JimCM

What on earth are you on about, stay on topic. The only country doing genocide is Israel.

Exactly, Iran has not started a war in over 200 years. That is a historical fact. The last offensive war initiated by Persia was in the early 19th century. Since 1979, Iran has engaged in proxy conflicts and regional meddling - yes - but it has not launched an invasion of another country. Contrast that with the United States’ record in Iraq in 2003. And that brings us to the second major issue: the idea that regime change brings “stability.” The last time the U.S. removed a Middle Eastern government by force - in the 2003 invasion of Iraq - it destabilized the entire region. That war: Cost the United States an estimated $7 trillion Cost thousands of American lives Led directly to the formation of Islamic State (ISIS) Strengthened Al-Qaeda in Iraq before it morphed into ISIS We were told Iraq had WMDs. It didn’t. We were told regime change would bring democracy and peace. It didn’t. We were told it would weaken extremism. It fueled it. Now the same argument is being recycled. Third - the claim that “tens of thousands of protestors have died in the last couple of months” is simply not supported by credible reporting. Iran has brutally suppressed protests, yes - and hundreds have been killed in past crackdowns - but “tens of thousands in the last couple of months” is not grounded in verified evidence. Exaggeration weakens the case. Fourth - “Iran is developing long-range missiles to reach America.” Iran does have missile programs. It does not currently possess an operational ICBM capable of striking the continental United States. Intelligence agencies have assessed that capability as aspirational, not imminent. There is a difference between monitoring a threat and declaring war over a hypothetical future capability. Fifth - the idea that removing the Iranian government would magically end regional militancy ignores reality. The power vacuum after Saddam Hussein is precisely what allowed ISIS to flourish. Collapsing the Iranian state - a country of 90+ million people - would likely produce: Civil war Refugee waves dwarfing Syria Competing militias Regional spillover conflict History shows that destabilization often empowers radicals, not moderates. Sixth - the claim that “they are conquering Europe by numbers” is demographic fear rhetoric, not strategic analysis. Immigration debates are legitimate policy discussions. Framing civilians and refugees as invaders is political messaging, not security intelligence. Seventh - the assertion that nearly “100% of Iranians abroad hate the regime” is anecdotal and unverifiable. The Iranian diaspora is diverse. Many oppose the regime. Some support it. Others are politically disengaged. Absolutes like “100%” are propaganda language. Now - is the Iranian regime authoritarian? Yes. Does it suppress dissent? Yes. Does it fund proxy groups? Yes. But none of that automatically makes full-scale war or regime change in America’s strategic interest. The question isn’t whether the regime is repressive. The question is: Will America safer? Based on Iraq, the answer is far from obvious. Strategic policy should be based on: Verified intelligence Cost-benefit analysis Long-term consequences Historical precedent

Time to boycott USA and Israel. It's all about Israel, and the Israel lobby determines US policy in the ME. Netanyahu has to be taken out, as well as his ultra fundamentalist cabinet, who are religious nutters.

Well as a staunch supporter of Israel, you're not exactly in good company- from Israeli leaders in the Knesset. Benjamin Netanyahu has spoken about the need for Israel to maintain “full security control” west of the Jordan River and has rejected the creation of a fully sovereign Palestinian state. Bezalel Smotrich has publicly advocated policies encouraging Palestinian emigration and has described his vision as one in which Palestinians would either accept permanent Israeli rule or leave. Itamar Ben Gvir has also supported stronger measures in Gaza and the West Bank and has spoken in favour of policies that many critics describe as promoting displacement.

What a stupid, racist thing to say. You think Jews are a superior race to Muslims, this reminds me of what Smotrich, Himmler, Ben Gvir , and Hitler said.

He's obviously Israeli, which means he served in the IDF. Anyone who is not Israeli would simply say, "no, I'm not Israeli". He makes drastic efforts to avoid saying this.

Are you Jewish?

This post is built on fear, exaggeration, and several demonstrably false claims. First - Iran has not started a war in over 200 years. That is a historical fact. The last offensive war initiated by Persia was in the early 19th century. Since 1979, Iran has engaged in proxy conflicts and regional meddling - yes - but it has not launched an invasion of another country. Contrast that with the United States’ record in Iraq in 2003. And that brings us to the second major issue: the idea that regime change brings “stability.” The last time the U.S. removed a Middle Eastern government by force - in the 2003 invasion of Iraq - it destabilized the entire region. That war: Cost the United States an estimated $7 trillion Cost thousands of American lives Led directly to the formation of Islamic State (ISIS) Strengthened Al-Qaeda in Iraq before it morphed into ISIS We were told Iraq had WMDs. It didn’t. We were told regime change would bring democracy and peace. It didn’t. We were told it would weaken extremism. It fueled it. Now the same argument is being recycled. Third - the claim that “tens of thousands of protestors have died in the last couple of months” is simply not supported by credible reporting. Iran has brutally suppressed protests, yes - and hundreds have been killed in past crackdowns - but “tens of thousands in the last couple of months” is not grounded in verified evidence. Exaggeration weakens the case. Fourth - “Iran is developing long-range missiles to reach America.” Iran does have missile programs. It does not currently possess an operational ICBM capable of striking the continental United States. Intelligence agencies have assessed that capability as aspirational, not imminent. There is a difference between monitoring a threat and declaring war over a hypothetical future capability. Fifth - the idea that removing the Iranian government would magically end regional militancy ignores reality. The power vacuum after Saddam Hussein is precisely what allowed ISIS to flourish. Collapsing the Iranian state - a country of 90+ million people - would likely produce: Civil war Refugee waves dwarfing Syria Competing militias Regional spillover conflict History shows that destabilization often empowers radicals, not moderates. Sixth - the claim that “they are conquering Europe by numbers” is demographic fear rhetoric, not strategic analysis. Immigration debates are legitimate policy discussions. Framing civilians and refugees as invaders is political messaging, not security intelligence. Seventh - the assertion that nearly “100% of Iranians abroad hate the regime” is anecdotal and unverifiable. The Iranian diaspora is diverse. Many oppose the regime. Some support it. Others are politically disengaged. Absolutes like “100%” are propaganda language. Now - is the Iranian regime authoritarian? Yes. Does it suppress dissent? Yes. Does it fund proxy groups? Yes. But none of that automatically makes full-scale war or regime change in America’s strategic interest. The question isn’t whether the regime is repressive. The question is: Would overthrowing it by force make America safer? Based on Iraq, the answer is far from obvious. Strategic policy should be based on: Verified intelligence Cost-benefit analysis Long-term consequences Historical precedent Not slogans like “radical Islam is evil” or “are you even American?” Serious national security decisions require seriousness - not emotional escalation. America’s interests are not served by repeating the most expensive foreign policy mistake of the 21st century.

Does anyone here actually think a US war on Iran is in American interests? If so, how? I say the common denominator in these wars is Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu is well known to have caused the Iraq war because of their WMD Israel is the aggressor, taking all the land and want it all, due to their religious fanaticism. The Israel lobby will get what it wants, despite 85% of Americans against a war. Stand up and fight , make America great again, cut all financial ties with Israel. When and if an operation begins, Israel will want the US to go for broke,’ says Rob Geist Pinfold, international security expert at King’s College London https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/israel-pushing-for-iran-conflict-while-relying-on-us-power-experts/3839001

I've known this for many years, do any members deny it?

Al Jazeera say 'Gaza Genocide'.

Thanks, that guy is weird.

If Jews think themselves as superior to others then any word to describe them is derogatory.

Modern Zionism was primarily a late-19th-century European nationalist movement shaped by the political currents of Europe at the time. It emerged in Vienna, Warsaw, Odessa and Berlin - not in Jerusalem, Baghdad or Fez. Its founders were largely secular, European Jews responding to European nationalism and antisemitism. The idea that Jews for “thousands of years” were politically oriented toward statehood in Jerusalem oversimplifies Jewish history. The traditional phrase “Next Year in Jerusalem” was religious and messianic, not a concrete political program. For most of Jewish history, the return to Zion was framed as divine redemption, not a secular nation-state built through diplomacy, colonization and war. It’s also historically relevant that many early Zionist leaders consciously reshaped identity in European nationalist fashion. Hebraizing surnames was not incidental - it was part of a deliberate nation-building project. David Ben-Gurion was born David Grün. Moshe Sharett was born Moshe Shertok. Levi Eshkol was born Levi Shkolnik. Golda Meir was born Golda Mabovitch. Benjamin Netanyahu’s father, Benzion Mileikowsky, changed the family name to Netanyahu decades before his son entered politics. These were overwhelmingly European names. The changes symbolized a conscious break from diaspora identities and an attempt to create a new Hebrew national culture. That suggests modern Zionism was not simply a timeless continuation of biblical identity, but a modern ideological project shaped by European nationalist models. On language: it is correct that Hebrew had not been a vernacular for centuries. Its revival in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was intentional social engineering, led by figures like Eliezer Ben-Yehuda. Modern Hebrew is indeed a reconstructed language with heavy borrowing and innovation - much like other revived or standardized national languages in Europe. That reinforces the point that Zionism functioned as a modern nation-building movement, not merely the unfolding of an uninterrupted ancient political program. None of this denies that Jewish religious tradition maintained attachment to Jerusalem. But it does challenge the framing that modern political Zionism is simply the natural and inevitable expression of a 2,000-year political consensus. Historically, it was one ideological response among several (others included religious messianism, Bundism, liberal assimilationism, etc.), and it was shaped profoundly by European history and European nationalism. FYI, adapted by AI.

At least I can spell my own name

About time. Israel should play no part in any world sporting events. A landmark referral of UEFA and FIFA leaders to the International Criminal Court could set an important legal precedent. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/2/22/uefa-and-fifa-may-get-a-red-card-at-the-icc-for-ignoring-israeli-violations

History is repeating. The similarities are amazing. When a senior politician speaks about cancelling agreements, labels an entire population as “the enemy,” and promotes their emigration, some observers are reminded of rhetoric associated with Heinrich Himmler, who advocated large-scale ethnic reordering and removal of populations in Nazi-occupied Europe. The comparison is not about equating present-day policy with the Holocaust, but about noting a similarity in language that treats a whole ethnic or national group as a collective threat and frames displacement as a political solution. Historically, that kind of thinking – where security and national identity are tied to the removal of an entire population – has had deeply destructive consequences Smotrich recently said Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has vowed “to kill” the idea of a Palestinian state. At a conference near Ramallah, he pledged to “officially and practically cancel the damn Oslo agreements” if he remains in government. He referred to Palestinians as “the enemy” and promised to promote their emigration. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wn8lw0kgjo

Indeed, many forget the Israelis were the first terrorists, and the current ones. The IRA and Hamas are terrorists to some but most they are rightful freedom fighters. It's sickening to read some posters say they are terrorists just to try to justify the genocide and land theft.

Similar to the IRA and Sein Fein

First genocide in Gaza, now this. When will the parish state be held accountable Marzoq Abu Naim from the village council says the settlers aim to force out Palestinians. "They're doing it silently, not openly, it's true. But this is annexation. We can't reach our lands." Palestinian Authority in dire straits as Israel's hold on...More than 30 years after its creation, there are increasing warnings that the PA is close to collapse.

It won't take long, look at what they've stolen since 1948. Look at what they're doing in the West Bank - you support this? Most of the world don't. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-backs-palestine-condemns-unlawful-west-bank-expansion-by-israel-101771596090755.html

Of course but Jewish children should not be allowed to be brainwashed by extremist Jews to support the parish state of Israel for obvious reasons. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-backs-palestine-condemns-unlawful-west-bank-expansion-by-israel-101771596090755.html

Can over 100 countries be antisemitic? India said on Friday that it had joined more than 100 countries and international organisations in a statement condemning Israel’s moves to expand unlawful settlements in the West Bank https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/india-backs-palestine-condemns-unlawful-west-bank-expansion-by-israel-101771596090755.html

They say it was promised to them 3000 years ago.