War with Iran

xmontrealer

(he/him/it)
May 23, 2005
12,307
10,336
113
That's true. Iran has been the reasonable and moderate one.
They try to portray Iran as crazy violent muslims and these fucking Nazis in the US and Israel as people who defend freedoms, while being the ones to commit genocide and war crimes.
My only fear is what if GCC nations turn against Iran and take military action? Not that, allowing the US and Israel to use their bases is not hostile already.
Then the US and Israel will let the "muslims fight each other" and egg them on from the outside. It actually works very well for Israel because that is exactly what they want.
But then again what would their military goals be? I don't think they are that foolish either and they fully know this, which is why they aren't acting yet.
However, if their oil and gas fields and infrastructure is getting hit, they may be forced to respond, albeit to what extent, I am unsure.
Iran. Reasonable and moderate.

What other nation in modern times has murdered civilian citizen protesters against their ruling regimes in such astounding numbers?

OK. The US murdered two people in the recent ICE protests. But not even close to the numbers quoted below from Wikipedia, and those two weren't government ordered.

And there may be other nations who have mass murdered citizens due to their religious beliefs being contrary to the majority. But not like Iran.


2026 Iran massacres



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2026 Iran massacres
Part of the 2025–26 Iranian protests

A room filled with body bags of people fired on from security forces
LocationIran
Date30 December 2025 – present (2 months and 19 days)
TargetProtesters
Attack typeMassacres, mass murder, mass shooting, executions, summary executions, torture murders
Deaths7,007–36,500[a]
PerpetratorGovernment of Iran and allied foreign militias

Since the beginning of the 2025–2026 Iranian protests, the government of Iran perpetrated widespread massacres of civilians, deploying both its own security forces and also imported foreign militias to suppress widespread public dissent across the country. As of 25 January 2026, the total death toll estimates ranged from 7,007 people to upwards of ~36,500 people, including 209 government-affiliated military and non-military personnel,[ making these among the largest massacres in the modern history of Iran.

Iranian authorities have supposedly imposed a near-total internet shutdown as part of their crackdown on the protests, restricting communication inside the country and limiting the flow of information about the killings to the outside world.
On 12 January 2026, Esmaeil Baghayi, the spokesperson for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, confirmed that security forces had directly shot at protesters.

On 25 January, Time reported that a specific list included 30,304 protest-related deaths registered in civilian hospitals for 8 and 9 January alone. The same day, Iran International estimated the total number of deaths at ~36,500.

On 28 January, The Guardian reported that the death toll could be more than 30,000, and that less than 10% of deaths may have been officially registered.

AP News reported that the government's overwhelming use of violence had caused despair among the Iranian public and had given rise to hopes among some citizens for an American attack.
 
Last edited:

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,769
33,255
113
That's true. Iran has been the reasonable and moderate one.
They try to portray Iran as crazy violent muslims and these fucking Nazis in the US and Israel as people who defend freedoms, while being the ones to commit genocide and war crimes.
My only fear is what if GCC nations turn against Iran and take military action? Not that, allowing the US and Israel to use their bases is not hostile already.
Then the US and Israel will let the "muslims fight each other" and egg them on from the outside. It actually works very well for Israel because that is exactly what they want.
But then again what would their military goals be? I don't think they are that foolish either and they fully know this, which is why they aren't acting yet.
However, if their oil and gas fields and infrastructure is getting hit, they may be forced to respond, albeit to what extent, I am unsure.
I would expect that Iran won't hit the gulf country oil infrastructure again unless Israel hits Iran's.
Which is possible, Israel is after maximum death and destruction.

More likely the gulf were warning Iran to tone it down, I expect they aren't totally upset that Israel and even american bases are being hit.
Iran owns the Hormuz and can make billions in fee as they demand payment in Yuan.

The real issue is there is no exit ramp. Iran is within their rights to dismantle Israel totally now, trump can't help. He can't even declare victory and do a TACO if Iran keeps hitting Israel.

Israel has spread themselves too thin now, its not going well in Lebanon. They can't fly over Iran but can in Lebanon so are bombing Beirut in over terrorism. But their tanks are getting slaughtered by Hezbollah. Iran is hitting fuel supplies and that's going to be an issue for Israel and likely america soon. Jet fuel supplies will be an issue.


 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,769
33,255
113
Iran. Reasonable and moderate.

What other nation in modern times has murdered protesters against their ruling regimes in such astounding numbers?
Nobody knows the real count and there is a narrative that there was a real protest but it was taken over by foreign insurgents who did the fighting and were most of the casualties. The internet shutdown allowed the government to track thousands of Starlink supplied insurgents. Which is why Mossad has had no success in Iran this time.

Regardless, Israel has killed likely 700,000 Palestinians so they win the most evil regime on the planet by miles.
Not to mention 78 years of terrorism.

They won't even fight their own battles and have to send in the Goyim to fight for them.

 

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
10,203
11,215
113
What other nation in modern times has murdered protesters against their ruling regimes in such astounding numbers?
As you said below, the United States and plenty of other countries have taken lethal actions against protesters.
There is also another narrative that these murdered protester figure of 30K is a fabrication by pro-Israeli media.
However you are comparing Iran's internal actions with two countries one of which committed genocide, and continues to do it, and the other committed a war crime killing 180 kids on day 1, along with a history of invading other nations killing millions over the last 80 years.
So yes, amongst the 3 involved, I do consider Iran to be the more moderate and reasonable one here.
They did not start this.
 
Last edited:

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
10,203
11,215
113
The real issue is there is no exit ramp. Iran is within their rights to dismantle Israel totally now, trump can't help. He can't even declare victory and do a TACO if Iran keeps hitting Israel.
I don't care about Israel being dismantled as much as I care about Israel and the US being decoupled somehow.
They have put their roots everywhere in the US - media, business, finance, entertainment, politics and even have the ADL to crucify anyone who speaks against Israel.
The scale of their strategic and psychological maneuvering is truly a threat to sovereignty and I hope Americans understand that.
And if anyone can start that process of decoupling, it is probably a retard like Trump out of fear of losing face. lmao.
 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
16,548
3,198
113
Ghawar
Iran. Reasonable and moderate.
....................................
The world has no love for Iran and, other than his followers, the
Ayatollah. That said I can say with confidence it is not the side
of Israel and the U.S. that most of the world outside the collective
west has found to be more reasonable and moderate in the Iran war.

You have to follow news reported outside the west to figure
out the U.S. is seen as unequivocally the world's biggest bully. .
And most reasonably informed folks outside the west have
long realized the biggest bully is also the poodle of Israel.
 

xmontrealer

(he/him/it)
May 23, 2005
12,307
10,336
113
The world has no love for Iran and, other than his followers, the
Ayatollah. That said I can say with confidence it is not the side
of Israel and the U.S. that most of the world outside the collective
west has found to be more reasonable and moderate in the Iran war.

You have to follow news reported outside the west to figure
out the U.S. is seen as unequivocally the world's biggest bully. .
In regards to the U.S., I certainly agree.

In regards to Israel, I still believe that if their existence was recognized as legitimate by the surrounding Arab nations, Israel would be content to live and let live.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SchlongConery

xmontrealer

(he/him/it)
May 23, 2005
12,307
10,336
113
They would have to recognize the existence of the Palestinians, for that to happen, which they don't.
Didn't they do that in September, 1993 under the Oslo Accords?

There were complications on both sides, as are detailed below. But the original intent was there, at least on the part of Israel, up to Prime Minister Rabin's assassination in November,1995. That paved the way for Hamas's immediate attacks, and Netanyahu's election for his first term as Prime Minister in May 1996.

Copied and pasted from the U.S. Office of The Historian

The Oslo Accords and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process
On September 13, 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Negotiator Mahmoud Abbas signed a Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements, commonly referred to as the “Oslo Accord,” at the White House. Israel accepted the PLO as the representative of the Palestinians, and the PLO renounced terrorism and recognized Israel’s right to exist in peace. Both sides agreed that a Palestinian Authority (PA) would be established and assume governing responsibilities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over a five-year period. Then, permanent status talks on the issues of borders, refugees, and Jerusalem would be held. While President Bill Clinton’s administration played a limited role in bringing the Oslo Accord into being, it would invest vast amounts of time and resources in order to help Israel and the Palestinians implement the agreement. By the time Clinton left office, however, the peace process had run aground, and a new round of Israeli-Palestinian violence had begun.


President Clinton, Yitzhak Rabin, and Yasir Arafat at the signing ceremony for the Oslo Accord, September 13, 1993. (William J. Clinton Presidential Library)
The Clinton Administration and the Arab-Israeli Peace Process, 1993–1996

The Clinton administration did not initially make Israeli-Palestinian peace a priority. Clinton and his advisors believed that a diplomatic breakthrough on the Israeli-Syrian track would be more likely, and that Israel’s leaders would find it politically easier to pull back from the Golan Heights than to withdraw from the West Bank. An Israeli-Syrian agreement, they reasoned, would also lead to an Israeli-Lebanese agreement, and help isolate Iraq and Iran, the principal regional opponents of the peace process. U.S. officials were briefed on secret negotiations that the Israelis and Palestinians had begun in Oslo in December 1992, but made little effort to get involved in them.

The United States did not play a major role in the negotiations that led to the Israeli-Jordanian peace treaty of October 1994, though Clinton lent his support by hosting King Hussein and Rabin in Washington and urging Congress to forgive Jordan’s debts. Nor did the United States play a critical part in the negotiations leading up to the May 1994 Cairo Agreement, which finalized Israel’s withdrawal from most of Gaza and Jericho, or the Taba (or "Oslo II") Agreement of September 1995. The latter agreement divided the West Bank into separate areas under Israeli control, Palestinian control, and Israeli military responsibility with Palestinian civil administration, respectively. Oslo II also spelled out provisions for elections, civil/legal affairs, and other bilateral Israeli-Palestinian cooperation on various issues. Since the Oslo Accord did not give the United States monitoring responsibilities, the Clinton administration found itself largely confined to defusing crises and building up the Palestinian Authority with economic aid and security assistance.

On the Israeli-Syrian track, the administration exerted itself more forcefully, but with few results. Clinton, Secretary of State Warren Christopher, and Special Middle East Coordinator Dennis Ross tried to build on Rabin’s August 1993 promise to withdraw fully from the Golan if Syria agreed to full peace and necessary security arrangements. By 1994, these talks stalled over Israel and Syria’s different definitions of “full withdrawal.” The Syrians insisted that the Israelis should withdraw to the line of “June 4, 1967,” when they had controlled a pocket of land on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, Israel’s principal source of water. The Israelis wanted to pull back to the 1923 international border, which would have left the Sea of Galilee under their sovereignty. That July, Rabin indicated to Christopher that Israel would withdraw to the June 4 line if Syria met its other needs, paving the way for talks between Israeli and Syrian military officers. However, these negotiations eventually bogged down over whether Israel could retain early warning stations on the Golan, and also became politically controversial in Israel. Rabin thus chose to suspend them until after Israel’s elections in 1996.

Oslo’s Collapse, 1996–2000

In November 1995, Rabin was assassinated by Yigal Amir, an Israeli who opposed the Oslo Accords on religious grounds. Rabin’s murder was followed by a string of terrorist attacks by Hamas, which undermined support for the Labor Party in Israel’s May 1996 elections. New Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu hailed from the Likud Party, which had historically opposed Palestinian statehood and withdrawal from the occupied territories.

Worried that the peace process might collapse, the Clinton administration involved itself more actively in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In January 1997, following intensive U.S. mediation, Israel and the PA signed the Hebron Protocol, which provided for the transfer of most of Hebron to Palestinian control. In October 1998, Clinton hosted Netanyahu and Arafat at the Wye River Plantation, where they negotiated an agreement calling for further Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank. Infighting over the implementation of the Wye Memorandum, however, brought down Netanyahu’s government in January 1999.

In Israel’s May 1999 elections, the Labor Party’s Ehud Barak decisively defeated Netanyahu. Barak predicted that he could reach agreements with both Syria and the Palestinians in 12 to 15 months, and pledged to withdraw Israeli troops from southern Lebanon. In September, Barak signed the Sharm al-Shaykh Memorandum with Arafat, which committed both sides to begin permanent status negotiations. An initial round of meetings, however, achieved nothing, and by December the Palestinians suspended talks over settlement-building in the occupied territories.

Barak then focused on Syria. In January 2000, Israeli, Syrian, and U.S. delegations convened in West Virginia for peace talks. These negotiations foundered when Barak refused to reaffirm Rabin’s pledge to withdraw to the June 4, 1967 line, arguing that none of the concessions offered by the Syrian delegation in return could be considered final, since Syrian President Hafiz al-Asad was not present. A subsequent meeting between Clinton and Asad in Geneva failed to produce an Israeli-Syrian accord.

Barak then withdrew Israeli forces unilaterally from Lebanon and returned to the Palestinian track. At the prime minister’s insistence, Clinton convened a summit at Camp David in July 2000, where he, Barak, and Arafat attempted to reach a final agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Accounts differ as to why Camp David failed, but it is clear that despite additional concessions by Barak, the Israelis and Palestinians remained strongly at odds over borders, Jerusalem, and whether Israel would recognize Palestinian refugees’ “right of return.” The summit ended without a settlement; Clinton would blame Arafat for its failure.

On September 28, riots erupted following a visit of Likud Party leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, and soon escalated into a wave of Israeli-Palestinian violence that became known as the al-Aqsa Intifada. In December 2000, Clinton put forward his own proposals for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement. By this point, however, the president was leaving office, Barak faced electoral defeat, and Israeli-Palestinian violence continued unabated.

Thus, by the end of 2000, the prospect of ending the Arab-Israeli conflict looked more distant than it had eight years earlier. The Clinton administration had helped facilitate Israeli-Jordanian peace and lay the foundations for Palestinian self-rule. More broadly, the negotiations of the 1990s helped Israel, the Palestinians, and Syria break with numerous diplomatic taboos and establish a basis for what a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace might look like. But a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict remained elusive.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,769
33,255
113
In regards to the U.S., I certainly agree.

In regards to Israel, I still believe that if their existence was recognized as legitimate by the surrounding Arab nations, Israel would be content to live and let live.
Legit?

Almost no zionist I've ever talked to would ever say what they thought the borders of Israel are.
Did they declare it the 1967 borders and the rest illegally occupied?
Do they declare Palestine is all Israel and then its apartheid?
What about the occupied bits of Syria and Lebanon?
Greater Israel?

You can't be legit if you won't even identify the borders.

bummer about Netanyahu

 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,769
33,255
113
Didn't they do that in September, 1993 under the Oslo Accords?

There were complications on both sides, as are detailed below. But the original intent was there, at least on the part of Israel, up to Prime Minister Rabin's assassination in November,1995. That paved the way for Hamas's immediate attacks, and Netanyahu's election for his first term as Prime Minister in May 1996.
Nobody believes that story.
Israel used peace talks to stall while they created 'facts on the ground'.

Israel is the occupying power, they choose whether or not the occupation ends.

 
  • Like
Reactions: crocket

Uwauwa

Well-known member
Nov 29, 2011
969
640
93
Iran. Reasonable and moderate.

What other nation in modern times has murdered civilian citizen protesters against their ruling regimes in such astounding numbers?

OK. The US murdered two people in the recent ICE protests. But not even close to the numbers quoted below from Wikipedia, and those two weren't government ordered.

And there may be other nations who have mass murdered citizens due to their religious beliefs being contrary to the majority. But not like Iran.


2026 Iran massacres



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2026 Iran massacres
Part of the 2025–26 Iranian protests

A room filled with body bags of people fired on from security forces
LocationIran
Date30 December 2025 – present (2 months and 19 days)
TargetProtesters
Attack typeMassacres, mass murder, mass shooting, executions, summary executions, torture murders
Deaths7,007–36,500[a]
PerpetratorGovernment of Iran and allied foreign militias

Since the beginning of the 2025–2026 Iranian protests, the government of Iran perpetrated widespread massacres of civilians, deploying both its own security forces and also imported foreign militias to suppress widespread public dissent across the country. As of 25 January 2026, the total death toll estimates ranged from 7,007 people to upwards of ~36,500 people, including 209 government-affiliated military and non-military personnel,[ making these among the largest massacres in the modern history of Iran.

Iranian authorities have supposedly imposed a near-total internet shutdown as part of their crackdown on the protests, restricting communication inside the country and limiting the flow of information about the killings to the outside world.
On 12 January 2026, Esmaeil Baghayi, the spokesperson for the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, confirmed that security forces had directly shot at protesters.

On 25 January, Time reported that a specific list included 30,304 protest-related deaths registered in civilian hospitals for 8 and 9 January alone. The same day, Iran International estimated the total number of deaths at ~36,500.

On 28 January, The Guardian reported that the death toll could be more than 30,000, and that less than 10% of deaths may have been officially registered.

AP News reported that the government's overwhelming use of violence had caused despair among the Iranian public and had given rise to hopes among some citizens for an American attack.
You can’t reason with these people I am afraid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xmontrealer

Uwauwa

Well-known member
Nov 29, 2011
969
640
93
Iran has a right to defend itself against these unlawful attacks. Now claiming the attacks are to save the people from its strict government is insane. Plenty of countries have strict rulers, and they aren't being bombed.
Does Israel have the right to defend itself? From Iran and their proxies Houthis, Hezbolla, and Gaza terrorists?
 
  • Like
Reactions: xmontrealer
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts