On 5/29/2026 at 4:32 AM, webfact said:

“Under such a brutal regime it is possible to be detained, tortured and even get executed just for raising your voice,” she told CBS News.

Silently pray on the streets in the "wrong" part of the UK and go to jail.
Send a politically incorrect tweet in the UK and EU and go to jail.
Make an EU politician the object of satire in the EU and go to jail.

Freedom of speech is only close to being absolute in the United States, but there are globalist forces who seek to overturn First Amendment protections of freedom of speech in the US.
Outside of the US, freedom of speech is an illusion in the very countries criticizing Iran for allegedly clamping down on free speech.

Fyi - CBS News and other Western MSM are stenographers for their own country's foreign affairs offices, all of which engage in propaganda and information warfare.

7 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

Give me an event and I'll pull up a timeline.

That's what I thought

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That's what I thought

You want me to search and list every single event for you. That is dishonest and disingenuous. You are clearly not interested in genuine discussion, but likely merely stuck in a mindset where you do not want to acknowledge any truth. What a sad state of affairs for any human being.

1 hour ago, wombat said:

Are you trying to say that the media does not tell the truth?

My wife and unborn child are shocked at the thought

Show me the source of your claims and I'll get back to you.

2 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

You want me to search and list every single event for you. That is dishonest and disingenuous. You are clearly not interested in genuine discussion, but likely merely stuck in a mindset where you do not want to acknowledge any truth. What a sad state of affairs for any human being.

No, I don't want you to search for anything. You claimed that Iran only ever attacks anyone in retaliation, I just assumed you had at least a few examples you could provide off the top of your head, but you can't. Whatever.

I do not think Iran should be allowed to continue developing their intercontinental ballistic missile, military drone, and nuclear programs, you do. We disagree fundamentally.

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, I don't want you to search for anything. You claimed that Iran only ever attacks anyone in retaliation, I just assumed you had at least a few examples you could provide off the top of your head, but you can't. Whatever.

I do not think Iran should be allowed to continue developing their intercontinental ballistic missile, military drone, and nuclear programs, you do. We disagree fundamentally.

You want examples off pat? The fact is that the USA and Israel attacked Iran. Twice. Then there was the USA assisting Saddam Hussein. That's three and there are more examples. Your turn.

I'm okay with disagreeing with the likes of yourself. If you were at all interested in anything resembling the truth, you would look for it. You obviously are not. Wasting time trying to discuss anything with someone who wants to remain ignorant would be a waste of time. Do you agree with the latter statement, fundamentally?

12 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

You want examples off pat? The fact is that the USA and Israel attacked Iran. Twice. Then there was the USA assisting Saddam Hussein. That's three and there are more examples. Your turn.

I'm okay with disagreeing with the likes of yourself. If you were at all interested in anything resembling the truth, you would look for it. You obviously are not. Wasting time trying to discuss anything with someone who wants to remain ignorant would be a waste of time. Do you agree with the latter statement, fundamentally?

That has been my experience, yes.

Go with God brother.

23 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That has been my experience, yes.

Go with God brother.

Perhaps you should take your own advice. Stop blinding yourself. See the light...

1 minute ago, FigLeaf said:

Perhaps you should take your own advice. Stop blinding yourself. See the light...

What light is that? That the US is the evil big Satan and that Iran and their proxies Hezbollah, the Houthis, the PMF, Hamas and the PIJ are all innocent victims?

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What light is that? That the US is the evil big Satan and that Iran and their proxies Hezbollah, the Houthis, the PMF, Hamas and the PIJ are all innocent victims?

Are you Bipolar? Are those the only two options you present to yourself? You understand that the truth doesn't take sides, do you not?

Speak the truth to yourself. How can you live a life that is a lie? Convincing yourself that it is other people who are evil. Evil can perpetrated by someone who claims to be following orders. Take responsibility for your own thoughts, rather than avoiding the truth so you can pick a side. How would you feel in the face of an injustice, where no one cared about your side of events? You would want someone to listen to you. To care and to treat you fairly. Do unto others....or at least stop blaspheming.

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What light is that? That the US is the evil big Satan and that Iran and their proxies Hezbollah, the Houthis, the PMF, Hamas and the PIJ are all innocent victims?

What this OP was originally about. That light. The US & Trump did not care one ar-e hair, about regime change. It was just a PR gimmick, good for a media moment, which is why Trump & Republicans used it. They don't give a spit about human rights, never did. Likely they are quite envious and think if only they could do, what Iran did, to say, .... anti ICE protestors, Sanctuary cities & Libs in generals. What fun!

Authoritarian/religious militaristic regimes, and wanna be, authoritarian/religious militaristic regimes, think the same.

29 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

Are you Bipolar? Are those the only two options you present to yourself? You understand that the truth doesn't take sides, do you not?

Speak the truth to yourself. How can you live a life that is a lie? Convincing yourself that it is other people who are evil. Evil can perpetrated by someone who claims to be following orders. Take responsibility for your own thoughts, rather than avoiding the truth so you can pick a side. How would you feel in the face of an injustice, where no one cared about your side of events? You would want someone to listen to you. To care and to treat you fairly. Do unto others....or at least stop blaspheming.

You claimed that Iran only ever retaliated, yes? Does that not mean that Iran and their proxies Hezbollah, the Houthis, the PMF, Hamas and the PIJ are all innocent victims?

26 minutes ago, Dcheech said:

What this OP was originally about. That light. The US & Trump did not care one ar-e hair, about regime change. It was just a PR gimmick, good for a media moment, which is why Trump & Republicans used it. They don't give a spit about human rights, never did. Likely they are quite envious and think if only they could do, what Iran did, to say, .... anti ICE protestors, Sanctuary cities & Libs in generals. What fun!

Authoritarian/religious militaristic regimes, and wanna be, authoritarian/religious militaristic regimes, think the same.

Regime change was never an official stated objective by the Trump administration.

20 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You claimed that Iran only ever retaliated, yes? Does that not mean that Iran and their proxies Hezbollah, the Houthis, the PMF, Hamas and the PIJ are all innocent victims?

To reiterate, there's no point in trying to have a discussion with someone who will not see.

If you hit me and I hit you back, am I innocent? What if a bystander only saw me hit you and wasn't there for the preceding action?

You are just as extreme as the people you imagine to be the enemy. If you play only to win, then you may have to accept that sometimes you will lose. Your man Trump wanted the glory of being the one to get Iran to capitulate. Much like the Israelis have been trying to suppress the Palestinians. He failed and made things even worse. Anything else is just SPIN.

Sure you can pick a side if you so choose, but don't allow it to blind your eye to the truth of the matter.

It's always been a battle over resources. Let's not pretend otherwise. Is Saudi Arabia a paragon of virtue in your eyes? The USA will do business with the worst of the worst if it suited their aims. Stop hating on people just because you are told to do so. Search for the truth and make up your mind for yourself.

6 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

To reiterate, there's no point in trying to have a discussion with someone who will not see.

If you hit me and I hit you back, am I innocent? What if a bystander only saw me hit you and wasn't there for the preceding action?

You are just as extreme as the people you imagine to be the enemy. If you play only to win, then you may have to accept that sometimes you will lose. Your man Trump wanted the glory of being the one to get Iran to capitulate. Much like the Israelis have been trying to suppress the Palestinians. He failed and made things even worse. Anything else is just SPIN.

Sure you can pick a side if you so choose, but don't allow it to blind your eye to the truth of the matter.

It's always been a battle over resources. Let's not pretend otherwise. Is Saudi Arabia a paragon of virtue in your eyes? The USA will do business with the worst of the worst if it suited their aims. Stop hating on people just because you are told to do so. Search for the truth and make up your mind for yourself.

Yes, if someone is attacked for no reason and they retaliate, then yes, I consider them innocent.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, if someone is attacked for no reason and they retaliate, then yes, I consider them innocent.

So Iran is retaliating...

47 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Regime change was never an official stated objective by the Trump administration.

Why so slippery? Just like the current US administration. There has been no official stated goal. It kept shifting. Not even the congress knew what the goals were meant to be.

President Donald Trump has frequently shifted his stance regarding regime change, particularly in relation to Iran. While he has at times flirted with the idea or claimed the U.S. successfully achieved it, his administration has often walked back these objectives in favor of broader military and diplomatic goals.

His public statements regarding regime change highlight this evolving strategy:

• Initial Openness: Weeks before the U.S. and Israel launched a joint bombing campaign, Trump stated that regime change would be "the best thing that could happen" to Iran. [1]

• Claim of Completion: Following military strikes, Trump declared that regime change in Iran was already underway and essentially complete. He pointed out that since the U.S. was "dealing with a totally different group of people" after key Iranian leaders were taken out, it constituted a form of regime change. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Shifting Objectives: Top administration officials frequently deflected questions about whether overthrowing the Iranian government was the actual goal, with some advisors warning Trump against using military force to prompt an uprising. [1, 2]

• Regional Parallels: Trump frequently touted the U.S. military operation in Venezuela as a successful example of the type of regime change he was seeking. The Venezuela operation involved the U.S. abducting former leader Nicolas Maduro in January, leaving it to his deputies and opposition leaders to figure out the country's next steps. [1, 2]

• Current Focus: Following escalating conflicts and disruptions in global oil supply, the administration's focus has seemingly pivoted to presenting Tehran with strict peace conditions, such as abandoning nuclear programs and regional proxies in exchange for major investments. [1]

6 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

So Iran is retaliating...

You said that already, remember? We dissagreed.

1 minute ago, FigLeaf said:

Why so slippery? Just like the current US administration. There has been no official stated goal. It kept shifting. Not even the congress knew what the goals were meant to be.

President Donald Trump has frequently shifted his stance regarding regime change, particularly in relation to Iran. While he has at times flirted with the idea or claimed the U.S. successfully achieved it, his administration has often walked back these objectives in favor of broader military and diplomatic goals.

His public statements regarding regime change highlight this evolving strategy:

• Initial Openness: Weeks before the U.S. and Israel launched a joint bombing campaign, Trump stated that regime change would be "the best thing that could happen" to Iran. [1]

• Claim of Completion: Following military strikes, Trump declared that regime change in Iran was already underway and essentially complete. He pointed out that since the U.S. was "dealing with a totally different group of people" after key Iranian leaders were taken out, it constituted a form of regime change. [

  , 2, 3, 4]

• Shifting Objectives: Top administration officials frequently deflected questions about whether overthrowing the Iranian government was the actual goal, with some advisors warning Trump against using military force to prompt an uprising. [1, 2]

• Regional Parallels: Trump frequently touted the U.S. military operation in Venezuela as a successful example of the type of regime change he was seeking. The Venezuela operation involved the U.S. abducting former leader Nicolas Maduro in January, leaving it to his deputies and opposition leaders to figure out the country's next steps. [1, 2]

• Current Focus: Following escalating conflicts and disruptions in global oil supply, the administration's focus has seemingly pivoted to presenting Tehran with strict peace conditions, such as abandoning nuclear programs and regional proxies in exchange for major investments. [1]

So, as I said, regime change was never an official stated objective by the Trump administration.

Just now, Yellowtail said:

So, as I said, regime change was never an official stated objective by the Trump administration.

Your point is what exactly? That they attacked another country for reasons that cannot explain? You stand behind that?

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You said that already, remember? We dissagreed.

No. We just agreed. But now you are swivelling.

Iran was seen to be adhering to the JCPOA. That wasn't good enough for Trump, so he withdrew from the agreement. With no agreement, Iran was free to enrich and to gain leverage by doing so. Israel and the USA attacked Iran, twice. According to your rules, Iran is the innocent party.

4 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

Your point is what exactly? That they attacked another country for reasons that cannot explain? You stand behind that?

People often claim that the primary objective of the Iran conflict was/is regime change. My point is that those people are liars.

3 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

No. We just agreed. But now you are swivelling.

Iran was seen to be adhering to the JCPOA. That wasn't good enough for Trump, so he withdrew from the agreement. With no agreement, Iran was free to enrich and to gain leverage by doing so. Israel and the USA attacked Iran, twice. According to your rules, Iran is the innocent party.

No, we never agreed that Iran was only retaliating, you said that, not me.

The JCPOA was never good enough for anyone that did not want Iran to continue funding their proxies, and to further develop their intercontinental ballistic missle, military drone, and nuclear programs.

For the people that wanted Iran to continue funding their proxies, and to further develop their intercontinental ballistic missle, military drone, and nuclear programs, the JCPOA was great.

4 hours ago, connda said:

If the two brothers were part of movement attempting to violently overthrow Thailand, would they face consequences of caught?
If the two brothers were part of movement attempting to violently overthrow the United States, would they face consequences of caught?
If the two brothers were part of movement attempting to violently overthrow an EU countries, would they face consequences of caught?

The hard fact is that the US wants a violent overthrow of the current Iranian government and a return to how things were under the Pahlavi (Shah of Iran - a brutal dictatorship controlled by the West) regime. In fact, that is about the only "conditions" that are acceptable to the US. Trump even admitted to sending weapons to the Kurd in the North of Iran for the violent overthrow, although the Kurds seemed to have kept the weapons themselves. Image Russia and China sending weapons to Cartels in Mexico if they agree to destabilize the governments of the Southern US states by force of arms?

Everything past that - including this news article - are part and parcel of an information war to convince Western audiences that Iran needs to be overthrown by force of arms. Nothing new here as the United States and colonial European countries have been overthrowing smaller, weaker countries since I was born including the overthrow of the Democratically elected PM of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, in 1953 by the CIA in order to establish the puppet government of the Shah and to hand over control of all of Iran's oil resources to British Petroleum and other Western corporations. And the US continues to overthrow sovereign governments today. It never ends, it's just one big cycle of never ending violence toward smaller and vulnerable countries in order to gain free access to their resources.

To paraphrase James (It's the economy stupid) Carville, "It's the OIL stupid."

Spot on post. You might like BKK based Brian Berletic - he points out US think tanks have documented policies openly discussing how to thwart competitors (Russia, China etc) by hook or crook.
Also, division of labour: Tie the EU up win a war with Russia (to handicap both rivals), Use Israel wrt Iran to cut suply of oil into China etc.

https://www.youtube.com/@TheNewAtlas
or
https://x.com/BrianJBerletic

37 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

People often claim that the primary objective of the Iran conflict was/is regime change. My point is that those people are liars.

Where are those people? Are you communicating with them now? What have they to do with this conversation?

The fact is that the administration could not justify any reason for their attack. They retrospectively went for a UN Security Council resolution, which fell at the first hurdle.

17 hours ago, CMHomeboy78 said:

Very few mentions of Israel in these replies.

Strange, because they were the ones who provoked this whole disaster.

Spot on.

Not only did Israel incite this latest conflict with Iran to begin with, but they are the driving force behind its continuation.

Every time a peace deal seems likely to be agreed upon, they sink it.

Their strategy in the Middle East is obvious.

Anybody who doesn't see it is either willfully ignorant or pushing an agenda.

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, we never agreed that Iran was only retaliating, you said that, not me.

The JCPOA was never good enough for anyone that did not want Iran to continue funding their proxies, and to further develop their intercontinental ballistic missle, military drone, and nuclear programs.

For the people that wanted Iran to continue funding their proxies, and to further develop their intercontinental ballistic missle, military drone, and nuclear programs, the JCPOA was great.

Do you think they are going to stop doing any of those things, as long as Israel and the USA threaten them?

They will continue, as it is in their best interest to do so. Who will protect them otherwise? The USA? You, much like the slippery US administration, move the goalposts to suit yourselves. No one trusts you anymore. Congratulations.

5 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

Where are those people?

They are all around us.

5 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

Are you communicating with them now?

How would I know? It's an open forum.

5 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

What have they to do with this conversation?

Somone earlier in the thread commented on regime change. I responded to them.

5 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

The fact is that the administration could not justify any reason for their attack. They retrospectively went for a UN Security Council resolution, which fell at the first hurdle.

And?

9 minutes ago, FigLeaf said:

Do you think they are going to stop doing any of those things, as long as Israel and the USA threaten them?

They will continue, as it is in their best interest to do so. Who will protect them otherwise? The USA? You, much like the slippery US administration, move the goalposts to suit yourselves. No one trusts you anymore. Congratulations.

You are sounding more and more familiar, what was your username last week?

I think Iran has been doing those things for decades and will continue doing them until taken to task.

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

You are sounding more and more familiar, what was your username last week?

I think Iran has been doing those things for decades and will continue doing them until taken to task.

I think anyone who tries to talk sense into you will sound familiar. I guess you've encountered a lot of people like myself, but it just won't sink in.