Zoraptor

Dredge is a fine game made by a fine people. I have been playing Bioshock /2. Didn't really like either of them when I first played them but I have obviously mellowed in my expectations- System Shock 3, essentially- over time since I have enjoyed both. Still reckon Bioshock has the best art direction of any game I've played though its level design makes zero sense from a practical standpoint and while flawed if you spend too much time on them the stories are great. The gameplay is... there? Adequate? OK? Haven't been enthused, haven't got tired of it. I always wished stealth and care was a more realistic approach in them though. And of course for a Big Daddy Delta is as tough as a wet paper bag compared to the meatbag of the first game.

How can you blame countries for colonising places, deliberately favouring one ethnicity over another as a matter of policy, drawing up borders that force those two ethnicities that now hate each other together and insisting that those borders are Sacrosanct (except when we don't like them any more) and have to be respected? How can you blame them for bribing their leaders to make decisions against their nations' interests? Reminder, quite apart from the execrable Belgian colonial conduct in the Congo every single IMF/ WB loan to Zaire and policies demanded from them resulted in a worse position for Zaire and Zaireans. That didn't end with Mobutu and the country's name change either. The mess the DRC is in now has a direct line to western colonialism of the C21st variety. See also every single western intervention in the ME. At some point you have to accept that it isn't all good intentions going wrong when it goers wrong so very consistently; it's deliberate policy. I mean, getting money/ apologies out of Germany for genociding the Herero and Nama was like drawing blood from a stone and didn't address any of the ongoing grievances; it was more of a billion dollar bung to the ruling class to Just Shut Up. Then they acritically support Israel's genocide of the Palestinians and flagrant land grabs, showing how much they really hate colonialism. As for Starmer, that watermelon salesman, he deserves not just my shoe but everyone's. Enlightened Centrists are without exception embarrassments at best but he manages to take it all a step further than any other of those cringe artists. You just knew the UK would start abusing badly written anti terror laws- after all they've gone after noted radicals and rabble rousers, uh, Iceland with them before- it is after all their purpose. Blowing up tens of thousands of women and children and having an active policy of starvation plus ordering your troops to shoot indiscriminately is OK but painting some warplanes is terrorism. So is being mean to the IDF or Israel because of it. It'd be pathetic, if it wasn't a blueprint from 1984.

Iran's parliament voted for it. As noted in the article, that is not the end of the matter and it does not amount to kicking the IAEA out, yet. To illustrate, their parliament also voted to shut the Straits of Hormuz four days ago, which didn't happen.

Gotta get the last word missile in. Iran at least seems to have acknowledged the ceasefire announcement now. Whoever briefs Trump better leave out precisely how they phrased the acknowledgement though.

A ceasefire neither side seems to know about? Seems too good to be true. Thankfully it's from the same guy who brought peace to Ukraine after 24 hours, so we know he has credibility. "You know, HoonDing predicted all of this!" -- Bobby Baccalieri

The important question* really is whether Trump thinks the US achieved its goals. He's perfectly capable of 'convincing himself'- or being stupid enough to believe- that he can destroy Iran's nuclear program after they'd had 9 days of prior bombing and in this specific case that brand of... self confidence, shall we say, may actually be a good thing. While Iran now having a desire to make nukes is hardly a 'vibe' he has was notorious first term for acting on feelings and ignoring intelligence briefings. All his other big projects have been the same; just about everyone else says tariffs are dumb but he thinks they aren't etc. *well kind of, unfortunately, Israel doesn't really have any obvious reason to deescalate and without that Trump's unlikely to get the negotiations he really needs to proclaim victory. Which means Trump's, uh, Extraordinary Martial Endeavour will likely continue. Yeah, Qatar's the most pro Iran country in the region and they were aimed away from any of its own assets. Very little chance of any retaliation from the host. And not quite as loaded as attacking the US base in Bahrain, where the small sunni minority rules over the shia majority at the point of saudi (and US) bayonets.

While I can't believe I'm saying it that article is actually a bit unfair in two ways to Trump. Once Israel attacked circumstances did change, and you don't really need intelligence- in either sense- to know it. The Iranian weapons programme restarted nine days ago, and that isn't a 'vibe'; it's obviously the only way they are going to be able to deter attacks when conventional means have failed. It's the circumstances leading to that decision which are the important bit. It's also pretty obvious that the Israeli calculus from the start would have been that them starting it would have to result in the US finishing it for those reasons, and that they would be incapable of actually finishing it, and that there could be no negotiations once bombing had started. Resulting in an open ended war against their main rival by their biggest sponsor, entirely to their benefit. And we got here, ultimately, due to the collective policy of appeasing Israel at every step. That's not just Trump's fault, every single western and world leader who ran interference for Israel's ongoing genocide were effectively giving Israel the green light to do whatever they want. If you're okay with genocide- and they've amply demonstrated that they are- would anyone believe that you'd draw the line at bombing Iran? No, you would label it as 'defensive' aggression, precisely as happened.

Well, if you couldn't laugh at someone saying now is the time for peace- in all caps, so you know he's serious!- after starting a war you'd have to cry. Trust Trump to pick the absolute worst way of doing anything; even joining Israel immediately would have been better since at least they might have got the Iranian stockpiles then. As it is he's now abrogated JCPOA, bombed Iran and done so 2 days after giving a 2 week deadline. And that's leaving out assassinating Soleimani after saying you wanted to negotiate indirectly via Iraq- a clear cut case of Perfidy. You'd have to be an utter idiot to trust anything he says and the only safety Iran has from now on is exactly what the US and Israel don't want, ie nukes. Well you managed to prove I'm an idiot in one way at least. Should have followed Malcador and Lexx's example when you tried to start something with them and lol whatevered you from the start.

Hmm. Might want to get someone (not AI) to proofread your URLs, Newsweek. Yeah, they've certainly got the concept of a deal there. In this case not a facetious usage; it's an aspirational agreement written primarily to be signed by both parties. One gets their demands in writing, the other is free to ignore them, if it wants to. If the enforcement mechanisms for the previous agreements worked- and they included the first UN peacekeeping force allowed to take aggressive action- this agreement would be moot.

You brought back that ten year old argument, not me. If you agreed with me about Netanyahu's position, what was the point of doing that? That is a rhetorical question.

Poor analysis. Iran is text book Regional Power. A list of even their attempts to capital I Influence the wider world outside the ME is negligible compared to any genuine Great Power, even borderline ones like India. Their influence is strictly limited to and targeted at Shia muslims. They've also precisely hit multiple targets that we know about. Israel's biggest refinery. Their premier science park. The HQ of Microsoft. We don't know about military hits because of the Military Censor. Comparison to Saddam Hussein is ludicrous since he was 33 years ago now and far closer to Israel.

...such an easy search that your third link isn't even about an attack on a hospital, but on an aid site where the victims got taken to hospital? Ho hum. For the sake of argument I'll assume that they actually were all relevant articles though, the BBC certainly has done some coverage of it. So, how many of their articles had BBC reporters on the ground in Palestine? None? because Israel wouldn't let them there? You can't say your coverage isn't biased and it's because of Iranian censorship while Israel is open when Israel also censors stuff, when it makes them look bad. All he had to do is point out that fact instead of making the bias look even worse by using Israel as a positive example. If you want to do a useful search, try how many bombed hospitals or medical facilities the BBC visited in Lebanon, which wasn't under censorship.

Pretty sure accusing someone of using illegal drugs would get you a warning as well as accusing someone of lying. FTR, don't care, didn't complain, won't complain as your opinion is worthless. If my opinion was worthless to you, well, you wouldn't care either and certainly wouldn't write pages and pages. Was I wrong about you lying? Well, was Donald Rumsfeld lying when he said he knew where Iraq's WMDs were? You (presumably) still insist he wasn't. Please, please don't take that as an excuse to restart another multi year old argument, it's just an illustration of why you get no benefit of doubt on the matter. In any case, what the IAEA says now as opposed to, lol, 14 years ago via a think tank is that you cannot use their report(s) as a justification for attacking Iran, straight from their Director. If you prefer, there's a written report from a week ago. So, you can burble on irrelevantly about your 14 year old 2nd hand report in support of Bibi's 27 year old accusations as much as you like, it's still a 14 year old second hand report supporting 27 year old accusations. Though surely even you are getting sick of it now.

Interesting article from the BBC on why they only cover Israeli hospitals being bombed extensively and it isn't a double standard. All it actually does is give a very good indication of how bad the media coverage is and why BBC Persian is seen as a bit of a joke. Ah, it's all Iran's fault. There is literally no comment about all the Palestinian medical facilities that have been bombed and Israel has restricted access to because it's a bad look for them. That is particularly ironic because this is the final paragraph: Well yes, but not in the way you think. I'd also note that the BBC did not visit and give extensive coverage to all the medical facilities bombed, by Israel, in Lebanon either. Via WHO, and after one month of Israel's attack. There's a pattern there about who's hospitals have value and who's don't, and it isn't anything to do with Israel not practicing censorship.

They can, if by no other means than by claiming it was something else*. There is at least one location that is completely off limits and you cannot get on demand satellite coverage of, ie Dimona. Which would also make a very obvious retaliatory target. Doesn't mean that they have, it may have been shot down or never fired or various other options, but information on new missiles working is exactly the sort of thing you won't get confirmation of, unless Israel thinks it's in their best interests. *or just a generic missile. In the explosive sense there isn't really much difference between that missile and others- a bog standard SCUD would have a 1t warhead, the shahab-3 up to 1.2t, the sejjil has up to 1.5t. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between any of them with any certainty from the crater or damage they leave.

And I can't believe I have to explain to you why that is a monumentally stupid argument, again. I can't believe I had to explain it first time. You picked something that is famous for requiring no technical know how, you can accuse literally anyone of it who's physically capable of doing it. Indeed, it's worse than nothing when the whole point is Netanyahu making the same accusation for 27 years. To summarise: you resuscitated an argument that was weak ten years ago since it relied on something 12 years old then, and it is even weaker now, 22 years later. You illustrate it with ludicrous comparisons. You accuse people of drug use and then complain about using reddit style arguments. You outright lied about what the IAEA said in the hope I wouldn't read it and then removed the offending quote next time you reposted it.

Again, nothing had changed for 22 years prior to the current Israeli attacks according to your own sources. According to the US there was no weapons program, and hadn't been since 2003. Up to three years is irrelevant, unless you can provide evidence that it's significantly less than that. We all know if it were, say, two weeks- which is less than 3 years- then that is what they'd say. Instead, they said three years. Which is not imminent. As for factualities: you were so badly informed you compared the technical requirements for an ANFO bomb to a nuke. You said Iran had a current nuclear weapons program according to the IAEA, while citing a report that said the exact opposite. FTR, there's literally no point trying to insult me. There are two crucial rules to live by when it comes to debates (1) that which is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence and (2) insults only work when you value the person's opinion.

I don't think you need look any further for 'why now' than Israel thinking it's doable. Same general reason as for the US and Britain invading Iraq. Their calculus is pretty simple. The west is what matters to them internationally and what can stop their aggressiom, and they simply won't do anything to stop them. Haven't stopped the warcrimes in Palestine, haven't imposed even the most basic of consequences, label Israel repeatedly attacking other countries as self defence and all the old Orwellian tropes. Indeed, once the attack is made the west has to end it. It effectively cannot end in a negotiated settlement, since the west abrogated the last one. Israel has just made the situation an existential one for Iran, and that means nukes. Whether or not they really wanted them last week, they certainly want them now. And as soon as they have them, per North Korea, the leverage of conventional military aggression is gone (or the west has to go nuclear. Would be interesting watching the attempts to try and spin that as defensive and responsible. I'm not even sure you'd get condemnation from Starmer/ Macron/ Mers and the other jellies for Israel or the US nuking Tehran, let alone consequences). (And that last sentence is the crucial one really for why this has been such a disaster for the west. Their defence of Israel's conduct has been straight out of 1984* and they've provided yet another example of how the one thing that will protect you from them and their proxies is the very thing they don't want you to have. Not because you're irresponsible or whatever or because of international law/ The Rules Based Order- reduced to a joke even among many westerners- but because that is what will protect you from being attacked, by the west. They've proved that the Iranian and Libyans were idiots, and the North Koreans not. *"The West told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears" is pretty literal policy from western governments)

There may well not be reports of it hitting anything even if it did- especially if it hit something important- since all the press in Israel are operating under the Military Censor. If it landed on a puppy orphanage though... Ben Gvir has already said reporting on strikes is helping the enemy in time of war- and, apart from being Baruch Goldstein's #1 fan he's the Minister for National Security.

Yep, ie three years until it's actually usable. So Netanyahu's imminent threat is 1100+ days away. It was also (a minimum of) 1100 days away in, well, 2003. Net change over 22 years, zero days. Reminder, Netanyahu's justification was of imminent threat from an active development program with will to use. There is no active development program, the minimum time for a deliverable weapon is 3 years, and the weapons program hadn't been restarted according to everyone for 22 years up until this week. Every part of Netanyahu's argument was rubbish. Funny, for someone who doesn't even think it's the real reason you spend an awful lot of time defending Bibi's claims.

To quote you: "Based on what evidence?" Please do a better job than Gromnir providing it. The analysis of everyone except Israel is that Iran has no active nuclear program to end. The last inspection deal got abrogated by Donald Trump, the guy now wanting to make a new deal that there's no guarantee he won't decide to abrogate arbitrarily in two years time. Trump who also surrendered to the Houthis, a bunch of stereotypical drug addicted sandal wearing goat farmers with a negligible fraction of the resources of Iran, after his bombing campaign singularly failed to achieve anything except a pledge not to attack specifically american ships (ie less than 1% of world freighter capacity).

The current US Intelligence Assessment is that Iran does not have a weapons program. "We continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." That is literally literally the lede from the current (March 2025) assessment. The estimate is that it would take them 3 years to have working nukes, from when they made the decision to restart. That is not breakout capacity. You can continue with throwing words at the screen and moving goalposts as much as you like, that's the facts. As for accusations of selective quoting, I notice you've reposted the same 14 year old quote, yet again, minus the bits I quoted from it about the IAEA and US saying Iran hasn't had a program since 2003, ie 22 years ago. End of story.

Sigh. "U.S. intelligence agencies assess that Iran has yet to begin a weapons program, but has “undertaken activities that better position it to produce a nuclear device, if it chooses to do so."" It's literally literally on this page it's so recent. Now, to condense down your massive screed to the relevant bits: The IAEA did not agree with you. If you'd bothered to actually read what you linked. Not for the first time. And neither did US Intelligence either. The choice is: agree with Gromnir's definition of weapons program, or the IAEA's and US Intelligence. Not a difficult choice. Sheesh, they even admit pretty much everything concrete came from AQ Khan and was shared with Libya as well, everything else is conditional, ie may have done. You are, at best, arguing that 22 years ago Iran had a weapons program. It's good that you don't believe Israel is doing it for that reason, but that is the reason they have stated no matter how much you don't like that fact.

Eh, there's a certain irony you accusing someone else of having a ketamine moment and using reddit arguments in consecutive sentences. Fortunately, I always take ad hominems as an admission that the person making them has no better argument. You've saliently failed to address Israel's claims, instead choosing to argue something completely different. I'm not even sure what at this point. That Iran had a weapons program 22 years ago? Even if true it's still so what if they didn't/ don't have one now. You can't even argue there's been a change of leadership, since if they had one in 2003 and it got cancelled, then it was cancelled by Khamenei. As for your 'condemnation' of Israel, lol. Another 59 palestinians killed going to a food site. Still a complete mystery to Gromnir what Israel's intentions are. We all know what your attitude would be if it were dead Israelis instead; then the motivations wouldn't be a mystery. And of course, despite all that you're perfectly willing to argue Israel's case when it attacks Iran. That is pretty much the definition of deciding one side is the good guys. If there's one thing that is grimly amusing though it's the cognitive dissonance. Those sites are from 2003. Which is probably why the quarterly report was approved by a tiny majority, along partisan lines; 19 out of 35. To put that in perspective, it wouldn't have passed the UNSC, even without China and Russia's veto.

Never bothered isn't quite fair, their most advanced system may be late 90s tech but they were actively blocked from getting more advanced systems. It's also taken most of the SAM output of the west to have success/ 'success' with Ukraine. Can't really expect Iran to compete with that.