massive anti usa rally at iran

usa

truly the savier of failed state everywhere

but couldn't save themself

Two of the least likable people in the world face off, and Tucker Carlson comes out on top. 

WTF is going on. 

11 minutes ago, Gorgon said:

Two of the least likable people in the world face off, and Tucker Carlson comes out on top. 

WTF is going on. 

I thought it was embarrassing for both parties. But then again I don't really check either party for reliable information.

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

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 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine, his name could join a list of peace proponents that includes Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger. 

Not to mention Oboma!

Should give it to Rubio.

The DRC Rwanda deal seems to lack specifics, at least from what I read, but would be good if it lasts.  

Edited June 21, 2025Jun 21 by Malcador

2 hours ago, HoonDing said:

Not to mention Oboma!

Barock Oboma sounds like the name of a fictional black character in a Japanese fighting game. 

13 hours ago, BruceVC said:

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

Hmm.

Might want to get someone (not AI) to proofread your URLs, Newsweek.

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

The DRC Rwanda deal seems to lack specifics, at least from what I read, but would be good if it lasts.  

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.

 

On 6/20/2025 at 2:59 PM, Zoraptor said:

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.

rhetorical? what rhetorical effect are you seeking to achieve seeing as how we already explicit answered?

 

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

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.

is a kinda sad sympathy for zor the effect you were aiming for? if so, congrats?

and again, using ten year old data were kinda essential if am showing that the threat today is not in fact any more imminent than it has been the case for thirteen years, or more.

On 6/19/2025 at 7:41 PM, Gromnir said:

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. 

 

On 6/19/2025 at 7:41 PM, Gromnir said:

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?

etc.

 in spite o' your memento cosplay, we did over and over and over again make clear that the israeli excuse for starting a war with iran in 2025 appears unjustified. however, beyond all reason, your intransigence led to, "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." am genuine not concerned as to why you were so triggered that you would indulge in deceptive efforts to refute a position you couldn't recognize were largely aligned with yours. we know exactly why you would do such a thing even if we don't care about the motivation. however, am gonna admit that your reflexive self-immolation efforts is, up to a point, entertaining... even if they become exhausting and we eventual regret indulging your unhealthy needs.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Israel really leads the US  

 

 

22 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Israel really leads the US  

 

 

 

 

there are verification mark of different color now

amazing how much a already terrible site can deteriorate in just few year

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.

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

blah blah

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.

US told Iran this wasn't part of regime change, apparently. 

*eye roll*

yeah, lexx who also imagined into existence a Gromnir position is an appropriate role model for you. is not as if he admitted his error neither. am not sure how you see lexx as having come out o' the situation looking anything but embarrassed, but am not surprised. so, birds of a feather? 

malc didn't exactly quietly ignore us either, but if this becomes a curious binary option, malc's approach were a far better way to handle. he initial defended what we see as mistakes, but he didn't fight and die on a pointless hill. am agreeing, you could learn from malc. unlikely. 

in any event, am still not seeing the point to all of this effort by israel if the goal were to neuter iran's capability to build a nuclear weapon. iran is facing more than a bit of political disarray, but it is hard to imagine they never considered the possibility of israeli or US attacks on their nuclear sites. for decades, the main thing holding iran back from building a weapon was the lack of political will to do so. bombing these sites surely didn't destroy all of iran's supplies of enriched uranium, and the knowledge o' how to build a weapon weren't vaporized by the fordow attack. iran is a big country with an enormous population and a whole lotta geography which is inhospitable and ideal for hiding some kinda stealth weapon development operation. iran could even secret a facility in the middle of a densely populated area.  

before the attack, it didn't look as if iran was actively pursuing the development of a nuclear weapon, even if they were enhancing their breakout capability. having been attacked, who here is confident that iran is less willing to build a bomb? 

regime change as the real goal looks far more likely, but am gonna see what happens from this point.

(edit) am also not seeing any US or israeli solution for bushehr. even before the first attack, we woulda assumed israel would have devised a plan for dealing with busher if they were serious about at least temporarily halting iran breakout progress. am gonna admit to some cold sweat when israel announced that they finally had attacked bushehr. thankfully, that news were a mistake. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited June 22, 2025Jun 22 by Gromnir

Trump speaks after US strikes Iranian nuclear sites

Quote

US President Donald Trump says the US has bombed Fordo and other nuclear sites in Iran

Looks like it's not taco time. I guess now we wait to see how Iran retaliates.

12 minutes ago, rjshae said:

Trump speaks after US strikes Iranian nuclear sites

Looks like it's not taco time. I guess now we wait to see how Iran retaliates.

as childish as it may appear, am wondering how much the mockery trump endured for his reflexive "two weeks" announcement led to him moving quickly to end diplomatic efforts and instead resort to an overt display of military force.

first, netanyahu maneuvers trump into helping him with attacks on iran that israel couldn't manage itself; donald didn't wanna look weak by admitting that israel had not only successful attacked numerous iranian sites, but that israel purposeful kept the US in the dark about the attacks. and trump, like a child, were jealous of the positive attention israel was getting on fox? then we get the "two week" jokes, which reveal just how often trump goes limp after making a bold pronouncement.

trump didn't like that very much.

am suspecting what the US needs most is a competent kindergarten teacher, somebody with experience keeping little kids in line, to handle trump.

HA! Good Fun!

A theocracy must never have nuclear weapons. 

But more seriously, Iran's response is relatively small waves

 

 

Edited June 22, 2025Jun 22 by Malcador

28 minutes ago, Malcador said:

A theocracy must never have nuclear weapons. 

But more seriously, Iran's response is relatively small waves

 

 

The reality is now  the US is actively involved in this war, it was always possible 

The real  question now is how this will negatively impact Trump in the midterms because this will fracture the MAGA base 

So its a  good move for the Dems and the midterms

Would be embarrassing if it turns out 12 MOPs were wasted.

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

The reality is now  the US is actively involved in this war, it was always possible 

The real  question now is how this will negatively impact Trump in the midterms because this will fracture the MAGA base 

So its a  good move for the Dems and the midterms

Military conflict tends to unify the country (USA), but I'm not sure that's possible under this President. I suppose it depends on how Iran retaliates.

The US Congress really seems to have no point these days.

2 hours ago, HoonDing said:

Would be embarrassing if it turns out 12 MOPs were wasted.

am not sure how the result can be anything but a waste. for years iran has been aware israel wanted to attack their nuclear sites. for years iran has been stockpiling the material needed to build a weapon-- feel free to review the purposefully recycled decade-old conclusions o' rand, us intelligence, isis and iaea that am having shared ad nauseum at this point. as such, why wouldn't iran develop their version o' a reverse GECK, and bury a rudimentary facility under a hospital or mosque in tehran, beneath seemingly untargetable bushehr, or anywhere in the vast and remote mountains which make up a considerable portion o' iran... or multiple such locations. again, iaea has recent said that iran has enough 60% enriched uranium that it could further enrich quick and make more than six weapons. why wouldn't iran squirrel away some portion o' their, "very, very specific ingredients to build a nuke," in remote or functional untargetable locations.

the notion it were possible for the US and/or israel to military strike iran's nuclear weapon potential out of existence looks flawed on its face.

the recent attacks of iran may have extended the nuclear breakout timeline a bit, but the one thing holding iran back from nuclear breakout for two decades has been their lack of political will to cross the nuclear red line. 

now?

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-iran-attack-no-intel-nuclear-1235369641/

 

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.

Guess Israel is going to keep up the bombing, they have "other goals".