Breaking News: Major Combat Operations in Iran 🇺🇸 🇮🇱 🇮🇷

[Breakingthewall]

14 minutes ago, Wilhelm44 said:

It seems as if you're trying to justify the Gaza massacre.

The Gaza massacre was justified because it was a matter of survival. Gaza was a rapidly growing city of two million people whose primary principle wasn't development or well-being, but rather war against Israel. Perhaps they were right, or perhaps not; it's irrelevant. If you promote war and hatred for 20 years, you eventually have war.

War is about massacres. The best thing is to avoid wars, but they happen, so if you promote hatred and violence, don't complain later. If the Palestinian could, they would destroy Israel, then where is the complain? Why don't to try developing, coexistence , fair competition in business? But no, they promoted martyrdom, then they got martyrdom. 

[Elliott]

Iranian missile striking nazi occupied territory yesterday.

 

 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Elliott

[Cred]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Why don't to try developing, coexistence , fair competition in business?

Because Isreal is the aggressor not the gazans. Zionism was never about peace. Zionism was always about superiority and oppression. The zionists never wanted peace with the palestinians ever. It was the goal from the start to genocide them.

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, Cred said:

Because Isreal is the aggressor not the gazans. Zionism was never about peace. Zionism was always about superiority and oppression. The zionists never wanted peace with the palestinians ever. It was the goal from the start to genocide them.

What would happen if the Palestinians were pacifists and obsessed with scientific and social progress? What would the Israelis do with Gaza? 

It should not be forgotten that the Palestinians have rejected six offers to establish a Palestinian state, deeming them unjust. Instead, they have chosen as their absolute goal the elimination of Israel, the cause of all evil.

[Raze]

11 hours ago, Lila9 said:

 

 

My point is not that opposing genocide automatically makes someone antisemitic. People are allowed to criticize Israel, Netanyahu, and its actions.

I agree that Israelis don’t fully know what’s happening in Gaza, partly due to media and political framing that creates distance and emphasizes real security threats.

This also makes it hard to accept that Israeli actions have caused civilian deaths, even unintentionally. Especially after the October 7 attacks and ongoing threats from Iran and its allies.

However, when parts of the Western far left condemn Israel while justifying the October 7 masccare (targeting civilians), ignoring other global atrocities, and promoting slogans like a “global intifada” (which basically means genocide) it raises questions about consistency. This rhetoric can feel deeply threatening to Israelis and Jews, for whom “intifada” is associated with real violence and trauma. So the concerns of antisemitism are valid. 

If genocide and human rights violations are wrong, they should be opposed consistently, everywhere, and by everyone, not selectively or for ideological reasons.

 

Intifada is just the Arabic word for rebellion, it has nothing to do with genocide.

Israel killed far more civilians on both intifadas.

They are opposed consistently by everyone except Israelis who continue to defend their own. No one is defending what’s happening in Sudan. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Raze

[Raze]

4 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

What would happen if the Palestinians were pacifists and obsessed with scientific and social progress? What would the Israelis do with Gaza? 

It should not be forgotten that the Palestinians have rejected six offers to establish a Palestinian state, deeming them unjust. Instead, they have chosen as their absolute goal the elimination of Israel, the cause of all evil.

What would happen regarding your understanding is nothing because you are incapable of processing new information so you will keep stubbornly repeating stupid falsehoods like you are doing now. 

What you’re saying is so stupidly misinformed anyone with the slightest understanding can recognize how idiotic it is.

You yourself have been told this multiple times, but you can’t respond to the arguments so you act like they don’t exist. 
 

- Gaza was under blockade specifically designed to destroy economic development

- Hamas proposed long term ceasefires and disarmament for a Palestinian state, Israel refused

- the West Bank is controlled by the compliant PA who doesn’t attack Israel, Israel murders Palestinians weekly 

- they rejected “state offers” because none of those offers were for a state, they were for occupation.

- you were just whining about how evil it was to justify October 7 as an attack done in response to Israel destroying Palestine. yet now you are justifying mass murder of children because you think they want to “destroy Israel”.

Its similar to how when anyone brings up atrocities by Israel you deflect to something else like China as though that makes it ok, but later whine about how they don’t have LGBTQ rights as though that justifies war crimes, then accuse others of being moralists.

It’s just that you have no understanding, no morality, and no coherent reasoning, and are incapable of processing information to change your view. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Raze

[Raze]

11 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

This means acknowledging an undeniable reality: if Iran so chooses, it can collapse the global economy. Therefore, a war against Iran is not viable.

The Ayatollahs' regime will be morally strengthened, though materially weakened. Most likely, they will adopt a rhetoric of victory but reduce their interventions outside their country.

Israel will remain at war with Hezbollah a while more,  and Trump and Netanyahu will claim that everything has been a success and has unfolded according to the most optimistic forecasts. 

The question is: will Iran open the Strait of Hormuz once the US and Israel cease their attacks? Probably not immediately, because that would be showing submission when they are in a position to demonstrate dominance.

Prompt: User breakingthewall says this today but on January 9th he said “Yes, the ayatollahs are going to fall. It's a matter of days.

It is an event of the utmost importance in the global geopolitical landscape” 

what does this tell us about his geopolitical understanding, his reasoning. 

result: 

It mainly tells you that his analysis is inconsistent and likely driven more by speculation or shifting narratives than by a stable, evidence-based framework. Predicting that Iran’s leadership would fall “in a matter of days” is an extremely strong, time-specific claim—and when that doesn’t happen, pivoting to a new, almost opposite framing (that the regime will be “morally strengthened” and strategically restrained) suggests he may be reacting to events rather than anticipating them with a disciplined model of how states behave.

On reasoning, it points to overconfidence and a tendency toward dramatic, absolute conclusions. Serious geopolitical analysis usually deals in probabilities, uncertainties, and competing scenarios—not definitive, short-term predictions about regime collapse or sweeping claims like a single country being able to “collapse the global economy” at will. Those kinds of statements are typically red flags for overreach or rhetorical emphasis rather than careful analysis.