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

[Jodistrict]

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

That sole sentence alone illustrates what that guy is: a clown. He speaks to make impact, pure demagoguery. So, what about the DNA of the Ottomans, or the Japanese, perhaps the Mongols? And the Russians? What about the Chinese? And the Rwandans? What about Tamerlane? and the DNA of Cambodians? 

But anyway, it's what people want to listen. One side absolutely, without nuances and without any knowledge about history 

It’s a metaphor because obviously “Western civilization” is not a biological organism that literally has DNA.  It is also historically accurate, as either eliminating indigenous people or colonizing them was an integral part of the expansion of western civilization.  Hedges is a Pulitzer Price-winning journalist who left the New York times after he was formally reprimanded for publicly criticizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  Hedges was far too nuanced to work for the mass media. Yes, he is hated by those interested in perpetual wars because he tells the truth. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Jodistrict

[Breakingthewall]

Quote

 

32 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

It is also historically accurate, as either eliminating indigenous people or colonizing them was an integral part of the expansion of western civilization

That's inherent to the expansion of any civilization, not just Western civilization. Islam was aggressively expansionist and colonized a huge part of the world, which is now Islamic. The Romans, the Mongols, they all did the same thing. The idea is that you either submit or you die.

32 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

left the New York times after he was formally reprimanded for publicly criticizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

Many prominent people have criticized the invasion of Iraq, same than the Iranian war . The real motives for that invasion are impossible to openly admit: a show of force, protection of the petrodollar, elimination of adversaries,. maintenance of the status quo of world boss. The US can't say this; it has to say it was done for democracy, freedom, weapons of mass destruction, and the values of goodness and human rights, but obviously nobody believes that.

Edited 18 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Wilhelm44]

56 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

That's inherent to the expansion of any civilization, not just Western civilization. Islam was aggressively expansionist and colonized a huge part of the world, which is now Islamic. The Romans, the Mongols, they all did the same thing. The idea is that you either submit or you die.

Many prominent people have criticized the invasion of Iraq, same than the Iranian war . The real motives for that invasion are impossible to openly admit: a show of force, protection of the petrodollar, elimination of adversaries,. maintenance of the status quo of world boss. The US can't say this; it has to say it was done for democracy, freedom, weapons of mass destruction, and the values of goodness and human rights, but obviously nobody believes that.

How come you don't mention - war as distraction from Epstein files ?

[LordFall]

1 hour ago, Wilhelm44 said:

How come you don't mention - war as distraction from Epstein files ?

Yeah and it's working. It was ramping up and now nobody's talking about it. Crazy how the propaganda machine works. 

[Wilhelm44]

6 hours ago, LordFall said:

Yeah and it's working. It was ramping up and now nobody's talking about it. Crazy how the propaganda machine works. 

Trump is in a double bind. If the war continues, oil prices and the economy, but if he stops the wars, eyes back on Epstein. 

[Jodistrict]

The last US president who landed troops on Iranian soil was Jimmy Carter.  The mission ended with 8 service men killed and the operation was aborted.  It’s the reason Jimmy Carter was a one term president.

The Epstein files are the least of Trump’s problems.  If he escalates the war it could cause a worldwide depression and he will have nowhere to hide.  He can’t stop the war without Iran’s agreement.  Iran is under an extistential threat and is prepared to fight for the long term. 

[zazen]

On 28/03/2026 at 1:25 PM, Breakingthewall said:

What would have happened to Iran if 20 years ago it had stopped funding proxy guerrillas and had completely abandoned its rhetoric of hatred towards Israel and the USA?

 

US is funding terrorist groups in the Middle East for their own geopolitical aims. Bibi funded Hamas. See the two videos I shared in that comment. Beside my own whataboutism:

The Palestinian authority in the West Bank has worked with Israel (recognised them) and polices their own people. They’ve cooperated and what happens there? Settlement expansion.

Who knows - other Middle Eastern countries didn’t have Iran’s same rhetoric or fund proxies next to Israel and they still got fucked. Venezuela and Cuba don’t have that rhetoric or fund proxies (as far as I know) - Maduro offered to work with US corporations and still got plucked out like a flower, Cuba’s getting embargoed as we speak and has been sanctioned for decades.

The point is regardless of rhetoric - geostrategically important countries that want to maintain their autonomy aren’t allowed to:

 

On 28/03/2026 at 1:25 PM, Breakingthewall said:

The Palestinians have been offered the opportunity to form a state six times, and each time they have refused, deeming the conditions unjust. For them, the only possibility has always been the total expulsion of the Jews.

You see them as victims, but they have been the aggressors. Israel has been attacked by coalitions of countries with hundreds of millions of inhabitants, directly, in a coordinated way, and with the purpose of exterminating them as a nation. Not once, but three times, not counting intifadas and constant terrorism.

Saddam, Iran, and Turkey have consistently expressed the need for Israel to disappear, same than Gaddafi,  Assad father , saudies and qatar until some years ago. So, what should Israel do with the Palestinians who vote for Hamas and support massacres committed by them? Reward them? No, they vote ben gvir and smotrich, that how life works.

Sorry if Palestinian are not strong enough to exterminate Israel, it's very bad for them but it's a fact. Then change those ideas of expulsion for coexistence and development is the best option possible.
 

 Your putting all those countries into the same bucket as if they all wanted to destroy Israel - all critiqued Israel over Palestine, some had hostility, and others were more extreme (Iran).

Saddam used the Palestinian cause for legitimacy and to become a gulf hegemon - his doctrine didn’t revolve around Israel or its elimination but was against Iran and then he invaded Kuwait. It was literally called the gulf war - and that triggered a coalition against him.

Assad’s dad was hostile due to the territorial dispute over golan - not necessarily eliminationsit. Gaddafi proposed a one state solution with democratic rights for everyone (calling it Isratine)- a restructuring or evolution of Israel to resolve the issue, not total destruction. Turkeys recognised Israel since 1949 and trades with it but critiques it heavily today due to its actions - also not  eliminationist.

Saudi, Qatar and the gulf have had the stance of a two state solution since the Arab peace initiative - just because you see a TV anchor or minister have strong rhetoric against Israel doesn’t mean they official stance of the government is to eliminate it. People are obviously angry at Israel.

Israel obviously had existential hostility in its early founding but we can’t take those peak threats and project them forward in time when they’ve region is largely subdued or negotiating with Israel instead, even normalising in some cases or making it conditional upon Palestinian rights.

Iran has the biggest Jewish population in the ME have haven’t been eliminated (because the issue is geopolitical, not some fanatical hatred of Jews as you make it out to be in your caricature of Muslims):

Palestinians rejected those deals because they weren’t fully sovereign or viable states. Just one detail relevant today - right now EU countries including your own (Spain) are denying the US airspace for its actions - that’s their right. Palestinians weren’t given right to their airspace, let alone other things (borders, resources or airwaves like telecoms, wifi etc).

Should EU give up its ego to make peace the with global hegemon in your view? Or are they too stubborn and don’t want to be seen as humiliated just like the Palestinians and Iranians over giving up their sovereignty?
 

So might makes right in your view? Sovereignty is only for those strong enough to defend it?

Edited 3 hours ago by zazen

[Nivsch]

45 minutes ago, zazen said:

Palestinians rejected those deals because they weren’t fully sovereign or viable states.

First say Yes, after that when you are in, try to improve your situation, build your state prove others they can trust you. Instead, their leaders chose to explode it all time and time again. I think they decided on a position that it either all or nothing, which is Ben Gvir and Smotrich ideology just in the opposite direction. I don't see any difference.

Edited 2 hours ago by Nivsch

[Alex_R]

What if Iran continues attacking oil ships regardless trump taco ?

[Wilhelm44]

4 hours ago, Jodistrict said:

The last US president who landed troops on Iranian soil was Jimmy Carter.  The mission ended with 8 service men killed and the operation was aborted.  It’s the reason Jimmy Carter was a one term president.

The Epstein files are the least of Trump’s problems.  If he escalates the war it could cause a worldwide depression and he will have nowhere to hide.  He can’t stop the war without Iran’s agreement.  Iran is under an extistential threat and is prepared to fight for the long term. 

If Trump wanted to stop the war, why would the Iranian government not agree to that ?  Damage to their infrastructure stops and they get to walk away without any regime change.