6 ms·

Maybe don't murder the religious leader that made the rulings. Can anyone blame them for considering developing nuclear weapons for real now? I can't.

breppp 7mo ago
After being caught developing nuclear weapons for real numerous times, now it is really for real?
- pepperoni_pizza 7mo ago
  Were they caught by the same people who found WMDs in Iraq by any chance?
  - breppp 7mo ago
    the IAEA, presumably you trust UN agencies? in any case, these are the mythical WMDs found in Iraq: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middleeast/chemical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-secrets.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middlee... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have...
    - 1659447091 7mo ago
      From your source: > "These weapons were not part of an active arsenal. They were remnants from Iraq’s arms program in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war." These are not the "WMD" that led to or had any involvement with 2003, it's dishonest to suggest so
      - breppp 7mo ago
        These were chemical weapons found in Iraq, the reason the new york times was interested in the story was the fact that ISIS has somehow developed chemical weapons using Iraq's existing infrastructure. This means there were active facilities, materials and know how even after the war
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
- lm28469 7mo ago
  We have Joe Kent on mic saying Iran was not building nukes and posed no threat to the US. The only people saying Iran was just about to get nukes are the Israelis, who've been saying that every 5 years for the last 40 years, and the only people who fell for it are magatards I don't understand how people fall for this shit after the Iraq war scam, which was essentially the exact same propaganda
  - maratc 7mo ago
    Well, maybe you have a plausible explanation for why Iran needed 60%-grade enriched uranium -- now that we've firmly established that it clearly was not for building nukes.
    - lm28469 7mo ago
      Do you have a plausible explanation why Saddam had anthrax ? Oh wait he didn't? Hmmm it really makes you think
      - maratc 7mo ago
        Are you talking about the stuff he used to gas 100,000 Iranians in about 1984, or the stuff he used to gas 100,000 of his own citizens in 1988? Oh wait he didn't, it's all propaganda and war scam I guess.
tonyedgecombe 7mo ago
I don't know but I can certainly blame them for oppressing and murdering their own citizens.
- FpUser 7mo ago
  There are lots of countries doing just the same but the West does not give a flying fuck about it. Most of the human rights violations they care about somehow related to countries that happened to have oil. And if you tell me that US /Israel are bombing Iran to protect rights of oppressed then I have that wonderful bridge.
- watwut 7mo ago
  But that has nothing to do with this war. Like, nothing at all. Israel doing genocode in gaza and what seems like ethnical cleansing of lebanon does not have anyyhing with that either. USA threatening Greenland is also not a factor in this war. Donald Trump does not care about protesters in Iran. His idea of regime change is "keep the regime and change head for someone who will pay me personally". And Hegseth does not care either. He is proving his manhood. And Israel have completely different goals, so. It is not like Saudi were democrats. They have cut that journalist into pieces. They are violent dictatorship on their own right.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- lm28469 7mo ago
  Everyone does, the problem is that every time the US came to deliver democracy to the Middle East they left the place in a much worse shape than it was... Also I don't believe for a second Trump or Israel give a single fuck about Iranian citizens
  - mikeyouse 7mo ago
    That’s the thing that annoys me the most about that post-hoc rationale - we’re supposed to pretend that Donald Trump cares at all about Muslim protesters on the other side of the world?
xdennis 7mo ago
> Maybe don't murder the religious leader that made the rulings. Are you saying that politicians should be immune if they also serve a religious role?
- cardanome 7mo ago
  I am saying it is bad to murder people. Period. Don't start wars. Don't assassinate neither political nor religious leaders.

breppp 7mo ago

After being caught developing nuclear weapons for real numerous times, now it is really for real?

pepperoni_pizza 7mo ago
Were they caught by the same people who found WMDs in Iraq by any chance?
- breppp 7mo ago
  the IAEA, presumably you trust UN agencies? in any case, these are the mythical WMDs found in Iraq: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middleeast/chemical-weapons-iraq-pentagon-secrets.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/12/03/world/middlee... https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have-bought-and-destroyed-iraqi-chemical-weapons.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/world/cia-is-said-to-have...
  - 1659447091 7mo ago
    From your source: > "These weapons were not part of an active arsenal. They were remnants from Iraq’s arms program in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war." These are not the "WMD" that led to or had any involvement with 2003, it's dishonest to suggest so
    - breppp 7mo ago
      These were chemical weapons found in Iraq, the reason the new york times was interested in the story was the fact that ISIS has somehow developed chemical weapons using Iraq's existing infrastructure. This means there were active facilities, materials and know how even after the war
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
lm28469 7mo ago
We have Joe Kent on mic saying Iran was not building nukes and posed no threat to the US. The only people saying Iran was just about to get nukes are the Israelis, who've been saying that every 5 years for the last 40 years, and the only people who fell for it are magatards I don't understand how people fall for this shit after the Iraq war scam, which was essentially the exact same propaganda
- maratc 7mo ago
  Well, maybe you have a plausible explanation for why Iran needed 60%-grade enriched uranium -- now that we've firmly established that it clearly was not for building nukes.
  - lm28469 7mo ago
    Do you have a plausible explanation why Saddam had anthrax ? Oh wait he didn't? Hmmm it really makes you think
    - maratc 7mo ago
      Are you talking about the stuff he used to gas 100,000 Iranians in about 1984, or the stuff he used to gas 100,000 of his own citizens in 1988? Oh wait he didn't, it's all propaganda and war scam I guess.

tonyedgecombe 7mo ago

I don't know but I can certainly blame them for oppressing and murdering their own citizens.

FpUser 7mo ago
There are lots of countries doing just the same but the West does not give a flying fuck about it. Most of the human rights violations they care about somehow related to countries that happened to have oil. And if you tell me that US /Israel are bombing Iran to protect rights of oppressed then I have that wonderful bridge.
watwut 7mo ago
But that has nothing to do with this war. Like, nothing at all. Israel doing genocode in gaza and what seems like ethnical cleansing of lebanon does not have anyyhing with that either. USA threatening Greenland is also not a factor in this war. Donald Trump does not care about protesters in Iran. His idea of regime change is "keep the regime and change head for someone who will pay me personally". And Hegseth does not care either. He is proving his manhood. And Israel have completely different goals, so. It is not like Saudi were democrats. They have cut that journalist into pieces. They are violent dictatorship on their own right.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
lm28469 7mo ago
Everyone does, the problem is that every time the US came to deliver democracy to the Middle East they left the place in a much worse shape than it was... Also I don't believe for a second Trump or Israel give a single fuck about Iranian citizens
- mikeyouse 7mo ago
  That’s the thing that annoys me the most about that post-hoc rationale - we’re supposed to pretend that Donald Trump cares at all about Muslim protesters on the other side of the world?

xdennis 7mo ago

> Maybe don't murder the religious leader that made the rulings. Are you saying that politicians should be immune if they also serve a religious role?

cardanome 7mo ago
I am saying it is bad to murder people. Period. Don't start wars. Don't assassinate neither political nor religious leaders.