Tensions in the Middle East

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The last time they tried that Israel refused to leave and instead killed 400 Palestinians.

??

Hamas never released all the hostages. They still hold dozens. Of course Israel refused to leave until all hostages, not some of them, are freed.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

"Hamas should take the high road" sure does tell you a lot about what someone knows about the rationality of fanatical religious terrorist organizations.

Demanding that hostages should be released is not asking to take a high road. Unless you claim that it's now ok to take and hold hostages.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So wouldn't it require 90% to make a weapon?

The amount and enrichment levels that are allowed for peaceful usage were outlined in the safeguards that Iran signed and breached. And those were thresholds for all participants, not something specifically designed to discriminate Iran.

The whole "they were X years away" and "they didn't authorize building an actual bomb" argument is moving goalposts. The treaty doesn't imply that it's ok to accumulate so much 60% uranium as long, as you are "few years away". And there's a reason for that. Beyond that point it's too late to stop them.

If you look at the safeguards (link below), mandatory to all signees, they include many things including even regulations of plant design. This is in order to ensure that the plant is peaceful by design. Once you have built a plant that is designed to be able to produce a bomb, it's an alert already. Early warnings are built into the system and considering how deadly nukes are, it's a right approach. Or at least one that Iran has agreed upon.

https://www.iaea.org/publications/10...infrastructure

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Perhaps I'm not great at reading the news but what exactly did Iran do to provoke the initial bombing campaign against it by Israel? Outside of "they might have some nukes" I don't see anything acute that would seem to have been a flashpoint to start a war. This feels like "Iraq had WMDs" all over again

Iran-Israel war has been going for a couple of years now. They had two rounds of missiles exchanges before. However, most of the fighting was done by Iranian proxies until now. Eventually Israel got tired of fighting proxies and decided to go for the head. Below is a link to Indian article from a year ago, so you could use a neutral source unaffected by the lastest developments


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/.../109313627.cms

[Kaine]

And I thought the US had a monopoly on indoctrination these days...


So now it's not that Iran was building nukes but that Israel decided to "go for the head" this time? I mean at least we are being more honest with this statement as we know this has nothing to do with WMD's.

[Drak]

So helping Ukraine and Europe fend off invading Orcs = bad, but funding a war against Iran = good.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Pointman

The amount and enrichment levels that are allowed for peaceful usage were outlined in the safeguards that Iran signed and breached. And those were thresholds for all participants, not something specifically designed to discriminate Iran.

The whole "they were X years away" and "they didn't authorize building an actual bomb" argument is moving goalposts. The treaty doesn't imply that it's ok to accumulate so much 60% uranium as long, as you are "few years away". And there's a reason for that. Beyond that point it's too late to stop them.

If you look at the safeguards (link below), mandatory to all signees, they include many things including even regulations of plant design. This is in order to ensure that the plant is peaceful by design. Once you have built a plant that is designed to be able to produce a bomb, it's an alert already. Early warnings are built into the system and considering how deadly nukes are, it's a right approach. Or at least one that Iran has agreed upon.

https://www.iaea.org/publications/10...infrastructure

If the punishment for not following an international treaty is to get bombed, Israel may want to go re-read the fine print on some of the stuff they signed. Maybe Canada should help enforce those provisions? Since they've decided countries can unilaterally attack another due to treaty breaches, it seems only proper. Due process doesn't seem important, right?

[rubecube]

At least Pointman has changed his gimmick from carrying water for Putin to carrying water for Netanyahu. He's really evolving as a person.

[Looch City]

Only an approved list of nations are allowed to bomb hospitals.

Can Netanyahu and the Ayatollah both kill themselves so we can move on?

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

I haven't read the whole thread but I'm guessing I'm not the only one that thinks it's strange/weird/interesting that Israel and the U.S. can have nukes and it's totally cool, but if anyone even thinks Iran may come close to getting one they need to be bombed and die.

Maybe nobody should have nukes? The U.S. isn't exactly run by a stable President or government at the moment.

Other countries can have nukes! As long as they let the IAEA do their inspections! If you don't let IAEA do their inspections, you can't have nukes! Israel is exempted from mandatory inspections without punishment!

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by rubecube

At least Pointman has changed his gimmick from carrying water for Putin to carrying water for Netanyahu. He's really evolving as a person.

Must be agony the last week on who to shill for; does he drop the Russian part of him or will be go unapologetic Zionist now? Can only imagine it's Senator Cruz and Tucker Carlson rattling around up there.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Only an approved list of nations are allowed to bomb hospitals.

Can Netanyahu and the Ayatollah both kill themselves so we can move on?

4 men causing global #### are all old and could get sick at any time and instead they’ll probably all live another 15 years.

[BigThief]

Originally Posted by Kaine

And I thought the US had a monopoly on indoctrination these days...


So now it's not that Iran was building nukes but that Israel decided to "go for the head" this time? I mean at least we are being more honest with this statement as we know this has nothing to do with WMD's.

Best piece of propaganda in the last few days is it was Iran all along who tried to assassinate Donald Trump. Hadn't heard that once until the bombs of Freedom rang in Tehran.

[KelVarnsen]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

4 men causing global #### are all old and could get sick at any time and instead they’ll probably all live another 15 years.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by Pointman

The amount and enrichment levels that are allowed for peaceful usage were outlined in the safeguards that Iran signed and breached. And those were thresholds for all participants, not something specifically designed to discriminate Iran.

The whole "they were X years away" and "they didn't authorize building an actual bomb" argument is moving goalposts. The treaty doesn't imply that it's ok to accumulate so much 60% uranium as long, as you are "few years away". And there's a reason for that. Beyond that point it's too late to stop them.

If you look at the safeguards (link below), mandatory to all signees, they include many things including even regulations of plant design. This is in order to ensure that the plant is peaceful by design. Once you have built a plant that is designed to be able to produce a bomb, it's an alert already. Early warnings are built into the system and considering how deadly nukes are, it's a right approach. Or at least one that Iran has agreed upon.

https://www.iaea.org/publications/10...infrastructure

What treat are you referring to?

[Beninho]

Originally Posted by BigThief

Best piece of propaganda in the last few days is it was Iran all along who tried to assassinate Donald Trump. Hadn't heard that once until the bombs of Freedom rang in Tehran.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/11/08/p...l-donald-trump

I wouldn’t say it’s propaganda, I remember reading about it at the time. Granted it was a busy news week so maybe it flew under the radar. While there was no evidence to prove Israels claim that there are current plots to kill Trump by Iran there is a history of them allegedly trying to in the past. There were two plots attributed to Iran prior to the election, one was against a Pakistani man with connections to Iran and the other was the one I linked above. I do also remember after the US killed Soleimani that there were several assassination plots that the US charged Iran with, specifically for Bolton and Pompeo.

Another story that went under the radar at the same time was Iran trying to assassinate former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ssination-plot

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by Cappy

What treat are you referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty...uclear_Weapons

I think Pointman is referencing this treaty. I could be wrong.

[Pointman]

You know, that on Tehran central square there's a clock that shows days remaining until the destruction of Israel?

https://quillette.com/2024/12/23/ira...icking-clocks/

[Beninho]

Dp

[Looch City]

Why hasn't Israel bombed the clock then?

Problem solved! That was 2ez.