Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Israeli tanks kill 59 people in Gaza crowd trying to get food aid, medics say

CAIRO/GAZA, June 17 (Reuters) - Israeli tanks fired into a crowd trying to get aid from trucks in Gaza on Tuesday, killing at least 59 people, according to medics, in one of the bloodiest incidents yet in mounting violence as desperate residents struggle for food.

Video shared on social media showed around a dozen mangled bodies lying in a street in Khan Younis in the southern Gaza Strip. The Israeli military, at war with Hamas-led Palestinian militants in Gaza since October 2023, acknowledged firing in the area and said it was looking into the incident.

Witnesses interviewed by Reuters said Israeli tanks had launched at least two shells at a crowd of thousands who had gathered on the main eastern road through Khan Younis in the hope of obtaining food from aid trucks that use the route.

"All of a sudden, they let us move forward and made everyone gather, and then shells started falling, tank shells," said Alaa, an eyewitness, interviewed by Reuters at Nasser Hospital, where wounded victims lay sprawled on the floor and in corridors due to the lack of space.

"No one is looking at these people with mercy. The people are dying, they are being torn apart, to get food for their children. Look at these people, all these people are torn to get flour to feed their children."

Palestinian medics said at least 59 people were killed and 221 wounded in the incident, at least 20 of them in critical condition. Casualties were being rushed into the hospital in civilian cars, rickshaws and donkey carts. It was the worst death toll in a single day since aid resumed in Gaza in May.

In a statement, the Israeli military said: "Earlier today, a gathering was identified adjacent to an aid distribution truck that got stuck in the area of Khan Younis, and in proximity to IDF troops operating in the area.

"The IDF is aware of reports regarding a number of injured individuals from IDF fire following the crowd’s approach. The details of the incident are under review. The IDF regrets any harm to uninvolved individuals and operates to minimise harm as much as possible to them while maintaining the safety of our troops."

Medics said at least 14 other people were also killed by Israeli gunfire and airstrikes elsewhere in the densely populated enclave, taking Tuesday's overall death toll to at least 73.

Funeral of Palestinians killed in what the Gaza health ministry says was Israeli fire near a distribution center in Rafah, in Khan Younis

The health ministry said 397 Palestinians, among those trying to get food aid, had been killed and more than 3,000 were wounded since late May.

The incident was the latest in nearly daily large-scale killings of Palestinians seeking aid in the three weeks since Israel partially lifted a total blockade on the territory it had imposed for nearly three months.

Israel has been channelling much of the aid it is now allowing into Gaza through a new U.S.- and Israeli-backed group, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which operates a handful of distribution sites in areas guarded by Israeli forces.

The United Nations rejects the system as inadequate, dangerous and a violation of humanitarian impartiality rules. Israel says it is needed to prevent Hamas fighters from diverting aid, which Hamas denies.

Gaza authorities say hundreds of Palestinians have been killed trying to reach GHF sites.

The GHF said in a press release late on Monday that it had distributed more than three million meals at its four distribution sites without incident.

The Gaza war was triggered in October 2023, when Palestinian Hamas militants attacked Israel, killing 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli allies. Israel's subsequent military assault on Gaza has killed nearly 55,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza's health ministry, while displacing nearly the entire population of 2.3 million and causing a hunger crisis.

Since last week, Gaza Palestinians have kept an eye on the new air war between Israel and Iran, which has long been a major supporter of Hamas.

Gaza residents have circulated images of buildings in Israel wrecked by Iranian missiles, some saying they are happy to see Israelis experiencing a measure of the fear of airstrikes that they have endured for 20 months.

  • Rage+1 5
Posted
2 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Has there been any actual proof given that Iran has or is close to creating a nuke?  Other than a Bibi, Trust me bro?

Centcom commander claims that they could have up to 10 nukes within 3 weeks given current stockpiles and enrichment capabilities.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

Has there been any actual proof given that Iran has or is close to creating a nuke?  Other than a Bibi, Trust me bro?

There is no publicly available proof, but a 60% uranium enrichment level is far above what is necessary for civilian nuclear power. It's below the enrichment level of modern warheads but is sufficient to create fission bombs. There is no reason to have a stockpile of HEU other than to create weapons. This doesn't mean they currently have the capability but they could do it with the material on hand.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Ted Lange said:

So a couple of months ago Tulsi tells congress Iran is nowhere close to having a nuke, now they could have 10 in 3 weeks?

Perhaps you missed the foundational theme of this regime: they will regularly say two things that are complete opposites of each other, then when one of them turns out to be the case, they point to it and say they were telling the truth.

"I predict Texas will win!"

"I predict OU will win!"

[Texas wins]

"See, I was right!"

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Not saying he's lying, but just to shed light on what Israel thinks of him and why he might be more willing to vouch for this "three weeks" timetable

https://allisraelnews.com/israel-reportedly-pushes-for-iran-strike-before-pro-israel-us-centcom-chief-kurilla-retires

Quote

Kurilla is reportedly leading a faction in Washington that seeks to convince U.S. President Donald Trump to greenlight a joint military strike against the Iranian regime. However, other voices within the Trump administration have rejected the military option and favor a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem.

Quote

Israel is concerned that Kurilla’s successor will be far less supportive of military action against Tehran. For that reason, Israel and its allies in Washington seek a military strike against Iran in the near future.

Article is from April 2025

Posted
10 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

Centcom commander claims that they could have up to 10 nukes within 3 weeks given current stockpiles and enrichment capabilities.

Even IF they could enrich that much uranium, the metallurgy to mold, cast, and machine nuclear metals would take a loooooong fucking time too. This is shit where even being off by a micron can cause a nuclear fizzle instead of a critical mass. I really doubt that they could go from mid-grade uranium to finished warheads in three weeks. That's just absurd without an existing pipeline that's been at cold-war era level of production

3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Not saying he's lying, but just to shed light on what Israel thinks of him and why he might be more willing to vouch for this "three weeks" timetable

https://allisraelnews.com/israel-reportedly-pushes-for-iran-strike-before-pro-israel-us-centcom-chief-kurilla-retires

Article is from April 2025

I do think if he's not outright lying, he's leaving out key context that causes his statement to be extremely misleading at best

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Even IF they could enrich that much uranium, the metallurgy to mold, cast, and machine nuclear metals would take a loooooong fucking time too. This is shit where even being off by a micron can cause a nuclear fizzle instead of a critical mass. I really doubt that they could go from mid-grade uranium to finished warheads in three weeks.

Yeah I think enrichment must be much more difficult to achieve in practice. The three week timetable probably assumes a bunch of highly improbable events go in Iran's favor. I hate Tulsi but there is no reason to think she was wrong.

Posted

According to this poll discussed in an Israeli newspaper, it seems most Israelis are A-OKAY with ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories, and about half are in favor of outright genocide.

image.png.05f28abf8e705cfd7a1b1c9b701d5f1f.png

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-05-28/ty-article-magazine/.premium/yes-to-transfer-82-of-jewish-israelis-back-expelling-gazans/00000197-12a4-df22-a9d7-9ef6af930000

A recent survey of Israeli Jews reveals a growing comfort with the idea of forcibly expelling Palestinians – both from Gaza and from within Israel's borders. The poll also found that a significant minority supports the mass killing of civilians in enemy cities captured by the Israeli army. These disturbing trends reflect the radicalization of religious Zionism since Israel's 2005 withdrawal from Gaza, and the failure of secular Israeli Jews to articulate a vision that challenges Jewish supremacy.

Commissioned in March by Pennsylvania State University and conducted by Tamir Sorek for the Israeli polling firm Geocartography Knowledge Group, the survey polled a representative sample of 1,005 Jewish Israelis. It posed a series of "impolite" questions – topics typically avoided in mainstream Israeli polling – about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

According to the results, 82 percent of respondents supported the expulsion of Gaza's residents, while 56 percent favored expelling Palestinian citizens of Israel. These figures mark a sharp rise from a 2003 survey, in which support for such expulsions stood at 45 percent and 31 percent, respectively.

Religious interpretations play a key role in shaping these views. Nearly half (47 percent) of respondents agreed that "when conquering an enemy city, the Israel Defense Forces should act as the Israelites did in Jericho under Joshua's command – killing all its inhabitants." Sixty-five percent said they believed in the existence of a modern-day incarnation of Amalek, the Israelite biblical enemy whom God commanded to wipe out in Deuteronomy 25:19. Among those believers, 93 percent said the commandment to erase Amalek's memory remains relevant today.

image.png.34cf44b199b62ca8480e8f3bfc38a91a.png
image.png.06149722a525427fc387fe0efec67c6e.png

This apocalyptic rhetoric has found fertile ground in religious Zionist circles, where leaders have long advocated for such extreme policies.

One of the most influential figures to call for such policies is Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, head of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. In January 2005, just before Israel's dismantling of its Gaza settlements, Ginsburgh delivered a sermon near the Knesset that laid out a vision fundamentally at odds with the secular Zionist ideal of a "Jewish and democratic state."

Ginsburgh gained notoriety for his pamphlet "Baruch Hagever" ("Baruch the Man"), which praised Baruch Goldstein, the settler who massacred 29 Muslim worshippers in Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs in 1994. Following the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, Ginsburgh was placed under administrative detention. He later endorsed a book that sanctioned the killing of non-Jewish women and children.

Unlike the early leaders of the Gush Emunim settler movement, Ginsburgh views any Palestinian presence in the Land of Israel as a desecration of God's name.

His 2005 sermon, now known as "Time to Crack the Nut," was a call to embrace Jewish supremacy in the Land of Israel. It prepared his followers for mass violence and ethnic cleansing – policies that, two decades later, appear to be unfolding in Gaza. With Ginsburgh's vision seemingly coming to fruition, it is worth revisiting the ideological framework he proposed.

 

This is a long piece. It goes on about the history of this Ginsburgh guy and his movement, but in all the discussions on this board, we rarely talk about the radicalization that's taking place among Israel's population (free link):  https://archive.is/lRf9g

 

  • Rage+1 3
Posted (edited)

well shit, someone should notify Trump to not listen to his Centcom commander and instead let him know captainant and chainsaw from surlyhorns have better info.

Edited by babysdaddy
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 5
Posted (edited)

It's pretty common knowledge that Trump had been favoring diplomacy over Kurilla's "joint strike" idea. None of the facts on the ground had changed since April. Bibi just lost patience and decided to start a war, which now forces Trump to make a more decisive commitment toward diplomacy or war. For the sake of our troops, we should be hoping he sides with diplomacy.

Edited by chainsaw
  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
17 minutes ago, babysdaddy said:

well shit, someone should notify Trump to not listen to his Centcom commander and instead let him know captainant and chainsaw from surlyhorns have better info.

I mean, his Director of National Intelligence was propogating russian talking points in 2022 about Ukraine being an aggressor and building bioweapons labs, and traveled to Syria in 2017 to meet with Bashar al-Assad and accuse the US of funding terrorists in the middle east.

But let he who's military industrial complex has not falsely claimed WMD's to justify an aggressive war of regime change throw the first shoe

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It's pretty common knowledge that Trump had been favoring diplomacy over Kurilla's "joint strike" idea. None of the facts on the ground had changed since April. Bibi just lost patience and decided to start a war, which now forces Trump to make a more decisive commitment toward diplomacy or war. For the sake of our troops, we should be hoping he sides with diplomacy.

I think this is correct. Bibi’s instincts were right it appears, but I wonder if even he’s surprised at how well things have gone. I can’t imagine that we’ll get in the way of them finishing the job at this point, as much as I’d love diplomacy. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

I mean, his Director of National Intelligence was propogating russian talking points in 2022 about Ukraine being an aggressor and building bioweapons labs, and traveled to Syria in 2017 to meet with Bashar al-Assad and accuse the US of funding terrorists in the middle east.

But let he who's military industrial complex has not falsely claimed WMD's to justify an aggressive war of regime change throw the first shoe

The current CENTCOM commander is a Biden nominee, not that it matters much because American foreign policy is effectively uniparty, but he's also just saying things that are technically true, which is that they could, in theory, make a number of nuclear weapons with the amount of fissile material they have on hand. It doesn't actually mean much other than to sound scary to people who are barely paying attention.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Perhaps you missed the foundational theme of this regime: they will regularly say two things that are complete opposites of each other, then when one of them turns out to be the case, they point to it and say they were telling the truth.

"I predict Texas will win!"

"I predict OU will win!"

[Texas wins]

"See, I was right!"

I posted it above, but the White House said Trump was leaving G-7 to deal with Israel-Iran.

Macron, when asked, said President was leaving to deal with Israel-Iran. 

Trump goes on Truth Social and says I didn't leave because of Israel-Iran and Macron is talking out of his ass. 

That's just in the last 18 fucking hours. 

 

Gaslighting and bullshit is default for this administration.  They are the fuckboi of Presidential Administration. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 3
  • Rage+1 3
Posted (edited)

Pro or con, hopes for diplomacy resolution appear to be wish casting at this point. The rest of the ME has pretty much stepped back from the table other than emphasizing the need for OG production to be unharmed thus allowing Israel to free fly over Iran. The OG caution was essentially fired at both Iran and Israel, which to me implies the oil money is good with Israel taking out Iran, but not Iran's OG. Which tracks as they appear sick of Iran's shit, always hated one another and know it will also filter to the Gaza noise ultimately if the Palestinians power back is removed. I'm extremely confident Israel was dedicated to finishing this one from the onset. All of that helps create some at least perceived stability which is good for OG business.

US leadership heard the battle cry of the OG money men, conviently sided with their only "friend" in the region and put the tankers in the air for the B2s. Trump steps away from G7.

Nothing is of course set in stone, but if anyone sees this differently than I do, I'm open to hearing why they think so.

For the record, I've said it before but for clarification, I'm all for Iranian leadership getting taken down. There are lots of reasons for it. First, I'm personally tired of this can being kicked down the road. I also want the people of Iran out from under that oppressive regime and to hopefully find autonomy. I recognize a new puppet regime could come in or worse group, but like to believe it might not. It also not so indirectly positively help Ukraine and that's great. Finally, I truly believe its better for the west in respect to terror threats. 

Edit - I do openly acknowledge this is likely very bad for Palestinians and understand why some would take issue with my perspective. I try looking at the bigger picture and see what is best more most humans while admitting my own/US self interest/preservation bias.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

Yeah, we are going to join. In what capacity remains to be seen. Logistics to active bombing. 

We all know what he means by unconditional surrender. And there has to be people in Iran who watched how we dealt with Syria. Assad leaves, we recognize and pledge aid. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
23 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

The current CENTCOM commander is a Biden nominee, not that it matters much because American foreign policy is effectively uniparty, but he's also just saying things that are technically true, which is that they could, in theory, make a number of nuclear weapons with the amount of fissile material they have on hand. It doesn't actually mean much other than to sound scary to people who are barely paying attention.

Just for clarification, didn't the IAEA say the same? I agree having it doesn't mean their intent is/was to use it but I think the more they're backed into a corner the more likely it becomes. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Just for clarification, didn't the IAEA say the same? I agree having it doesn't mean their intent is/was to use it but I think the more they're backed into a corner the more likely it becomes. 

I don't know if they did but it's true so it doesn't matter. Either way, unless they've already got one which is highly unlikely, it doesn't seem like it matters at this point.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

If Netanyahu's goal is not only the destruction of Iran's capacity to build nuclear weapons -- and I believe it is, given the expansion of targets beyond those sites (e.g., state TV) AND his repeated calls for the Iranian people to rise up -- what's the on-the-ground situation in Iran if they/we are successful in toppling the regime?

Recall the power vacuum left in Iraq when the Baathists were taken out, instability in Syria during their civil war, and the subsequent rise of ISIS in the region. What's the plan for nation-building after a war for regime change? Are we confident that the people would support the son of the Shah? What happens with all the nuclear material that Iran has built up?

I sure hope Israel/US has a plan for that, if it is indeed the goal.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I sure hope Israel/US has a plan for that, if it is indeed the goal.

Of course there's a plan. 

Trump International, Qeshm Island:

Who Owns the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas? - City Cast Las Vegas

 

Edited by utee94
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

Has there been any actual proof given that Iran has or is close to creating a nuke?  Other than a Bibi, Trust me bro?

FWIW, Israel’s politicians are united on this front, and so are the generals that got their positions before Bibi returned to power. They all genuinely believe the clock had run out. 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

If Netanyahu's goal is not only the destruction of Iran's capacity to build nuclear weapons -- and I believe it is, given the expansion of targets beyond those sites (e.g., state TV) AND his repeated calls for the Iranian people to rise up -- what's the on-the-ground situation in Iran if they/we are successful in toppling the regime?

Recall the power vacuum left in Iraq when the Baathists were taken out, instability in Syria during their civil war, and the subsequent rise of ISIS in the region. What's the plan for nation-building after a war for regime change? Are we confident that the people would support the son of the Shah? What happens with all the nuclear material that Iran has built up?

I sure hope Israel/US has a plan for that, if it is indeed the goal.

Most of the country is Shia, so except for the SE I don't think you will see sectarian violence. There expect more terror hits (bombings, assasinations, Pakistani involvement).

Kurds will be quiet and want to be part of any coalition. See Syria. 

Best thing that we could send in would be an Iranian academic who has lived in Sweden and not seen as tainted by US backing. No Beltway boys. 

Keep US Boots limited, like we did the early days in Afghanistan. Massive rapid development projects. Simple shit people need. Food, medical, power. Fix irrigation. USAID has all those tools ready. Oh wait. 

So who would lead a Peacekeeping force? Cannot be US, Arab (Sunni) and doubt we would let China. Russia will want to but cannot project the force so would be like us, small troops and an "advisory" force. This was similar to the initial days in Afghanistan. Canada could lead backed by Latin America, the Nordic states, some Africans to augment. 

  • Like 1
Posted
Most of the country is Shia, so except for the SE I don't think you will see sectarian violence. There expect more terror hits (bombings, assasinations, Pakistani involvement).
Kurds will be quiet and want to be part of any coalition. See Syria. 
Best thing that we could send in would be an Iranian academic who has lived in Sweden and not seen as tainted by US backing. No Beltway boys. 
Keep US Boots limited, like we did the early days in Afghanistan. Massive rapid development projects. Simple shit people need. Food, medical, power. Fix irrigation. USAID has all those tools ready. Oh wait. 
So who would lead a Peacekeeping force? Cannot be US, Arab (Sunni) and doubt we would let China. Russia will want to but cannot project the force so would be like us, small troops and an "advisory" force. This was similar to the initial days in Afghanistan. Canada could lead backed by Latin America, the Nordic states, some Africans to augment. 

You’ll get Jared Kushner in a sport coat planning a beach resort and like it.
  • Haha 5
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
1 minute ago, utee94 said:

Of course there's a plan. 

Trump International, Queshm Island:

Who Owns the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas? - City Cast Las Vegas

 

Don't forget Trump Sebastian Terhan.

221814552.thumb.jpg.a743c2d7d530386a41a3e31fc5715c32.jpg

or Trump Rock House Hormuz with its reddish orange sand beaches 

Rock20House20Jamaica_dji_0737-pano_47325516742_o.thumb.jpg.f161fd2e357e034dca637cb70602bc74.jpg

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

Has there been any actual proof given that Iran has or is close to creating a nuke?  Other than a Bibi, Trust me bro?

Here's their movement on enrichment per CNN.

 

image.thumb.png.26ffc891949cc306e2d26f0734ce4ea2.png

image.thumb.png.acc58281b91cdd04cbe11bbaf5913e65.png

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
9 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Most of the country is Shia, so except for the SE I don't think you will see sectarian violence. There expect more terror hits (bombings, assasinations, Pakistani involvement).

Kurds will be quiet and want to be part of any coalition. See Syria. 

Best thing that we could send in would be an Iranian academic who has lived in Sweden and not seen as tainted by US backing. No Beltway boys. 

Keep US Boots limited, like we did the early days in Afghanistan. Massive rapid development projects. Simple shit people need. Food, medical, power. Fix irrigation. USAID has all those tools ready. Oh wait. 

So who would lead a Peacekeeping force? Cannot be US, Arab (Sunni) and doubt we would let China. Russia will want to but cannot project the force so would be like us, small troops and an "advisory" force. This was similar to the initial days in Afghanistan. Canada could lead backed by Latin America, the Nordic states, some Africans to augment. 

 

Right, no sectarian violence, but there could absolutely be strong ideological differences. It's not like there isn't an example of the last Shah being deposed. And as for SE Iran, isn't that area dominated by Baluchis, the same group that's in western Pakistan? Haven't those guys been in some kind of low-level rebellion against the Pakistani government? If so, what's the risk of them uniting and trying to break off from both Iran and Pakistan to create their own country?

And, then of course, the installation of western troops (US or otherwise spread out trying to protect the oil & gas fields, as well as all the downstream infrastructure: refineries, pipelines, etc. Are Americans prepared to see US soldiers getting bombed protecting all those assets and facilities? 

Finally, what's the obligation of the Israelis under the principle of "you broke it; you fix it" if they're successful in their push for regime change? Obviously, they're not going in as occupiers, but should they pay some of the bills since they're the lead in all this?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yeah, we are going to join. In what capacity remains to be seen. Logistics to active bombing. 

We all know what he means by unconditional surrender. And there has to be people in Iran who watched how we dealt with Syria. Assad leaves, we recognize and pledge aid. 

I have no way of pointing out that sentence without turning it into heavy CR.

 

 

lets just say that "we" reads different in June 2025 than in Dec 2024 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

image.thumb.png.26ffc891949cc306e2d26f0734ce4ea2.png

Weird how all the available evidence backs up exactly what I was saying about Iran complying with the nuclear restrictions prior to Trump blowing up the agreement in 2018, and now we have a belligerently non-compliant Iran with its back to the wall and a stockpile of HEU. I'm sure all the resident donkeys that love to bray at me for pointing out obvious, easily verifiable information will provide some proof to match their vibes any minute now.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Right, no sectarian violence, but there could absolutely be strong ideological differences. It's not like there isn't an example of the last Shah being deposed. And as for SE Iran, isn't that area dominated by Baluchis, the same group that's in western Pakistan? Haven't those guys been in some kind of low-level rebellion against the Pakistani government? If so, what's the risk of them uniting and trying to break off from both Iran and Pakistan to create their own country?

And, then of course, the installation of western troops (US or otherwise spread out trying to protect the oil & gas fields, as well as all the downstream infrastructure: refineries, pipelines, etc. Are Americans prepared to see US soldiers getting bombed protecting all those assets and facilities? 

Finally, what's the obligation of the Israelis under the principle of "you broke it; you fix it" if they're successful in their push for regime change? Obviously, they're not going in as occupiers, but should they pay some of the bills since they're the lead in all this?

Yes, there are Baluchi's there, but also other Sunni groups. Agree there would be some ideological differences. And external influence (Look north and west). Baluchis have always wanted their own place. They are a pretty big ass tribe sitting on some valuable land. Here is what they claim. Some pretty damn important ports, but also a lot of Chinese investment. 

image.jpeg.28fa0c5761aa41a969ab6b721403bc82.jpeg

No, it would not look good, and why I said no US troops. Canadians, Nordics, they do not carry the animosity. Sure high level of force protection, but it can be done. That is why you have contractors to protect those sites. 

Israel? yeah, they are not going to pay shit, but the Gulf Arabs will. They can fund reconstruction. They need the good press in the Shia world. Let each country adopt a province. They will try to outdo each other so hard. 

Risks-

Iran breaks up into regions controlled by warlords. Make sure people have jobs and they tend to not fight. We failed at that in both Afghanistan and Iraq relying on third country nationals for even down to the most basic jobs. 

Limit the Influx of foreign private capitol from Iranian diaspora. This tends to change the national make up a lot. Limit what they can do. If you create an Iranian first policy, make residency a requirement. 

Return of the Clerics at the regional level to keep being angry. Why are they angry? Invaders and they lost power. So limit the number of international (ie White) troops, and let them have roles. Again, we imposed religious leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Also, embrace Persian legacy. Make people proud of. Teach the Rubiyat on TV. Etc... Again, we stifled both in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to push Western culture. 

And at the regional level, well shit, if one province wants women to have their hair covered, so what? Not every state has the same laws. Allow that. It will slow down the calls for Radical growth. 

 

Edited by InkaUtexas
Added some shit
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yes, there are Baluchi's there, but also other Sunni groups. Agree there would be some ideological differences. And external influence (Look north and west). Baluchis have always wanted their own place. They are a pretty big ass tribe sitting on some valuable land. Here is what they claim. Some pretty damn important ports, but also a lot of Chinese investment. 

image.jpeg.28fa0c5761aa41a969ab6b721403bc82.jpeg

No, it would not look good, and why I said no US troops. Canadians, Nordics, they do not carry the animosity. Sure high level of force protection, but it can be done. That is why you have contractors to protect those sites. 

Israel? yeah, they are not going to pay shit, but the Gulf Arabs will. They can fun reconstruction. They need the good press in the Shia world. Let each country adopt a province. They will try to outdo each other so hard. 

Risks-

Iran breaks up into regions controlled by warlords. Make sure people have jobs and they tend to not fight. We failed at that in both Afghanistan and Iran relying on third country nationals for even down to the most basic jobs. 

Limit the Influx of foreign private capitol from Iranian diaspora. This tends to change the national make up a lot. Limit what they can do. If you create an Iranian first policy, make residency a requirement. 

 

Man, I love you, but there ain't no fucking way the Persian Diaspora isn't going to meddle incessantly in post Ayatolla Iran.  The US ones alone will pay-for-play with the Trump White House for concessions. 

It's not quite going to be on the grift level of South Florida Cuban meddling in the case of a Cuban government collapse, but it's going to be bad. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
15 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Israel is going to get this done.

I don't see what's going to stop them with them already taking out the proxies and the rest of the ME pretty much shrugging.

Posted
1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

Man, I love you, but there ain't no fucking way the Persian Diaspora isn't going to meddle incessantly in post Ayatolla Iran.  The US ones alone will pay-for-play with the Trump White House for concessions. 

It's not quite going to be on the grift level of South Florida Cuban meddling in the case of a Cuban government collapse, but it's going to be bad. 

No, it could be worse. See, the Diaspora has made a killing overseas. The maker of the primary truck trailer used to supply US forces in Iraq was, yep, Iranian based in Dubai partnered with the Kuwaiti royal family. Add to that the dudes who own the Kebab consortium just in Germany. The list goes on. I did not say stop it, no way, but limit it. It is easy. Limit the amount that can be transferred on any day. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

I posted it above, but the White House said Trump was leaving G-7 to deal with Israel-Iran.

Macron, when asked, said President was leaving to deal with Israel-Iran. 

Trump goes on Truth Social and says I didn't leave because of Israel-Iran and Macron is talking out of his ass. 

That's just in the last 18 fucking hours. 

 

Gaslighting and bullshit is default for this administration.  They are the fuckboi of Presidential Administration. 

I don't have a dog in the fight, but just for clarity, I think the disagreement was over Macron's use of the phrase "ceasefire". 

Posted
2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yes, there are Baluchi's there, but also other Sunni groups. Agree there would be some ideological differences. And external influence (Look north and west). Baluchis have always wanted their own place. They are a pretty big ass tribe sitting on some valuable land. Here is what they claim. Some pretty damn important ports, but also a lot of Chinese investment. 

image.jpeg.28fa0c5761aa41a969ab6b721403bc82.jpeg

No, it would not look good, and why I said no US troops. Canadians, Nordics, they do not carry the animosity. Sure high level of force protection, but it can be done. That is why you have contractors to protect those sites. 

Israel? yeah, they are not going to pay shit, but the Gulf Arabs will. They can fun reconstruction. They need the good press in the Shia world. Let each country adopt a province. They will try to outdo each other so hard. 

Risks-

Iran breaks up into regions controlled by warlords. Make sure people have jobs and they tend to not fight. We failed at that in both Afghanistan and Iran relying on third country nationals for even down to the most basic jobs. 

Limit the Influx of foreign private capitol from Iranian diaspora. This tends to change the national make up a lot. Limit what they can do. If you create an Iranian first policy, make residency a requirement. 

 

 

I appreciate your patience in responding to my multiple "just asking questions" posts, but if we're going down this road to toppling another government, I'd really like us to have thoroughly discussed the consequences in addition to the casus belli.

Bolded would be my biggest worry. You know far more about the region than I ever will, so I'll take your word about the Kurds remaining peaceful, not trying to break away, and I had some idea about the folks in SE Iran already.

How about all these other groups, though? Do any of the others have breakaway tendencies, or do other neighboring countries have revanchist claims on Iranian territory?

image.thumb.png.85bf1d627036e0b7c6e12f9fc25ba6f7.png

image.thumb.png.8b588f56204b30df88a5fb4381ac5ca1.png

Posted
17 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Was sitting with an Emirati general on his fishing boat one day. Just off their Economic Zone. Basically a very  controlled area.

"See those Islands" he says.

Yep, as I sip a nice scotch.

"They have runways. Israel built them for their jets in case of emergency landings."

Shocked look on my face, not due to the scotch.

"Yep, we prefer them to the Clerics. Shia bastards."

This dude had spent his life up in the mountains fighting against Iranian rebels. He did not like them one bit.

 

What type of scotch?

Posted
3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

I appreciate your patience in responding to my multiple "just asking questions" posts, but if we're going down this road to toppling another government, I'd really like us to have thoroughly discussed the consequences in addition to the casus belli.

Bolded would be my biggest worry. You know far more about the region than I ever will, so I'll take your word about the Kurds remaining peaceful, not trying to break away, and I had some idea about the folks in SE Iran already.

How about all these other groups, though? Do any of the others have breakaway tendencies, or do other neighboring countries have revanchist claims on Iranian territory?

image.thumb.png.85bf1d627036e0b7c6e12f9fc25ba6f7.png

image.thumb.png.8b588f56204b30df88a5fb4381ac5ca1.png

From what I have learned in conversations and readings (I never lived or worked there) most are assimilated. Notice in the SE the Arab group and Bandari? Yeah, that is the SE I am talking about. 

The Azeri's could try to break away and join their brethren. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
49 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Here's their movement on enrichment per CNN.

 

image.thumb.png.26ffc891949cc306e2d26f0734ce4ea2.png

image.thumb.png.acc58281b91cdd04cbe11bbaf5913e65.png

Gee, will ya look at that.  Somehow or other, enrichment accelerated when someone tore up this agreement we had.  Or maybe that whole thing is an elaborate construct of the MSM.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...