On December 18, 2023, Rahman told staff that the “Israel lobby” had an “insidious influence” on British politics, which is widely regarded as
an antisemitic trope.
On December 18, 2023, Rahman told staff that the “Israel lobby” had an “insidious influence” on British politics, which is widely regarded as
an antisemitic trope.
Apropos a recent discussion here. To what extent are these remarks from
civil servants permissible as free speech, and to what extent do they >infringe the IHRA examples of antisemitism? I don't see it as antisemitic
but no doubt others would disagree.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/civil-servants-antisemitism-muslim-network-rxnvd9prt
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb2669Ftf4fU3@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
Apropos a recent discussion here. To what extent are these remarks
from civil servants permissible as free speech, and to what extent do
they infringe the IHRA examples of antisemitism? I don't see it as
antisemitic but no doubt others would disagree.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/civil-servants-
antisemitism-muslim-network-rxnvd9prt
Is there any way round the Times paywall?
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb2669Ftf4fU3@mid.individual.net> The Todal wrote:
Apropos a recent discussion here. To what extent are these remarks from >>civil servants permissible as free speech, and to what extent do they >>infringe the IHRA examples of antisemitism? I don't see it as antisemitic >>but no doubt others would disagree.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/civil-servants-antisemitism-muslim-network-rxnvd9prt
Is there any way round the Times paywall?
Apropos a recent discussion here. To what extent are these remarks from
civil servants permissible as free speech, and to what extent do they >infringe the IHRA examples of antisemitism? I don't see it as antisemitic
but no doubt others would disagree.
On 2025-06-13, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb2669Ftf4fU3@mid.individual.net> The Todal >>wrote:
Apropos a recent discussion here. To what extent are these remarks from >>>civil servants permissible as free speech, and to what extent do they >>>infringe the IHRA examples of antisemitism? I don't see it as antisemitic >>>but no doubt others would disagree.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/civil-servants-antisemitism-muslim-network-rxnvd9prt
Is there any way round the Times paywall?
archive.is
to
<https://archive.is/20250612180718/https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/civil-servants-antisemitism-muslim-network-rxnvd9prt>
If you use Firefox (maybe this works on Chrome and other too) you can
add a bookmark with the following instead of the URL, and click it
when you are on a paywalled page:
javascript:(function() { var currentUrl = window.location.href; var >cleanUrl = currentUrl.split('?')[0]; var archiveUrl = >'https://archive.is/newest/' + cleanUrl; window.location.href =
archiveUrl; })();
(Sorry about the long line.)
On 13/06/2025 12:08, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb2669Ftf4fU3@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
Apropos a recent discussion here. To what extent are these remarks
from civil servants permissible as free speech, and to what extent do
they infringe the IHRA examples of antisemitism? I don't see it as
antisemitic but no doubt others would disagree.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/civil-servants-
antisemitism-muslim-network-rxnvd9prt
Is there any way round the Times paywall?
I'm not very expert with this remove-paywall site. Does this work?
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/ politics/article/civil-servants-antisemitism-muslim-network-rxnvd9prt
The point about the “Israel lobby” raised by Rahman is interesting. I think about 80% of Conservative MPs and 20% of Labour MPs belong to the Friends of Israel, it's not a secret and I imagine it is in a register somewhere? Is it antisemitic to make this statement? I would like to see
all lobbying banned, MPs are supposed to work for their constituents not
any group that wants to influence them surely?
I have raised this before but why do we have a definition of
antisemitism and not anitchristianism, antimormonism, antiamishism etc?
I think somebody said in here that they didn't suffer the problems
Jewish people had but that's not really an answer, if the law protects
Jewish people surely it should protect all religions?
The point about the “Israel lobby” raised by Rahman is interesting. I think about 80% of Conservative MPs and 20% of Labour MPs belong to the Friends of Israel, it's not a secret and I imagine it is in a register somewhere? Is it antisemitic to make this statement?
I would like to see
all lobbying banned, MPs are supposed to work for their constituents not
any group that wants to influence them surely?
On 13/06/2025 14:58, Jeff Gaines wrote:
<snip>
The point about the “Israel lobby” raised by Rahman is interesting. I
think about 80% of Conservative MPs and 20% of Labour MPs belong to
the Friends of Israel, it's not a secret and I imagine it is in a
register somewhere? Is it antisemitic to make this statement? I would
like to see all lobbying banned, MPs are supposed to work for their
constituents not any group that wants to influence them surely?
Shame there isn't a requirement for MPs to publish details of their membership of these dodgy societies.
On 13/06/2025 13:51, The Todal wrote:
On 13/06/2025 12:08, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb2669Ftf4fU3@mid.individual.net> The TodalI'm not very expert with this remove-paywall site. Does this work?
wrote:
Apropos a recent discussion here. To what extent are these remarks
from civil servants permissible as free speech, and to what extent do
they infringe the IHRA examples of antisemitism? I don't see it as
antisemitic but no doubt others would disagree.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/civil-servants-
antisemitism-muslim-network-rxnvd9prt
Is there any way round the Times paywall?
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/
politics/article/civil-servants-antisemitism-muslim-network-rxnvd9prt
I'm sorry to go off at a tangent, but is this sort of site illegal?
Perhaps, under the computer misuse act? I appreciate that it's probably operated outside the UK, but users might be in the UK. There are also copyright issues, perhaps?
On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 16:11:18 +0100, GB wrote:
On 13/06/2025 13:51, The Todal wrote:
On 13/06/2025 12:08, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 13/06/2025 in message <mb2669Ftf4fU3@mid.individual.net> The TodalI'm not very expert with this remove-paywall site. Does this work?
wrote:
Apropos a recent discussion here. To what extent are these remarks
from civil servants permissible as free speech, and to what extent do >>>>> they infringe the IHRA examples of antisemitism? I don't see it as
antisemitic but no doubt others would disagree.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/civil-servants-
antisemitism-muslim-network-rxnvd9prt
Is there any way round the Times paywall?
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/
politics/article/civil-servants-antisemitism-muslim-network-rxnvd9prt
I'm sorry to go off at a tangent, but is this sort of site illegal?
Perhaps, under the computer misuse act? I appreciate that it's probably
operated outside the UK, but users might be in the UK. There are also
copyright issues, perhaps?
Just say you're training your AI model.
On 14/06/2025 10:42, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I suppose strictly speaking it is a breach of copyright to quote an
entire Times piece which is behind a paywall.
On 13/06/2025 16:36, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/06/2025 14:58, Jeff Gaines wrote:
<snip>
The point about the “Israel lobby” raised by Rahman is interesting. I >>> think about 80% of Conservative MPs and 20% of Labour MPs belong to
the Friends of Israel, it's not a secret and I imagine it is in a
register somewhere? Is it antisemitic to make this statement? I would
like to see all lobbying banned, MPs are supposed to work for their
constituents not any group that wants to influence them surely?
Shame there isn't a requirement for MPs to publish details of their
membership of these dodgy societies.
Now Dawn French is in trouble for a video she posted (and subsequently deleted) on Instagram.
The only copy I could find was here - which is part of a video
supporting her. I think every other outlet has chosen not to publish
what she said, but to pillory her for her ill-advised intervention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwfqAomofys
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to
follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and simplistic
- if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to
follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and simplistic
- if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering.
Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about him,
I don't agree.
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to
follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and simplistic
- if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering.
More importantly, didn't she used to be grossly overweight? Has she lost
a shedload of weight, or does she use some sort of computer filter that
makes her look thinner?
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to follow as she
wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if you've been attacked, you shouldn't
fight back. It's a bit naive and simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly
earth-shattering.
More importantly, didn't she used to be grossly overweight?
Has she lost a shedload of weight, or does she use some sort of computer filter that
makes her look thinner?
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to
follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and
simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering.
Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about
him,
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will
just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
Israel, by way of example, one day will reap the seeds they are
currently sewing in Gaza.
On 6/14/25 11:30, GB wrote:
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to follow as she
wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if you've been attacked, you shouldn't
fight back. It's a bit naive and simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly
earth-shattering.
More importantly, didn't she used to be grossly overweight? Has she lost a shedload of
weight, or does she use some sort of computer filter that makes her look thinner?
Why do you think she apologised? She is an intelligent woman, presumably she meant to
say what she said. Even when people do say stuff they regret, they normally double down
rather than apologise.
So, what do you think caused her to change her mind? The apology felt creepy to me,
like someone had threatened her children, or she had some other unexpected vulnerability. I think there is a lot going on behind the scenes.
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to
follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if you've >>>> been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and
simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering.
Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about
him,
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will
just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are quite distinct.
Israel, by way of example, one day will reap the seeds they are
currently sewing in Gaza.
I concur.
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:102k39b$8gvu$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/14/25 11:30, GB wrote:
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to follow as
she
wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if you've been attacked, you >>> shouldn't
fight back. It's a bit naive and simplistic - if that's what she meant - but
hardly
earth-shattering.
More importantly, didn't she used to be grossly overweight? Has she lost a >>> shedload of
weight, or does she use some sort of computer filter that makes her look >>> thinner?
Why do you think she apologised? She is an intelligent woman, presumably she >> meant to
say what she said. Even when people do say stuff they regret, they normally >> double down
rather than apologise.
So, what do you think caused her to change her mind? The apology felt creepy >> to me,
like someone had threatened her children, or she had some other unexpected >> vulnerability. I think there is a lot going on behind the scenes.
quote:
* Switching into a high-pitched voice,* she went on to say: "Yeah, but you know
they did a bad thing to us, yeah but no. But we want that land... and we
have history. No. Those people aren't really even people, are they really? No."
[...]
She added that she had "clumsily used a mocking tone".
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmjdpme470o
Surely it's self evident why an apology might be appropriate ?
And quite possibly, and maybe this is only a guess
* she's no better at crafting apologies *
than she was in inially realising her mistake; in trying to make
light of a serious topic.
Or maybe her children have indeed been threatened and she been
threatened with blacklisting and never working in showbusiness
again by, you know......"Them" !
bb
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message news:102k39b$8gvu$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/14/25 11:30, GB wrote:
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to follow as she
wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if you've been attacked, you shouldn't
fight back. It's a bit naive and simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly
earth-shattering.
More importantly, didn't she used to be grossly overweight? Has she lost a shedload of
weight, or does she use some sort of computer filter that makes her look thinner?
Why do you think she apologised? She is an intelligent woman, presumably she meant to
say what she said. Even when people do say stuff they regret, they normally double down
rather than apologise.
So, what do you think caused her to change her mind? The apology felt creepy to me,
like someone had threatened her children, or she had some other unexpected >> vulnerability. I think there is a lot going on behind the scenes.
quote:
* Switching into a high-pitched voice,* she went on to say: "Yeah, but you know
they did a bad thing to us, yeah but no. But we want that land... and we
have history. No. Those people aren't really even people, are they really? No."
[...]
She added that she had "clumsily used a mocking tone".
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmjdpme470o
Surely it's self evident why an apology might be appropriate ?
And quite possibly, and maybe this is only a guess
* she's no better at crafting apologies *
than she was in inially realising her mistake; in trying to make
light of a serious topic.
Or maybe her children have indeed been threatened and she been
threatened with blacklisting and never working in showbusiness
again by, you know......"Them" !
On 14 Jun 2025 at 19:43:37 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote in message
news:102k39b$8gvu$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/14/25 11:30, GB wrote:
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to follow as
she
wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if you've been attacked, you
shouldn't
fight back. It's a bit naive and simplistic - if that's what she meant - but
hardly
earth-shattering.
More importantly, didn't she used to be grossly overweight? Has she lost a >>>> shedload of
weight, or does she use some sort of computer filter that makes her look >>>> thinner?
Why do you think she apologised? She is an intelligent woman, presumably she
meant to
say what she said. Even when people do say stuff they regret, they normally >>> double down
rather than apologise.
So, what do you think caused her to change her mind? The apology felt creepy
to me,
like someone had threatened her children, or she had some other unexpected >>> vulnerability. I think there is a lot going on behind the scenes.
quote:
* Switching into a high-pitched voice,* she went on to say: "Yeah, but you know
they did a bad thing to us, yeah but no. But we want that land... and we
have history. No. Those people aren't really even people, are they really? >> No."
[...]
She added that she had "clumsily used a mocking tone".
:unquote
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmjdpme470o
Surely it's self evident why an apology might be appropriate ?
And quite possibly, and maybe this is only a guess
* she's no better at crafting apologies *
than she was in inially realising her mistake; in trying to make
light of a serious topic.
Or maybe her children have indeed been threatened and she been
threatened with blacklisting and never working in showbusiness
again by, you know......"Them" !
bb
If you think that's far fetched, speak to hundreds of black-listed Labour Party members.
On 14/06/2025 20:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to
follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if you've >>>>> been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and
simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering.
Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about
him,
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will
just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are quite
distinct.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution and really has nothing to do with defence.
On 14/06/2025 22:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 20:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to >>>>>> follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if
you've been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive
and simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly
earth-shattering.
Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about
him,
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will
just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are
quite distinct.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution
and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It refers
to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive revenge or punishment and excessive leniency.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution
and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It refers
to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive revenge or
punishment and excessive leniency.
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant language by
people who are seeking to make it mean what they want it to.
And that's all before the question of why I should give a shit about what
it says.
On 14/06/2025 22:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 20:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to >>>>>> follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if
you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and
simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering. >>>>>
him,
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will
just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are
quite
distinct.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution
and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It refers
to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive revenge or punishment and excessive leniency.
On 15/06/2025 11:39, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 22:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 20:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about >>>>>> him,
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to >>>>>>> follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if
you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and
simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering. >>>>>>
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will >>>>> just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are
quite
distinct.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution
and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It refers
to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive revenge or
punishment and excessive leniency.
Israel should perhaps take note of a proportionate response. Unless
Israelis think 1 Israeli is equivalent to 50 Gazans of course.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:21:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:39, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 22:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 20:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about >>>>>>> him,
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to >>>>>>>> follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if >>>>>>>> you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and
simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering. >>>>>>>
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will >>>>>> just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are
quite
distinct.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution
and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It refers >>> to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive revenge or >>> punishment and excessive leniency.
Israel should perhaps take note of a proportionate response. Unless
Israelis think 1 Israeli is equivalent to 50 Gazans of course.
Well that's pretty close to seven times seven.
On 15/06/2025 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:21:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:39, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 22:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 20:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to >>>>>>>>> follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if >>>>>>>>> you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and >>>>>>>>> simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly
earth-shattering.
Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about >>>>>>>> him,
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will >>>>>>> just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are >>>>>> quite
distinct.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution >>>>> and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It
refers
to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive
revenge or
punishment and excessive leniency.
Israel should perhaps take note of a proportionate response. Unless
Israelis think 1 Israeli is equivalent to 50 Gazans of course.
Well that's pretty close to seven times seven.
I suppose the Ten Commandments sets the moral tone. If you aren't
Jewish, don't expect any mercy.
quote
I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
On 15/06/2025 01:15 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 15/06/2025 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 12:21:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:39, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 22:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 20:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to >>>>>>>>>> follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if >>>>>>>>>> you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and >>>>>>>>>> simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly
earth-shattering.
Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about >>>>>>>>> him,
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will >>>>>>>> just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are >>>>>>> quite
distinct.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution >>>>>> and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It
refers
to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive
revenge or
punishment and excessive leniency.
Israel should perhaps take note of a proportionate response. Unless
Israelis think 1 Israeli is equivalent to 50 Gazans of course.
Well that's pretty close to seven times seven.
I suppose the Ten Commandments sets the moral tone. If you aren't
Jewish, don't expect any mercy.
quote
I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my
commandments.
Is that what the preamble says?
it isn't what we were taught at school.
On 15/06/2025 11:39, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 22:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 20:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about >>>>>> him,
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to >>>>>>> follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if
you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and
simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering. >>>>>>
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will >>>>> just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are
quite
distinct.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution
and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It
refers to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive
revenge or punishment and excessive leniency.
Israel should perhaps take note of a proportionate response. Unless
Israelis think 1 Israeli is equivalent to 50 Gazans of course.
The only rational solution is a political settlement,
On 15/06/2025 12:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:39, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 22:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 20:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about >>>>>>> him,
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to >>>>>>>> follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if >>>>>>>> you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and
simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering. >>>>>>>
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will >>>>>> just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are
quite
distinct.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution
and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It
refers to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive
revenge or punishment and excessive leniency.
Israel should perhaps take note of a proportionate response. Unless
Israelis think 1 Israeli is equivalent to 50 Gazans of course.
But what if Israel's aim were to completely eliminate any risk of
another October attack and/or any further missile attacks from within
that territory?
I'm sure that most would agree that that would be a reasonable objective.
But what would be proportional as a measure aimed at that elimination?
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would involve
the
Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that would then be >responsible for suppressing criminality. They are stateless at the moment.
On 15/06/2025 in message <0377293472.dc0610e2@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would involve
the
Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that would then be
responsible for suppressing criminality. They are stateless at the moment.
Wikipedia says it is the smaller of the two Palestinian territories, the other being the West Bank, that make up the State of Palestine.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 17:19:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0377293472.dc0610e2@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would involve >>>the
Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that would then be >>>responsible for suppressing criminality. They are stateless at the >>>moment.
Wikipedia says it is the smaller of the two Palestinian territories, the >>other being the West Bank, that make up the State of Palestine.
Wikipedia is indulging in wishful thinking. They could say Crimea is
part of
Ukraine, but in both cases there is a military occupation in the way.
On 15/06/2025 in message <0483046276.edf674a4@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 17:19:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0377293472.dc0610e2@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would involve >>>> the
Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that would then be >>>> responsible for suppressing criminality. They are stateless at the
moment.
Wikipedia says it is the smaller of the two Palestinian territories, the >>> other being the West Bank, that make up the State of Palestine.
Wikipedia is indulging in wishful thinking. They could say Crimea is
part of
Ukraine, but in both cases there is a military occupation in the way.
Presumably it is technically correct though?
On 15 Jun 2025 at 20:20:40 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0483046276.edf674a4@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 17:19:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0377293472.dc0610e2@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would involve >>>>> the
Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that would then be >>>>> responsible for suppressing criminality. They are stateless at the
moment.
Wikipedia says it is the smaller of the two Palestinian territories, the >>>> other being the West Bank, that make up the State of Palestine.
Wikipedia is indulging in wishful thinking. They could say Crimea is
part of
Ukraine, but in both cases there is a military occupation in the way.
Presumably it is technically correct though?
No. Various people have wanted a Palestinian state since before 1948, but the area went from being part of the Ottoman empire (I think) to a British administered and occupied territory to part of Egypt and Jordan to an Israeli occupied territory and at no point has it ever been an actual state nor seemed
like being run as one or becoming one.
The "State of Palestine" is nothing but a rhetorical flourish.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 20:20:40 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0483046276.edf674a4@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 17:19:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0377293472.dc0610e2@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>Hayter wrote:
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would >>>>>involve
the
Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that would then be >>>>>responsible for suppressing criminality. They are stateless at the >>>>>moment.
Wikipedia says it is the smaller of the two Palestinian territories, the >>>>other being the West Bank, that make up the State of Palestine.
Wikipedia is indulging in wishful thinking. They could say Crimea is >>>part of
Ukraine, but in both cases there is a military occupation in the way.
Presumably it is technically correct though?
No. Various people have wanted a Palestinian state since before 1948, but
the
area went from being part of the Ottoman empire (I think) to a British >administered and occupied territory to part of Egypt and Jordan to an
Israeli
occupied territory and at no point has it ever been an actual state nor >seemed
like being run as one or becoming one.
The "State of Palestine" is nothing but a rhetorical flourish.
On 15 Jun 2025 at 20:44:14 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 20:20:40 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0483046276.edf674a4@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 17:19:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0377293472.dc0610e2@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>> Hayter wrote:
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would involve
the
Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that would then be >>>>>> responsible for suppressing criminality. They are stateless at the >>>>>> moment.
Wikipedia says it is the smaller of the two Palestinian territories, the >>>>> other being the West Bank, that make up the State of Palestine.
Wikipedia is indulging in wishful thinking. They could say Crimea is >>>> part of
Ukraine, but in both cases there is a military occupation in the way.
Presumably it is technically correct though?
No. Various people have wanted a Palestinian state since before 1948, but the
area went from being part of the Ottoman empire (I think) to a British
administered and occupied territory to part of Egypt and Jordan to an Israeli
occupied territory and at no point has it ever been an actual state nor seemed
like being run as one or becoming one.
The "State of Palestine" is nothing but a rhetorical flourish.
Now I come to think of it, the reason Israel has a problem with Hamas now is that they manipulated the 2006 elections to get Hamas elected in Gaza to avoid
any appearance of a single Palestinian authority in charge of both territories.
On 15/06/2025 in message <1665465557.c1dcea75@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 20:20:40 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0483046276.edf674a4@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 17:19:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0377293472.dc0610e2@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>> Hayter wrote:
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would
involve
the
Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that would then be >>>>>> responsible for suppressing criminality. They are stateless at the >>>>>> moment.
Wikipedia says it is the smaller of the two Palestinian territories, the >>>>> other being the West Bank, that make up the State of Palestine.
Wikipedia is indulging in wishful thinking. They could say Crimea is >>>> part of
Ukraine, but in both cases there is a military occupation in the way.
Presumably it is technically correct though?
No. Various people have wanted a Palestinian state since before 1948, but
the
area went from being part of the Ottoman empire (I think) to a British
administered and occupied territory to part of Egypt and Jordan to an
Israeli
occupied territory and at no point has it ever been an actual state nor
seemed
like being run as one or becoming one.
The "State of Palestine" is nothing but a rhetorical flourish.
I am struggling with this. Google says "Palestine is recognized as a state
by 147 of the 193 UN member states, representing 75% of the international community."
On 15 Jun 2025 at 13:41:28 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:39, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 22:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 20:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire about >>>>>>>> him,
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really hard to >>>>>>>>> follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if >>>>>>>>> you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and >>>>>>>>> simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-shattering. >>>>>>>>
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth will >>>>>>> just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are >>>>>> quite
distinct.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution >>>>> and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It
refers to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive
revenge or punishment and excessive leniency.
Israel should perhaps take note of a proportionate response. Unless
Israelis think 1 Israeli is equivalent to 50 Gazans of course.
But what if Israel's aim were to completely eliminate any risk of
another October attack and/or any further missile attacks from within
that territory?
I'm sure that most would agree that that would be a reasonable objective.
Hardly anyone would agree that that would be a reasonable objective.
On that
logic the Israelis should eliminate all human and much animal life on the planet, and not least some of their fellow-countrymen.
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would involve the Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that would then be responsible for suppressing criminality. They are stateless at the moment.
But what would be proportional as a measure aimed at that elimination?
On 15/06/2025 in message <1665465557.c1dcea75@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 20:20:40 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0483046276.edf674a4@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 17:19:15 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> >>>> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 in message <0377293472.dc0610e2@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>> Hayter wrote:
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would
involve
the
Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that would
then be
responsible for suppressing criminality. They are stateless at the >>>>>> moment.
Wikipedia says it is the smaller of the two Palestinian
territories, the
other being the West Bank, that make up the State of Palestine.
Wikipedia is indulging in wishful thinking. They could say Crimea is >>>> part of
Ukraine, but in both cases there is a military occupation in the way.
Presumably it is technically correct though?
No. Various people have wanted a Palestinian state since before 1948,
but the
area went from being part of the Ottoman empire (I think) to a British
administered and occupied territory to part of Egypt and Jordan to an
Israeli
occupied territory and at no point has it ever been an actual state
nor seemed
like being run as one or becoming one.
The "State of Palestine" is nothing but a rhetorical flourish.
I am struggling with this. Google says "Palestine is recognized as a
state by 147 of the 193 UN member states, representing 75% of the international community."
On 15/06/2025 05:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 13:41:28 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:39, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 22:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 20:55, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 18:24:35 +0100, Fredxx wrote:
On 14/06/2025 16:26, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 11:30:01 +0100, GB wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:21, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I just watched the Dawn French part, and I found it really >>>>>>>>>> hard to
follow as she wittered on. I guess she was saying that, even if >>>>>>>>>> you've
been attacked, you shouldn't fight back. It's a bit naive and >>>>>>>>>> simplistic - if that's what she meant - but hardly earth-
shattering.
Indeed, what Gandhi advocated. And much as there is to admire >>>>>>>>> about
him,
I don't agree.
I don't agree with you. An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth >>>>>>>> will
just make create a lot of toothless people who can't see.
I am not advocating vengeance. I am advocating defence. The two are >>>>>>> quite
distinct.
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution >>>>>> and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It
refers to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive >>>>> revenge or punishment and excessive leniency.
Israel should perhaps take note of a proportionate response. Unless
Israelis think 1 Israeli is equivalent to 50 Gazans of course.
But what if Israel's aim were to completely eliminate any risk of
another October attack and/or any further missile attacks from within
that territory?
I'm sure that most would agree that that would be a reasonable
objective.
Hardly anyone would agree that that would be a reasonable objective.
WHAT?
You think that no-one would agree that Israel (or, for that matter, any
othr country) should be secure from murderous attacks and from missile strikes?
Really?
On that
logic the Israelis should eliminate all human and much animal life on the
planet, and not least some of their fellow-countrymen.
OTT or what?
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would
involve the
Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that would then be
responsible for suppressing criminality. They are stateless at the
moment.
But what would be proportional as a measure aimed at that elimination?
I am struggling with this. Google says "Palestine is recognized as a
state by 147 of the 193 UN member states, representing 75% of the >>international community."
Is it a member of the United Nations?
If not, why not?
On Sat, 14 Jun 2025 10:52:14 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 14/06/2025 10:42, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I suppose strictly speaking it is a breach of copyright to quote an
entire Times piece which is behind a paywall.
I've just asked Meta and Google and Microsoft and they say otherwise.
Just remember if challenged, you just need to say you are advancing
humanity and can't possibly be held back with such historical nonsense.
On 15/06/2025 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the
original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant language by
Which language are you talking about that's no longer extant?
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant language by people who are seeking to make it mean what they want it to.
And that's all before the question of why I should give a shit about what
it says.
Apparently it is possible, Mainly by not eating so much.
Often to be followed by a book and a DVD in the case of Celebs.
"The Dawn French Diet"
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate firmly.
So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron Dome and
kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way of forcing
Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Now I come to think of it, the reason Israel has a problem with Hamas now is that they manipulated the 2006 elections to get Hamas elected in Gaza to avoid
any appearance of a single Palestinian authority in charge of both territories.
On 16/06/2025 in message <mb94n9F47urU4@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
I am struggling with this. Google says "Palestine is recognized as a
state by 147 of the 193 UN member states, representing 75% of the
international community."
Is it a member of the United Nations?
If not, why not?
It has non-member observer state status.
Because the UN is like the nuclear states, it controls who can join, the world is having to live with the principle that might is right.
You can say that the remedy for Iran is to agree to dismantle its
facilities for producing nuclear fuel.
But the only way to prevent all further attacks on any country is to exterminate all possible enemies, surely?
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate firmly.
So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron Dome and
kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way of forcing
Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Regime change in Israel.
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way of
forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the UK
at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect us from
the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is clearly contrary
to our interests in the UK.
On 15/06/2025 12:20, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the
original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant
language by
Which language are you talking about that's no longer extant?
IIRC parts of the old testament are recorded only in ancient Greek, and
parts in ancient Hebrew. Neither of which bare much relationship to the languages spoken today, any more than Middle English relates to the
language we use today. (try reading Chaucer!)
Andy
On 15/06/2025 12:20, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the
original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant
language by
Which language are you talking about that's no longer extant?
IIRC parts of the old testament are recorded only in ancient Greek, and
parts in ancient Hebrew. Neither of which bare much relationship to the languages spoken today, any more than Middle English relates to the
language we use today. (try reading Chaucer!)
Andy
On 15/06/2025 12:20, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the
original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant
language by
Which language are you talking about that's no longer extant?
IIRC parts of the old testament are recorded only in ancient Greek, and
parts in ancient Hebrew. Neither of which bare much relationship to the languages spoken today, any more than Middle English relates to the
language we use today. (try reading Chaucer!)
On 16/06/2025 in message <mb94n9F47urU4@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
I am struggling with this. Google says "Palestine is recognized as a
state by 147 of the 193 UN member states, representing 75% of the
international community."
Is it a member of the United Nations?
If not, why not?
It has non-member observer state status.
Because the UN is like the nuclear states, it controls who can join, the world is having to live with the principle that might is right.
On 16/06/2025 00:51, JNugent wrote:
On 15/06/2025 05:09 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Jun 2025 at 13:41:28 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:21 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:39, GB wrote:
Israel should perhaps take note of a proportionate response. Unless
Israelis think 1 Israeli is equivalent to 50 Gazans of course.
But what if Israel's aim were to completely eliminate any risk of
another October attack and/or any further missile attacks from within
that territory?
I'm sure that most would agree that that would be a reasonable
objective.
Hardly anyone would agree that that would be a reasonable objective.
WHAT?
You think that no-one would agree that Israel (or, for that matter,
any othr country) should be secure from murderous attacks and from
missile strikes?
Really?
Do you think that maybe most people would agree that Iran should be
secure from murderous attacks and missile strikes?
That the ordinary
people in Iran should not be at imminent risk of death merely at the
whim of the Israeli government which has decided to kill military
leaders and nuclear scientists, in plain breach of international law?
You can say that the remedy for Iran is to agree to dismantle its
facilities for producing nuclear fuel. You could also say the same of
Israel, and what's more, that Israel should stop its territorial
expansion and its harassment of Palestinian civilians.
On that
logic the Israelis should eliminate all human and much animal life on
the planet, and not least some of their fellow-countrymen.
OTT or what?
But the only way to prevent all further attacks on any country is to exterminate all possible enemies, surely?
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate firmly.
So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron Dome and
kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way of forcing
Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Israel does its best to look after its own citizens and provide them
with bomb shelters, unless those citizens happen to be Palestinians
living peaceably in Israel.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/15/they-just-see-you-as-an-arab-israels-palestinian-citizens-given-cursory-protection-from-attack
The only rational solution is a political settlement, which would
involve the Gazans having citizenship of some state (any state!) that
would then be responsible for suppressing criminality. They are
stateless at the moment.
But what would be proportional as a measure aimed at that elimination?
Regime change in Israel.
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way of
forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the
UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect us
from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is clearly
contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a nuclear-
armed state.
On 15/06/2025 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
OK, an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth is all about retribution
and really has nothing to do with defence.
The bible is widely misrepresented in relation to this phrase. It refers >>> to a system of proportionate justice, avoiding both excessive revenge or >>> punishment and excessive leniency.
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the
original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant language by
Which language are you talking about that's no longer extant?
On 16/06/2025 08:35, The Todal wrote:
You can say that the remedy for Iran is to agree to dismantle its
facilities for producing nuclear fuel.
Few people have issues with Iran producing nuclear fuel. But Iran seems
to be intent on producing nuclear bombs.
Most nuclear reactors use fuel enriched to 3-5%. Yet Iran has almost
half a tonne of 60% enriched Uranium. It's a fairly quick enrichment
step from 60% to weapons grade (90%). The critical mass of 90% enriched uranium is 56 Kgs, so the maths is simple.
On 25 March, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence
said: “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”
It's misleading to speak of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium as
fuel. It only has one use - to make nuclear bombs.
Nothing wrong with that, you may say, as there's the Mutually Assured Destruction theory to keep everyone safe. And, so far, that's worked -
even the sabre-rattling Kim Jong Un prefers his life of luxury to
nuclear annihilation.
But, the mullahs ruling Iran want to be martyred (although they seem to prefer to send others off to be martyred), and they'll happily start a nuclear war with Israel. They, and the IRGC, are fanatics, and I believe they'll do it, once they have their hands on nuclear weapons.
Assuming Iran were to prepare 9 bombs (the figure being bandied about), they'd only need 3 to 4 bombs to annihilate almost all the population of Israel.
That leaves 5 or 6 bombs for other targets. Do you want to suggest what
the targets will be (assuming they can work out the means of delivery - perhaps diplomatic luggage)? I'm thinking New York, Washington, Moscow, London, Riyadh ...
Inshallah, they can start WW3, and all the unbelievers will be wiped
from the face of the earth in one go.
On 15/06/2025 20:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
Now I come to think of it, the reason Israel has a problem with Hamas
now is
that they manipulated the 2006 elections to get Hamas elected in Gaza
to avoid
any appearance of a single Palestinian authority in charge of both
territories.
That's fascinating, and I'd like to learn more about it. Do you have a source?
Andy
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way of
forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the UK
at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect us from
the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is clearly contrary
to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear-armed state.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 15:38:31 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way of
forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the UK
at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect us from >>> the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is clearly contrary
to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear-armed state.
Then maybe it is in our interests for us, the EU and the US to stick to the agreement we made with them not to, supervised by the UN atomic energy inspectorate like the rest of non-proliferation agreements, and which the US abrogated in 2018. The Iranians have many times offered to stick to this agreement, which satisfied everyone except the Israelis and their US sympathisers.
On 16/06/2025 12:32, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 08:35, The Todal wrote:
You can say that the remedy for Iran is to agree to dismantle its
facilities for producing nuclear fuel.
Few people have issues with Iran producing nuclear fuel. But Iran
seems to be intent on producing nuclear bombs.
Most nuclear reactors use fuel enriched to 3-5%. Yet Iran has almost
half a tonne of 60% enriched Uranium. It's a fairly quick enrichment
step from 60% to weapons grade (90%). The critical mass of 90%
enriched uranium is 56 Kgs, so the maths is simple.
On 25 March, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence
said: “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and
is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”
It's misleading to speak of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium as
fuel. It only has one use - to make nuclear bombs.
Nothing wrong with that, you may say, as there's the Mutually Assured
Destruction theory to keep everyone safe. And, so far, that's worked -
even the sabre-rattling Kim Jong Un prefers his life of luxury to
nuclear annihilation.
But, the mullahs ruling Iran want to be martyred (although they seem
to prefer to send others off to be martyred), and they'll happily
start a nuclear war with Israel. They, and the IRGC, are fanatics, and
I believe they'll do it, once they have their hands on nuclear weapons.
Assuming Iran were to prepare 9 bombs (the figure being bandied
about), they'd only need 3 to 4 bombs to annihilate almost all the
population of Israel.
That leaves 5 or 6 bombs for other targets. Do you want to suggest
what the targets will be (assuming they can work out the means of
delivery - perhaps diplomatic luggage)? I'm thinking New York,
Washington, Moscow, London, Riyadh ...
Inshallah, they can start WW3, and all the unbelievers will be wiped
from the face of the earth in one go.
Reminiscent of the lies that were told about the Soviet Union, how it
wanted to destroy Western democracy and our way of life, and because
their leaders and generals were extremist Communists they would never
abandon their aims and were to be treated as unpredictable lunatics.
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way
of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the
UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect
us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where there
are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear arsenals.
no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured destruction.
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way
of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the
UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect
us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where there
are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear arsenals.
no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured destruction.
On 16/06/2025 04:41 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way
of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the
UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect
us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where there
are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear arsenals.
no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured destruction.
Are you sure the words "mutually assured" are required?
On 16/06/2025 16:41, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way
of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the
UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect
us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where there
are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear arsenals.
no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured destruction.
I have nothing against mutually assured destruction, but the clerics in charge of Iran are not interested in that.
They will use nuclear weapons as soon as they have them. And, they will definitely not stop with Israel, but will include their enemies around
the world - the UK among them.
How you can drag the treatment of poor Vananu into this discussion is
beyond me. Is that in any way comparable with a major city of the UK
being bombed? Are you being serious?
On 16/06/2025 16:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 15:38:31 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way of >>>>> forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the UK >>>> at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect us from >>>> the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is clearly contrary >>>> to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear-armed state.
Then maybe it is in our interests for us, the EU and the US to stick to the >> agreement we made with them not to, supervised by the UN atomic energy
inspectorate like the rest of non-proliferation agreements, and which the US >> abrogated in 2018. The Iranians have many times offered to stick to this
agreement, which satisfied everyone except the Israelis and their US
sympathisers.
Clearly, if this could have been sorted out by peaceful means, it should
have been.
Could you explain, though, why Iran has been steadily enriching Uranium towards weapons grade. According to the IAEA, Iran has almost half a
tonne of near weapons grade Uranium. That's not needed for any civilian energy application. It has only one use - producing nuclear bombs.
So, under the old agreement, Iran continued to work towards producing
nuclear bombs. Of course, they are happy with that arrangement.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 17:00:23 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 04:41 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron >>>>>> Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way >>>>>> of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the >>>>> UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect
us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where there
are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear arsenals. >>> no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured destruction.
Are you sure the words "mutually assured" are required?
Obviously, because no-one, except a few zealots on either side, actually wants
any country actually "destroyed".
On 16/06/2025 19:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 17:00:23 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 04:41 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:Are you sure the words "mutually assured" are required?
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate >>>>>>> firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron >>>>>>> Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way >>>>>>> of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the >>>>>> Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the >>>>>> UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect >>>>>> us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where there >>>> are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear arsenals. >>>> no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured destruction. >>>
Obviously, because no-one, except a few zealots on either side, actually wants
any country actually "destroyed".
What happens if the "few zealots" are running the country? Netanyahu is certainly zealous, but the mullahs running Iran are utterly fanatical.
On 16/06/2025 16:41, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way
of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the
UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect
us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where
there are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear
arsenals. no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to
curtail the homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually
assured destruction.
I have nothing against mutually assured destruction, but the clerics in charge of Iran are not interested in that.
They will use nuclear weapons as soon as they have them. And, they will definitely not stop with Israel, but will include their enemies around
the world - the UK among them.
How you can drag the treatment of poor Vananu into this discussion is
beyond me. Is that in any way comparable with a major city of the UK
being bombed? Are you being serious?
On 16/06/2025 16:45, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 12:32, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 08:35, The Todal wrote:
You can say that the remedy for Iran is to agree to dismantle its
facilities for producing nuclear fuel.
Few people have issues with Iran producing nuclear fuel. But Iran
seems to be intent on producing nuclear bombs.
Most nuclear reactors use fuel enriched to 3-5%. Yet Iran has almost
half a tonne of 60% enriched Uranium. It's a fairly quick enrichment
step from 60% to weapons grade (90%). The critical mass of 90%
enriched uranium is 56 Kgs, so the maths is simple.
On 25 March, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence
said: “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and >>> is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”
It's misleading to speak of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium as
fuel. It only has one use - to make nuclear bombs.
Nothing wrong with that, you may say, as there's the Mutually Assured
Destruction theory to keep everyone safe. And, so far, that's worked
- even the sabre-rattling Kim Jong Un prefers his life of luxury to
nuclear annihilation.
But, the mullahs ruling Iran want to be martyred (although they seem
to prefer to send others off to be martyred), and they'll happily
start a nuclear war with Israel. They, and the IRGC, are fanatics,
and I believe they'll do it, once they have their hands on nuclear
weapons.
Assuming Iran were to prepare 9 bombs (the figure being bandied
about), they'd only need 3 to 4 bombs to annihilate almost all the
population of Israel.
That leaves 5 or 6 bombs for other targets. Do you want to suggest
what the targets will be (assuming they can work out the means of
delivery - perhaps diplomatic luggage)? I'm thinking New York,
Washington, Moscow, London, Riyadh ...
Inshallah, they can start WW3, and all the unbelievers will be wiped
from the face of the earth in one go.
Reminiscent of the lies that were told about the Soviet Union, how it
wanted to destroy Western democracy and our way of life, and because
their leaders and generals were extremist Communists they would never
abandon their aims and were to be treated as unpredictable lunatics.
What you seem to be doing is trying to slur what I've written as lies.
But, you've gone for the economy slur, as you haven't explained why you
think it's wrong.
You must have a reason for suggesting that 60% enriched Uranium is 'fuel'?
On 16/06/2025 17:09, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 16:45, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 12:32, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 08:35, The Todal wrote:
You can say that the remedy for Iran is to agree to dismantle its
facilities for producing nuclear fuel.
Few people have issues with Iran producing nuclear fuel. But Iran
seems to be intent on producing nuclear bombs.
Most nuclear reactors use fuel enriched to 3-5%. Yet Iran has almost
half a tonne of 60% enriched Uranium. It's a fairly quick enrichment
step from 60% to weapons grade (90%). The critical mass of 90%
enriched uranium is 56 Kgs, so the maths is simple.
On 25 March, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence
said: “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and >>>> is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”
It's misleading to speak of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium as
fuel. It only has one use - to make nuclear bombs.
Nothing wrong with that, you may say, as there's the Mutually Assured
Destruction theory to keep everyone safe. And, so far, that's worked
- even the sabre-rattling Kim Jong Un prefers his life of luxury to
nuclear annihilation.
But, the mullahs ruling Iran want to be martyred (although they seem
to prefer to send others off to be martyred), and they'll happily
start a nuclear war with Israel. They, and the IRGC, are fanatics,
and I believe they'll do it, once they have their hands on nuclear
weapons.
Assuming Iran were to prepare 9 bombs (the figure being bandied
about), they'd only need 3 to 4 bombs to annihilate almost all the
population of Israel.
That leaves 5 or 6 bombs for other targets. Do you want to suggest
what the targets will be (assuming they can work out the means of
delivery - perhaps diplomatic luggage)? I'm thinking New York,
Washington, Moscow, London, Riyadh ...
Inshallah, they can start WW3, and all the unbelievers will be wiped
from the face of the earth in one go.
Reminiscent of the lies that were told about the Soviet Union, how it
wanted to destroy Western democracy and our way of life, and because
their leaders and generals were extremist Communists they would never
abandon their aims and were to be treated as unpredictable lunatics.
What you seem to be doing is trying to slur what I've written as lies.
But, you've gone for the economy slur, as you haven't explained why you
think it's wrong.
Don't invent insults that were never said. I am not accusing you of
lying. Ignorance, and peddling Israeli propaganda, is not at all the
same as lying. You haven't said anything that you do not believe to be true.
You must have a reason for suggesting that 60% enriched Uranium is 'fuel'? >>
I haven't suggested that.
I assume, perhaps wrongly, that the only way you can stop the production
of nuclear weapons is to destroy the ability to produce nuclear fuel
which would be from the same reactors.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 19:48:48 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 17:09, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 16:45, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 12:32, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 08:35, The Todal wrote:
You can say that the remedy for Iran is to agree to dismantle its
facilities for producing nuclear fuel.
Few people have issues with Iran producing nuclear fuel. But Iran
seems to be intent on producing nuclear bombs.
Most nuclear reactors use fuel enriched to 3-5%. Yet Iran has almost >>>>> half a tonne of 60% enriched Uranium. It's a fairly quick enrichment >>>>> step from 60% to weapons grade (90%). The critical mass of 90%
enriched uranium is 56 Kgs, so the maths is simple.
On 25 March, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence >>>>> said: “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and >>>>> is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”
It's misleading to speak of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium as
fuel. It only has one use - to make nuclear bombs.
Nothing wrong with that, you may say, as there's the Mutually Assured >>>>> Destruction theory to keep everyone safe. And, so far, that's worked >>>>> - even the sabre-rattling Kim Jong Un prefers his life of luxury to
nuclear annihilation.
But, the mullahs ruling Iran want to be martyred (although they seem >>>>> to prefer to send others off to be martyred), and they'll happily
start a nuclear war with Israel. They, and the IRGC, are fanatics,
and I believe they'll do it, once they have their hands on nuclear
weapons.
Assuming Iran were to prepare 9 bombs (the figure being bandied
about), they'd only need 3 to 4 bombs to annihilate almost all the
population of Israel.
That leaves 5 or 6 bombs for other targets. Do you want to suggest
what the targets will be (assuming they can work out the means of
delivery - perhaps diplomatic luggage)? I'm thinking New York,
Washington, Moscow, London, Riyadh ...
Inshallah, they can start WW3, and all the unbelievers will be wiped >>>>> from the face of the earth in one go.
Reminiscent of the lies that were told about the Soviet Union, how it
wanted to destroy Western democracy and our way of life, and because
their leaders and generals were extremist Communists they would never
abandon their aims and were to be treated as unpredictable lunatics.
What you seem to be doing is trying to slur what I've written as lies.
But, you've gone for the economy slur, as you haven't explained why you
think it's wrong.
Don't invent insults that were never said. I am not accusing you of
lying. Ignorance, and peddling Israeli propaganda, is not at all the
same as lying. You haven't said anything that you do not believe to be true. >>
You must have a reason for suggesting that 60% enriched Uranium is 'fuel'? >>>
I haven't suggested that.
I assume, perhaps wrongly, that the only way you can stop the production
of nuclear weapons is to destroy the ability to produce nuclear fuel
which would be from the same reactors.
That's simply not true, fortunately. The UN inspectorate is used to supervising civil nuclear power and ensuring many states keep to their non-proliferation duties. Much less enrichment is required for power station use. And up until very recently, after Trump backed out of the deal and made it impossible for other signatories to trade with Iran, the UN inspectorate were satisfied that Iran was doing nothing that was approaching weapon production. And Iran was until this week negotiating with the US to go back to
that position. The greater enrichment, still not near weapons level, was a brinkmanship gesture against sanctions.
On 16/06/2025 20:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 19:48:48 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 17:09, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 16:45, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 12:32, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 08:35, The Todal wrote:
You can say that the remedy for Iran is to agree to dismantle its >>>>>>> facilities for producing nuclear fuel.
Few people have issues with Iran producing nuclear fuel. But Iran
seems to be intent on producing nuclear bombs.
Most nuclear reactors use fuel enriched to 3-5%. Yet Iran has almost >>>>>> half a tonne of 60% enriched Uranium. It's a fairly quick enrichment >>>>>> step from 60% to weapons grade (90%). The critical mass of 90%
enriched uranium is 56 Kgs, so the maths is simple.
On 25 March, Tulsi Gabbard, the US director of national intelligence >>>>>> said: “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and
is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.”
It's misleading to speak of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium as >>>>>> fuel. It only has one use - to make nuclear bombs.
Nothing wrong with that, you may say, as there's the Mutually Assured >>>>>> Destruction theory to keep everyone safe. And, so far, that's worked >>>>>> - even the sabre-rattling Kim Jong Un prefers his life of luxury to >>>>>> nuclear annihilation.
But, the mullahs ruling Iran want to be martyred (although they seem >>>>>> to prefer to send others off to be martyred), and they'll happily
start a nuclear war with Israel. They, and the IRGC, are fanatics, >>>>>> and I believe they'll do it, once they have their hands on nuclear >>>>>> weapons.
Assuming Iran were to prepare 9 bombs (the figure being bandied
about), they'd only need 3 to 4 bombs to annihilate almost all the >>>>>> population of Israel.
That leaves 5 or 6 bombs for other targets. Do you want to suggest >>>>>> what the targets will be (assuming they can work out the means of
delivery - perhaps diplomatic luggage)? I'm thinking New York,
Washington, Moscow, London, Riyadh ...
Inshallah, they can start WW3, and all the unbelievers will be wiped >>>>>> from the face of the earth in one go.
Reminiscent of the lies that were told about the Soviet Union, how it >>>>> wanted to destroy Western democracy and our way of life, and because >>>>> their leaders and generals were extremist Communists they would never >>>>> abandon their aims and were to be treated as unpredictable lunatics.
What you seem to be doing is trying to slur what I've written as lies. >>>> But, you've gone for the economy slur, as you haven't explained why you >>>> think it's wrong.
Don't invent insults that were never said. I am not accusing you of
lying. Ignorance, and peddling Israeli propaganda, is not at all the
same as lying. You haven't said anything that you do not believe to be true.
You must have a reason for suggesting that 60% enriched Uranium is 'fuel'? >>>>
I haven't suggested that.
I assume, perhaps wrongly, that the only way you can stop the production >>> of nuclear weapons is to destroy the ability to produce nuclear fuel
which would be from the same reactors.
That's simply not true, fortunately. The UN inspectorate is used to
supervising civil nuclear power and ensuring many states keep to their
non-proliferation duties. Much less enrichment is required for power station >> use. And up until very recently, after Trump backed out of the deal and made >> it impossible for other signatories to trade with Iran, the UN inspectorate >> were satisfied that Iran was doing nothing that was approaching weapon
production. And Iran was until this week negotiating with the US to go back to
that position. The greater enrichment, still not near weapons level, was a >> brinkmanship gesture against sanctions.
I accept what you say, and in the words of Donald Trump, Iran should
"make a deal". But it's a bit rich to expect conciliation and
co-operation from a country which you are in the process of bombing, and after slaughtering civilian scientists with the gleeful encouragement of
our press and the tacit encouragement of our government.
On 16/06/2025 16:41, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way
of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the
UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect
us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where there
are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear arsenals.
no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured destruction.
I have nothing against mutually assured destruction, but the clerics in charge of Iran are not interested in that.
They will use nuclear weapons as soon as they have them. And, they will definitely not stop with Israel, but will include their enemies around
the world - the UK among them.
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 16:41, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron >>>>>> Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way >>>>>> of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the >>>>> UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect
us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where there
are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear arsenals. >>> no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured destruction.
I have nothing against mutually assured destruction, but the clerics in
charge of Iran are not interested in that.
They will use nuclear weapons as soon as they have them. And, they will
definitely not stop with Israel, but will include their enemies around
the world - the UK among them.
You're saying all this very confidently without providing a scrap of evidence.
I don't want Iran (or anyone, frankly) to have nuclear weapons, but
the idea that the moment they have them they will make suitcase nukes
and immediately blow up every major western city sounds far-fetched
to put it mildly.
On 16/06/2025 11:45, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:20, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the >>>> original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant
language by
Which language are you talking about that's no longer extant?
IIRC parts of the old testament are recorded only in ancient Greek, and
parts in ancient Hebrew. Neither of which bare much relationship to the
languages spoken today, any more than Middle English relates to the
language we use today. (try reading Chaucer!)
Almost none of the OT was written in Common Greek, although (IIRC)
almost the whole of the NT was.
Modern Hebrew is very similar to biblical Hebrew, although there are
extra words like ????????????
You must have a reason for suggesting that 60% enriched Uranium is 'fuel'? >>>
I haven't suggested that.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 17:15:44 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 16:41, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron >>>>>> Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way >>>>>> of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the >>>>> UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect
us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where there
are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear arsenals. >>> no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured destruction.
I have nothing against mutually assured destruction, but the clerics in
charge of Iran are not interested in that.
To an outsider the zealots in Iran are slightly less bloodthirsty than the zealots in Netanyahu's cabinet. And a few bombs without a credible, defensible
delivery system are not really that much of threat.
They will use nuclear weapons as soon as they have them. And, they will
definitely not stop with Israel, but will include their enemies around
the world - the UK among them.
How you can drag the treatment of poor Vananu into this discussion is
beyond me. Is that in any way comparable with a major city of the UK
being bombed? Are you being serious?
How do you suppose the Iranians could deliver a nuclear bomb to the UK? Magic?
On 16 Jun 2025 at 17:00:23 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 04:41 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron >>>>>> Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way >>>>>> of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the >>>>> UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect
us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where there
are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear arsenals. >>> no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured destruction.
Are you sure the words "mutually assured" are required?
Obviously, because no-one, except a few zealots on either side, actually wants
any country actually "destroyed".
On 16 Jun 2025 at 19:39:39 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 17:00:23 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 04:41 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:Are you sure the words "mutually assured" are required?
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate >>>>>>>> firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron >>>>>>>> Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way >>>>>>>> of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the >>>>>>> Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the >>>>>>> UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect >>>>>>> us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is
clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai >>>>> Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a >>>>> beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where there >>>>> are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear arsenals. >>>>> no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured destruction. >>>>
Obviously, because no-one, except a few zealots on either side, actually wants
any country actually "destroyed".
What happens if the "few zealots" are running the country? Netanyahu is
certainly zealous, but the mullahs running Iran are utterly fanatical.
This observer would actually back the Ayatollahs as being more rational than several in the Isaeli cabinet. But you are entitled to your opinion.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 17:24:20 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 16:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 15:38:31 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron >>>>>> Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way of >>>>>> forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the UK >>>>> at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect us from >>>>> the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is clearly contrary >>>>> to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear-armed state.
Then maybe it is in our interests for us, the EU and the US to stick to the >>> agreement we made with them not to, supervised by the UN atomic energy
inspectorate like the rest of non-proliferation agreements, and which the US
abrogated in 2018. The Iranians have many times offered to stick to this >>> agreement, which satisfied everyone except the Israelis and their US
sympathisers.
Clearly, if this could have been sorted out by peaceful means, it should
have been.
Could you explain, though, why Iran has been steadily enriching Uranium
towards weapons grade. According to the IAEA, Iran has almost half a
tonne of near weapons grade Uranium. That's not needed for any civilian
energy application. It has only one use - producing nuclear bombs.
So, under the old agreement, Iran continued to work towards producing
nuclear bombs. Of course, they are happy with that arrangement.
No that is unfortunately an untruth. Did you get the information from an Israeli source? They only started enriching Uranium to beyond the purity required for peaceful use *after* Trump cancelled the old agreement.
On 16/06/2025 20:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
That's simply not true, fortunately. The UN inspectorate is used to
supervising civil nuclear power and ensuring many states keep to their
non-proliferation duties. Much less enrichment is required for power
station use. And up until very recently, after Trump backed out of
the deal and made it impossible for other signatories to trade with
Iran, the UN inspectorate were satisfied that Iran was doing nothing
that was approaching weapon production. And Iran was until this week
negotiating with the US to go back to that position. The greater
enrichment, still not near weapons level, was a brinkmanship gesture
against sanctions.
I accept what you say, and in the words of Donald Trump, Iran should
"make a deal". But it's a bit rich to expect conciliation and
co-operation from a country which you are in the process of bombing, and after slaughtering civilian scientists with the gleeful encouragement of
our press and the tacit encouragement of our government.
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 14:30:38 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 11:45, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:20, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the >>>>> original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant
language by
Which language are you talking about that's no longer extant?
IIRC parts of the old testament are recorded only in ancient Greek, and
parts in ancient Hebrew. Neither of which bare much relationship to the
languages spoken today, any more than Middle English relates to the
language we use today. (try reading Chaucer!)
Almost none of the OT was written in Common Greek, although (IIRC)
almost the whole of the NT was.
Modern Hebrew is very similar to biblical Hebrew, although there are
extra words like ????????????
Yes, that's similar to the way that modern Latin (as used as a lingua franca by the Catholic Church) is pretty much the same as classical Latin, because it has been deliberately preserved to be so.
But, in both cases, the reason why the modern version is the same as the classical version is because they died out of common usage and were kept alive only by scholars and those who chose to learn them as a second language. Colloquial Latin gave way to Italian, French and other Romance languages, and colloquial Hebrew gave way to Aramaic and Yiddish. Post-WWII Judaism has revived Hebrew as a colloquial language, maybe one day we'll see a similar colloquial revival of Latin.
On 16/06/2025 20:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
You must have a reason for suggesting that 60% enriched Uranium is 'fuel'? >>>>
I haven't suggested that.
You did, actually, but I accept that you didn't understand what's going on.
You really, really ought to bone up on this a bit:
https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable-weapon-potential
Background info on the organisation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Project_on_Nuclear_Arms_Control
How do you suppose the Iranians could deliver a nuclear bomb to the UK? Magic?
On 16/06/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
How do you suppose the Iranians could deliver a nuclear bomb to the UK?
Magic?
In the diplomatic bag? Hardly magic, is it?
On 16/06/2025 07:44 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 19:39:39 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 17:00:23 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 04:41 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate >>>>>>>>> firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the >>>>>>>>> Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way >>>>>>>>> of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the >>>>>>>> Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts >>>>>>>> the
UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect >>>>>>>> us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is >>>>>>>> clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor Mordechai >>>>>> Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel is a >>>>>> beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where
there
are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear
arsenals.
no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the
homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured
destruction.
Are you sure the words "mutually assured" are required?
Obviously, because no-one, except a few zealots on either side,
actually wants
any country actually "destroyed".
What happens if the "few zealots" are running the country? Netanyahu is
certainly zealous, but the mullahs running Iran are utterly fanatical.
This observer would actually back the Ayatollahs as being more
rational than
several in the Isaeli cabinet. But you are entitled to your opinion.
Does that matter?
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence
policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world with nuclear weapons?
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
How do you suppose the Iranians could deliver a nuclear bomb to the UK?
Magic?
In the diplomatic bag? Hardly magic, is it?
I don't think diplomatic bags are immune to Geiger counters.
On 16/06/2025 21:30, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2025 07:44 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 19:39:39 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:35, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 17:00:23 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 16/06/2025 04:41 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/06/2025 15:38, GB wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate >>>>>>>>>> firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the >>>>>>>>>> Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best >>>>>>>>>> way
of forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via >>>>>>>>> the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation
puts the
UK at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to
protect
us from the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is >>>>>>>>> clearly contrary to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a >>>>>>>> nuclear- armed state.
I don't mind a bit. I hope Iran does produce nuclear weapons.
Israel has had nuclear weapons for ages. It imprisoned poor
Mordechai
Vanunu for revealing this fact to the world, being as how Israel >>>>>>> is a
beacon of civilisation and democracy in a part of the world where >>>>>>> there
are crazy extremists.
Obviously with Pakistan, India, North Korea etc having nuclear
arsenals.
no part of the world can be safe. But the only way to curtail the >>>>>>> homicidal behaviour of Israel must be with mutually assured
destruction.
Are you sure the words "mutually assured" are required?
Obviously, because no-one, except a few zealots on either side,
actually wants
any country actually "destroyed".
What happens if the "few zealots" are running the country? Netanyahu is >>>> certainly zealous, but the mullahs running Iran are utterly fanatical.
This observer would actually back the Ayatollahs as being more
rational than
several in the Isaeli cabinet. But you are entitled to your opinion.
Does that matter?
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence
policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world
with nuclear weapons?
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with nuclear weapons? Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government propaganda.
It is traditional for our enemy to be portrayed as mad and
unpredictable. Currently the most mad and unpredictable leader in the
world, is Donald J Trump.
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence
policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world with >nuclear weapons?
On 16/06/2025 16:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Jun 2025 at 15:38:31 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 16/06/2025 09:02, Pancho wrote:
On 6/16/25 08:35, The Todal wrote:
There is another way to prevent attacks and that is to retaliate
firmly. So, if Iran can manage to get its missiles through the Iron
Dome and kill some Israeli civilians that is probably the best way of >>>>> forcing Israel to behave itself. Don't you agree?
Iran has better tools than that. It can block oil shipments via the
Persian Gulf, and it can develop nuclear weapons.
I have no idea what they will do, but the current situation puts the UK >>>> at serious economic risk. Our politicians may promise to protect us
from
the consequences, but they won't. Supporting Israel is clearly contrary >>>> to our interests in the UK.
It's definitely not in the UK's interests for Iran to become a
nuclear-armed state.
Then maybe it is in our interests for us, the EU and the US to stick
to the
agreement we made with them not to, supervised by the UN atomic energy
inspectorate like the rest of non-proliferation agreements, and which
the US
abrogated in 2018. The Iranians have many times offered to stick to this
agreement, which satisfied everyone except the Israelis and their US
sympathisers.
Clearly, if this could have been sorted out by peaceful means, it should
have been.
Could you explain, though, why Iran has been steadily enriching Uranium towards weapons grade. According to the IAEA, Iran has almost half a
tonne of near weapons grade Uranium. That's not needed for any civilian energy application. It has only one use - producing nuclear bombs.
So, under the old agreement, Iran continued to work towards producing
nuclear bombs. Of course, they are happy with that arrangement.
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with nuclear
weapons? Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government
propaganda.
You are prepared to overlook the barbaric USA hostage incident? And the country's behaviour during the Iran/Iraq war?
On 6/17/25 00:52, JNugent wrote:
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with nuclear >>> weapons? Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government
propaganda.
You are prepared to overlook the barbaric USA hostage incident? And
the country's behaviour during the Iran/Iraq war?
You do remember Iraq started the Iran/Iraq war? The USA actively
supported Saddam in that war. Something like one million Iranians died.
Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric, when compared
to what the USA did to Iran.
On 16/06/2025 in message <mbbd79FfqtgU4@mid.individual.net> JNugent wrote:
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence
policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world
with nuclear weapons?
I have a neighbour who I think may punch me, is it OK for to to go and
see him and give him a preemptive beating?
Israel has, many times.
On 6/17/25 00:52, JNugent wrote:
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with nuclear >>> weapons? Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government
propaganda.
You are prepared to overlook the barbaric USA hostage incident? And
the country's behaviour during the Iran/Iraq war?
You do remember Iraq started the Iran/Iraq war? The USA actively
supported Saddam in that war. Something like one million Iranians died.
Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric, when compared
to what the USA did to Iran.
On 17/06/2025 08:32 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/06/2025 in message <mbbd79FfqtgU4@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence
policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world
with nuclear weapons?
I have a neighbour who I think may punch me, is it OK for to to go and
see him and give him a preemptive beating?
Has he just bought a pistol, a zombie knife and a Bren gun?
Israel has, many times.
Should they wait until two or three Israeli cities (and their
populations) have been vaporised?
A straight "Yes" or "No" is all that is necessary by way of response.
On 17/06/2025 08:32 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/06/2025 in message <mbbd79FfqtgU4@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence
policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world
with nuclear weapons?
I have a neighbour who I think may punch me, is it OK for to to go and
see him and give him a preemptive beating?
Has he just bought a pistol, a zombie knife and a Bren gun?
Israel has, many times.
Should they wait until two or three Israeli cities (and their
populations) have been vaporised?
A straight "Yes" or "No" is all that is necessary by way of response.
You can add your views to it, of course, but you won't be able to avoid giving an answer which sums to "Yes", "No" or "I'm not going to say".
On 17/06/2025 08:35 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/17/25 00:52, JNugent wrote:
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with
nuclear
weapons? Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government
propaganda.
You are prepared to overlook the barbaric USA hostage incident? And
the country's behaviour during the Iran/Iraq war?
You do remember Iraq started the Iran/Iraq war? The USA actively
supported Saddam in that war. Something like one million Iranians died.
No matter who or what started that war, there are rules of warfare. Come
to that, there are rules about the treatment of people whether in
wartime or peacetime.
Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric, when compared
to what the USA did to Iran.
"Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric"
Doesn't it?
Accredited *diplomats* and support staff - FIFTY TWO OF THEM - were
entitled by international law to come and go (especially go) without let
or hindrance. The government of Iran was obliged to protect and
facilitate those people, not to imprison and threaten them.
But you weren't affected, so who cares, eh?
The Iranian government were barbarians, as cogently described by the
incoming USA president of the day (Reagan).
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:52:38 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 08:32 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/06/2025 in message <mbbd79FfqtgU4@mid.individual.net> JNugent >>>wrote:
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence >>>>policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world >>>>with nuclear weapons?
I have a neighbour who I think may punch me, is it OK for to to go and >>>see him and give him a preemptive beating?
Has he just bought a pistol, a zombie knife and a Bren gun?
Israel has, many times.
Should they wait until two or three Israeli cities (and their
populations) have been vaporised?
A straight "Yes" or "No" is all that is necessary by way of response.
That isn't possible, because the question contains an embedded assertion
("If the Israelis wait, their cities will be vaporised") which is not >necessarily true, and which in fact Jeff and others would not accept. In >short, it's a "Have you stopped beating your wife" question.
On 17/06/2025 12:18 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
How do you suppose the Iranians could deliver a nuclear bomb to the UK? >>>> Magic?
In the diplomatic bag? Hardly magic, is it?
I don't think diplomatic bags are immune to Geiger counters.
What is the maximum size for what is euphemistically called the
"diplomatic bag"?
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:52:38 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 08:32 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/06/2025 in message <mbbd79FfqtgU4@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence
policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world
with nuclear weapons?
I have a neighbour who I think may punch me, is it OK for to to go and
see him and give him a preemptive beating?
Has he just bought a pistol, a zombie knife and a Bren gun?
Israel has, many times.
Should they wait until two or three Israeli cities (and their
populations) have been vaporised?
A straight "Yes" or "No" is all that is necessary by way of response.
That isn't possible, because the question contains an embedded assertion
("If the Israelis wait, their cities will be vaporised") which is not necessarily true, and which in fact Jeff and others would not accept. In short, it's a "Have you stopped beating your wife" question.
On 17/06/2025 00:49, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:18 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
How do you suppose the Iranians could deliver a nuclear bomb to the UK? >>>>> Magic?
In the diplomatic bag? Hardly magic, is it?
I don't think diplomatic bags are immune to Geiger counters.
What is the maximum size for what is euphemistically called the
"diplomatic bag"?
I think it could be a 20' shipping container. Or a 40' one.
On 17/06/2025 09:52, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 08:32 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/06/2025 in message <mbbd79FfqtgU4@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence
policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world
with nuclear weapons?
I have a neighbour who I think may punch me, is it OK for to to go and
see him and give him a preemptive beating?
Has he just bought a pistol, a zombie knife and a Bren gun?
Israel has, many times.
Should they wait until two or three Israeli cities (and their
populations) have been vaporised?
A straight "Yes" or "No" is all that is necessary by way of response.
You can add your views to it, of course, but you won't be able to avoid
giving an answer which sums to "Yes", "No" or "I'm not going to say".
I'd give a straight "yes" because no Israeli cities would ever be vaporised.
Many people would say that Ukraine made a mistake when giving up its
nuclear weapons, and would be in a far better position if it had nuclear weapons now. But would it? These weapons can never be used, by either side.
Israel would probably have faith in its Iron Dome to protect itself from
any form of attack including nuclear attack. Meanwhile Israel is trying
to vaporise Tehran. Should Iran wait until tens of thousands of Iranian citizens have been killed or mutilated? Yes, because it has no choice
and even if it had nuclear weapons they could never be deployed.
On 17/06/2025 10:00, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 08:35 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/17/25 00:52, JNugent wrote:
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with
nuclear
weapons? Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government
propaganda.
You are prepared to overlook the barbaric USA hostage incident? And
the country's behaviour during the Iran/Iraq war?
You do remember Iraq started the Iran/Iraq war? The USA actively
supported Saddam in that war. Something like one million Iranians died.
No matter who or what started that war, there are rules of warfare. Come
to that, there are rules about the treatment of people whether in
wartime or peacetime.
Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric, when compared
to what the USA did to Iran.
"Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric"
Doesn't it?
Accredited *diplomats* and support staff - FIFTY TWO OF THEM - were
entitled by international law to come and go (especially go) without let
or hindrance. The government of Iran was obliged to protect and
facilitate those people, not to imprison and threaten them.
I daresay you'd have liked the government of Iran to emulate our own
approach to the Iranian Embassy siege in London. Send in the SAS,
execute each terrorist hostage taker.
The difference being, the Iranian students who took hostages in the US Embassy in Iran in 1979 actually had right on their side.
quote from Wikipedia
The incident occurred after the "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's
Line" stormed and occupied the building in the months following the
Iranian Revolution. With support from Ruhollah Khomeini, who had led the Iranian Revolution and would eventually establish the present-day
Islamic Republic of Iran, the hostage-takers demanded that the United
States extradite Iranian king Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who had been
granted asylum by the Carter administration for cancer treatment.
unquote
So they were demanding, quite reasonably, that the US should send the
corrupt Shah back to Iran as a term of any deal. A Shah who had enriched himself, embezzled millions, and had been responsible for torturing
political opponents.
You can say that this was morally indefensible and a breach of
international law etc, but obviously the Iranian authorities were not
going to send in the equivalent of the SAS and kill the students who
were making these reasonable demands and were supportive of the Iranian regime.
Compare and contrast how America demanded that Afghanistan should hand
over Osama bin Laden, without any form of judicial extradition process, failing which America would bomb Afghanistan to buggery. A threat that
they acted upon, in breach of international law.
But you weren't affected, so who cares, eh?
The Iranian government were barbarians, as cogently described by the
incoming USA president of the day (Reagan).
Oh, you venerate the senile old film star then? He was good at making speeches.
Nowadays the real barbarians are the Israelis. But they are an ally.
Maybe we should ditch them and make Iran our ally.
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with nuclear weapons? Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government propaganda.
It is traditional for our enemy to be portrayed as mad and
unpredictable. Currently the most mad and unpredictable leader in the
world, is Donald J Trump.
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
How do you suppose the Iranians could deliver a nuclear bomb to the UK?
Magic?
In the diplomatic bag? Hardly magic, is it?
I don't think diplomatic bags are immune to Geiger counters.
On 17/06/2025 00:34, The Todal wrote:
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with nuclear
weapons? Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government
propaganda.
It is traditional for our enemy to be portrayed as mad and
unpredictable. Currently the most mad and unpredictable leader in the
world, is Donald J Trump.
There's a well-known fallacy there.
Pillar boxes are red.
This ball is red, so it must be a pillar box.
On 16 Jun 2025 at 21:39:23 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 20:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
You must have a reason for suggesting that 60% enriched Uranium is 'fuel'?
I haven't suggested that.
You did, actually, but I accept that you didn't understand what's going on. >>
You really, really ought to bone up on this a bit:
https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable-weapon-potential
Background info on the organisation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Project_on_Nuclear_Arms_Control
You really haven't noticed that these are anti-Iran propaganda organisations, deriving much of their information from Israeli sources and sympathisers? And therefore quite likely to be telling downright lies?
Well, I think the rest of us will probably notice this.
I'd give a straight "yes" because no Israeli cities would ever be
vaporised.
Israel would probably have faith in its Iron Dome to protect itself from
any form of attack including nuclear attack.
Meanwhile Israel is trying
to vaporise Tehran. Should Iran wait until tens of thousands of Iranian citizens have been killed or mutilated? Yes, because it has no choice
and even if it had nuclear weapons they could never be deployed.
On 17 Jun 2025 at 11:27:04 BST, "Handsome Jack" <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:52:38 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 08:32 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/06/2025 in message <mbbd79FfqtgU4@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence
policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world
with nuclear weapons?
I have a neighbour who I think may punch me, is it OK for to to go and >>>> see him and give him a preemptive beating?
Has he just bought a pistol, a zombie knife and a Bren gun?
Israel has, many times.
Should they wait until two or three Israeli cities (and their
populations) have been vaporised?
A straight "Yes" or "No" is all that is necessary by way of response.
That isn't possible, because the question contains an embedded assertion
("If the Israelis wait, their cities will be vaporised") which is not
necessarily true, and which in fact Jeff and others would not accept. In
short, it's a "Have you stopped beating your wife" question.
What's with these special people who craft special questions which they think are shatteringly clever because to respond to them at all you have to accept the questioner's prejudices? Do they think it furthers discussion?
Absolutely, I am still pondering it, made more difficult by not having a
wife but two ex wives
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that the Iranian government can't make the same calculations about first use of nuclear weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 00:34, The Todal wrote:
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with nuclear >>> weapons? Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government
propaganda.
It is traditional for our enemy to be portrayed as mad and
unpredictable. Currently the most mad and unpredictable leader in the
world, is Donald J Trump.
There's a well-known fallacy there.
Pillar boxes are red.
This ball is red, so it must be a pillar box.
He would only have been committing that fallacy if he claimed that his observations proved that Trump is our enemy, which he didn't.
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that the
Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of nuclear
weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their citizens martyrs.
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that the
Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of nuclear
weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made those
calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their citizens
martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the relevant
data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
I think you're making excuses for the Israelis, not for the first time.
Of course they can pulverise Tehran, bombard journalists and TV
stations, and hospitals in Iran. Because, how convenient, even the
government of Iran doesn't care about the resulting deaths and injuries. Mazel tov.
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that the
Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of
nuclear weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made those
calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their
citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the relevant
data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
On 17/06/2025 14:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 00:34, The Todal wrote:
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with
nuclear
weapons? Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government
propaganda.
It is traditional for our enemy to be portrayed as mad and
unpredictable. Currently the most mad and unpredictable leader in the
world, is Donald J Trump.
There's a well-known fallacy there.
Pillar boxes are red.
This ball is red, so it must be a pillar box.
He would only have been committing that fallacy if he claimed that his
observations proved that Trump is our enemy, which he didn't.
Trump isn't *our* enemy. He is the enemy of the people of the United
States. He is sending huge numbers of soldiers and marines to Los
Angeles to suppress peaceful demonstrations. He is instigating riots and civil war.
He is far more of a threat than Iran.
I'm unimpressed by red balls, but I hope medical treatment is available
for whatever that condition might be.
On 17 Jun 2025 at 15:19:49 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that the
Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of nuclear >>>> weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made those
calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their citizens
martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the relevant
data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its citizens as
expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
I think you're making excuses for the Israelis, not for the first time.
Of course they can pulverise Tehran, bombard journalists and TV
stations, and hospitals in Iran. Because, how convenient, even the
government of Iran doesn't care about the resulting deaths and injuries.
Mazel tov.
The sheer effrontery of the Israelis complaining that Iran is attacking civilian targets is amusing.
Especially as the Israelis have the technology to
choose their targets, and the Iranians probably don't.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:52:38 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 08:32 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
JNugent wrote:
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence
policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world
with nuclear weapons?
I have a neighbour who I think may punch me, is it OK for to to go and
see him and give him a preemptive beating?
Has he just bought a pistol, a zombie knife and a Bren gun?
Israel has, many times.
Should they wait until two or three Israeli cities (and their
populations) have been vaporised?
A straight "Yes" or "No" is all that is necessary by way of response.
That isn't possible, because the question contains an embedded assertion
("If the Israelis wait, their cities will be vaporised") which is not necessarily true, and which in fact Jeff and others would not accept. In short, it's a "Have you stopped beating your wife" question.
On 17 Jun 2025 at 11:27:04 BST, "Handsome Jack" <jack@handsome.com> wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:52:38 +0100, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 08:32 AM, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 16/06/2025 in message <mbbd79FfqtgU4@mid.individual.net> JNugent
wrote:
No matter what misgivings you may have about their current defence
policies, are you fearful that Israel will attack the western world
with nuclear weapons?
I have a neighbour who I think may punch me, is it OK for to to go and >>>> see him and give him a preemptive beating?
Has he just bought a pistol, a zombie knife and a Bren gun?
Israel has, many times.
Should they wait until two or three Israeli cities (and their
populations) have been vaporised?
A straight "Yes" or "No" is all that is necessary by way of response.
That isn't possible, because the question contains an embedded assertion
("If the Israelis wait, their cities will be vaporised") which is not
necessarily true, and which in fact Jeff and others would not accept. In
short, it's a "Have you stopped beating your wife" question.
What's with these special people who craft special questions which they think are shatteringly clever because to respond to them at all you have to accept the questioner's prejudices? Do they think it furthers discussion?
On 17/06/2025 10:00, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 08:35 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/17/25 00:52, JNugent wrote:
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with
nuclear weapons?
Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government
propaganda.
You are prepared to overlook the barbaric USA hostage incident? And
the country's behaviour during the Iran/Iraq war?
You do remember Iraq started the Iran/Iraq war? The USA actively
supported Saddam in that war. Something like one million Iranians died.
No matter who or what started that war, there are rules of warfare.
Come to that, there are rules about the treatment of people whether in
wartime or peacetime.
Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric, when compared
to what the USA did to Iran.
"Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric"
Doesn't it?
Accredited *diplomats* and support staff - FIFTY TWO OF THEM - were
entitled by international law to come and go (especially go) without
let or hindrance. The government of Iran was obliged to protect and
facilitate those people, not to imprison and threaten them.
I daresay you'd have liked the government of Iran to emulate our own
approach to the Iranian Embassy siege in London. Send in the SAS,
execute each terrorist hostage taker.
The difference being, the Iranian students who took hostages in the US Embassy in Iran in 1979 actually had right on their side.
quote from Wikipedia
The incident occurred after the "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's
Line" stormed and occupied the building in the months following the
Iranian Revolution. With support from Ruhollah Khomeini, who had led the Iranian Revolution and would eventually establish the present-day
Islamic Republic of Iran, the hostage-takers demanded that the United
States extradite Iranian king Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who had been
granted asylum by the Carter administration for cancer treatment.
unquote
So they were demanding, quite reasonably, that the US should send the
corrupt Shah back to Iran as a term of any deal. A Shah who had enriched himself, embezzled millions, and had been responsible for torturing
political opponents.
You can say that this was morally indefensible and a breach of
international law etc, but obviously the Iranian authorities were not
going to send in the equivalent of the SAS and kill the students who
were making these reasonable demands and were supportive of the Iranian regime.
Compare and contrast how America demanded that Afghanistan should hand
over Osama bin Laden, without any form of judicial extradition process, failing which America would bomb Afghanistan to buggery. A threat that
they acted upon, in breach of international law.
But you weren't affected, so who cares, eh?
The Iranian government were barbarians, as cogently described by the
incoming USA president of the day (Reagan).
Oh, you venerate the senile old film star then? He was good at making speeches.
On 17/06/2025 00:49, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:18 AM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-16, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/06/2025 19:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
How do you suppose the Iranians could deliver a nuclear bomb to the
UK?
Magic?
In the diplomatic bag? Hardly magic, is it?
I don't think diplomatic bags are immune to Geiger counters.
What is the maximum size for what is euphemistically called the
"diplomatic bag"?
I think it could be a 20' shipping container. Or a 40' one.
On 17/06/2025 11:54 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 10:00, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 08:35 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/17/25 00:52, JNugent wrote:
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with >>>>>>> nuclear weapons?
Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government
propaganda.
You are prepared to overlook the barbaric USA hostage incident? And
the country's behaviour during the Iran/Iraq war?
You do remember Iraq started the Iran/Iraq war? The USA actively
supported Saddam in that war. Something like one million Iranians died.
No matter who or what started that war, there are rules of warfare.
Come to that, there are rules about the treatment of people whether in
wartime or peacetime.
Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric, when compared >>>> to what the USA did to Iran.
"Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric"
Doesn't it?
Accredited *diplomats* and support staff - FIFTY TWO OF THEM - were
entitled by international law to come and go (especially go) without
let or hindrance. The government of Iran was obliged to protect and
facilitate those people, not to imprison and threaten them.
I daresay you'd have liked the government of Iran to emulate our own
approach to the Iranian Embassy siege in London. Send in the SAS,
execute each terrorist hostage taker.
Thank you for illustrating the difference between Iran and cib=viklised countries.
The difference being, the Iranian students who took hostages in the US
Embassy in Iran in 1979 actually had right on their side.
Dear me.
quote from Wikipedia
The incident occurred after the "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's
Line" stormed and occupied the building in the months following the
Iranian Revolution. With support from Ruhollah Khomeini, who had led the
Iranian Revolution and would eventually establish the present-day
Islamic Republic of Iran, the hostage-takers demanded that the United
States extradite Iranian king Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who had been
granted asylum by the Carter administration for cancer treatment.
unquote
So they were demanding, quite reasonably, that the US should send the
corrupt Shah back to Iran as a term of any deal. A Shah who had enriched
himself, embezzled millions, and had been responsible for torturing
political opponents.
A "deal" to let innocent people survive their attack?
Listen to yourself.
Is that a quote from Essex University Students' Union c. 1978?
You can say that this was morally indefensible and a breach of
international law etc, but obviously the Iranian authorities were not
going to send in the equivalent of the SAS and kill the students who
were making these reasonable demands and were supportive of the Iranian
regime.
Compare and contrast how America demanded that Afghanistan should hand
over Osama bin Laden, without any form of judicial extradition process,
failing which America would bomb Afghanistan to buggery. A threat that
they acted upon, in breach of international law.
The Afghan government made it clear that that gentleman was an "honoured guest" and that they saw no reason to surrender him to justice.
On 17/06/2025 15:16, The Todal wrote:
Trump isn't *our* enemy. He is the enemy of the people of the United
States. He is sending huge numbers of soldiers and marines to Los
Angeles to suppress peaceful demonstrations. He is instigating riots
and civil war.
He is far more of a threat than Iran.
I'm unimpressed by red balls, but I hope medical treatment is
available for whatever that condition might be.
It's all right. I didn't really think you were saying that Trump is our enemy.
On 17/06/2025 15:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Jun 2025 at 15:19:49 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that the >>>>> Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of nuclear >>>>> weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made those >>>> calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their citizens >>>> martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the relevant
data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its citizens as
expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
I think you're making excuses for the Israelis, not for the first time.
Of course they can pulverise Tehran, bombard journalists and TV
stations, and hospitals in Iran. Because, how convenient, even the
government of Iran doesn't care about the resulting deaths and injuries. >>> Mazel tov.
The sheer effrontery of the Israelis complaining that Iran is attacking
civilian targets is amusing.
That sounds a bit much, doesn't it. Do you have a linky?
Especially as the Israelis have the technology to
choose their targets, and the Iranians probably don't.
I don't think that's correct. The Iranian Shahed drones are highly
accurate, and the Iranians could easily incorporate the same tech into
their missiles.
A sensible strategy would be to have some cheap crude missiles intended
to exhaust the air defences, plus some accurate missiles intended to
slip through and hit targets.
On 17/06/2025 15:19, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that
the Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of
nuclear weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made
those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their
citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the relevant
data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its citizens as
expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
Perhaps, you need to be reminded of the child soldiers in the Iran-Iraq
war.
Once you've watched the BBC documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZRvpuW8QM
"They released the names of 200,000 martyrs. Over 70,000 of them were
teenage schoolboys."
https://iranwire.com/en/features/66696/
"Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has praised young students willing
to put themselves on the frontline,"
These are their own children. They are meant to be protecting them.
You want to read some of the Supreme Leader's views on martyrdom?
https://english.khamenei.ir/news/10023/Elevated-status-of-martyrdom-a- common-teaching-of-all-divine
https://www.leader.ir/en/content/27649/Leader-s-Message-on-the- Martyrdom-of-Resistance-Leader-Sayyid-Hassan-Nasrallah
On 17 Jun 2025 at 17:35:01 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 15:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Jun 2025 at 15:19:49 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that the >>>>>> Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of nuclear >>>>>> weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made those >>>>> calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their citizens >>>>> martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the relevant >>>> data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its citizens as
expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
I think you're making excuses for the Israelis, not for the first time. >>>> Of course they can pulverise Tehran, bombard journalists and TV
stations, and hospitals in Iran. Because, how convenient, even the
government of Iran doesn't care about the resulting deaths and injuries. >>>> Mazel tov.
The sheer effrontery of the Israelis complaining that Iran is attacking
civilian targets is amusing.
That sounds a bit much, doesn't it. Do you have a linky?
Most of us have heard them saying it!
Especially as the Israelis have the technology to
choose their targets, and the Iranians probably don't.
I don't think that's correct. The Iranian Shahed drones are highly
accurate, and the Iranians could easily incorporate the same tech into
their missiles.
A sensible strategy would be to have some cheap crude missiles intended
to exhaust the air defences, plus some accurate missiles intended to
slip through and hit targets.
Can you see the statistical problem with that approach? On average, which kind
of missile is more likely to randomly get through?
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
The Afghan government made it clear that that gentleman was an
"honoured guest" and that they saw no reason to surrender him to justice.
That's probably what the Americans said about the Shah. The difference
is, Iran didn't bomb America to ensure the capture of their disgraced
and disreputable former king.
On 17/06/2025 17:28, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 15:19, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that
the Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of
nuclear weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made
those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their
citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
Perhaps, you need to be reminded of the child soldiers in the Iran-
Iraq war.
Once you've watched the BBC documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZRvpuW8QM
"They released the names of 200,000 martyrs. Over 70,000 of them were
teenage schoolboys."
https://iranwire.com/en/features/66696/
"Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has praised young students
willing to put themselves on the frontline,"
These are their own children. They are meant to be protecting them.
You want to read some of the Supreme Leader's views on martyrdom?
https://english.khamenei.ir/news/10023/Elevated-status-of-martyrdom-a-
common-teaching-of-all-divine
https://www.leader.ir/en/content/27649/Leader-s-Message-on-the-
Martyrdom-of-Resistance-Leader-Sayyid-Hassan-Nasrallah
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
On 17/06/2025 16:44, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 11:54 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 10:00, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 08:35 AM, Pancho wrote:
On 6/17/25 00:52, JNugent wrote:
No. Are you fearful that Iran will attack the western world with >>>>>>>> nuclear weapons?
Only if you are manipulated by self-serving UK government
propaganda.
You are prepared to overlook the barbaric USA hostage incident? And >>>>>> the country's behaviour during the Iran/Iraq war?
You do remember Iraq started the Iran/Iraq war? The USA actively
supported Saddam in that war. Something like one million Iranians
died.
No matter who or what started that war, there are rules of warfare.
Come to that, there are rules about the treatment of people whether in >>>> wartime or peacetime.
Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric, when
compared
to what the USA did to Iran.
"Holding a few hostages for a year, doesn't seem barbaric"
Doesn't it?
Accredited *diplomats* and support staff - FIFTY TWO OF THEM - were
entitled by international law to come and go (especially go) without
let or hindrance. The government of Iran was obliged to protect and
facilitate those people, not to imprison and threaten them.
I daresay you'd have liked the government of Iran to emulate our own
approach to the Iranian Embassy siege in London. Send in the SAS,
execute each terrorist hostage taker.
Thank you for illustrating the difference between Iran and
cib=viklised countries.
The difference being, the Iranian students who took hostages in the US
Embassy in Iran in 1979 actually had right on their side.
Dear me.
Was that the start of a letter?
quote from Wikipedia
The incident occurred after the "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's
Line" stormed and occupied the building in the months following the
Iranian Revolution. With support from Ruhollah Khomeini, who had led the >>> Iranian Revolution and would eventually establish the present-day
Islamic Republic of Iran, the hostage-takers demanded that the United
States extradite Iranian king Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who had been
granted asylum by the Carter administration for cancer treatment.
unquote
So they were demanding, quite reasonably, that the US should send the
corrupt Shah back to Iran as a term of any deal. A Shah who had enriched >>> himself, embezzled millions, and had been responsible for torturing
political opponents.
A "deal" to let innocent people survive their attack?
Listen to yourself.
The hostages were never at risk of being killed. And as they worked in
the US Embassy they should have expected to represent the United States
in any political dispute.
Is that a quote from Essex University Students' Union c. 1978?
You can say that this was morally indefensible and a breach of
international law etc, but obviously the Iranian authorities were not
going to send in the equivalent of the SAS and kill the students who
were making these reasonable demands and were supportive of the Iranian
regime.
Compare and contrast how America demanded that Afghanistan should hand
over Osama bin Laden, without any form of judicial extradition process,
failing which America would bomb Afghanistan to buggery. A threat that
they acted upon, in breach of international law.
The Afghan government made it clear that that gentleman was an
"honoured guest" and that they saw no reason to surrender him to justice.
That's probably what the Americans said about the Shah. The difference
is, Iran didn't bomb America to ensure the capture of their disgraced
and disreputable former king.
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
On 17/06/2025 18:12, The Todal wrote:
The Afghan government made it clear that that gentleman was anThat's probably what the Americans said about the Shah. The difference
"honoured guest" and that they saw no reason to surrender him to justice. >>
is, Iran didn't bomb America to ensure the capture of their disgraced
and disreputable former king.
As it happens, you've chosen a terrible analogy.
From WP:
"The Shah suffered from gallstones that required prompt surgery. He was offered treatment in Switzerland but insisted on treatment in the United States. President Carter did not wish to admit Mohammad Reza to the U.S.
but came under pressure from Henry Kissinger, who phoned Carter to say
he would not endorse the SALT II treaty that Carter had just signed with
the Soviet Union unless the former Shah was allowed into the United
States, reportedly prompting Carter more than once to hang up his phone
in rage in the Oval Office and shout "Fuck the Shah!".[277] Because many Republicans were attacking the SALT II treaty as a U.S. give-away to the Soviet Union, Carter desired the endorsement of a Republican elder
statesman like Kissinger to fend off this criticism."
The Shah was extremely sick with cancer and died 18 months after exile.
On 17/06/2025 18:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Jun 2025 at 17:35:01 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 17/06/2025 15:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Jun 2025 at 15:19:49 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that the >>>>>>> Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of nuclear >>>>>>> weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made those >>>>>> calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their citizens >>>>>> martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the relevant >>>>> data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its citizens as >>>>> expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
I think you're making excuses for the Israelis, not for the first time. >>>>> Of course they can pulverise Tehran, bombard journalists and TV
stations, and hospitals in Iran. Because, how convenient, even the
government of Iran doesn't care about the resulting deaths and injuries. >>>>> Mazel tov.
The sheer effrontery of the Israelis complaining that Iran is attacking >>>> civilian targets is amusing.
That sounds a bit much, doesn't it. Do you have a linky?
Most of us have heard them saying it!
Especially as the Israelis have the technology to
choose their targets, and the Iranians probably don't.
I don't think that's correct. The Iranian Shahed drones are highly
accurate, and the Iranians could easily incorporate the same tech into
their missiles.
A sensible strategy would be to have some cheap crude missiles intended
to exhaust the air defences, plus some accurate missiles intended to
slip through and hit targets.
Can you see the statistical problem with that approach? On average, which kind
of missile is more likely to randomly get through?
You're assuming they all arrive at the same time.
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 17:28, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 15:19, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that
the Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of
nuclear weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made
those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all
their citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
Perhaps, you need to be reminded of the child soldiers in the Iran-
Iraq war.
Once you've watched the BBC documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZRvpuW8QM
"They released the names of 200,000 martyrs. Over 70,000 of them were
teenage schoolboys."
https://iranwire.com/en/features/66696/
"Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has praised young students
willing to put themselves on the frontline,"
These are their own children. They are meant to be protecting them.
You want to read some of the Supreme Leader's views on martyrdom?
https://english.khamenei.ir/news/10023/Elevated-status-of-martyrdom-
a- common-teaching-of-all-divine
https://www.leader.ir/en/content/27649/Leader-s-Message-on-the-
Martyrdom-of-Resistance-Leader-Sayyid-Hassan-Nasrallah
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 17:28, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 15:19, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that
the Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of
nuclear weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made
those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their >>>>> citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
Perhaps, you need to be reminded of the child soldiers in the Iran-
Iraq war.
Once you've watched the BBC documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZRvpuW8QM
"They released the names of 200,000 martyrs. Over 70,000 of them were
teenage schoolboys."
https://iranwire.com/en/features/66696/
"Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has praised young students
willing to put themselves on the frontline,"
These are their own children. They are meant to be protecting them.
You want to read some of the Supreme Leader's views on martyrdom?
https://english.khamenei.ir/news/10023/Elevated-status-of-martyrdom-a-
common-teaching-of-all-divine
https://www.leader.ir/en/content/27649/Leader-s-Message-on-the-
Martyrdom-of-Resistance-Leader-Sayyid-Hassan-Nasrallah
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
On 17/06/2025 19:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical. >>> You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's >>> no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better >>> than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakahola_Forest_incident
427 Christians starved themselves to death in order to meet Jesus.
On 17/06/2025 19:12, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 17:28, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 15:19, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that >>>>>>> the Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of
nuclear weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made
those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all
their citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
Perhaps, you need to be reminded of the child soldiers in the Iran-
Iraq war.
Once you've watched the BBC documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZRvpuW8QM
"They released the names of 200,000 martyrs. Over 70,000 of them were
teenage schoolboys."
https://iranwire.com/en/features/66696/
"Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has praised young students
willing to put themselves on the frontline,"
These are their own children. They are meant to be protecting them.
You want to read some of the Supreme Leader's views on martyrdom?
https://english.khamenei.ir/news/10023/Elevated-status-of-martyrdom-
a- common-teaching-of-all-divine
https://www.leader.ir/en/content/27649/Leader-s-Message-on-the-
Martyrdom-of-Resistance-Leader-Sayyid-Hassan-Nasrallah
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
It's actually the Israelis who are willing to destroy themselves in a
nuclear war rather than surrender their land. They are the loony
extremists, the fuckwits who don't value the lives of their own people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
The Samson Option is Israel's deterrence strategy of massive retaliation
with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against a country whose military
has invaded and/or destroyed much of Israel. The name is a reference to
the biblical Israelite judge Samson who pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and
thousands of Philistines who had captured him.
On 16/06/2025 10:12 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jun 2025 14:30:38 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 16/06/2025 11:45, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:20, GB wrote:
On 15/06/2025 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the >>>>>> original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant
language by
Which language are you talking about that's no longer extant?
IIRC parts of the old testament are recorded only in ancient Greek, and >>>> parts in ancient Hebrew. Neither of which bare much relationship to the >>>> languages spoken today, any more than Middle English relates to the
language we use today. (try reading Chaucer!)
Almost none of the OT was written in Common Greek, although (IIRC)
almost the whole of the NT was.
Modern Hebrew is very similar to biblical Hebrew, although there are
extra words like ????????????
Yes, that's similar to the way that modern Latin (as used as a lingua franca >> by the Catholic Church) is pretty much the same as classical Latin, because >> it has been deliberately preserved to be so.
But, in both cases, the reason why the modern version is the same as the
classical version is because they died out of common usage and were kept
alive only by scholars and those who chose to learn them as a second
language. Colloquial Latin gave way to Italian, French and other Romance
languages, and colloquial Hebrew gave way to Aramaic and Yiddish. Post-WWII >> Judaism has revived Hebrew as a colloquial language, maybe one day we'll see >> a similar colloquial revival of Latin.
Isn't Yiddish a Hebrew-influenced form of German rather than an evolved >version of Hebrew?
It certainly looks like it.
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
On 17/06/2025 19:12, GB wrote:
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits,
there's no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed,
it's better than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
It's actually the Israelis who are willing to destroy themselves in a
nuclear war rather than surrender their land. They are the loony
extremists, the fuckwits who don't value the lives of their own people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
The Samson Option is Israel's deterrence strategy of massive retaliation
with nuclear weapons as a "last resort" against a country whose military
has invaded and/or destroyed much of Israel. The name is a reference to
the biblical Israelite judge Samson who pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple, bringing down the roof and killing himself and
thousands of Philistines who had captured him.
On 17 Jun 2025 at 19:12:17 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 17:28, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 15:19, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that >>>>>>> the Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of
nuclear weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made
those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their >>>>>> citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
Perhaps, you need to be reminded of the child soldiers in the Iran-
Iraq war.
Once you've watched the BBC documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZRvpuW8QM
"They released the names of 200,000 martyrs. Over 70,000 of them were
teenage schoolboys."
https://iranwire.com/en/features/66696/
"Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has praised young students
willing to put themselves on the frontline,"
These are their own children. They are meant to be protecting them.
You want to read some of the Supreme Leader's views on martyrdom?
https://english.khamenei.ir/news/10023/Elevated-status-of-martyrdom-a- >>>> common-teaching-of-all-divine
https://www.leader.ir/en/content/27649/Leader-s-Message-on-the-
Martyrdom-of-Resistance-Leader-Sayyid-Hassan-Nasrallah
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Christians believe the same but for some reason you only seem to ascribe this sort of decision making to Muslim leaders. Now why would that be?
On 17/06/2025 07:53 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical. >>> You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's >>> no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better >>> than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
Not even those who flew airliners into skyscrapers?
On 17/06/2025 08:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Jun 2025 at 19:12:17 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid>
wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 17:28, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 15:19, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that >>>>>>>> the Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of >>>>>>>> nuclear weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made >>>>>>> those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their >>>>>>> citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its >>>>>> citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
Perhaps, you need to be reminded of the child soldiers in the Iran-
Iraq war.
Once you've watched the BBC documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZRvpuW8QM
"They released the names of 200,000 martyrs. Over 70,000 of them were >>>>> teenage schoolboys."
https://iranwire.com/en/features/66696/
"Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has praised young students
willing to put themselves on the frontline,"
These are their own children. They are meant to be protecting them.
You want to read some of the Supreme Leader's views on martyrdom?
https://english.khamenei.ir/news/10023/Elevated-status-of-martyrdom-a- >>>>> common-teaching-of-all-divine
https://www.leader.ir/en/content/27649/Leader-s-Message-on-the-
Martyrdom-of-Resistance-Leader-Sayyid-Hassan-Nasrallah
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical. >>> You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's >>> no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better >>> than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Christians believe the same but for some reason you only seem to
ascribe this
sort of decision making to Muslim leaders. Now why would that be?
Committing murder-suicide is not martyrdom within the beliefs of Christianity.
What made you think it was?
Perhaps, you need to be reminded of the child soldiers in the Iran-Iraq
war.
Once you've watched the BBC documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZRvpuW8QM
"They released the names of 200,000 martyrs. Over 70,000 of them were
teenage schoolboys."
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
On 17/06/2025 23:14, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 08:26 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 17:28, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 15:19, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that >>>>>>>>> the Iranian government can't make the same calculations about >>>>>>>>> first use of nuclear weapons that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made >>>>>>>> those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all >>>>>>>> their citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its >>>>>>> citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
Perhaps, you need to be reminded of the child soldiers in the Iran- >>>>>> Iraq war.
Once you've watched the BBC documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZRvpuW8QM
"They released the names of 200,000 martyrs. Over 70,000 of them were >>>>>> teenage schoolboys."
https://iranwire.com/en/features/66696/
"Iran's leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has praised young students
willing to put themselves on the frontline,"
These are their own children. They are meant to be protecting them.
You want to read some of the Supreme Leader's views on martyrdom?
https://english.khamenei.ir/news/10023/Elevated-status-of-martyrdom-a-
common-teaching-of-all-divine
https://www.leader.ir/en/content/27649/Leader-s-Message-on-the-
Martyrdom-of-Resistance-Leader-Sayyid-Hassan-Nasrallah
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its >>>>> citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral >>>>> for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every >>>>> man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are
fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits,
there's no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball.
Indeed, it's better than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Christians believe the same but for some reason you only seem to
ascribe this sort of decision making to Muslim leaders. Now why
would that be?
Committing murder-suicide is not martyrdom within the beliefs of
Christianity.
What made you think it was?
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
On 17/06/2025 23:10, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 07:53 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its >>>>> citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral >>>>> for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every >>>>> man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are
fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits,
there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's
better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
Not even those who flew airliners into skyscrapers?
Not even those people.
There are people who are so devoted to their
political cause that they are willing to die for it regardless of any
belief in an afterlife.
It is a convenient fiction to see them as deluded religious nutcases who
want to fuck forty virgins in the afterlife.
On 17/06/2025 17:28, GB wrote:
Perhaps, you need to be reminded of the child soldiers in the Iran-
Iraq war.
Once you've watched the BBC documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHZRvpuW8QM
"They released the names of 200,000 martyrs. Over 70,000 of them were
teenage schoolboys."
Would they have known what to do with their virgins?
(In WW2, teenage conscripts' main fear was that they would die as virgins.)
On 18/06/2025 09:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 23:10, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 07:53 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing >>>> to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
Not even those who flew airliners into skyscrapers?
Not even those people.
Eh? !
Yes, THOSE people especially.
There are people who are so devoted to their
political cause that they are willing to die for it regardless of any
belief in an afterlife.
But that is not a description of those September 2001 hijackers, so was adduced only to muddy the waters.
It is a convenient fiction to see them as deluded religious nutcases who
want to fuck forty virgins in the afterlife.
It is, by all accounts, what they are promised. Afterlife is a central
part of Christianity and Islam.
On 18/06/2025 09:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 23:10, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 07:53 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its >>>>>> citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral >>>>>> for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every >>>>>> man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are
fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are >>>>> fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits,
there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's
better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing >>>> to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
Not even those who flew airliners into skyscrapers?
Not even those people.
Eh? !
Yes, THOSE people especially.
There are people who are so devoted to their
political cause that they are willing to die for it regardless of any
belief in an afterlife.
But that is not a description of those September 2001 hijackers, so was adduced only to muddy the waters.
It is a convenient fiction to see them as deluded religious nutcases who
want to fuck forty virgins in the afterlife.
It is, by all accounts, what they are promised. Afterlife is a central
part of Christianity and Islam.
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that
the Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of
nuclear weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made
those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their
citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
I think you're making excuses for the Israelis, not for the first
time. Of course they can pulverise Tehran, bombard journalists and TV stations, and hospitals in Iran. Because, how convenient, even the
government of Iran doesn't care about the resulting deaths and
injuries. Mazel tov.
On 15:19 17 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that
the Iranian
government can't make the same calculations about first use of
nuclear weapons
that every other nuclear state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made
those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all their
citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
I think you're making excuses for the Israelis, not for the first
time. Of course they can pulverise Tehran, bombard journalists and TV
stations, and hospitals in Iran. Because, how convenient, even the
government of Iran doesn't care about the resulting deaths and
injuries. Mazel tov.
Equally great tommy rot is your earlier claim that:
"The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible - it's their
main strategy."
Message-ID: <m9h484Fhqs4U2@mid.individual.net>
It's pure hyperbole and yet you went on to defend it with random opinions which clearly did not represent government policy.
On 18 Jun 2025 at 11:50:12 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 09:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
It is a convenient fiction to see them as deluded religious nutcases who >>> want to fuck forty virgins in the afterlife.
It is, by all accounts, what they are promised. Afterlife is a central
part of Christianity and Islam.
When you say "all" accounts, you mean the accounts of their enemies don't you?
Have you read any accounts from the people engaged in the attack?
On 18/06/2025 11:50, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2025 09:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 23:10, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 07:53 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are
willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
Not even those who flew airliners into skyscrapers?
Not even those people.
Eh? !
Yes, THOSE people especially.
Nah, bollocks.
There are people who are so devoted to their
political cause that they are willing to die for it regardless of any
belief in an afterlife.
But that is not a description of those September 2001 hijackers, so
was adduced only to muddy the waters.
It is a convenient fiction to see them as deluded religious nutcases who >>> want to fuck forty virgins in the afterlife.
It is, by all accounts, what they are promised. Afterlife is a central
part of Christianity and Islam.
By all accounts? Which accounts would these be? Maybe in the Daily Mail?
The 72 virgins fantasy is there to ridicule the terrorists, and I don't
think you'll be able to demonstrate that any suicide bomber was
motivated by that belief.
Unless you were a chum of Mohammed Ata and
haven't yet handed yourself in.
Of course, any Muslim and any Christian might believe in an afterlife,
in Paradise, but the motive for detonating a bomb is always political.
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 19:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its >>>>> citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral >>>>> for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every >>>>> man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical. >>>> You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's >>>> no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better >>>> than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakahola_Forest_incident
427 Christians starved themselves to death in order to meet Jesus.
Not according to the article you linked they didn't. And you'll note
that the leader certainly didn't fancy facing a rapid journey to the afterlife, in that he was found and arrested alive.
But even if what you said was true... would you say it was common?
On 18/06/2025 12:27 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/06/2025 11:50, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2025 09:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 23:10, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 07:53 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are
willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
Not even those who flew airliners into skyscrapers?
Not even those people.
Eh? !
Yes, THOSE people especially.
Nah, bollocks.
There are people who are so devoted to their
political cause that they are willing to die for it regardless of any
belief in an afterlife.
But that is not a description of those September 2001 hijackers, so
was adduced only to muddy the waters.
It is a convenient fiction to see them as deluded religious nutcases who >>>> want to fuck forty virgins in the afterlife.
It is, by all accounts, what they are promised. Afterlife is a central
part of Christianity and Islam.
By all accounts? Which accounts would these be? Maybe in the Daily Mail?
I don't think so. It might have been, but I didn't see it there.
However, wherever I saw it, you've seen it too.
Howver, I'll concede that it can be, and probably often is, oversimplified.
From Copilot just now:
QUOTE:
"The idea that male Muslim martyrs are promised 72 virgins in the
afterlife is a widely circulated claim, but it’s often misunderstood and oversimplified."
"The number 72 comes from a hadith (a saying attributed to the Prophet Muhammad), not the Qur’an. In one narration found in the Sunan of al-Tirmidhi, it’s stated that a martyr is granted several rewards, one
of which includes being married to 72 companions in Paradise. However,
this is just one part of a broader description of heavenly rewards,
which also include forgiveness, protection from punishment, and
intercession for loved ones."
www.islamqa.org
ENDQUOTE
So it's there - and it isn't really credible that the companions who
will marry the martyr will not be virgins.
The 72 virgins fantasy is there to ridicule the terrorists, and I don't
think you'll be able to demonstrate that any suicide bomber was
motivated by that belief.
Of course I can't. What a ridiculous thing to remark on. They're dead.
Unless you were a chum of Mohammed Ata and
haven't yet handed yourself in.
WTMM.
Of course, any Muslim and any Christian might believe in an afterlife,
in Paradise, but the motive for detonating a bomb is always political.
How do you (think you) know that?
On 17/06/2025 20:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 19:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its >>>>>> citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral >>>>>> for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every >>>>>> man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical. >>>>> You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are >>>>> fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's >>>>> no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better >>>>> than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing >>>> to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakahola_Forest_incident
427 Christians starved themselves to death in order to meet Jesus.
Not according to the article you linked they didn't. And you'll note
that the leader certainly didn't fancy facing a rapid journey to the
afterlife, in that he was found and arrested alive.
But even if what you said was true... would you say it was common?
No, I don't think it's common. Read again what I said above:
"I think they [the mullahs in charge of Iran] are fanatical enough to
start a nuclear war, even if that's against the wishes of their population."
So, I agree that most people don't want to be martyred. The question is whether Khameini and his pals would welcome martyrdom. I think they
might well choose to start a nuclear war that kills around 8m Israelis
and 80m Iranians.
The questions is whether you would want to bet your own life on it?
On 17/06/2025 20:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 19:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its >>>>>> citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral >>>>>> for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every >>>>>> man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy.
That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical. >>>>> You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are >>>>> fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the
wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's >>>>> no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better >>>>> than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing >>>> to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakahola_Forest_incident
427 Christians starved themselves to death in order to meet Jesus.
Not according to the article you linked they didn't. And you'll note
that the leader certainly didn't fancy facing a rapid journey to the
afterlife, in that he was found and arrested alive.
But even if what you said was true... would you say it was common?
No, I don't think it's common. Read again what I said above:
"I think they [the mullahs in charge of Iran] are fanatical enough to
start a nuclear war, even if that's against the wishes of their population."
So, I agree that most people don't want to be martyred. The question is whether Khameini and his pals would welcome martyrdom. I think they
might well choose to start a nuclear war that kills around 8m Israelis
and 80m Iranians.
The questions is whether you would want to bet your own life on it?
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
On 18 Jun 2025 at 19:50:36 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 20:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 19:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its >>>>>>> citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its >>>>>>> citizens martyrs".That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical. >>>>>> You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are >>>>>> fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the >>>>>> wishes of their population.
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral >>>>>>> for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every >>>>>>> man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy. >>>>>>
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's >>>>>> no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better >>>>>> than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing >>>>> to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakahola_Forest_incident
427 Christians starved themselves to death in order to meet Jesus.
Not according to the article you linked they didn't. And you'll note
that the leader certainly didn't fancy facing a rapid journey to the
afterlife, in that he was found and arrested alive.
But even if what you said was true... would you say it was common?
No, I don't think it's common. Read again what I said above:
"I think they [the mullahs in charge of Iran] are fanatical enough to
start a nuclear war, even if that's against the wishes of their population." >>
So, I agree that most people don't want to be martyred. The question is
whether Khameini and his pals would welcome martyrdom. I think they
might well choose to start a nuclear war that kills around 8m Israelis
and 80m Iranians.
The questions is whether you would want to bet your own life on it?
My honest belief is that either the Israelis or the Americans are much more likely to try a pre-emptive strike (and us get caught in the back-scatter). They both suffer from a religious sense of rightness and arrogant racism. The Ayotollahs also believe they have God on their side but a) I don't think they have the same sense of racial superiority, and b) I think they feel a real sense of responsibility to 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. So, yes, I'd rather bet my life on the Iranians than the Israelis or the yanks if I had to choose.
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
On 2025-06-18, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 20:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 19:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its >>>>>>> citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make "all its >>>>>>> citizens martyrs".That's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are fanatical. >>>>>> You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they are >>>>>> fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the >>>>>> wishes of their population.
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be immoral >>>>>>> for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter every >>>>>>> man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy. >>>>>>
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, there's >>>>>> no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's better >>>>>> than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are willing >>>>> to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakahola_Forest_incident
427 Christians starved themselves to death in order to meet Jesus.
Not according to the article you linked they didn't. And you'll note
that the leader certainly didn't fancy facing a rapid journey to the
afterlife, in that he was found and arrested alive.
But even if what you said was true... would you say it was common?
No, I don't think it's common. Read again what I said above:
"I think they [the mullahs in charge of Iran] are fanatical enough to
start a nuclear war, even if that's against the wishes of their population."
Read again what I said above: "Almost nobody believes...". You disagreed
by showing that I would have been wrong if I said "Nobody believes...".
I didn't say that.
So, I agree that most people don't want to be martyred. The question is
whether Khameini and his pals would welcome martyrdom. I think they
might well choose to start a nuclear war that kills around 8m Israelis
and 80m Iranians.
I think that, like your Shakahola Forest example, they might be
perfectly happy to martyr significant numbers of their countrymen,
but would not volunteer themselves for the same fate.
The questions is whether you would want to bet your own life on it?
Ah, so "let's bomb Iran!" is a risk-free option, is it?
On 18/06/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
I think you'd have to ask an Imam. I'm not an Imam.
But maybe any IRA bomber who blows himself up whilst preparing a bomb
would be regarded by the IRA as a martyr. Does that actually tell you
whether he would be a martyr, in any sense, in any religion?
On 18 Jun 2025 at 19:59:20 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
By whom? Not by most Muslims, no.
On 18/06/2025 21:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 19:59:20 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
By whom? Not by most Muslims, no.
Well, privately, some/many muslims may think that suicide bombers are
utter fools. But, publicly, they are described as martyrs.
I have no idea where you get your 'most muslims' from? Some sort of poll?
On 18/06/2025 21:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-18, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 20:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 19:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its >>>>>>>> citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to makeThat's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are
"all its
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be
immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter >>>>>>>> every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy. >>>>>>>
fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they >>>>>>> are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the >>>>>>> wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, >>>>>>> there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's >>>>>>> better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are
willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakahola_Forest_incident
427 Christians starved themselves to death in order to meet Jesus.
Not according to the article you linked they didn't. And you'll note
that the leader certainly didn't fancy facing a rapid journey to the
afterlife, in that he was found and arrested alive.
But even if what you said was true... would you say it was common?
No, I don't think it's common. Read again what I said above:
"I think they [the mullahs in charge of Iran] are fanatical enough to
start a nuclear war, even if that's against the wishes of their
population."
Read again what I said above: "Almost nobody believes...". You disagreed
by showing that I would have been wrong if I said "Nobody believes...".
I didn't say that.
You appeared to be disagreeing with me. And, as you well know, on Usenet
it is *extremely* important that no hint of disagreement is allowed.
So, I agree that most people don't want to be martyred. The question is
whether Khameini and his pals would welcome martyrdom. I think they
might well choose to start a nuclear war that kills around 8m Israelis
and 80m Iranians.
I think that, like your Shakahola Forest example, they might be
perfectly happy to martyr significant numbers of their countrymen,
but would not volunteer themselves for the same fate.
The questions is whether you would want to bet your own life on it?
Ah, so "let's bomb Iran!" is a risk-free option, is it?
No. I agree it's not at all ideal. Ideal would have been for Iran to
give up its bomb-building strategy. They've been working towards a
nuclear arsenal for decades, and it scares the shit out of their
neighbours, especially the Sunni nations around them.
Bear in mind that, at least until a few days ago, Iran had 50,000 ultra- centrifuges. At say £1m each, that's an enormous investment. They needed only a tiny fraction of that number for Uranium enrichment for civil purposes.
On 18/06/2025 22:47, The Todal wrote:
On 18/06/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be
a martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
I think you'd have to ask an Imam. I'm not an Imam.
But maybe any IRA bomber who blows himself up whilst preparing a bomb
would be regarded by the IRA as a martyr. Does that actually tell you
whether he would be a martyr, in any sense, in any religion?
I was merely contradicting your assertion that martyrdom in Islam
"involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else".
The Israeli ambassador to the UK was on Peston yesterday. She is Tzipi Hotovely, a fervent Zionist. Peston interrupted her throughout and she
had some difficulty finishing any sentence.
She is convinced that Iran is determined to destroy Israel and that if
we "cut off the head of the snake" the threat will disappear. When did
it ever work to cut off the head of any nation, any terrorist group? You
can bludgeon your enemy into submission but does that ever lead to
amicable co-existence in the long term?
She peddled the usual lie that Hamas are stealing all the aid supplies
in Gaza and selling them to the civilians which justifies slaughtering everyone who is queueing for food.
On 19/06/2025 08:48, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 21:21, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-18, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 20:36, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 19:53, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-06-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/06/2025 18:21, The Todal wrote:
No, that doesn't show that the government of Iran regards all its >>>>>>>>> citizens as expendable or that, in your words, wants to make >>>>>>>>> "all itsThat's just side-tracking. My thesis was that the mullahs are
citizens martyrs".
But needless to say, if it did have that attitude it would be >>>>>>>>> immoral
for Israel to say "okay, let's go along with that and slaughter >>>>>>>>> every
man Jack of them". Which seems to be the current Israeli strategy. >>>>>>>>
fanatical.
You can argue about just how fanatical they are, but I think they >>>>>>>> are
fanatical enough to start a nuclear war, even if that's against the >>>>>>>> wishes of their population.
If you believe that dying a martyr's death only brings benefits, >>>>>>>> there's
no downside to being engulfed in a nuclear fireball. Indeed, it's >>>>>>>> better
than dying peacefully and having to face judgement.
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are
willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakahola_Forest_incident
427 Christians starved themselves to death in order to meet Jesus.
Not according to the article you linked they didn't. And you'll note >>>>> that the leader certainly didn't fancy facing a rapid journey to the >>>>> afterlife, in that he was found and arrested alive.
But even if what you said was true... would you say it was common?
No, I don't think it's common. Read again what I said above:
"I think they [the mullahs in charge of Iran] are fanatical enough to
start a nuclear war, even if that's against the wishes of their
population."
Read again what I said above: "Almost nobody believes...". You disagreed >>> by showing that I would have been wrong if I said "Nobody believes...".
I didn't say that.
You appeared to be disagreeing with me. And, as you well know, on Usenet
it is *extremely* important that no hint of disagreement is allowed.
So, I agree that most people don't want to be martyred. The question is >>>> whether Khameini and his pals would welcome martyrdom. I think they
might well choose to start a nuclear war that kills around 8m Israelis >>>> and 80m Iranians.
I think that, like your Shakahola Forest example, they might be
perfectly happy to martyr significant numbers of their countrymen,
but would not volunteer themselves for the same fate.
The questions is whether you would want to bet your own life on it?
Ah, so "let's bomb Iran!" is a risk-free option, is it?
No. I agree it's not at all ideal. Ideal would have been for Iran to
give up its bomb-building strategy. They've been working towards a
nuclear arsenal for decades, and it scares the shit out of their
neighbours, especially the Sunni nations around them.
Bear in mind that, at least until a few days ago, Iran had 50,000 ultra-
centrifuges. At say £1m each, that's an enormous investment. They needed
only a tiny fraction of that number for Uranium enrichment for civil
purposes.
The Israeli ambassador to the UK was on Peston yesterday. She is Tzipi Hotovely, a fervent Zionist. Peston interrupted her throughout and she
had some difficulty finishing any sentence.
She is convinced that Iran is determined to destroy Israel and that if
we "cut off the head of the snake" the threat will disappear. When did
it ever work to cut off the head of any nation, any terrorist group? You
can bludgeon your enemy into submission but does that ever lead to
amicable co-existence in the long term?
She peddled the usual lie that Hamas are stealing all the aid supplies
in Gaza and selling them to the civilians which justifies slaughtering everyone who is queueing for food.
On 19/06/2025 09:05, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 22:47, The Todal wrote:
On 18/06/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be
a martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
I think you'd have to ask an Imam. I'm not an Imam.
But maybe any IRA bomber who blows himself up whilst preparing a bomb
would be regarded by the IRA as a martyr. Does that actually tell you
whether he would be a martyr, in any sense, in any religion?
I was merely contradicting your assertion that martyrdom in Islam
"involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else".
I don't think the average IRA member was a Muslim but you might have
more up to date figures.
Perhaps there is a theological group in Usenet that would help you with questions about who qualifies to be a martyr in various religions.
On 18 Jun 2025 at 16:01:26 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 12:27 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/06/2025 11:50, JNugent wrote:I don't think so. It might have been, but I didn't see it there.
On 18/06/2025 09:55 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/06/2025 23:10, JNugent wrote:
On 17/06/2025 07:53 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Almost nobody believes in an afterlife so solidly that they are
willing
to kill themselves for it, no matter what they might say.
Not even those who flew airliners into skyscrapers?
Not even those people.
Eh? !
Yes, THOSE people especially.
Nah, bollocks.
There are people who are so devoted to their
political cause that they are willing to die for it regardless of any >>>>> belief in an afterlife.
But that is not a description of those September 2001 hijackers, so
was adduced only to muddy the waters.
It is a convenient fiction to see them as deluded religious nutcases who >>>>> want to fuck forty virgins in the afterlife.
It is, by all accounts, what they are promised. Afterlife is a central >>>> part of Christianity and Islam.
By all accounts? Which accounts would these be? Maybe in the Daily Mail? >>
However, wherever I saw it, you've seen it too.
Howver, I'll concede that it can be, and probably often is, oversimplified. >>
From Copilot just now:
QUOTE:
"The idea that male Muslim martyrs are promised 72 virgins in the
afterlife is a widely circulated claim, but it’s often misunderstood and >> oversimplified."
"The number 72 comes from a hadith (a saying attributed to the Prophet
Muhammad), not the Qur’an. In one narration found in the Sunan of
al-Tirmidhi, it’s stated that a martyr is granted several rewards, one
of which includes being married to 72 companions in Paradise. However,
this is just one part of a broader description of heavenly rewards,
which also include forgiveness, protection from punishment, and
intercession for loved ones."
www.islamqa.org
ENDQUOTE
So it's there - and it isn't really credible that the companions who
will marry the martyr will not be virgins.
The 72 virgins fantasy is there to ridicule the terrorists, and I don't
think you'll be able to demonstrate that any suicide bomber was
motivated by that belief.
Of course I can't. What a ridiculous thing to remark on. They're dead.
Unless you were a chum of Mohammed Ata and
haven't yet handed yourself in.
WTMM.
Of course, any Muslim and any Christian might believe in an afterlife,
in Paradise, but the motive for detonating a bomb is always political.
How do you (think you) know that?
There's lots of strange things in the bible. That doesn't mean that any christian soldier who does something brave he is unlikely to survive from is automatically motivated by one of them.
It remains simply a slur to undermine
our enemies rather than a serious proposition.
On 18 Jun 2025 at 19:59:20 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
By whom? Not by most Muslims, no.
On 18/06/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
I think you'd have to ask an Imam. I'm not an Imam.
But maybe any IRA bomber who blows himself up whilst preparing a bomb
would be regarded by the IRA as a martyr.
Does that actually tell you
whether he would be a martyr, in any sense, in any religion?
On 19 Jun 2025 at 09:00:37 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 21:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 19:59:20 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a >>>>> martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
By whom? Not by most Muslims, no.
Well, privately, some/many muslims may think that suicide bombers are
utter fools. But, publicly, they are described as martyrs.
I have no idea where you get your 'most muslims' from? Some sort of poll?
Do you have any reputable Muslim sources for your assertion? Or just ISIS and its Israeli counterparts?
The Israeli ambassador to the UK was on Peston yesterday. She is Tzipi Hotovely, a fervent Zionist. Peston interrupted her throughout and she
had some difficulty finishing any sentence.
She is convinced that Iran is determined to destroy Israel and that if
we "cut off the head of the snake" the threat will disappear. When did
it ever work to cut off the head of any nation, any terrorist group? You
can bludgeon your enemy into submission but does that ever lead to
amicable co-existence in the long term?
She peddled the usual lie that Hamas are stealing all the aid supplies
in Gaza and selling them to the civilians which justifies slaughtering everyone who is queueing for food.
On 19 Jun 2025 at 09:00:37 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 18/06/2025 21:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Jun 2025 at 19:59:20 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>>
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a >>>>> martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
By whom? Not by most Muslims, no.
Well, privately, some/many muslims may think that suicide bombers are
utter fools. But, publicly, they are described as martyrs.
I have no idea where you get your 'most muslims' from? Some sort of poll?
Do you have any reputable Muslim sources for your assertion? Or just ISIS and its Israeli counterparts?
On 19/06/2025 11:43, The Todal wrote:
The Israeli ambassador to the UK was on Peston yesterday. She is Tzipi
Hotovely, a fervent Zionist. Peston interrupted her throughout and she
had some difficulty finishing any sentence.
She is convinced that Iran is determined to destroy Israel and that if
we "cut off the head of the snake" the threat will disappear. When did
it ever work to cut off the head of any nation, any terrorist group? You
can bludgeon your enemy into submission but does that ever lead to
amicable co-existence in the long term?
All of the Iranians I have met have been lovely, charming people. I wish
them no harm at all. If they choose to be governed by religious
hardliners, that's their prerogative, I wouldn't try to change it.
On 18/06/2025 13:17, Pamela wrote:
On 15:19 17 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that
the Iranian government can't make the same calculations about
first use of nuclear weapons that every other nuclear state can
make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made
those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all
their citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
I think you're making excuses for the Israelis, not for the first
time. Of course they can pulverise Tehran, bombard journalists and
TV stations, and hospitals in Iran. Because, how convenient, even
the government of Iran doesn't care about the resulting deaths and
injuries. Mazel tov.
Equally great tommy rot is your earlier claim that:
"The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible - it's
their main strategy."
Message-ID: <m9h484Fhqs4U2@mid.individual.net>
It's pure hyperbole and yet you went on to defend it with random
opinions which clearly did not represent government policy.
It's true, though. You can be as obsequious towards the Israelis as
you like, but they defy international law routinely. They are
murderers. Do your homework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
The Dahiya doctrine, or Dahya doctrine, is an Israeli military
strategy involving the large-scale destruction of civilian
infrastructure, or domicide, to pressure hostile governments.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/05/ israel-disproportionate-force-tactic-infrastructure-economy- civilian-casualties
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6491/Israeli-army%27s- intention-to-deliberately-kill-civilians-and-non-combatants- and-prevent-aid-and-relief-to-them,-disregarding-international-law
On 14:28 18 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 18/06/2025 13:17, Pamela wrote:
On 15:19 17 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest that
the Iranian government can't make the same calculations about
first use of nuclear weapons that every other nuclear state can
make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made
those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all
their citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all its
citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
I think you're making excuses for the Israelis, not for the first
time. Of course they can pulverise Tehran, bombard journalists and
TV stations, and hospitals in Iran. Because, how convenient, even
the government of Iran doesn't care about the resulting deaths and
injuries. Mazel tov.
Equally great tommy rot is your earlier claim that:
"The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible - it's
their main strategy."
Message-ID: <m9h484Fhqs4U2@mid.individual.net>
It's pure hyperbole and yet you went on to defend it with random
opinions which clearly did not represent government policy.
It's true, though. You can be as obsequious towards the Israelis as
you like, but they defy international law routinely. They are
murderers. Do your homework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
The Dahiya doctrine, or Dahya doctrine, is an Israeli military
strategy involving the large-scale destruction of civilian
infrastructure, or domicide, to pressure hostile governments.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/05/
israel-disproportionate-force-tactic-infrastructure-economy-
civilian-casualties
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6491/Israeli-army%27s-
intention-to-deliberately-kill-civilians-and-non-combatants-
and-prevent-aid-and-relief-to-them,-disregarding-international-law
Thank you for the links but we seem to be talking at crossed purposes.
You wrote "The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible".
However your supporting links refer to a "strategy involving the
large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure, or domicide".
Killing civilians is not the same thing as attacking civilian
infrastructure.
Perhaps you are thinking of Hamas? It has a charter (the Hamas
Covenant) which calls for the genocide of all Jews worldwide.
On 19/06/2025 11:43, The Todal wrote:
The Israeli ambassador to the UK was on Peston yesterday. She is Tzipi
Hotovely, a fervent Zionist. Peston interrupted her throughout and she
had some difficulty finishing any sentence.
She is convinced that Iran is determined to destroy Israel and that if
we "cut off the head of the snake" the threat will disappear. When did
it ever work to cut off the head of any nation, any terrorist group?
You can bludgeon your enemy into submission but does that ever lead to
amicable co-existence in the long term?
All of the Iranians I have met have been lovely, charming people. I wish
them no harm at all. If they choose to be governed by religious
hardliners, that's their prerogative, I wouldn't try to change it.
I would like them to give up their nuclear weapons programme, though.
She peddled the usual lie that Hamas are stealing all the aid supplies
in Gaza and selling them to the civilians which justifies slaughtering
everyone who is queueing for food.
I can believe she said the first part of that, but not the second. What exactly DID she say?
On 18/06/2025 10:47 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/06/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
I think you'd have to ask an Imam. I'm not an Imam.
But maybe any IRA bomber who blows himself up whilst preparing a bomb
would be regarded by the IRA as a martyr.
Really?
Where does that come from?
Does that actually tell you
whether he would be a martyr, in any sense, in any religion?
Since the IRA is not a religion, one can only marvel at the diversion.
On 19/06/2025 12:38, GB wrote:
On 19/06/2025 11:43, The Todal wrote:
The Israeli ambassador to the UK was on Peston yesterday. She is
Tzipi Hotovely, a fervent Zionist. Peston interrupted her throughout
and she had some difficulty finishing any sentence.
She is convinced that Iran is determined to destroy Israel and that
if we "cut off the head of the snake" the threat will disappear. When
did it ever work to cut off the head of any nation, any terrorist
group? You can bludgeon your enemy into submission but does that ever
lead to amicable co-existence in the long term?
All of the Iranians I have met have been lovely, charming people. I
wish them no harm at all. If they choose to be governed by religious
hardliners, that's their prerogative, I wouldn't try to change it.
I would like them to give up their nuclear weapons programme, though.
And we'd all like North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. Any such pledges from any nation are obviously worthless, are only short term.
She peddled the usual lie that Hamas are stealing all the aid
supplies in Gaza and selling them to the civilians which justifies
slaughtering everyone who is queueing for food.
I can believe she said the first part of that, but not the second.
What exactly DID she say?
He asked her to comment on the deaths inflicted by the IDF on civilians queuing for food. Her response: "I think we will see Gaza in a better
place once Hamas won't control the Gaza strip, everyone agrees on it,
and all the deaths in Gaza is due to the fact that Hamas is using people
as human shields".
and what did she say in early 2024?
Israeli ambassador to the UK Tzipi Hotovely says every school, mosque
and second house is a target for Israel.
Asked if that’s effectively a call for the destruction of all of Gaza,
she asks “do you have another solution?”
see
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24026946.lbc-israeli-ambassador-uk- says-every-gaza-building-target/
On 19 Jun 2025 at 14:43:57 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:28 18 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 18/06/2025 13:17, Pamela wrote:
On 15:19 17 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest
that the Iranian government can't make the same calculations
about first use of nuclear weapons that every other nuclear
state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made
those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all
their citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all
its citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
I think you're making excuses for the Israelis, not for the first
time. Of course they can pulverise Tehran, bombard journalists
and TV stations, and hospitals in Iran. Because, how convenient,
even the government of Iran doesn't care about the resulting
deaths and injuries. Mazel tov.
Equally great tommy rot is your earlier claim that:
"The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible - it's
their main strategy."
Message-ID: <m9h484Fhqs4U2@mid.individual.net>
It's pure hyperbole and yet you went on to defend it with random
opinions which clearly did not represent government policy.
It's true, though. You can be as obsequious towards the Israelis as
you like, but they defy international law routinely. They are
murderers. Do your homework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
The Dahiya doctrine, or Dahya doctrine, is an Israeli military
strategy involving the large-scale destruction of civilian
infrastructure, or domicide, to pressure hostile governments.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/05/
israel-disproportionate-force-tactic-infrastructure-economy-
civilian-casualties
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6491/Israeli-army%27s-
intention-to-deliberately-kill-civilians-and-non-combatants-
and-prevent-aid-and-relief-to-them,-disregarding-international-law
Thank you for the links but we seem to be talking at crossed
purposes.
You wrote "The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible".
However your supporting links refer to a "strategy involving the
large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure, or domicide".
Killing civilians is not the same thing as attacking civilian
infrastructure.
You haven't come across the proposition that people, especially the
elderly and children, don't survive very long without shelter? Or are sub-humans supposed to be better at this?
On 19/06/2025 12:09, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:47 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/06/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a >>>>> martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
I think you'd have to ask an Imam. I'm not an Imam.
But maybe any IRA bomber who blows himself up whilst preparing a bomb
would be regarded by the IRA as a martyr.
Really?
Where does that come from?
Does that actually tell you
whether he would be a martyr, in any sense, in any religion?
Since the IRA is not a religion, one can only marvel at the diversion.
Maybe "one" should try harder to follow rational conversations. I'll say again: anyone who is a martyr for their cause is a martyr only in a
political sense not in a religious sense.
Sorry if this blows your mind.
On 19/06/2025 12:38, GB wrote:
On 19/06/2025 11:43, The Todal wrote:
The Israeli ambassador to the UK was on Peston yesterday. She is
Tzipi Hotovely, a fervent Zionist. Peston interrupted her throughout
and she had some difficulty finishing any sentence.
She is convinced that Iran is determined to destroy Israel and that
if we "cut off the head of the snake" the threat will disappear. When
did it ever work to cut off the head of any nation, any terrorist
group? You can bludgeon your enemy into submission but does that ever
lead to amicable co-existence in the long term?
All of the Iranians I have met have been lovely, charming people. I
wish them no harm at all. If they choose to be governed by religious
hardliners, that's their prerogative, I wouldn't try to change it.
I would like them to give up their nuclear weapons programme, though.
And we'd all like North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. Any such pledges from any nation are obviously worthless, are only short term.
She peddled the usual lie that Hamas are stealing all the aid
supplies in Gaza and selling them to the civilians which justifies
slaughtering everyone who is queueing for food.
I can believe she said the first part of that, but not the second.
What exactly DID she say?
He asked her to comment on the deaths inflicted by the IDF on civilians queuing for food. Her response: "I think we will see Gaza in a better
place once Hamas won't control the Gaza strip, everyone agrees on it,
and all the deaths in Gaza is due to the fact that Hamas is using people
as human shields".
So, I suppose that you could argue that Iran could start the whole
process again, and any pledge is short term if by that you mean several decades.
I imagine that some of those centrifuges have already been wrecked, but
there are below-ground enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow that
as far as I am aware are still intact.
On 19/06/2025 03:59 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/06/2025 12:09, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:47 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/06/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to be a >>>>>> martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as
martyrs?
I think you'd have to ask an Imam. I'm not an Imam.
But maybe any IRA bomber who blows himself up whilst preparing a bomb
would be regarded by the IRA as a martyr.
Really?
Where does that come from?
Does that actually tell you
whether he would be a martyr, in any sense, in any religion?
Since the IRA is not a religion, one can only marvel at the diversion.
Maybe "one" should try harder to follow rational conversations. I'll say
again: anyone who is a martyr for their cause is a martyr only in a
political sense not in a religious sense.
Sorry if this blows your mind.
It doesn't, because we already know the situation to be different from
what you claim.
As another poster has previously remarked, the Supreme Leader has been
known to pronounce on the subject and one has to assume that he is authoritative within his own religion.
On 15:29 19 Jun 2025, Roger Hayter said:
On 19 Jun 2025 at 14:43:57 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:28 18 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 18/06/2025 13:17, Pamela wrote:
On 15:19 17 Jun 2025, The Todal said:
On 17/06/2025 14:59, GB wrote:
On 17/06/2025 12:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
Yes, it is extraordinarily racist of the Israelis to suggest
that the Iranian government can't make the same calculations
about first use of nuclear weapons that every other nuclear
state can make.
The point you're missing is that the Iranian government has made >>>>>>> those calculations, but they don't care. They want to make all
their citizens martyrs.
What tommy rot.
Go on, let's see your calculations and your proof and all the
relevant data to prove that the government of Iran regards all
its citizens as expendable. Let's see your GB-certified proof.
I think you're making excuses for the Israelis, not for the first
time. Of course they can pulverise Tehran, bombard journalists
and TV stations, and hospitals in Iran. Because, how convenient,
even the government of Iran doesn't care about the resulting
deaths and injuries. Mazel tov.
Equally great tommy rot is your earlier claim that:
"The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible - it's
their main strategy."
Message-ID: <m9h484Fhqs4U2@mid.individual.net>
It's pure hyperbole and yet you went on to defend it with random
opinions which clearly did not represent government policy.
It's true, though. You can be as obsequious towards the Israelis as
you like, but they defy international law routinely. They are
murderers. Do your homework.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
The Dahiya doctrine, or Dahya doctrine, is an Israeli military
strategy involving the large-scale destruction of civilian
infrastructure, or domicide, to pressure hostile governments.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/05/
israel-disproportionate-force-tactic-infrastructure-economy-
civilian-casualties
https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6491/Israeli-army%27s-
intention-to-deliberately-kill-civilians-and-non-combatants-
and-prevent-aid-and-relief-to-them,-disregarding-international-law
Thank you for the links but we seem to be talking at crossed
purposes.
You wrote "The IDF wants to kill as many civilians as possible".
However your supporting links refer to a "strategy involving the
large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure, or domicide".
Killing civilians is not the same thing as attacking civilian
infrastructure.
You haven't come across the proposition that people, especially the
elderly and children, don't survive very long without shelter? Or are
sub-humans supposed to be better at this?
"Killing" in the context of military action is quite specific.
It doesn't include things like a lack of vitamins from a poor wartime
diet or a shortage of blankets and suchlike ... although I should have guessed someone would rely on intersectionality in their argument.
On 16/06/2025 11:45 AM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:20, GB wrote:I wasn't aware of parts of the Old Testament being written in Greek
On 15/06/2025 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the >>>> original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant
language by
Which language are you talking about that's no longer extant?
IIRC parts of the old testament are recorded only in ancient Greek, and
parts in ancient Hebrew. Neither of which bare much relationship to the
languages spoken today, any more than Middle English relates to the
language we use today. (try reading Chaucer!)
rather than Hebrew. What caused that?
OTOH, it is fairly well known that the New Testament was written in
Aramaic and Greek.
On 19/06/2025 15:56, The Todal wrote:
On 19/06/2025 12:38, GB wrote:
On 19/06/2025 11:43, The Todal wrote:
The Israeli ambassador to the UK was on Peston yesterday. She is
Tzipi Hotovely, a fervent Zionist. Peston interrupted her throughout
and she had some difficulty finishing any sentence.
She is convinced that Iran is determined to destroy Israel and that
if we "cut off the head of the snake" the threat will disappear.
When did it ever work to cut off the head of any nation, any
terrorist group? You can bludgeon your enemy into submission but
does that ever lead to amicable co-existence in the long term?
All of the Iranians I have met have been lovely, charming people. I
wish them no harm at all. If they choose to be governed by religious
hardliners, that's their prerogative, I wouldn't try to change it.
I would like them to give up their nuclear weapons programme, though.
And we'd all like North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons. Any such
pledges from any nation are obviously worthless, are only short term.
Nobody would rely on a pledge. It has taken Iran decades to build their 50,000 centrifuges, and I assume that those would need to be destroyed
to show good faith.
So, I suppose that you could argue that Iran could start the whole
process again, and any pledge is short term if by that you mean several decades.
I imagine that some of those centrifuges have already been wrecked, but
there are below-ground enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow that
as far as I am aware are still intact.
She peddled the usual lie that Hamas are stealing all the aid
supplies in Gaza and selling them to the civilians which justifies
slaughtering everyone who is queueing for food.
I can believe she said the first part of that, but not the second.
What exactly DID she say?
He asked her to comment on the deaths inflicted by the IDF on
civilians queuing for food. Her response: "I think we will see Gaza in
a better place once Hamas won't control the Gaza strip, everyone
agrees on it, and all the deaths in Gaza is due to the fact that Hamas
is using people as human shields".
That's completely different?
On 19/06/2025 17:54, GB wrote:
So, I suppose that you could argue that Iran could start the whole
process again, and any pledge is short term if by that you mean
several decades.
I imagine that some of those centrifuges have already been wrecked,
but there are below-ground enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow
that as far as I am aware are still intact.
And are reported to be 80-90 metres underground, which is well beyond
the 60 metre depth the touted US GBU-57 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator'
can reach. So, that nice Mr Trump might be a bit hot airy if he thinks
he can take them out.
On 16/06/2025 12:26, JNugent wrote:
On 16/06/2025 11:45 AM, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 15/06/2025 12:20, GB wrote:I wasn't aware of parts of the Old Testament being written in Greek
On 15/06/2025 11:58, Jethro_uk wrote:
The "Bible" people love to quote from is about as far removed from the >>>>> original text as possible, translated from a no longer extant
language by
Which language are you talking about that's no longer extant?
IIRC parts of the old testament are recorded only in ancient Greek, and
parts in ancient Hebrew. Neither of which bare much relationship to the
languages spoken today, any more than Middle English relates to the
language we use today. (try reading Chaucer!)
rather than Hebrew. What caused that?
OTOH, it is fairly well known that the New Testament was written in
Aramaic and Greek.
Sounds as though I didn't remember correctly.
Ah...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint>
was an early translation _into_ Greek.
However the Hebrew of the OT isn't the Hebrew spoken today.
On 19/06/2025 17:54, GB wrote:
So, I suppose that you could argue that Iran could start the whole
process again, and any pledge is short term if by that you mean
several decades.
I imagine that some of those centrifuges have already been wrecked,
but there are below-ground enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow
that as far as I am aware are still intact.
And are reported to be 80-90 metres underground, which is well beyond
the 60 metre depth the touted US GBU-57 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator'
can reach. So, that nice Mr Trump might be a bit hot airy if he thinks
he can take them out.
On 19/06/2025 16:59, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2025 03:59 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/06/2025 12:09, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:47 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/06/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to >>>>>>> be a
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else.
Are you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as >>>>>> martyrs?
I think you'd have to ask an Imam. I'm not an Imam.
But maybe any IRA bomber who blows himself up whilst preparing a bomb >>>>> would be regarded by the IRA as a martyr.
Really?
Where does that come from?
Does that actually tell you
whether he would be a martyr, in any sense, in any religion?
Since the IRA is not a religion, one can only marvel at the diversion. >>>>
Maybe "one" should try harder to follow rational conversations. I'll say >>> again: anyone who is a martyr for their cause is a martyr only in a
political sense not in a religious sense.
Sorry if this blows your mind.
It doesn't, because we already know the situation to be different from
what you claim.
As another poster has previously remarked, the Supreme Leader has been
known to pronounce on the subject and one has to assume that he is
authoritative within his own religion.
We don't have to assume anything of the sort.
On 19/06/2025 08:59 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/06/2025 16:59, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2025 03:59 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/06/2025 12:09, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:47 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/06/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to >>>>>>>> be aAre you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as >>>>>>> martyrs?
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else. >>>>>>>
I think you'd have to ask an Imam. I'm not an Imam.
But maybe any IRA bomber who blows himself up whilst preparing a bomb >>>>>> would be regarded by the IRA as a martyr.
Really?
Where does that come from?
Does that actually tell you
whether he would be a martyr, in any sense, in any religion?
Since the IRA is not a religion, one can only marvel at the diversion. >>>>>
Maybe "one" should try harder to follow rational conversations. I'll say >>>> again: anyone who is a martyr for their cause is a martyr only in a
political sense not in a religious sense.
Sorry if this blows your mind.
It doesn't, because we already know the situation to be different from
what you claim.
As another poster has previously remarked, the Supreme Leader has been
known to pronounce on the subject and one has to assume that he is
authoritative within his own religion.
We don't have to assume anything of the sort.
What you mean is that you don't want to.
On 19/06/2025 08:38 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/06/2025 17:54, GB wrote:
So, I suppose that you could argue that Iran could start the whole
process again, and any pledge is short term if by that you mean
several decades.
I imagine that some of those centrifuges have already been wrecked,
but there are below-ground enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow
that as far as I am aware are still intact.
And are reported to be 80-90 metres underground, which is well beyond
the 60 metre depth the touted US GBU-57 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator'
can reach. So, that nice Mr Trump might be a bit hot airy if he thinks
he can take them out.
The USAAF doesn't have to drop all its bombs in one go, does it?
On 19 Jun 2025 at 22:52:58 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/06/2025 08:59 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/06/2025 16:59, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2025 03:59 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 19/06/2025 12:09, JNugent wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:47 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 18/06/2025 19:59, GB wrote:
On 18/06/2025 10:07, The Todal wrote:
Committing suicide is a major sin in Islam. In all religions, to >>>>>>>>> be aAre you suggesting that Islamic suicide bombers are not regarded as >>>>>>>> martyrs?
martyr involves suffering or dying at the hands of someone else. >>>>>>>>
I think you'd have to ask an Imam. I'm not an Imam.
But maybe any IRA bomber who blows himself up whilst preparing a bomb >>>>>>> would be regarded by the IRA as a martyr.
Really?
Where does that come from?
Does that actually tell you
whether he would be a martyr, in any sense, in any religion?
Since the IRA is not a religion, one can only marvel at the diversion. >>>>>>
Maybe "one" should try harder to follow rational conversations. I'll say >>>>> again: anyone who is a martyr for their cause is a martyr only in a
political sense not in a religious sense.
Sorry if this blows your mind.
It doesn't, because we already know the situation to be different from >>>> what you claim.
As another poster has previously remarked, the Supreme Leader has been >>>> known to pronounce on the subject and one has to assume that he is
authoritative within his own religion.
We don't have to assume anything of the sort.
What you mean is that you don't want to.
Islam does not have authoritative Pope-like figures.
He is authoritative as
far as the interpretation of religious laws that his police force enforces. He is not authoritative about Islam. That is the responsibility of individual Muslims, with only guidance from Imams etc.
And, as you could possibly know,
he doesn't even belong to the same branch of Islam as the Saudi and ISIS suicide bombers, and they would regard him as a heretic. And when he talks of martyrs he means people who have been killed for Islam (like civilian nuclear scientists) not suicide bombers.
While they might not obviously be religious
martyrs I note that Americans speak in the same sloppy, sentimental way about their soldiers having been 'blessed' to die for America.
So apart from almost everything you said being wrong, you might still have a point about religious hypocrisy, but it is not primarily a Muslim thing, more a militaristic state sort of thing. I'll give you the point that it is not the
sort of sentimental thinking the Israelis do, but their American collaborators
do.
On 19/06/2025 22:52, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2025 08:38 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/06/2025 17:54, GB wrote:
So, I suppose that you could argue that Iran could start the whole
process again, and any pledge is short term if by that you mean
several decades.
I imagine that some of those centrifuges have already been wrecked,
but there are below-ground enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow
that as far as I am aware are still intact.
And are reported to be 80-90 metres underground, which is well beyond
the 60 metre depth the touted US GBU-57 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator'
can reach. So, that nice Mr Trump might be a bit hot airy if he thinks
he can take them out.
The USAAF doesn't have to drop all its bombs in one go, does it?
No, but they are rather specialist ground penetrating devices weighing
30,000 pounds each. Despite their size, they still can't remove huge mountain tops, especially from depth, but are designed to penetrate down
to what you want to destroy, then explode, probably in so doing causing
no visible signs on the surface. Multiple such bombs don't act
cumulatively therefore as surface weapons do, so you need ones that can penetrate rather deeper than current information says they can.
On 20/06/2025 08:14 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/06/2025 22:52, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2025 08:38 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/06/2025 17:54, GB wrote:
So, I suppose that you could argue that Iran could start the whole
process again, and any pledge is short term if by that you mean
several decades.
I imagine that some of those centrifuges have already been wrecked,
but there are below-ground enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow >>>>> that as far as I am aware are still intact.
And are reported to be 80-90 metres underground, which is well beyond
the 60 metre depth the touted US GBU-57 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator'
can reach. So, that nice Mr Trump might be a bit hot airy if he thinks >>>> he can take them out.
The USAAF doesn't have to drop all its bombs in one go, does it?
No, but they are rather specialist ground penetrating devices weighing
30,000 pounds each. Despite their size, they still can't remove huge
mountain tops, especially from depth, but are designed to penetrate down
to what you want to destroy, then explode, probably in so doing causing
no visible signs on the surface. Multiple such bombs don't act
cumulatively therefore as surface weapons do, so you need ones that can
penetrate rather deeper than current information says they can.
I expect that this is currently the subject of debate and analysis at
the Pentagon.
They probably need to call in James Bond. Every movie ended with the
utter destruction of a deep underground facility or sometimes a whole
island.
On 20/06/2025 08:14 AM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/06/2025 22:52, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2025 08:38 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/06/2025 17:54, GB wrote:
So, I suppose that you could argue that Iran could start the whole
process again, and any pledge is short term if by that you mean
several decades.
I imagine that some of those centrifuges have already been wrecked,
but there are below-ground enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow >>>>> that as far as I am aware are still intact.
And are reported to be 80-90 metres underground, which is well beyond
the 60 metre depth the touted US GBU-57 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator'
can reach. So, that nice Mr Trump might be a bit hot airy if he thinks >>>> he can take them out.
The USAAF doesn't have to drop all its bombs in one go, does it?
No, but they are rather specialist ground penetrating devices weighing
30,000 pounds each. Despite their size, they still can't remove huge
mountain tops, especially from depth, but are designed to penetrate down
to what you want to destroy, then explode, probably in so doing causing
no visible signs on the surface. Multiple such bombs don't act
cumulatively therefore as surface weapons do, so you need ones that can
penetrate rather deeper than current information says they can.
I expect that this is currently the subject of debate and analysis at
the Pentagon.
They probably need to call in James Bond. Every movie ended with the
utter destruction of a deep underground facility or sometimes a whole
island.
On 19/06/2025 22:52, JNugent wrote:
On 19/06/2025 08:38 PM, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/06/2025 17:54, GB wrote:
So, I suppose that you could argue that Iran could start the whole
process again, and any pledge is short term if by that you mean
several decades.
I imagine that some of those centrifuges have already been wrecked,
but there are below-ground enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordow
that as far as I am aware are still intact.
And are reported to be 80-90 metres underground, which is well beyond
the 60 metre depth the touted US GBU-57 'Massive Ordnance Penetrator'
can reach. So, that nice Mr Trump might be a bit hot airy if he thinks >>> he can take them out.
The USAAF doesn't have to drop all its bombs in one go, does it?
No, but they are rather specialist ground penetrating devices weighing
30,000 pounds each. Despite their size, they still can't remove huge mountain tops, especially from depth, but are designed to penetrate down
to what you want to destroy, then explode, probably in so doing causing
no visible signs on the surface. Multiple such bombs don't act
cumulatively therefore as surface weapons do, so you need ones that can penetrate rather deeper than current information says they can.
On 20/06/2025 10:53, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED]
It's quite gratifying actually that Trump and the USA can't do
everything they want.
They probably need to call in James Bond. Every movie ended with the
utter destruction of a deep underground facility or sometimes a
whole island.
No, that's just ridiculous fantasy! What they'll do in the real
world is send Tom Cruise in his X-wing Starfighter straight through
the doors they've opened with a sonic screwdriver to destroy it with
phasers and proton torpedoes.
On 12:20 20 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 20/06/2025 10:53, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED]
It's quite gratifying actually that Trump and the USA can't do
everything they want.
They probably need to call in James Bond. Every movie ended with the
utter destruction of a deep underground facility or sometimes a
whole island.
No, that's just ridiculous fantasy! What they'll do in the real
world is send Tom Cruise in his X-wing Starfighter straight through
the doors they've opened with a sonic screwdriver to destroy it with
phasers and proton torpedoes.
Maybe that Iranian underground facility is susceptible to a hero like
Luke Skywalker in the original Star Wars movie who explodes the Death
Star with a torpedo sent precisely down an exhaust port!
It would be an interesting outcome if the Israeli military had sufficient ground forces and materiel in Iran to do this but they are too far away.
On 21 Jun 2025 at 16:55:59 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 12:20 20 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 20/06/2025 10:53, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED]
It's quite gratifying actually that Trump and the USA can't do
everything they want.
They probably need to call in James Bond. Every movie ended with the
utter destruction of a deep underground facility or sometimes a
whole island.
No, that's just ridiculous fantasy! What they'll do in the real
world is send Tom Cruise in his X-wing Starfighter straight through
the doors they've opened with a sonic screwdriver to destroy it with
phasers and proton torpedoes.
Maybe that Iranian underground facility is susceptible to a hero like
Luke Skywalker in the original Star Wars movie who explodes the Death
Star with a torpedo sent precisely down an exhaust port!
It would be an interesting outcome if the Israeli military had sufficient
ground forces and materiel in Iran to do this but they are too far away.
I really don't think a death star designed by a proper engineer (not a director of tawdry films) would have such a weakness!!
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Jun 2025 at 16:55:59 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 12:20 20 Jun 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 20/06/2025 10:53, JNugent wrote:
[TRIMMED]
It's quite gratifying actually that Trump and the USA can't do
everything they want.
They probably need to call in James Bond. Every movie ended with the >>>>> utter destruction of a deep underground facility or sometimes a
whole island.
No, that's just ridiculous fantasy! What they'll do in the real
world is send Tom Cruise in his X-wing Starfighter straight through
the doors they've opened with a sonic screwdriver to destroy it with
phasers and proton torpedoes.
Maybe that Iranian underground facility is susceptible to a hero like
Luke Skywalker in the original Star Wars movie who explodes the Death
Star with a torpedo sent precisely down an exhaust port!
It would be an interesting outcome if the Israeli military had sufficient >>> ground forces and materiel in Iran to do this but they are too far away.
I really don't think a death star designed by a proper engineer (not a
director of tawdry films) would have such a weakness!!
Spoiler alert …
You need to see the prequel where the engineer introduced a subtle weakness and left the details to be discovered and used. That is the risk taken by a dictator who requires someone to carry out a task they find repugnant.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 21:36:13 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,984 |