Iranian.
Tom

They want a deterrent that would allow them to be even more aggressive and brazen in their campaigns against Israel as well as their efforts to destabilize Arab countries like Saudi Arabia.
Note that it is the Ayatollah regime that has repeatedly stated that their goal is to destroy Israel. They have also called US the "Great Satan" and have held our embassy personell hostage.

But at least you admit that they are seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. Pood, Tulsi, and their Ilk refuse to admit that.

 

[Derec]

Given the broader sweep of history, how do you possibly land on Iran as the one who started this war?

It is the declared goal of the regime to destroy Israel and Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis are the proxies of the Tehran regime.
What "broader sweep of history" would speak against this assessment?

 

[TomC]

My hypothesis is that they want a nuclear deterrent against the the nuclear tipped super power that has been threatening them for many decades.
I would if I were Iranian.
Tom

They want a deterrent that would allow them to be even more aggressive and brazen in their campaigns against Israel as well as their efforts to destabilize Arab countries like Saudi Arabia.
Note that it is the Ayatollah regime that has repeatedly stated that their goal is to destroy Israel. They have also called US the "Great Satan" and have held our embassy personell hostage.

But at least you admit that they are seeking to develop a nuclear weapon. Pood, Tulsi, and their Ilk refuse to admit that.

Honestly, I think that they are.
Too bad the USA blew off the chance to change the history.
Or, more precisely, the Teaparty Republicans blew off the chance to prevent what is going on at this time.

But they did and we are all stuck with the consequences, including Gazans and Ukrainians and Saudis, as well as us.
Tom

 

[Derec]

Meanwhile, earlier in this thread, Derec was slavering over using a bunker-buster bomb on Fordo. One big problem: It likely won’t work.

Grauniad is biased against Israel, so I am not surprised that this is their take. In any case, even if Fordow is not completely destroyed with a few GBU-57s, it will be damaged and set back the nuclear program for years. That's still far better than doing nothing!
And the unnamed officials who Grauniad bases this pessimistic assessment on could still be wrong. We won't know until we try.

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.

Define "largely intact" here. Even Grauniad is talking about it being set back for years.

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. .

Sadly, yes. TACO - Trump Always Chickens Out. Hopefully that moniker proves wrong here.

 

[NoHolyCows]

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.

Lauren, your entire response rests on the illusion that acknowledging complexity is an excuse to abandon principle. You keep insisting the situation is ugly, as if that ugliness justifies stripping away every norm of law, proportionality, or accountability. But atrocity isn’t self-justifying. It’s not evidence that “nothing better is possible”—it’s proof that what we’re doing is wrong.

You say there’s no evidence that a better path exists. The burden isn’t to prove utopia—it’s to stop pretending that bulldozers, sieges, and collective punishment are a substitute for policy. You want to call it realism, but the only thing you’re “realistic” about is continuing to kill civilians.

You cite Hamas tunnels like a budget spreadsheet justifies bombing neighborhoods. But even your math concedes the point: Gaza is a garrison state—yes. But that didn’t happen in a vacuum. You don’t spend decades isolating, blockading, and humiliating a people without producing the militant infrastructure you claim to be shocked by.

You say diplomacy won’t work because “one side won’t agree.” But the side you’re referring to—the side with no army, no state, no airspace, no freedom of movement—isn’t the one dictating terms. And pretending that Iran is the only relevant factor is just geopolitical reductionism designed to dodge responsibility.

You scoff at elections, ceasefires, or regional cooperation as naïve, but what’s more naïve than thinking endless force will produce anything but more resistance? If someone like you had written off diplomacy in Northern Ireland or apartheid South Africa, those conflicts would still be burning.

And your moral compass—frankly—is broken. You claim to “see the facts,” but you’ve erased the distinction between combatants and children, hospitals and bunkers, resistance and terrorism. You’ve turned casualty counts into accounting errors. That’s not clarity. That’s desensitization disguised as strategy.

Let’s be clear: the difference between us isn’t idealism versus realism. It’s conscience versus collapse. You’re defending the normalization of cruelty. I’m defending the principle that being attacked by monsters doesn’t turn you into one unless you let it.

You’ve chosen a future where domination replaces peace, suspicion replaces evidence, and morality is conditional on whether a missile can find its target. I haven’t. That’s the real difference.

NHC

 

[DrZoidberg]

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

Ehe. Not the time to wait and see. The last thing we want is a homicidal regime with nukes.

Don't forget that the 7/10 attack was engineered by Iran. Hamas is puppeteered by Iran. That's what the regime is capable of

 

[pood]

That’s nice. And the relevance to this thread is?

 

[DrZoidberg]

So what have I said that is bullshit?

We now have a chance to get rid of Hamas. Everything Israel warned us about regarding Hamas was true. If we don't do this the hard way, I see no future opportunity to get rid of them.

Considering the suffering of the Palestinian people, isn't sooner better?

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

Saying that Hamas is just like Hitler is for once an accurate comparison.

Nobody’s buying the pivot, Zoidberg. You were called out for deliberately twisting my words, and instead of owning up, you retreat into your usual monologue. So here’s the deal, keep fabricating things about me, and I’ll keep telling the truth about you.

Owning up to what? You're the apologist for a homicidal Islamist organisation. Not me. Please, man up, and argue for it, or stop your bullshit

 

[DrZoidberg]

That’s nice. And the relevance to this thread is?

Its to remind all the apologists for Islamism in this thread that they wouldn't be popular in the Middle-East. At least not by regular people in the street

 

[Gospel]

So what have I said that is bullshit?

We now have a chance to get rid of Hamas. Everything Israel warned us about regarding Hamas was true. If we don't do this the hard way, I see no future opportunity to get rid of them.

Considering the suffering of the Palestinian people, isn't sooner better?

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

Saying that Hamas is just like Hitler is for once an accurate comparison.

Nobody’s buying the pivot, Zoidberg. You were called out for deliberately twisting my words, and instead of owning up, you retreat into your usual monologue. So here’s the deal, keep fabricating things about me, and I’ll keep telling the truth about you.

Owning up to what? You're the apologist for a homicidal Islamist organisation. Not me. Please, man up, and argue for it, or stop your bullshit

if you’re done pretending moral clarity while hiding behind the blood of children, we can talk like adults. If not, keep monologuing, I’ll keep correcting you.