Roadsternut

The US President suggests that the Iranians possess US made Tomahawk cruise missiles, and are trying to procure more. Block II entered service in the early 1980s, so is he suggesting the US (Reagan, Ollie North) supplied Iran with cruise missiles as well a anti-tank weapons?

The is the Alpha-Omega War. Its both finished, but also just starting. Confused Grandad provides his thoughts on the matter.

So what convinced you the Hijackers were aiming at the WTCs, rather than hitting them accidently? You waited a couple of years before official reports were issued, giving the attackers the benefit of the doubt? I have no doubt that the school and clinic were targeted, based on inputs from ground assets. The only country to have ground assets wandering around a city is Israel. Secretary of War Hegseth condemned himself when he announced that US forces would not be constrained by "stupid rules of engagement" on the 26th February. RoEs are not stupid. Prior to the war, he deliberately reduced the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, a Pentagon office which provides advice on limiting casualties in combat and investigates the toll of military operations for 40 to 7, after he was prevented by Congress from closing it entirely. The miliary assets responsible for analyzing war zone civilian environments and red teaming targets have all been fired or reassigned. Centcom has apparently managed to preserve some such capability. https://civiliansinconflict.org/blog/us-military-voices-speak-out-in-support-of-civilian-protection/

Him wearing a hat mattered to Fox News I suppose, enough for them to switch to a December 2025 piece of footage, and then apologise for it. Presumably because one of their loyal viewers called in to complain. Ask me a proper question, rather than getting all anxious about his weight. Do you worry about your weight?

Why does that matter?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/03/09/trump-says-iran-war-very-complete-after-call-with-putin/ The fix is in I suppose. Never about regime change, liberating Iranian women. Always about oil and controlling it.

Celebrity confirmed batchelor Lindsey Graham is having a go at Saudi Arabia and the GCC and issues a threat So what consequences? That the Infidels will stop not protecting their Kingdoms, and leave? In response, Khalaf Ahmad Al Habtoor, founding chairman of the Dubai-based Al Habtoor Group, responded: Harsh words.

edit

Fox admitted switching footage of the dignified transfer with a previous one where the President is not wearing a hat. Will Fox now be sued for fake news?

I sat with my dad as he passed away. Yes, there was the death rattle, and the smell, a peculiar smell that will never leave me. After he died, I needed to fit his false teeth. The back of his head was still warm as the blood pooled, as I lifted his head to articulate his jaw, and his eyes popped open. Wierdly, I didn't want to hurt him. Kept him at home until the funeral. Undertakers supplied aircon units, and we sealed the room up. Open coffin for about 5 days, until I had to persuade someone the decay was getting obvious. His carer passed out when she saw him. Never seen a dead person before. But neither had I.

All of that I agree with, but hasn't stopped some here suggesting a primary school for girls was set up to churn out suicide bombers. My assumption is the IRGC members also have families. The schools you refer to in Juffair predate the Americans. I went to one of them, at a time when the old Royal Navy Nissen hut classrooms were still standing. Yes, the American school in Bahrain used to be a British Forces school. I think one of the others is for Indian kids. And maybe the other you refer to is St Christophers, a fee paying school for British expats. I was at the American school, and one of my classmates is now the Bahraini Prime Minister. Bellingcat has pretty damming evidence it was a Tomahawk missile. Why would the Americans target a school and a clinic? Who has people on the ground to identify targets in urban area. Not the Americans. If you were after the family of a named individual maybe you would target a classroom, or a clinic. That's a policy of assassination, or someone being manipulated into assassination. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/2026/03/08/video-shows-us-tomahawk-missile-strike-next-to-girls-school-in-iran/ Bellingcat also did a lot of work tracking down the Salisbury assassin team and well as the MH17 murderers. At the time, many thought that Bellingcat was a front for the UK government.

In all likelyhood, Iran possesses mustard gas, phosgene, lewisite, VX and Sarin. Quite easy to make, and deploy. Iraq used them, Syrian used them. There is some evidence that towards the end of the Iran-Iraq war, Iran deployed them in a limited manner. They've had quite sophisticated chemical weapons probably for 30 years. Given Iran's biotech industry, I'd also put biological weapons in the mix as well. The assumption is that the Mullahs, as soon as they got a nuclear weapon, they would use it (against Israel). All of the rockets fired at Israel are packed with conventional explosive, not sarin. Why is that? Ultimately the desire to possess nuclear weapons is for the same reason as the US, and any other country; to guarantee national survival and sovereignty. When this war is over, and some alternative regime is in place, will that stop them developing or acquiring something? Nope. There is one country on earth that gave up nuclear weapons. That act didn't do Ukraine any favours. If Ukraine still possessed a nuclear arsenal, there is no way Russia would have invaded in 2022., nor in 2014.

Sinking a warship is a grey area, though legally, has the US actually declared war on Iran. Some have pointed to the issue of the girls school on a military base, and suggested there was an ulterior motive to the location of the school. But the US/Israeli destruction of the Iranian desalination plant is a bit more black and white as far as the Geneva Convention is concerned. What that means is if there are any US aircrew downed over Iran (suggestions are at least one F15 ejected), they cannot expect treatment according to the Geneva Protocols. Maybe they wouldn't get that anyhow.

I'm sure the religious nut jobs would love to load a truck with fertiliser and drive it into MaraLago but it's so much easier to put 6 blokes with machine guns on a RIB and send them across the Med to a tourist beach. The American President was elected to put Americans first. On the face of it, right now he's putting Iranians first.

Your people killed his wife and daughter. Why? How is he supposed to feel now, now he's no longer a husband or father? Right now, Iranian people in Tehran are in fear of being burnt alive because you bozos blew up a petrol depot for cabbies and set fire to the sewage system. You lot profess to be only interested in eliminating evil, but what you are doing is pursuing the same tactics one would take in taking apart a state in preperation for an invasion, softening them up. When you bomb schools, hospitals and desalination works, thats not taking apart the power of the Iranian state, that's destroying Iran. Your friends the Israelis have already said they are going to kill him, irrespective of what he does. Your side is not interested in peace, just war and death. You're religious. You must therefore believe in an Eye for an Eye.

One evil at a time. Costs a lot of money and time to take one on, let alone all evils that exist. Sounds hypocritical to me. You'd rather attack weak people than strong people, because they put up a fight. Money is the root of all evil, isn't it? No its not. One isn't born with morals as an instinct. If its shapled by culture, its not natural. If you believe in God, how can you believe in Evolution, and not Creation? All Laws in Western Society have come from the 10 Commandments, drawn up by some wizard in Sinai, who made them up. Iran's government, just like the US, has good and bad, but exterminating people who protest is quite different. Very simple to see the difference between a politician that wants illegals out and killing those who talk and want more freedom and a democracy. So you ignore, or condone the shooting of people who are protesting about how so-called illegals are removed. Jesus was an illegal Palestinian. When he was born, Herod decreed all babies in Bethlehem were to be killed. The baby Jesus was taken to Egypt by his parents, outside of roman occuplied Judea, entering without authority. All Americans are descended from political, religious and economic refugees, the vast majority of whom arrived unannounced in their new land. Same for Iran. It does try and kill civilians, but there is collateral damage, One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so said Darrell Trent. You know who Trent was. Not a radical, or a revolutionary, or a contrarian. But he was an advisor to President Richard Nixon. A conservative. But you are wrong about the conditions for peace. The British government never eliminated the IRA nor disarmed them. That was the whole point of the Belfast Agreement. Peace in Ireland came about through Game Theory, basically a 2x2 Cooperate versus Defect Game. The British tried the smash 'em tactic (wipe out the terrorists). It didn't work and was never going to work. The IRA tried the bomb 'em approach (force out the Brits). It didn't work and was never going to work. Both sides would label the other side as evil, and would cite outrages to support that. The Nationalists wanted a United Ireland. The Unonists wanted to remain in the United Kingdom. Seemingly an intransigent condundrum Don't pretend you give a single stuff about a single Iranian. Not one US, British, French, Australian soldier is worth a single Iranian. When the Shah was around, the Americans supported his secret police, because it suited their geopolitical ambitions. They did not care about individual Iranians in 1976, why should they now in 2026? Are you saying American morality has changed? You seem profoundly ignorant of history. Beside Northern Ireland, you are not aware of how ETA ended its bombing campaign in Spain and France. Or how FARC came to an agreement with the Colombian government. Or how the white South Africans (most of them anyhow) reconciled with the ANC. The problem with formally declaring a state (as opposed to a group) a "terrorist" is that, in most instances, it makes it a criminal offence to then even speak to them. Some want that, for their own (evil) reasons, who prefer war war to jaw jaw. Even Nazi Germany maintained back channel communications with the Allies. As late as 1945, Japan was conducting POW swaps with the British in Goa (mainly release of British Army Educational Corps member captured in Hong Kong and Singapore).

The death of Stalin was followed by the Cuban Missile Crisis. It is worth considering why the 35 year old USSR survived the death of Stalin, but didn't survive the fall of Gorbachev.

Plus a widower and ex-dad. Not going to be pissed off at all, is he?

US oil producers, unless they are in a Communist State, can sell to whoever they liked, at the best price possible. Why should Americans get a discount.

Again, why aren't you taking to task the Russian government, who is arguably a greater danger to the world? Russian people are also suffering under the Putin regime, who has repressed them so much, they are afraid of protesting. You've mentioned morality. Morality comes about due to human society, It is not natural. When the cat toys with a mouse, it is not evil or cruel, it is being a cat, sharpening its survival skills. Your sense of morality comes from religion, even if you consider yourself not a believe. You grew up in a society framed by religious beliefs. You take the position that the Tehran government is evil, on the basis of how they deal with dissent, the number of innocent deaths they cause, their ban on homosexuality, and abortions, and their sponsorship of violent allies. Is the US government evil? They harshly deal with dissent. Innocent people die because of their munitions. They are certainly on their way to banning abortions, and making homosexuality illegal is not an unusual belief among the public, nor indeed, lawmakers. Their allies can be very violent. Or is the US government only a "little bit" evil, because they don't kill as many dissenters as Iran? Ultimately, you are making a moral judgement in determining the Iranian government as evil. Millions of Iranians oppose their government, but millions also support it. Are they all evil, to be snuffed out? The Iranian government does a lot of good. It provides healthcare, education, infrastructure and disaster relief to 80 million people. Those are not evil achievements. Calling members of the government of Iran “evil” is not serious analysis but rhetorical posturing. Countries act primarily to secure power, influence, and survival, and Iran’s behaviour is no exception—shaped in part by historical experiences such as when Western powers overthrew an elected PM and installed a stooge Shah . The charge also collapses under scrutiny because many of the actions cited against Iran are routine instruments of statecraft used by major powers including the United States. To single out Iranian officials as "evil" while at the same time normalising similar behaviour by other states is not moral consistency but selective outrage. In reality, islamophobia. Your side isn't liberating the Iranian people, you're bombing them, killing them. When the Nazis tried to bomb the British, it united them, at a time when Churchill still divided opinion in the country. When the Allies bombed Germany, what it did was unite a people in apathy. There was no uprising; the bombing allowed the Nazis to redirect discontent away from internal issues to external factors. Bombing disrupted the growth of resistance cells, amplified Nazi propaganda. Allied planners in the RAF and USAF were followers of Giulio Douhet, who said industrial societies were fragile, and a bit of bombing was enough to break them. They thought German civil society would collapse like in 1918-19. They were wrong. They failed to understand the grip the Nazis had on society, how the Nazis owned the airwaves, and that actually aerial bombing resulted in increased social bonding, and people switching to survival modes. I think aerial bombardment becomes predictable, civilians take cover in public bomb shelters, swap stories, and when there is an all clear, focus on survival, not rebellion. Bombing Germany probably increased the survival of the Nazi regime, and extended WW2. At a time when the stability of the Tehran government was in doubt (elections, defeat of the hardliner candidate in Presidential elections), the bombing campaign has probably set back the resistance movement years.

To paraphrase the well known joke, two toothless men fighting over a toothbrush

The reason why members of the military keep headgear on is that they are attending a funeral in an official capacity, and in uniform. If you are in uniform, you are under arms. You keep your hat on. You can buy the same hat yourself, to wear at your next funeral: https://www.trumpstore.com/usa-45-47-hat

Continued and deliberate misspelling of the name of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Going to school in Bahrain, I was always told that "Bahrain" meant "two seas"; it had its own supply of fresh water eminating from mountains in Saudi Arabia and Iran. You could go down to the beach, dig down 12 inches or so, and hit water; not sea water, but brackish water. The Pearl divers would swim down to the bottom and fill up goat skin bladders with the heavier fresh water at the bottom. In ancient times, Bahrain was known as Dilmun, an important point of trade between the Indus Valley and Sumerian civilisations. And Gilgamesh was a Bahraini. The region does have water, but not sufficient to support the largely expatriate population.

Laudable words. But if all that was true, eliminating evil etc, then what about Russia? Yes, they have nuclear weapons, but you are on a holy mission to eliminate evil, an essentially religious concept (the animal kingdom has no concept of good or evil). "Something" needed to be "done", but why now, why when your strategic petroleum reserve is about a 40 year low? There wasn't a danger of crumbling coalition, as was the case in 2003. A year ago, there were mass raids on Iran that we were assured eliminated whatever nuclear weapons programme. Subsequently , we were told the damage was not as extensive as originally hoped, but at the very least, it was set back by a decade. And once Iran is "dealth with", "purified" of evil, where next to turn your attention, to eliminate evil? Apparently Cuba is next. This regime in Iran that you want to eliminate. Do you know how big it is. There are 50,000 clerics for a start. So you are looking to kill hundreds of thousands, from the air. The British don't understand the Americans, vis a vie Iran? Bollocxs, of course we do. British troops fought Iranian proxies in Basra. British troops were captured by Iran. Terry Waite does. Britain was the last foreign power to invade Iran. What is it about the American experience with Iran do you think the rest of the world doesn''t understand. The bit I don't understand is how an American army officer, who benefited from being born into an enlightened society, receiving the finest education, can lecture his men that what they are doing is heralding Armageddon and welcoming the Second Coming, Praise the Lord. That's just nuts. Is that what you mean, that we don't understand religious whackjobs taking on other religious whackjobs, because only one of them worships the One True God? God, if there was one, help us all if that's how you see Americans.