7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

..it was just your opinion where you believed Israel was censoring damage Iran was doing with its missile attacks.

It isn't, that's the purpose of the military censor in the first place, and always has been everywhere it's been implemented. The state controls the flow of information to stop its own people and the enemy know what damage has been done. When that is not applied they either think it's in their best interests not to, or it's too big to suppress. What do you think they were censoring in those 2000+ articles, Bibi's receding hairline?

11 hours ago, uuuhhii said:

if so in the last 3 year there maybe more journalist censored at gaza than the rest of the world combine

131 journalists killed in Gaza since 2024 out of a total of 204, so a shade off 2/3s. That is excluding those killed outside Israel and Palestine by Israel though; add those in and it's over 2/3.

To put it in perspective, the number of journalists killed in Ukraine over that time was 4 (four).

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Iran wont open the Straits and Trump is now committed. I wonder what the Iranian response will be?

I think the biggest threat to the world economy, and thus to the US, would be for Iran to attack the major oil production and storage facilities in the Persian Gulf. Doing so could potentially disrupt the flow of oil for several years; redacted will be in office for (at least) three more years, so the timing matches. Does Iran still have the capability to do that? They may see it as an appropriate response for damaging their own economy.

Strange as it may seem oil may not actually be the biggest potential target or threat. Most of its infrastructure is fixable in weeks to months, some of it quicker. Qatari gas with a years long estimate is an outlier.

OTOH, some of the Gulf countries have 90%+ drinking water from desalinisation. It's high for Israel as well. You simply don't have weeks or months to fix that, and having 7 million people in Riyadh without water would collapse Confidence almost instantly because there would be no chance of things going back to how they were.

Absolutely a war crime to target it, but it's not like either side cares about that- given destroying power plants without a good military reason to do so would also be a war crime.

Edited yesterday at 12:41 AM1 day by Zoraptor

isn't the major worry for oli that oil well have to be shut down when storage are full

one of the reason iran are attacked now is they look weak due to the protest caused by water crisis

no one have a quick magical solution to that even if usa somehow successfully make iran their proxy

and it will certainly get worse due to global warming

9 hours ago, rjshae said:

I think the biggest threat to the world economy, and thus to the US, would be for Iran to attack the major oil production and storage facilities in the Persian Gulf. Doing so could potentially disrupt the flow of oil for several years; redacted will be in office for (at least) three more years, so the timing matches. Does Iran still have the capability to do that? They may see it as an appropriate response for damaging their own economy.

Yes, that is the possible response

Iran's overall response has been a cowardly but predictable one

They cant target the US or Israel effectively so they go after the Gulf States which have less defenses and hopefully the economic chaos will end the US attacks which will end the Israeli campaign as well

It must be unique in the way countries fight wars and it sets a terrible precedent. But the hardliners in Iran will justify it because they will argue they facing an existential crisis

But as I said its not surprising and Iran threatened to do this, if any state is prepared to kill thousands of its own citizens who protest what lengths would they go to in a war where they have an obvious military and resource disadvantage?

11 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

It isn't, that's the purpose of the military censor in the first place, and always has been everywhere it's been implemented. The state controls the flow of information to stop its own people and the enemy know what damage has been done. When that is not applied they either think it's in their best interests not to, or it's too big to suppress. What do you think they were censoring in those 2000+ articles, Bibi's receding hairline?

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/06/media/israel-iran-war-media-censor-journalism

Here is an official link from CNN explaining how censorship in Israel works. Its not quite the level of censorship you suggesting but it exists on certain levels which is common in most countries that are at war

Here is a relevant quote from parts of it

"There’s no doubt that the Israeli public has posted videos of missile intercepts and more during this war. A quick search of social media and Telegram channels reveals plenty of these videos. But the censor focuses more on the international media, and it has tightened the restrictions since the war began.

After the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, when Hamas launched thousands of rockets at Israel, there was no problem showing intercepts in the skies over southern and central Israel. Now the censor has prohibited live broadcasts showing the interception of Iranian ballistic missiles, even as the vast majority have been stopped.

To be clear, international news networks don’t submit every piece of video to the military censor for review. Far from it. CNN has not submitted any video to the censor for review since the war started on Saturday morning. But the censor does prohibit us from putting out live broadcasts of intercepts that could reveal the accuracy of Iranian ballistic missiles or the location of interceptor missile arrays. "

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-threatens-retaliate-against-gulf-energy-water-after-trump-ultimatum-2026-03-23/

I still haven't learnt my lesson about Trump, stop believing certain things he says

But its hard to distinguish between him saying something for impact and the truth especially in the middle of attacking Iran in the first place

"TEL AVIV/JERUSALEM/WASHINGTON, March 23 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday he had given orders to postpone any military strikes against Iranian power plants for five days, hours ahead of a deadline that threatened further escalation in the conflict now in its fourth week.

Trump added in a post on his Truth Social platform that the U.S. and Iran had had "VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE" conversations over the past two ‌days about a "COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST".

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Iran's overall response has been a cowardly but predictable one

I'm curious to know what you define as a cowardly response? Do they need to physically invade their neighbors for it not to be considered "cowardly"? How does that differ from the US/Israeli aerial bombardment that has killed many civilians?

'Cowardly' usually means you don't like the person/ group involved, and nothing more. Sitting in the Nevada desert or the Negev with a PS5 controller blowing up people thousands of km away on a video screen knowing you'll never face any consequences is hardly the height of bravery in any conventional sense yet people tend to label that as 'sensible tactics' and 'not giving a sucker an even break' instead.

At this point I'm just assuming anything positive that comes out of Trump's mouth means he's doing market manipulation again. Whether the markets are really really dumb or just want him to be telling the truth so much that they still believe him who knows.

(I wouldn't be overly surprised if someone is telling Trump they're talking as a way to at least delay him doing something monumentally stupid until his allies have some time to prepare)

Trump administration to pay French company $1B to walk away from US offshore wind leases

Redacted is still tilting at windmills, I see.

3 minutes ago, rjshae said:

Trump administration to pay French company $1B to walk away from US offshore wind leases

Redacted is still tilting at windmills, I see.

this war should accelerate renewable energy greatly

if one couldn't profit from insider trading invest in renewable seem like the logical choice

So taking bets on them invading Kharg after COB on Friday ?

13 hours ago, rjshae said:

I'm curious to know what you define as a cowardly response? Do they need to physically invade their neighbors for it not to be considered "cowardly"? How does that differ from the US/Israeli aerial bombardment that has killed many civilians?

Cowardly because the war is between the US and Israel vs Iran

But Iran is attacking Gulf States who have not attacked it because they have weaker defenses. Its well documented the responses from all the Gulf States. Qatar has actually gone out its way to help and negotiate with Iran in the past but they still getting attacked

Its not about the type of weapons you use or whether you invade a country. Its about attacking countries that are not at war with you because your objective becomes about economic chaos. Like I said I cant recall any war in the history of wars that has been fought like this, maybe someone can think of something similar?

Iran is perfectly justified to attack any and every Israeli or US target but threatening, for example, to destroy Saudi Arabias oil fields is cowardly even if it an understandable Iranian strategy

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Iran is perfectly justified to attack any and every Israeli or US target but threatening, for example, to destroy Saudi Arabias oil fields is cowardly even if it an understandable Iranian strategy

There is a long history of attacking vulnerable targets if it weakens your opponents economic base. None of those on the receiving end did anything to the attacker other than being part of an economic base. From the razing of farms and complete depopulation (i.e. butchering the villagers) of villages during the hundred years war to "pre-emptive" actions like Mers-el-Kebir to make sure you don't have to fight a potential adversary later. Real-politik has no morals, only objektives.

6 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But Iran is attacking Gulf States who have not attacked it because they have weaker defenses.

Iran is attacking Gulf States that have allowed the US to launch attacks on Iran from their territory. Completely justified position IMO.

8 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Iran is perfectly justified to attack any and every Israeli or US target but threatening, for example, to destroy Saudi Arabias oil fields is cowardly even if it an understandable Iranian strategy

Sorry, but in this case I don't see it as cowardice. The conflict between the Sunnis and Shia is older than the US has been in existence. We shouldn't be that surprised that the conflict spilled over into Sunni gulf nations. I'd expect many of the gulf nations are US allies in large part because of Iran. When you attack a nation, you can predict that your allies become fair game. The Sunni Gulf nations provide basing rights for US forces, which also makes them suitable targets.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/woman-says-bill-cosby-drugged-182950365.html

A long waited but appreciated legal verdict around the Bill Cosby story for one of his victims

" A woman who claims Bill Cosby drugged and raped her in 1972 won a $59.25 million jury award on Monday, decades after first stepping forward as Jane Doe Number 8 in the 2005 lawsuit filed by former Temple University athletics director Andrea Constand against the disgraced comedian.

Jurors found Cosby liable for the sexual assault of an intoxicated woman as well as sexual battery. They awarded plaintiff Donna Motsinger $17.5 million for past mental suffering and $1.75 million for future suffering in their initial verdict Monday morning. Later in the day, they added another $40 million in punitive damages after finding that Cosby acted with “malice, oppression, or fraud.”

33 minutes ago, rjshae said:

Sorry, but in this case I don't see it as cowardice. The conflict between the Sunnis and Shia is older than the US has been in existence. We shouldn't be that surprised that the conflict spilled over into Sunni gulf nations. I'd expect many of the gulf nations are US allies in large part because of Iran. When you attack a nation, you can predict that your allies become fair game. The Sunni Gulf nations provide basing rights for US forces, which also makes them suitable targets.

And closing down the Straits, do you also think that is a suitable target?

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-toughens-negotiating-stance-amid-mediation-efforts-sources-say-2026-03-24/

"In any talks with the U.S., Iran would not only demand an end to the war but concessions that are likely red lines for U.S. President Donald Trump - guarantees against future military action, compensation for wartime losses and formal control of the Strait of Hormuz, the sources said."

Compensation for losses would be hilarious to see.

40 minutes ago, Malcador said:

...formal control of the Strait of Hormuz...

Maybe they can just ask for it to be on US maps alone as the Straits of Iran, like the Gulf of America.