The All Things Political Topic - Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, pmp10 said:

They launched at Israel their latest and greatest - Khorramshahr-4. 
There are no reports of it hitting anything, but then a single missile could have been a message to other gulf states. 

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.

Edited Wednesday at 09:59 PM by Zoraptor

[Gromnir]

telling us that netanyahu's justification was less than convincing is kinda irrelevant, seeing as how that has been exact what Gromnir has been saying since our godfather baptism post... so again, duh.

even so, there is an assumption that the delivery system in question is a ballistic missile warhead, which is why we quoted a pertinent portion from the rand report which describes the engineering hurdles o' accomplishing such a feat. however, as already stated, it takes little imagination to come up with alternative delivery methods for at least a single weapon. even then, zor can't help himself but misquote:

"But US intelligence assessments had reached a different conclusion – not only was Iran not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon, it was also up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver one to a target of its choosing, according to four people familiar with the assessment."

"up to" is carrying a bit of weight. funny you left that part out, eh?

regardless, am admitted tickled by the realization zor has been busy arguing against an imaginary strawman.

23 hours ago, Gromnir said:

We all know what your attitude would be if it were dead Israelis instead

17 hours ago, Gromnir said:

Your problem, fundamentally, is that you want Israel to have a good, justified, moral reason for how it's acting because you've got them labelled as the good guys. 

in any event, before israel's attack, not much had changed since 2011 when iaea and others recognized that iran were six to nineteen months away from breakout.

Spoiler

Even though Iran may already have developed the necessary
technical components to produce a bomb, as of January 2012, Iran
would likely need over a year to do so. This correlates well with the
conclusions of the U.S. Intelligence Community, which has estimated
that it would require Iran at least a year to produce a single nuclear
weapon even if all available resources were swiftly dedicated to the
task.107 Other credible sources, however, arrive at estimates as short as
6 months, or as long as 19 months.108 These estimates vary according
to the assumptions they make about a number of uncertain variables.
They also vary according to whether the intent is to identify likely or
merely plausible—but unlikely—outcomes. Both worst-case and likely
estimates will be provided in this section where appropriate.109
The reader is cautioned not to allow technical breakout estimates
to become a distraction from the more important question of Iran’s political will. All breakout estimates assume that Iran has decided to
produce a weapon. Yet this is likely not so. Additionally, as will be
discussed in greater detail later in this report, if Iran were dedicated
to acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States and its allies would
possess few—if any—cost-effective options for preventing them from
succeeding, at least over the long term. Iran already has the technical
wherewithal to build a bomb. Although air strikes and economic sanctions may set the Iranians back in their efforts, this would likely be only
temporary, as the Iranians would continue to possess the underlying
technical resources to reconstitute its program and acquire a weapon.
The only thing preventing such an outcome is Iran’s own decision making calculus.
This report also agrees with the most recent National Intelligence Estimates (2007 and 2011) in finding that Iran has likely not
yet made a definitive decision to acquire nuclear weapons.110 There is
no evidence to suggest that Iran has turned its existing capabilities to
affect a nuclear breakout. Instead, Iran’s behavior suggests it seeks to
shorten the time required to build a bomb, improve the ease of doing
so and the reliability and effectiveness of the resulting weapon and
delivery systems, and increase the number of weapons such a breakout
“dash” could produce.

before the most recent preventative attack by israel, there had been more than a decade o' time during which iran had the materials, infrastructure and technical know-how to achieve breakout in six to nineteen months. although breakout estimates had shrunk recent, the difference were a matter o' a few months. iran chose to not pursue the development o' a nuclear weapon. a decade o' restraint seems like a good thing in our estimation. unless somebody is hiding some sooper relevant info, there didn't look to be any more reason to attack iran in 2025 than were the case in 2024, 2023, 2022, 2021, etc. nevertheless, israel launched an attack which, particular based on their target selection, had zero chance o' seriously diminishing iran's breakout capability. is why am having repeated called bs on israel's justification for their attack.

worse, if iran weren't developing a weapon before the attack as seems to be consensus, it would surprise us not at all if iran's calculus has changed. 

however, on the lighter side, 'cause am admitting this continued bloodbath is no doubt inspiring a bit o' nietzsche and turin horse sympathy for zor, 

...

is somehow equal parts amusing and grotesque that trump is effective quoting colonel strelnikov. if he had mentioned, "wolverines, small ferocious animals," we woulda' been absolute certain that trump had watched red dawn the night before.

HA! Good Fun!

[Zoraptor]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

[stuff]

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.

[Gromnir]

does somebody wanna tell zor that am saying, ad nauseum, that israel did not have a legit imminent nuke threat for attacking iran?  that fact doesn't seem to have sunk in yet. perplexing. kinda a lotta noise seeing he is arguing with the strawman he invented.

can't serious wanna go down the list o' fact checks given your last few posts misrepresenting quotes and ignoring inconvenient facts. 

and is no surprise that you complete miss the point o' the tim mcveigh and phd chemist example as it is where you initial went off the rails.... and the iaea is thankful relevant, so am able to kill two birds with one fertilizer bomb. since 2011-12, iaea, rand, us military intelligence and isis has all been in agreement that iran has the know-how, infrastructure and, "very, very specific ingredients to build a nuke," within a period of six to nineteen months, and a bit less time in 2025. the fact our neighbor, in spite of having the know-how, infrastructure and access to ingredients necessary to build a bomb, but has not done so, hardly proves that she cannot build such a bomb. the recognition that tim mcveigh and nichols, not phd chemists, were able to build a bomb in no way diminishes the point that you have no better understanding o' basic logic today than at anytime in the past decade. iran and our neighbor not building a bomb o' any sort is unpersuasive proof that they is incapable o' doing so.  our neighbor has chosen not to build a bomb. similarly, iran has chosen not to build a bomb. the length o' time which has expired since our neighbor has had the capacity to build a bomb and today in no way makes it more likely that she lacks capacity to do so. same goes for iran.

am not sure how to simplify this further.

reminder: our initial conflict with zor, from the start, were extreme limited, but presumably 'cause you got distracted by strawmen and phantoms o' what you imagined were our real arguments, you utter missed any chance at responding coherent or constructive. you made the logically faulty insinuation that the extreme amount o' time that had elapsed since israel and others first claimed that iran were working on a bomb, undermined the proposition that iran is, and has been only six to nineteen months away from creating a nuke.

again, and hopeful final 'cause this is bordering on an insane level o' spam, iaea, us intelligence, rand and isis (and quite possible more,) all agreed that iran has had the capacity to reach breakout in somewhere betwixt six months and a couple years, and that assessment were true even back in 2011:

a supported example unlike zor take on faith and selective half-quote nonsense, that iran had the "very, very specific ingredients" to reach breakout in a short span o' time

Spoiler

In 2010, Iran began enriching to 20% in the PFEP using two centrifuge cascades.57 One cascade enriches 3.5% LEUF6 to roughly 20%.
The other cascade is fed the tails assay from the first, which is around
2% U-235, and enriches it to 10%. The 10% product is then fed back
into the first cascade at an intermediate point in order to enrich it to
20%. This procedure greatly improves overall efficiency. This is important from a cost perspective in producing fuel for the TNRR, Iran’s
stated objective in enriching to 20%. However, it is also a useful way
for Iran to improve its breakout capability should it ever choose to attempt a “batch recycling” process to quickly enrich 3.5% LEUF6 to
90% (this process is discussed in more detail in the section on breakout
scenarios below). As of May 2012, Iran had produced 110.1 kg of 20%
LEUF6 at the PFEP.58

footnote 58: 8 As of May 15, 2012, 43 kg of the 20% LEUF6 Iran has produced has been used to
make fuel plates for the TNRR, thereby lowering Iran’s stocks of 20% LEUF6. IAEA,
GOV/2012/23, para. 38.

furthermore, am not sure how many times we need repeat that am in full agreement that iran were not active pursuing the development of a nuke in spite of their efforts to shorten the breakout time by enhancing their technical and infrastructure resources, have now posted the following MULTIPLE times.

"The reader is cautioned not to allow technical breakout estimates
to become a distraction from the more important question of Iran’s political will. All breakout estimates assume that Iran has decided to
produce a weapon. Yet this is likely not so."

for chrissakes, the fact that pretty much every credible source agreed that in spite of having a short breakout timeline, iran had not been making any effort to actual develop a weapon is one o' the reasons Gromnir criticized israel (many times now) for attacking iran based on the pretext o' an imminent nuclear threat from iran. the reason iran weren't developing a weapon weren't lack o' capacity, but rather the absence o' political will. so what were different in 2025 than in the decades previous? seeing as how israel didn't provide any meaningful rationale or compelling evidence for a shift in will from iran, their justification for attacking iran looks fraudulent.

but again, nobody is arguing with you that iran hasn't been working to develop a nuke for a long time. that has been a cornerstone o' our complaint that israel's excuse for attacking iran were bs. as such, complaining to us that iaea stated that iran had no weapons program since 2003 is kinda pointless. weapons program v. working towards breakout? you serious quibbling over nomenclature when am having already agreed more than a dozen times now that iran stopped working on developing a nuke way back in 2003 and instead focused on breakout capacity?

...

look, am knowing the 

3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

We all know what your attitude would be if it were dead Israelis instead

and

3 hours ago, Gromnir said:

Your problem, fundamentally, is that you want Israel to have a good, justified, moral reason for how it's acting because you've got them labelled as the good guys. 

blunders had to be embarrassing, but maybe you can take this as a learning opportunity?

perhaps not.

whatever. pushed us to exhaustion... again.

HA! Good Fun!

[Malcador]

Seeing people seriously suggest he take over is hilarious 

 

 

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

Seeing people seriously suggest he take over is hilarious 

 

 

am thinking paperboy love prince has a better shot as the next nyc mayor. heck, paperboy love prince might have a better shot than pahlavi does o' bringing back monarchy to iran.

paperboy is in favour o' ubi, so am suspecting there is at least one obsidian boardy who would support him.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[pmp10]

8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

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.

Not even Israel can censor away a hit by a 1,500 kg warhead.
Far more likely it was simply shot down.

[Malcador]

Well that's vague enough 

 

[uuuhhii]

8 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Well that's vague enough 

 

 

like that 90 day pause of tariff

how many trade deal will usa get when the time is up

[Gromnir]

34 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Well that's vague enough 

 

and

second video is from 2017 btw.

two weeks is parody. two weeks is a tell that trump hasn't even thought deep enough to come up with a lie.

HA! Good Fun!

ps (edit) for those not paying attention, it ain't just health care which didn't happen in two weeks. obviously the initial 24 hour and day 1 boasts for ukraine and bringing down inflation were anomalous, as two weeks is the reflexive rejoinder when trump is questioned. infrastructure never occurred during trumps first term in spite of perpetual two week estimates. wire tapping bombshell? nope. 

Edited Thursday at 06:54 PM by Gromnir

[uuuhhii]

usa plan to sell massive amount of public land

no idea how big it is since usa use nonsense unit of acre

guess usa can never build new railroad again

oligarch win

[Theonlygarby]

Israel has a right to defend itself from threats real or imagined

[rjshae]

3 hours ago, Malcador said:

Well that's vague enough 

Why just say "no" we're not going to start a war, when he can milk it for weeks worth of the entire world's attention? Anyway, let's see if TACO.

[melkathi]

I was trying very hard this evening in a discussion not to get dragged into a political argument. Then the other guy said "I can tell you this with certainty. I saw proof on 4chan."

I went home to take painkillers after that.

[Zoraptor]

22 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the length o' time which has expired since our neighbor has had the capacity to build a bomb and today in no way makes it more likely that she lacks capacity to do so

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.

[Zoraptor]

18 hours ago, pmp10 said:

Not even Israel can censor away a hit by a 1,500 kg warhead.
Far more likely it was simply shot down.

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.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

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.

exhausted, but am needing address the "liar" accusation as a point o' personal privilege... typical accusation from zor being manifest untrue and a kind disappointing projection.

the full quote and context o' the partial quoting you call a lie.

"aside, even though am arguing with our self, iran did not end it's weapons program 22 years ago. the ieae report am having linked were a wakeup call for the west, but the rand and isis links from a decade past we provided also argue, via considerable evidentiary support, that iran were maintaining a weapons program, but were not active developing a weapon. am not sure why that concept is so difficult for zor to grasp. the nuclear sites operated by iran were not sole for the purpose o' developing civilian electricity production and other iran excuses. iran did and still does have a weapons program, but they are not active pursuing the development of such weapons and they have not been doing so for over a decade. iran were close to breakout ten years ago. iran is negligible closer to breakout today. before, during and after the iran deal, no effort was made by iran to develop a weapon. as such, israel's justification for attacking at this time rings hollow."

zor only quotes the bold part and calls it a lie? kinda like the three years quote, eh? left out the part where the conclusion were that a weapon could actual be completed in months, but that a delivery system would require up to three years. your selective and dishonest quoting is not accidental or limited. is your mo.

we will further note that in previous posts to the one you called a lie, we stated unequivocal that we agreed with the assessment that iran had no nuclear weapon program, 'cause as counter-intuitive as it may be, us intelligence and iaea could simultaneous find that iran had no weapon program while also determining that iran were moving forward towards breakout capability.

"again, duh. is the same silliness as we heard from zor in 2015 btw. the fact iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon in no way diminishes the possibility that they could achieve such in a realtive short period o' time.

"yeah, since 2003, iran had not been active working on developing a nuclear weapon, but rand, iaea, isis (institute for science and international security as 'posed to the terror group... or the egyptian goddess) and others were in agreement iran had progressed very close to the threshold stage. iran had virtual all the ingredients and the infrastructure, and at one point estimates were that iran were within one month of breakout, IF iran put forth the effort to achieve such... which they did not and had not... although am gonna admit the one month estimate were kinda an outlier."

we recognized as a fact that iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon program in a post made only a short time previous to the partial quote you highlight as a lie.

also,

"does anybody who knows zor personal wanna go over and make sure he is all right... ensure that he and elon ain't sharing a ketamine moment or something?  he does get that Gromnir has been criticizing israel, right? we pointed out that israel went way too far in gaza and is now using a recycled excuse from 2011 to legitimize their attack which looks unconvincing unless you reimagine the motive as regime change. is not as if picking a side means anything to the strength o' the analysis, but the fact am using +ten year old documents is kinda essential to our claim that israel, who hadn't attacked iran for +ten years, sudden decided to do so in spite o' the relevant facts not having changed at all in those + ten years: iran is not current developing a weapon, but their current technical knowledge and resources mean they could create a weapon in six to nineteen months. if such facts weren't a legit excuse to attack +ten years ago, then why would iran continuing to not develop nuclear weapons sudden legitimize such an attack?"

so we got multiple instances o' Gromnir making the observation that iran is not developing a nuclear weapon and that they don't have a weapon program from just previous to your your strategic partial quote lie accusation? 

liar, willful obtuse, or perhaps we were more right about ketamine/stroke than we believed.

furthermore,

https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/06/1164291

Following Thursday’s resolution vote by the IAEA’s board of governors – which passed by a vote of 19 for, three against and 11 abstentions - Iran’s atomic energy body reportedly announced plans to open a new uranium enrichment plant and increase production of enriched fissile material.

The draft for Thursday’s resolution highlights serious and growing concerns since at least 2019 that Iran had failed to cooperate fully with the UN agency’s inspectors.

Tehran has “repeatedly” been unable to explain and demonstrate that its nuclear material was not being diverted for further enrichment for military use, the draft text maintains.

Iran has also failed to provide the UN agency with “technically credible explanations for the presence of [man-made] uranium particles” at undeclared locations in Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad, it continues.

“Unfortunately, Iran has repeatedly either not answered, or not provided technically credible answers to, the agency’s questions,” IAEA chief Grossi said on Monday. “It has also sought to sanitize the locations, which has impeded Agency verification activities.”

According to Mr. Grossi, Tehran has stockpiled 400 kilogrammes of highly enriched uranium.

and

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/irans-stock-near-bomb-grade-uranium-grows-sharply-iaea-report-shows-2025-02-26/

The stock of uranium refined to up to 60% in the form of uranium hexafluoride grew by 92.5 kg in the past quarter to 274.8 kg, one of two confidential IAEA reports said.
That is enough in principle, if enriched further, for six nuclear bombs, according to an IAEA yardstick. There is enough for more weapons at lower enrichment levels.
Where before its latest acceleration Iran was producing between 6 and 9 kilograms (13 and 20 pounds) of uranium enriched to up to 60% per month, now that figure is between 35 and 40 kg, a senior diplomat said. This is just short of the 42 kg that is enough in principle for one bomb, if refined further.

...

uranium refined to 60% in those quantities don't have believable applications other than breakout capability or actual weapon manufacture. so, what exact is the position o' the iaea? what would any ordinary follower o' these issues, one unfamiliar with the narrow definitions used by iaea, us intelligence, isis and others, conclude that iran's efforts at increasing their stockpiles o' enriched uranium mean in terms o' efforts to construct a nuclear weapon? enhancing breakout capability v. a weapons program? again, am having stated multiple times that we agree with the observation that iaea, isis, rand, us intelligence and others have consistently assessed that iran has no weapons program and we agree that iran has not been making efforts to weaponize. that said, try and explain to any reasonable and ordinary person that iran, having abandoned their nuke program in 2003, is now closer to breakout capability than when they had a weapon program. 

and you continue to display your diminished capacity to understand logic by mocking yourself with mcveigh and nichols v. our neighbor phd. the logic fail is you mistaking noncompletion o' a working device as being proof of lack of capacity. we used an example where there would be no 'question as to know-how, infrastructure and materials to show that not completing a device fails as evidence o' a lack o' capacity. am finding it difficult to believe you honest don't get it, but... 

On 6/18/2025 at 6:49 PM, Gromnir said:

We all know what your attitude would be if it were dead Israelis instead

and

On 6/18/2025 at 6:49 PM, Gromnir said:

Your problem, fundamentally, is that you want Israel to have a good, justified, moral reason for how it's acting because you've got them labelled as the good guys. 

 so maybe you are just that obtuse.

and final, hopeful final, the ten year old argument were intentional based on old data and conclusions; how can you possible still be missing that point? am criticizing israel's 2025 justification by pointing out that their conclusions is hardly more persuasive today than they were in 2011 and 2012 when us intelligence, isis, rand and iaea all agreed that iran was somewhere between six and nineteen months from reaching breakout capability. 

dude. serious.

but what do we expect from the logic challenged guy who offers little in the way o' evidence to support his positions save to intentional misquote sources, a guy who has been arguing with a strawman mor a few pages and like so many redditt warriors, doesn't believe anybody will go through the effort to fact check him. and so here we are, once again, eh?

turin horse

HA! Good Fun!

ps am having been warned by mods, years past, that calling posters "liar" is frowned 'pon. if such remains verboten, am recognizing we overstepped a line or broke custom. our excuse is that we were responding in kind, but perhaps such is insufficient or immaterial. regardless, if we posted in error, am apologizing in advance and bear no ill will if the thread is pruned.

 

Edited Friday at 02:52 AM by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, Malcador said:

Well that's vague enough 

 

Not really, Trump  is trying to avoid  bombing Iran because then the US is actively involved in the war as opposed to just defending Israel if attacked so the 2 weeks is about giving the  EU and other types of diplomacy a chance to end the war

And the US getting actively involved is very unpopular for several MAGA groups because Trump committed to " keeping the USA out of unnecessary wars " 

So its about political blowback within the USA for Trump and people  like Tucker Carlson is opposed to US bombing Iran so it could create fractures within MAGA support

And this decision is made worse by Trumps predictable inconsistent rants and comments on Truth about what he is thinking

I wish Trump would stop commenting on Truth, it adds to the confusion of what he means and is thinking and then his spokespeople have to explain what he means...its tiresome 

 

 

[Zoraptor]

5 hours ago, Gromnir said:

blah blah

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. 

Quote

 

This development is deeply concerning. I have repeatedly stated that nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances, as it could harm both people and the environment.  Such attacks have serious implications for nuclear safety, security and safeguards, as well as regional and international peace and security.

In this regard, the IAEA recalls the numerous General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency”. 

 

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.

[Malcador]

Sort of related to the Juneteenth discussion yesterday.

 

 

[Gromnir]

6 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

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. 

...

for gawd's sake, what is wrong with you? honest? how many times do we need repeat that am having been arguing that israel's stated justification for attacking iran is contrived? have been saying for many posts and pages that israel's efforts don't match their excuse and that this operation looks far more like regime change than any kinda effort at neutering iran's nuclear breakout capability. more immediate relevant, am having been repeating, over and over and over again, 'cause somebody is so complete impervious to reason, that the nuclear threat iran poses today, based on assessments from iaea, US intelligence, rand, isis, etc. is little more significant today than it was thirteen years ago, or any day since then.

we made kinda a deal about words... that israel's attack were most clear preventative as 'posed to preemptive, the difference being that preemptive can create legal legitimacy, while preventative, does not. based on iaea and recent US intelligence assessments, there was no imminent threat from iran, so calling the attack preemptive were inappropriate. again, am having been arguing that the data offered did not create a justification for attacking iran, so telling us that iaea agrees with us is nice and all, but may not quite have the relevance you believe it does.

6 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Though surely even you are getting sick of it now.

this is one o' the only accurate observations you has made over the past few pages o' the belligerent, misleading, strawmaning you has engaged in where you argue against positions Gromnir didn't make and selective quote to support your wholly baseless positions, all the while seeming oblivious to the fact that Gromnir, since the godfather baptism post, has been stating unequivocal our opinion that israel's accusations lack merit and surely do not rise to the level o' potential starting a war with a country of ninety million people, a country that had chosen not to construct a nuclear weapon since 2003. 

HA! Good Fun! 

Edited Friday at 03:07 PM by Gromnir

[rjshae]

1 hour ago, Malcador said:

Sort of related to the Juneteenth discussion yesterday.

This:

List of countries by number of public holidays

shows he's talking nonsense, of course.

Americans tend to take fewer vacation days than, say, their European counterparts, so I'd say we need more holidays.

[Lexx]

Nah, you need to work more. This is your life. Work 3 jobs until you die. Do it, make rich people more money. Just earlier today I've read that apparently half of the "middle class" in america requires food stamps and stuff. Isn't it amazing? Now go back to your amazon warehouse and don't forget your pee bottle, because you already used up your pee break time today and Bezos will cry if your productivity goes down 0.1% or something.

Edited Friday at 04:02 PM by Lexx

[Zoraptor]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

..seeming oblivious to the fact that Gromnir, since the godfather baptism post, has been stating unequivocal our opinion that israel's accusations lack merit and surely do not rise to the level o' potential starting a war with a country of ninety million people, a country that had chosen not to construct a nuclear weapon since 2003. 

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.

[BruceVC]

https://www.newsweek.com/iran-nominates-trump-nobel-peace-prize-he-threatens-neighboring-iran-2088699

Here is a  good news story about Trump , unexpected but appreciated in the context of ending wars

Pakistan is nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace  Prize for the important role the US played in ending the recent India vs Pakistan war 

As stated by us in the Security Council, Pakistan favours a peaceful resolution to the crisis through dialogue and diplomacy," the Pakistani Mission said. "We hope that the situation will not escalate militarily, and tensions will be diffused amicably through diplomatic engagement."

"President Trump has distinguished himself as a peacemaker," the Mission added. "His statesmanship and successful diplomatic intervention with Pakistan and India played a crucial role in bringing about a ceasefire between the two countries in May 2025."

I think its an important reminder of the nuance and complexity of Trumps presidency and how  he is seen in a much more positive light by countries outside of the typical media opinions and views we consume that can influence our views 

Its a pity Trump feels the need to gloat about these types of things on Truth but thats his hubris, insecurity and unhealthy obsession with SM  attention. Its not  how you want a US president to conduct themselves 

 

And @Malcadoryou will find this interesting, Im not sure if you aware  but the US has been instrumental in a ceasefire in the DRC

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-deal-democratic-republic-congo-rwanda-war-mineral-resources/

Hopefully it maintains because its good for Africa and the region