6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Yes, if the people of Iran do the removal.

Today there was a march in London for Al-Quds day .

There was a group of pro Iranian regime/pro Palestine marches and there was a group of Iranians who oppose the regime and Israelis marching together

Which side would you be on ?

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I made no such denial.

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The two wrongs make a right doctrine.

Alleged crimes by Iran v actual ongoing war crimes by Israel and the U.S.

You quite clearly stated that it was just alleged that Iran were funding Hamas

Can we stop this ' illegal war ' nonsense please.

War is war.

31 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Today there was a march in London for Al-Quds day .

There was a group of pro Iranian regime/pro Palestine marches and there was a group of Iranians who oppose the regime and Israelis marching together

Which side would you be on ?

Please don’t make bookings on my calendar, I spent the day cycling in the chilterns.

25 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

You quite clearly stated that it was just alleged that Iran were funding Hamas

Yes, it’s an allegation.

I didn’t de y it did I Nick?!

Tell the truth now.

5 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Can we stop this ' illegal war ' nonsense please.

War is war.

It’s for Israel and the U.S. to stop their illegal war.

Refer the UN Charter Articles 2(4) and 51.

11 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Please don’t make bookings on my calendar, I spent the day cycling in the chilterns.

You don't want to answer. do you ?

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

You don't want to answer. do you ?

I did answer.

Stop making bookings on my calendar.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I did answer.

Stop making bookings on my calendar.

Right , so your answer to the question of

"Today there was a march in London for Al-Quds day .

There was a group of pro Iranian regime/pro Palestine marches and there was a group of Iranians who oppose the regime and Israelis marching together

Which side would you be on ?"

Your answer would be that you would be on the "Stop making bookings on my calendar" side .

10 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let’s be clear, Israel are engaged in an illegal war of aggression against Iran.

It’s not some sports event.

And Iran funding and militarily supporting it's terrorist proxies that target civilians is legal is it? You have no problem with Iran building thousands of ICBM's and Uranium enriched to at least 60% is not a problem for you?

8 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Right , so your answer to the question of

"Today there was a march in London for Al-Quds day .

There was a group of pro Iranian regime/pro Palestine marches and there was a group of Iranians who oppose the regime and Israelis marching together

Which side would you be on ?"

Your answer would be that you would be on the "Stop making bookings on my calendar" side .

My answer is, there was a march in London today, I was cycling elsewhere.

Knock yourself out imaging why I might have joined the march I did not join.

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

And Iran funding and militarily supporting it's terrorist proxies that target civilians is legal is it? You have no problem with Iran building thousands of ICBM's and Uranium enriched to at least 60% is not a problem for you?

I have never claimed Iran supporting or funding terrorists is legal, take that up with those who have.

Iran is no longer bound by any treaty not to produce nuclear weapons, and therefore has the sovereign right to do so. Take that up with the idiot that unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear weapons treaty that Iran was complying with.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

My answer is, there was a march in London today, I was cycling elsewhere.

Knock yourself out imaging why I might have joined the march I did not join.

I did mean IF you went to the march .

I will re write the question to make it easier to understand :

"Today there was a march in London for Al-Quds day .

There was a group of pro Iranian regime/pro Palestine marches and there was a group of Iranians who oppose the regime and Israelis marching together

Which side would you have been on if you went to the march ?"

Just now, Nick Carter icp said:

I did mean IF you went to the march .

I will re write the question to make it easier to understand :

"Today there was a march in London for Al-Quds day .

There was a group of pro Iranian regime/pro Palestine marches and there was a group of Iranians who oppose the regime and Israelis marching together

Which side would you have been on if you went to the march ?"

But for all your ‘ifs’ Nick, I didn’t.

Stop trying to imagine stuff that includes me, it’s creepy.

1 hour ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Today there was a march in London for Al-Quds day .

There was a group of pro Iranian regime/pro Palestine marches and there was a group of Iranians who oppose the regime and Israelis marching together

Which side would you be on ?

Sadly there are some on here whose hate for Trump has totally consumed them that if push comes to shove they would support the terrorist regime building huge stock piles of offensive weapons and enriching uranium to weapons grade levels.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Iran is no longer bound by any treaty not to produce nuclear weapons, and therefore has the sovereign right to do so.

So a terrorist regime that calls for death to America and death to Israel developing nukes and a delivery system in a country that will put you to death for marrying a non-Muslim is it a good thing or a bad thing for them to have nukes?

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

So a terrorist regime that calls for death to America and death to Israel developing nukes and a delivery system in a country that will put you to death for marrying a non-Muslim is it a good thing or a bad thing for them to have nukes?

It was a bad thing to withdraw from the nuclear weapons treaty Iran was complying with.

Take that up with the idiot who withdrew.

In the absence of that treaty Iran has the sovereign right to aquite nuclear weapons.

I had no part in any of it.

7 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

And Iran funding and militarily supporting it's terrorist proxies that target civilians is legal is it? You have no problem with Iran building thousands of ICBM's and Uranium enriched to at least 60% is not a problem for you?

And trump getting into a forever war with terroist is not painting a target on every americans back !! what trump is doing is not the way to defet terrorism this is an illeigal WAR

you seem to have no problem with other terroist having nucular weapons for years !! and you have NO proof Iran was building ICBM's and every country has the sovereign right to develop Nucular fuel what gives america the right to stop that !! because trump says so !! go crawl back under your rock

12 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Sadly there are some on here whose hate for Trump has totally consumed them that if push comes to shove they would support the terrorist regime building huge stock piles of offensive weapons and enriching uranium to weapons grade levels.

NO PROOF

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

It was a bad thing to withdraw from the nuclear weapons treaty Iran was complying with.

They were complying with it by building enrichment facilities in bunkers deep under mountains?

2 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

NO PROOF

AI Overview

As of early 2026, the IAEA has reported that

Iran

continued to hold a significant stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% purity, estimated at over 400kg, which has raised severe international concerns. This high-level enrichment is a short technical step away from 90% weapons-grade material, with some reports suggesting they possessed enough material for multiple weapons, leading to calls for increased inspection access.

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

They were complying with it by building enrichment facilities in bunkers deep under mountains?

After Trump withdrew from the treaty that Iran were complying with.

2 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

AI Overview

As of early 2026, the IAEA has reported that

Iran

continued to hold a significant stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% purity, estimated at over 400kg, which has raised severe international concerns. This high-level enrichment is a short technical step away from 90% weapons-grade material, with some reports suggesting they possessed enough material for multiple weapons, leading to calls for increased inspection access.

A shame someone tore up the nuclear treaty Iran were complying with, do t you think?!

Just now, dinsdale said:

AI Overview

As of early 2026, the IAEA has reported that

Iran

continued to hold a significant stockpile of uranium enriched up to 60% purity, estimated at over 400kg, which has raised severe international concerns. This high-level enrichment is a short technical step away from 90% weapons-grade material, with some reports suggesting they possessed enough material for multiple weapons, leading to calls for increased inspection access.

Which is there Right to do so !! There is NO PROOF they are using this to build a weapon or is it because trump has a feeling about it Thailand has 2 nucular reactors is thailand building a bomb !!!!! what about the other terost county who already has nucular weapons is trump going to invade them its a BS you post

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

A shame someone tore up the nuclear treaty Iran were complying with, do t you think?!

The treaty wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

41 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Which is there Right to do so !! There is NO PROOF they are using this to build a weapon or is it because trump has a feeling about it Thailand has 2 nucular reactors is thailand building a bomb !!!!! what about the other terost county who already has nucular weapons is trump going to invade them its a BS you post

Enrichment for power sits at around 3-5% not 60% and doesn't need to be done deep, deep underground. What do they need the estimated 450kg of 60% enriched uranium for?

AI Overview

As of March 2026,

Iran has signaled a willingness to reduce its 60% uranium enrichment to 3.6% in a potential nuclear proposal, ostensibly for power generation purposes. However, Iran insists on keeping its stockpile within the country, rejecting proposals to transfer the high-grade uranium to Russia or other nations, according to Kan News and Axios.

45 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

The treaty wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

Again in your opinion if that is woth anything!!

Just now, MikeandDow said:

Again in your opinion if that is woth anything!!

Obviously not just my opinion.

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Enrichment for power sits at around 3-5% not 60% and doesn't need to be done deep, deep underground. What do they need the estimated 450kg of 60% enriched uranium for?

AI Overview

As of March 2026,

Iran has signaled a willingness to reduce its 60% uranium enrichment to 3.6% in a potential nuclear proposal, ostensibly for power generation purposes. However, Iran insists on keeping its stockpile within the country, rejecting proposals to transfer the high-grade uranium to Russia or other nations, according to Kan News and Axios.

Iran is a sovereign nation which is in it's rights to do so, now are you saying its power generation iam confussed one post you are saying they are building Nuclear IBCM's the next post is its for power so which is it ??? and why should they tranfer THEIR uranium

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

For those not paying attention in class.

Write out 10,000 lines of:

‘This is an Illegal Israeli/US war of aggression’.

Repeat every day until this illegal Israeli / US war of aggression ends.

And could you sleep at night knowing that Iran had the nuclear bomb? After all, I assume you are an infidel who has been brainwashed by the media.