3 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

You wont post those reports up .

I have seen those reports as well .

Fake A.I made Iranian reports showing Iran bombing Israel .

You are spreading fake Iranian propaganda

And 2 + 2 = 5

Go troll someplace else, I’m all stocked up here.

7 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

Ah, so those strikes were in the name of peace. Fair enough, but what/who was the strike that killed 160 school girls in Iran in the name of? This guy?

The strike that killed the 160 schoolgirls in Minab on the first day of the US-Israel air campaign hit the school next to an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) compound that was also destroyed during the strikes.

Information suggests that satellite images and damage analysis show direct impact explosions consistent with precision air-to-ground munitions, several investigators and anonymous US officials have said it was likely a US strike targeting the nearby IRGC facility that hit the school or caused secondary explosions.

The Pentagon has not officially admitted responsibility, but it has said the incident is under investigation and that US forces do not intentionally target civilian sites.

There are a few alternative theories floating around, but none have solid evidence so far. Some suggested it might have been Iranian air defence accidentally hitting the school while trying to intercept incoming missiles, or a misfired Iranian missile, but the damage pattern doesn’t really match debris falling from an interception or a launch failure.

Iran, on the other hand, says it was a deliberate US-Israeli attack on a school, which investigators have not confirmed.

So IMO - the honest position right now is this: the most likely explanation is a US strike aimed at the nearby IRGC compound that hit the school either by mistake, or was deflected by Iranian anti-missile response, but there has been no formal admission yet and the investigation is still ongoing.

I have seen munitions deflected off target - thus IMO - its also possible that a US Missile was close to strike location when it was deflected.

Simple answer: a tragic mistake IMO, thats the risk of any precision strike near civilian areas involves - even a guided weapon can behave unpredictably once it’s engaged by air-defence.

The reason starmer didnt join in is because he would have been going into a war with Israel and as the labour party are anti-semites , it was a no-go for them ........

Takeaways from the Iran war.

When attacking a nation, be very careful not to underestimate your opponent.

How the Iranians outsmarted a vastly superior military force:

-Attack/destroy all US assets in neighbouring countries that house US assets and bases.

-Attack/destroy economically critical infrastructure in said countries.

-Watch those countries realise the cost of allowing the US to use their bases for attacks will be enormous and crippling.

-Promise not to attack those countries again if they stop the US using their countries as staging areas for attacks.

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

You’re missing a few Trump strikes Richard.

Quite possibly - nevertheless, the point regarding lack of Congressional approval still drives my point home.

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Quite possibly - nevertheless, the point regarding lack of Congressional approval still drives my point home.

Agreed. But let’s not forget, the man is driven by negative emotions. He sows division in his own country and his contribution to the world is wholly negative on balance.

From your own post…

missile strikes on Syria in 2017 and 2018 after chemical weapons incidents, the 2020 drone strike in Iraq that killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, and continued operations against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, including the raid that killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

I would suggest Venezuela too, they were most definitely struck with many killed in his illegal abduction of a nation’s leader.

Yeah, this came as no surprise. No surprise at all. The Sec. of Def. is Pete Hegseth. No further comments necessary.

1 minute ago, BLMFem said:

Dear Europeans,

When the floodgates open and Iranian refugees come stampeding into Europe, be sure to thank Trump for this. May I suggest that European governments come together and hire all passenger vessels they can get their hands on, and sail those refugees over the pond to the country responsible for this complete s**t show.

I'm sure they'll be welcomed with open arms!

Unless, of course, the Iranian people themselves end up changing the equation and take their country back. Ultimately the most stable outcome would be internal change driven by Iranians, not something imposed from outside.

Trump has already floated the idea of offering the IRGC immunity if they stand down, which is clearly an attempt to split the regime from within. Whether that works or not remains to be seen, but if elements of the system did take that route it could open the door for Iranians themselves to push the country toward a more democratic government. At the end of the day, lasting political change in Iran is far more likely to come from inside the country than from bombs or sanctions alone - I just hope they take it.

I have quite a few Iranian friends and a lot of them actually support what’s happening because they hope it might finally lead to change in their country. From their point of view the current regime has kept Iran stuck for decades - politically, economically and socially. What they want isn’t endless conflict, it’s the chance for Iran to move toward a government that actually reflects the will of its people.

Of course not every Iranian feels the same, but it shows the situation isn’t as simple as people sometimes make it out to be. Many Iranians living abroad feel the same way and hope that enough pressure on the regime might eventually create the conditions for change from within. In the end though, the future of Iran has to be decided by Iranians themselves.

Here is the latest post from Trump on Iran. May I remind you all that this person is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

2 hours ago, BLMFem said:

Ah, so those strikes were in the name of peace. Fair enough, but what/who was the strike that killed 160 school girls in Iran in the name of? This guy?

Alfred, Lord Tennyson

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”

Was there a man dismayed?

Not though the soldier knew

Someone had blundered.

2 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

And 2 + 2 = 5

Go troll someplace else, I’m all stocked up here.

So, why wont you post the link to your claims ?

Just state the reason

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

So, why wont you post the link to your claims ?

Just state the reason

Because you are a troll and have shown yourself to have no integrity.

4 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

This forum has become "my AI says" vs "your AI says", just copy and paste, non attributed worthless AI junk. And it is a core of regular posters who are the most guilty.

No-one shares what they asked AI (makes a huge difference) or what the sources are. Yet the mods remove "low value posts". ALL of these AI copy and pastes are low value posts. Completely worthless.

What's wrong with people posting their OWN arguments in their OWN words along with reputable links to back them, as per forum guidelines? Can no one do that anymore?

Really pathetic and it just ruins threads. I have no idea why it is allowed to be honest.

Rant over.

But I am never getting in to a debate with unattributed AI copy and paste nonsense.

The that up with @JBChiangRai

He posted A.I content first and I replied with A.I content in return .

My subtle point was retty much the same as yours

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

Because you are a troll and have shown yourself to have no integrity.

Nope, the real reason why you wont post any links to your claims , is because the videos your saw are Iranian A.I nonsense which only a fool would believe are true

42 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

I agree with everything you just wrote, but what's happening in Iran right now does not seem to move Iran towards a regime change. If anything, it seems to have strengthened the regime's power.

Iran is very cleverly using this war to strengthen their position in the region by hitting the countries that are housing US forces. All those countries are completely dependent on the free flow of oil, and when that is shut down, they're very quickly enter an economic death spiral.

And Iran hasn't even played it's ace in the hole yet - hitting their neighbours' desalination plants. If those plants are taken out it's game over.

Grok (AI):

Iran, at least for now appears to be attempting - not to completely alienate its Gulf neighbours. That’s why the strikes have focused primarily on US bases rather than directly targeting the countries themselves.

Some oil infrastructure was hit, but those strikes looked more like strategic signalling than an attempt to cripple national production or fuel reserves. In other words, a warning rather than a decapitation of each country's energy capability.

It’s also worth remembering that Gulf states themselves don’t rely on oil and gas for domestic energy survival. Their own energy supply is secure - though eradicating all the refineries on a small island Like Bahrain, or Qatar would have a severe impact. What the global flow of oil and gas primarily underpins is international markets and financial stability, and of course the economic model of the Gulf economies themselves.

IMO where the real vulnerability lies in the Strait of Hormuz is the disruption to supply chains for food and other essential imports across the region. That’s where the pressure point becomes genuinely serious.

Potable water is another concern as you accurately highlighted. Desalination is critical in the Gulf. However, each country operates multiple plants and redundant systems. I’ve actually looked into that risk personally, and the infrastructure is more distributed than many realise.

If Iran were to start targeting desalination plants across the GCC, that would represent a very different level of escalation. At that point it would no longer be about striking US assets - it would be a direct attack on the countries themselves.

But there’s another side to that equation. Iran is just as dependent on incoming food supplies, resources, and its own desalination capacity in many areas.

The United States deliberately avoids targeting that type of civilian infrastructure because it crosses a clear line (as we saw with the school) - it would be attacking the population rather than the regime.

For now, this still appears to be playing out primarily at the military level: Iran targeting US and US-aligned military assets, and the US focusing on the IRGC rather than the Iranian people themselves.

The distinction matters, because if the goal is ultimately a different political future for Iran, destroying the civilian foundations of the country would make that recovery impossible.

On that note: As recently as 5 hours ago Iran announced that it would no longer attack Gulf Coast Countries.

Of course - it lied (Air-raid sirens went of in GCC's as recently as an hour ago 15:50 hrs AST)

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/3/7/iran-to-halt-strikes-on-neighbours-unless-attacks-from-there-pezeshkian

https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/headlines/862136-irans-president-neighbouring-countries-wont-be-targeted-anymore-unless-us-attacks-from-there.html

23 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Nope, the real reason why you wont post any links to your claims , is because the videos your saw are Iranian A.I nonsense which only a fool would believe are true

And 2 + 2 = 5

Go troll someplace else, I’m all stocked up here.

2 hours ago, BLMFem said:

Takeaways from the Iran war.

When attacking a nation, be very careful not to underestimate your opponent.

How the Iranians outsmarted a vastly superior military force:

-Attack/destroy all US assets in neighbouring countries that house US assets and bases.

-Attack/destroy economically critical infrastructure in said countries.

-Watch those countries realise the cost of allowing the US to use their bases for attacks will be enormous and crippling.

-Promise not to attack those countries again if they stop the US using their countries as staging areas for attacks.

I missed your post earlier (but saw the same comment in the news less than an hour ago in the news - links to Aljazeera article above).

As your post highlights - Iran’s president has just said that neighbouring countries will no longer be attacked.

At first glance that sounds like de-escalation. Many people will read it that way. It isn’t.

The key part of the statement is the condition attached to it "unless attacks on Iran are launched from their territory"...

But, right now that is exactly what is happening. The United States is flying operations against Iran from bases across the Gulf. Aircraft, drones, and support operations are running out of Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates, and Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait, alongside facilities in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Oman.

i.e. Those locations are the operational staging ground for American bombers, fighters, and drones.

So Iran is not really saying “we will stop”. What it is effectively saying is "if attacks on Iran continue to originate from your territory, you remain part of the battlefield"...

That turns this into a pressure play directed at the Gulf states themselves.

Iran cannot defeat the United States militarily. But it can try to complicate the environment the US operates from. The objective is to force the Gulf governments into a difficult calculation - continue hosting US forces and absorb the risk that comes with it, or ask Washington to move those assets elsewhere.

If the US were pushed out of those bases, it would lose much of its immediate operational footprint in the region. The distance, response times, and logistics of operations would all change overnight.

There is also a practical dimension. Iran’s missile and drone inventories are not unlimited. Narrowing the number of fronts it is actively striking reduces the rate of expenditure and allows it to focus resources on what it considers higher priority targets - particularly Israel and direct US military assets.

So, I don't think this announcement shouldn’t be interpreted as a step toward peace. I think it is more accurately a strategic signal - aimed not at the United States, but at the countries hosting it.

2 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

And 2 + 2 = 5

Go troll someplace else, I’m all stocked up here.

Asking you to provide links to your claims isnt actually trolling.

Its actually a forum rule to provide links to your claims, when asked .

You are chickening out once again , this is becoming a habit for you

Some posts and replies with excessive AI usage have been removed:

• Posts containing excessive use of AI have been removed. Please limit AI to one short paragraph and mark it as “AI supported.”

3 hours ago, BLMFem said:

Ah, so those strikes were in the name of peace. Fair enough, but what/who was the strike that killed 160 school girls in Iran in the name of? This guy?

The terrorists put the armed personnel next to a school on purpose.

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Nope, the real reason why you wont post any links to your claims , is because the videos your saw are Iranian A.I nonsense which only a fool would believe are true

I posted no videos, I said some news reports I had seen suggested censorship and that Israel was preventing some news reports of Iranian strikes from being reported and threatening reporters.

I asked Grok this question

Are Israel blocking any news reports fully or partially of Iranian strikes in Tel Aviv

AI supported. This was Groks reply

Key Details on Censorship:

•  Restrictions in Place: Israel’s military censor, which applies to both domestic and international media operating in the country, requires prior approval for publishing sensitive details. This includes exact impact locations in Tel Aviv (to prevent aiding Iranian targeting), live broadcasts or footage of missile interceptions that could reveal air defense positions or missile accuracy, videos/photos of strike sites near military or sensitive areas, and any real-time content that might expose vulnerabilities.     Violations can result in penalties, including arrests or up to 15 years in prison under security laws.  For instance, two Turkish journalists were detained in Tel Aviv for filming during an air raid siren, and foreign outlets like TRT have publicly acknowledged operating under these censorship rules.

7 hours ago, khaosokman said:

The terrorists put the armed personnel next to a school on purpose.

Reports from NYTimes and elsewhere suggests it was the other way around -- the school structures were once part of the Iran naval apparatus:

Analysis suggests US was responsible for deadly strike on Iranian elementary school

Mar 6, 2026 -- Videos geolocated by CNN show that the school was struck at or around the same time as the naval base, with one showing smoke billowing both from the IRGC facility and the school building.

Satellite imagery from 2013 showed that the school and the IRGC base were once part of the same compound. But images from 2016 revealed that a fence had been erected to separate the school from the rest of the base, and that a separate entrance to the school had been built. In December 2025, imagery showed dozens of people in the school’s courtyard, apparently playing in what appears to be a court for ballgames.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/06/middleeast/iran-minab-elementary-school-investigation-us-strike-intl

7 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I posted no videos, I said some news reports I had seen suggested censorship and that Israel was preventing some news reports of Iranian strikes from being reported and threatening reporters.

I asked Grok this question

Are Israel blocking any news reports fully or partially of Iranian strikes in Tel Aviv

AI supported. This was Groks reply

Key Details on Censorship:

•  Restrictions in Place: Israel’s military censor, which applies to both domestic and international media operating in the country, requires prior approval for publishing sensitive details. This includes exact impact locations in Tel Aviv (to prevent aiding Iranian targeting), live broadcasts or footage of missile interceptions that could reveal air defense positions or missile accuracy, videos/photos of strike sites near military or sensitive areas, and any real-time content that might expose vulnerabilities.     Violations can result in penalties, including arrests or up to 15 years in prison under security laws.  For instance, two Turkish journalists were detained in Tel Aviv for filming during an air raid siren, and foreign outlets like TRT have publicly acknowledged operating under these censorship rules.

Fox News shows missiles live every day. Not many though

4 hours ago, JerryM said:

Reports from NYTimes and elsewhere suggests it was the other way around -- the school structures were once part of the Iran naval apparatus:

Analysis suggests US was responsible for deadly strike on Iranian elementary school

Mar 6, 2026 -- Videos geolocated by CNN show that the school was struck at or around the same time as the naval base, with one showing smoke billowing both from the IRGC facility and the school building.

Satellite imagery from 2013 showed that the school and the IRGC base were once part of the same compound. But images from 2016 revealed that a fence had been erected to separate the school from the rest of the base, and that a separate entrance to the school had been built. In December 2025, imagery showed dozens of people in the school’s courtyard, apparently playing in what appears to be a court for ballgames.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/03/06/middleeast/iran-minab-elementary-school-investigation-us-strike-intl

So Iran is to blame.

27 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

So Iran is to blame.

The school was located approx. 200-300 meters from the navy installation.

A 'precision' airstrike can have a CEP circle accuracy of less than 10 meters.

Maybe the Dept. of WAR let their satellite photo subscription lapse.

21 minutes ago, JerryM said:

The school was located approx. 200-300 meters from the navy installation.

A 'precision' airstrike can have a CEP circle accuracy of less than 10 meters.

Maybe the Dept. of WAR let their satellite photo subscription lapse.

Western schools are located miles away. Iran is a terrorist state. All deaths are to be blamed on the islamic fascists.

NB Trump says of course it wasn't a US military mistake.

When asked aboard Air Force One Saturday whether the U.S. conducted the Feb. 28 strike, Trump said, without evidence, “No, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/07/trump-iran-girls-school-strike-00818163

1 hour ago, JerryM said:

NB Trump says of course it wasn't a US military mistake.

When asked aboard Air Force One Saturday whether the U.S. conducted the Feb. 28 strike, Trump said, without evidence, “No, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/07/trump-iran-girls-school-strike-00818163

Iran killed 36,5000 protestors in 2 days. Not far fetched to believe they killed 160 kids. Past habits are future habits.

23 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Iran killed 36,5000 protestors in 2 days. Not far fetched to believe they killed 160 kids. Past habits are future habits.

The significant word being "protestors". Even Hegseth could only offer a non-denial denial of who was behind the bombing.

1 hour ago, JerryM said:

NB Trump says of course it wasn't a US military mistake.

When asked aboard Air Force One Saturday whether the U.S. conducted the Feb. 28 strike, Trump said, without evidence, “No, in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/07/trump-iran-girls-school-strike-00818163

We are unlikely to get the full truth about the tragic deaths of those school children in Iran. In today’s political climate, a lot of people don't wait for facts before reaching conclusions. For those firmly anti-Trump, the narrative is decided in advance, and the details become secondary.

The problem is that Donald Trump himself is a grade A1 tit - he's such a divisive figure that many people have lost the ability to approach events with balance and perspective - I can understand exactly why. Everything becomes filtered through political allegiance rather than balanced observation / interpretation - IMO thats a failure of the individual making the observations.

The tragedy and loss of 160 school children is frequently being used to criticise Trump - but, that tragedy could realistically be the result of several different scenarios.

1) US targeting error:

This could occur in several ways:

- Faulty intelligence about what was at the location.

- Misidentification of a building (common in dense urban environments).

- GPS coordinate error or outdated target data.

- Human error in the targeting chain.

Even with precision-guided munitions, precision only means the weapon hits the coordinates it was given - not that the coordinates themselves were correct.

2) Electronic warfare interference:

Iran has invested heavily in GPS jamming and spoofing. If a guidance system relies on GPS signals and those signals are degraded or manipulated, the weapon can:

- Drift off course.

- Revert to inertial navigation (less accurate).

- Lose terminal guidance.

That could lead to an unintended impact point.

3) Interception deflection:

Modern missile defence systems - whether Patriot, or other interceptors - do not always destroy the incoming missile cleanly. Possible outcomes include:

- Partial destruction where debris continues on ballistic trajectory.

- Warhead separation after interception.

- Deflection into another structure.

This has happened in several conflicts where intercepted missiles still caused casualties.

4) Local missile malfunction:

If Iranian forces launched a missile from near populated areas, failure modes can include:

- Booster failure.

- Guidance failure.

- Self-destruct malfunction.

- Mid-flight breakup.

All of these possibilities fall well within the realities of modern warfare.

War is not the clean, clinical exercise that the media often portrays. The idea of perfectly precise “surgical strikes” exists more in theory than in practice. In reality, war is dirty, murky and imperfect. Intelligence can be flawed. Systems fail. Interceptions can redirect weapons in unpredictable ways. Errors occur.

We have already seen examples of this:

1) The Crowne Plaza Hotel in Bahrain was struck despite never being an intended target.

2) The Burj Al Arab in Dubai was also hit under circumstances where it was clearly not the objective.

Those incidents were almost certainly the result of Iranian drones or missiles being knocked off their intended path by defensive interception systems - yet I see many courses reporting this as 'Iran targeted hotels', which I'm is also painting a false narrative.

This is the uncomfortable reality of modern conflict. When missiles, interceptors, drones and electronic warfare systems are operating simultaneously, outcomes are not always controllable or predictable.

Which is precisely why rushing to political conclusions before the facts are known rarely brings us any closer to the truth.

Of course, there is another reality that many people refuse to acknowledge. For those determined to oppose Donald Trump, the conclusion is already written regardless of what actually happens.

If Trump authorises military action against Iran, he is blamed for escalation, civilian casualties, and reckless aggression.

But if he had chosen not to act, and Iran later succeeded in enriching uranium-235 to around 90% (the level required for nuclear weapons) those same voices would almost certainly accuse him of weakness and of failing in nuclear negotiations.

- He would be blamed for allowing Iran to cross the nuclear threshold.

- He would be blamed for trusting negotiations that ultimately failed.

- He would be blamed for ignoring warnings about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In other words, he would still be blamed - damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

This is the political trap that often surrounds highly polarising leaders. Whatever decision is made becomes the wrong decision for those who have already chosen their position. This was particularly evident during Trump’s State of the Union address, when he challenged Congress to stand if they supported action against illegal immigration. Republicans stood, Democrats remained seated, which created the impression that they were unwilling to support enforcing immigration laws. In reality, they remained seated simply because the challenge came from Trump, not because they opposed the policy itself. It was a clever political trap - and it worked perfectly, highlighting how often positions are driven by predetermined opinion rather than by the substance of what is actually being said.

The uncomfortable truth is that leadership decisions in matters of war, nuclear proliferation and regional stability are rarely clear-cut. Every option carries risk, and every outcome can be judged harshly with the benefit of hindsight.

Yet in a deeply polarised political environment, the discussion is rarely about weighing those risks honestly. It becomes about confirming existing political beliefs.

Which means that, for some critics, and I see very strong examples of that in this forum - there is effectively no scenario in which Trump could be seen as having made the right decision.