Trump announces that the USA has bombed Iranian nuclear sites.
11mon 20h ago by lemmy.ml/u/geneva_convenience in worldnews@lemmy.ml from lemmy.ml
NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!
Irony truly is dead.
He ends a bunch of his tweets that way, he's very strange.
And then he eats his hamberder too.
Thank you for attention to hamberder
Many such cases.
He's read a few work-emails recently (by accident, naturally) and some of their jargon seems to have stuck with him.
It wasn't before already?
There's always a tweet:
Getting these vibes
Wanna take a trip to the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum and liberate this banner for the memes?
Congress?? Hello?
They're too busy changing their pants after their wishes finally came true
“So we still get paid and we don’t have to do anything? That’s amazing! Haha, but why do I have to face the wall for this part?”
Nah, they're all on the phone with their stockbrokers.
You laugh but several members of Congress bought stocks in defense contractors shortly before this military operation
I wasn't joking.
It's weird to laugh in a time like this. Thank you, I guess.
Sometimes laughing is all we can do in times like this
In 2001 when The US authorized use of force on Al-Qaeda that, along with The 1973 war powers resolution gave the president (as in the position of president, not just Bush) unlimited ability to bomb anyone loosely associated with Al-Qaeda in perpetuity.
It's what allowed Bush, then Obama, then Trump, and then Biden, and now Trump again, to use the military as they see fit for performing military operations against basically any state and group in the middle east.
It's not a meme, it's real
We killed a bunch of people but now I want peace....
I punched you but please don't hit me back or I'll cry.
Soy Right, at it again
Why would I fight? I'll just dodge the draft and fasttrack my presidential campaign.
My platform is ABWA: America Becomes West Again. Everyone does horses, cowboy hats, and guns again. You wanna travel further than 3 towns over? Train.
Please also make it wild as well, I really liked west world and that animation where Johnny depp is a chameleon in case you want some examples of what I'd vote for.
All US Marshalls will be androids, so you feel ok shooting them while living as an outlaw.
You will need a Bachelor's in some liberal arts degree to qualify for the outlaw profession. Outlaws pay taxes only every other year, and are categorized as "self-employed" so you have to track your own taxes.
The photo should just be an Israeli flag.
A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site...NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE!
How the F*** can anyone use these two lines in a single paragraph. Absurdity here is comical
War is Peace. Freedom is slavery.
And now for your Five Minute Hate.
Subjugation is liberation? Contradiction is truth?
A perfect presentation of American thinking.
" we bomb you to have peace with you"
That line sounds like it was written directly by Netanyahu himself.
That's because they are the same genocidal, colonialist state.
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."
Comical is... A word. I'm not even a smoker, but I feel like a cigarette and some liqueur.
I'm so fucking tired...
We come in peace
^shoot to kill^
He really wants that Nobel Prize Obama got for waging 13 wars so he have to up the game.
GWAR has entered the chat.
Just saw this earlier.
This was new to me, but confirmed true by Snopes
Please tell me none of these bombs were nukes...
Fucking amazing.
PNAC gets its way in the end, despite at least 40% of Trump's rise to political prominence being due to him being one of the few Republicans to criticize... you know, all the pointless meddling and wars in the ME.
... And Trump is almost single handedly responsible for all of this.
He tore up the nuke deal Obama made. He massively mismanaged every element of the Israeli/Palestine situation. Fucking stepson Kushner's gonna figure it out, don't worry.
Oh yeah lets piss off everyone and move the embassy to Jerusalem.
Beyond contemptible.
The man is a demon.
Kefka?
Is Trump Kefka, or is that an insult to Kefka?
Fucking childish demon clown that just wants to blow up the whole world so he can feel special.
They were not.
Hitting nuclear facilities with conventional weapons is just dirty bombs with extra steps. These attacks are a number of international high crimes, including the nonproliferation treaty.
Well, at least for once, something could actually be worse.
But of course tomorrow will happen so then that metric gets reset.
I'd rather not be in the world of ruin timeline.
It's the perfect crime. They bombed nuclear sites, which means there are going to be radiation spikes regardless of what kind of bombs they dropped, which means they could drop small nukes and probably get away with it.
That's not how it works. You can tell the difference between radiation from a nuclear weapon and a conventional bomb used on radioactive materials. If they used nukes they won't be able to cover it up for very long.
There's different isotopes in the fallout, different radio spectrometry or whatever, but I think they could lie and say that the reason it looks like a conventional nuclear weapon is because Iran was hiding a nuke and they blew it up.
A nuclear detonation is a very delicate and precisely controlled process. It doesn't just happen because a bomb goes off near the nuke. So sure, they can say anything, but there will be obvious evidence.
Speaking of saying anything, I'm going to look for reliable confirmation that this even happened. I'm not taking Trump's fucking tweet for it.
What gives you the idea that I have any such idea? I find that quite puzzling.
Sure, in fantasyland
What's so fantastical about the US using a tactical nuke and then lying about it?
Looks like that didn't happen here, but I see no reason that it couldn't.
Because nuclear detonations are very different to conventional ones, and every major power has satellites monitoring for them. They can’t be hidden. Hell, any university or weather service within 3,000 miles would be able to detect it.
Even conventional detonations on top of nuclear reactors or nuclear stockpiles?
Yes. Only in fantasy land. As Logi above said, nuclear detonation is an extremely precise, controlled process that has very specific conditions to achieve successfully. Even an actual fission bomb only manages to consume a fraction of the radioactive material.
The only thing someone would achieve by denotating a conventional explosive near a reactor or nuclear stockpile is spreading highly radioactive dust around. That does not nor will ever look like uncontrolled nuclear fission, let alone a detonation from a thermonuclear warhead.
Yes. Different blast pattern, different fallout pattern, different isotopes, different seismic signature, different sound wave pattern…
The US doesn't have small enough nuclear penetrators to even try hiding something anyway, they can use tactical warheads as bunker busters but they can't be meaningfully hidden. Meanwhile all these Iranian installations have been built with conventional bunker busters in mind so the existing American GBUs that must have been used may not have caused much real damage after all even if they double tapped the exact same spot.
Iran claim no radiation leak or contamination because they moved the uranium before the strikes and nothing was stored there
*immense relief*
They knew this was happening, we all knew. I hope this is not just a claim. It's not like you can just take nuclear material home in a jiffy.
There is aerial photo on the AlJazeera website right now from a day or two before the strike with like 8 trucks moving it
See this is exactly what I am worried about.
The Fordow site is simply under too big of a fucking mountain for even our largest conventional penetrator bombs to actually significantly fuck up... unless you basically were able to pull off multiples of those bombs hitting the exact same point from nearly the same angle...
GPS guided bombs are accurate, but not that accurate... you'd have to throw like 20% to 40% of the entire US stockpile of these fuckoff huge conventional penetrator bombs to literally dig a hole through the mountain.
... Or, you drop one tactical nuke.
fucking not good
...
like this is what those air radar images were showing from 24/48 hrs ago.
That was probably the US's entire fucking B2 Bomber Fleet deploying.
...
EDIT:
Yep 24 to 48 hrs later and...
Apparently around a dozen 30,000 lb, GBU57s were used, there are at least 3 distinct impact sites visible from Sat Imagery...
And oh hey well, a whole bunch of people are now claiming that... did these do damage?
Sure yes.
Did they 'utterly obliterate' the entire site?
Not according to Israel, and a good number of others.
So... 1) thank God they did not actually use a tac. nuke.
- Yep, they threw roughly 1/3 of our entire GBU 57 inventory at Fordow alone, and also the bombs were not accurate enough to inflict repeated, concise hits.
you'd have to throw like 20% to 40% of the entire US stockpile of these
Anything for a Nobel peace prize.
JDAM is supposed to have a circular error probable of 5m and it's an upgrade kit from 25 years ago. I can definitely believe that a much newer purpose-built weapon can do better than that. The idea of hitting the same spot with multiple bombs might not actually be that unlikely
I can totally see Trump just having a bunch of random bombs dropped in the general area, declaring victory and telling everyone to fuck off though.
Iran will not dispute the strike was effective, and neither will Israel.
Yeah but we have bombs that can do about what a small one would do without using radioactive materials. If they want to nuke them with Trump they'd go for something big and spectacular, like when he dropped the massive moab
If you are talking about conventional bombs that are comparable to a small nuke in a ground burst or air burst scenario, yes.
But not for ground penetration, no.
A conventional explosive displaces, creates a pressure wave that fractures and shatters things, but that pressure wave behaves differently when applied to different materials.
A nuke creates a ball of plasma that is so hot that it evaporates everything inside the primary blast radius, and then also a pressure wave when that miniature sun displaces things and wants to expand outward in every direction.
A 20 kt nuke will make an all incinerating fireball approximately 200m in diameter... so that means everything in a 100m radius from the point of impact, is now plasma... and then on top of that you get the massive pressure wave extending damage further beyond that.
Nukes are considerably more effective as deep pemetrator weapons than conventional explosives are.
The GBU 57 MOP, going off publically available info, can destroy earth (meaning soil) 60m under its point of impact... but only about 18m under reinforced concrete.
A mountain, with a reinforced bunker complex under it, is going to be a lot closer to reinforced concrete than it is to soil in some dry lakebed testing range.
And Fordow is roughly 80m, possibly more, underground.
So... the tactical nuke can basically guaranteed do that mission in one accurate hit, whereas with GBU 57s, you'd need a number of them, and you would have to basically drill a bore hole by dropping successive bombs into the same hole.
And uh, last note, the MOAB is just shy of 22,000 lbs, has a blast rating of about 11 tons of TNT. Its not a ground penetrator though, it is thermobaric, a fuel air bomb.
The GBU 57 MOP is a 30,000 lb bomb, and... rough math works out to about... maybe 1 kiloton, max, probably less?
I guess we'll have to wait for Warthunder to add the B2 and GBU 57 and then eventually someone will leak the real specs.
Scummy landlord’s gonna scummy landlord.
May the US Empire crumble to dust, its only vestiges a dark stain on human existence for future historians to look on with disgust.
I don't wanna jinx it, but
It would be hilarious if Trump's, Israel's and Iran's actions end up triggering significant climate action out of the sheer cost of continuing to burn oil. The last fuel crisis in the 70s actually caused significant amounts of research into alternatives and some interesting electric vehicles were actually released during that time
Doubt it. Climate change is already happening, but we can mitigate its effects the earlier we tackle it. Plus, no idea who is floating the collapse idea around.
"Total global Civilizational Collapse by 2050" is being tossed around
By whom?
Idiots toss around a lot of stuff.
Noting like dropping bombs while professing a desire for peace.
The peace of the grave.
You can always count on the USA to start new wars.
We've become the United States of Israel. Don't let anyone tell you differently. They put Israel first, not Americans.
???
'They' have been planning this strike in earnest at least since the early 00's, and war with Iran was always part of the plan to fully colonize West Asia. Israel is America's way to conduct proxy wars in the region, with a degree of autonomy like the Houthis and Iran, but still entirely dependent on their masters. Nothing was going to stop this expected geopolitical move, and don't think a Democrat would've done this any differently... didn't Biden say we would have to invent Israel if it didn't exist? (double lol on that one) The mechanics of the empire continue regardless of how things are managed inside...
When things go the way they're headed, remember the words of T.E. Lawrence, war with an empire is all flank and no front.
Maybe reading the book written by the guy who started this mess can help us end it.
He's also a good writer and seven pillars of wisdom is a fascinating book.
have you heard of AIPAC?
I want to say "artificial intelligence political action committee", but I'm thinking that's not it?
close enough
Nothing says now is the time for peace like dropping bombs on people, amirite?
Draft-dodging chickenshit starts war. Neat
Draft dodging chickenshit obey his Israeli master.
This statement from Trump is unsurprisingly disinformation. Most people interpret "nuclear sites" as nuclear bombs instead of completely legal power stations for civilian infrastructure.
Please don't recite this disinformation uncritically. That's just recycling propaganda.
Instead it's worth emphasizing that the zio regime actually has rogue nukes and is using them to threaten the planet with a nuclear holocaust. That's the actual problem.
The US must be brought to heel.
The worst part is, international laws and conventions are basically means nothing at this point. US actions simply incentivizes more countries to get mass-destruction weapons.
- Does US call you as 51. state? Get a nuke.
- Does US want to invade your island? Get a nuke.
- Does US want to airstrike your country? Get a nuke.
- Does US government officials breach your constitutional rights? Maybe consider owning a mini-nuke.
Thanks to these maniacs, Kim Jong Un now seems to be wisest person on the earth...
What an absolute joke.
I can just imagine him writing it, hunched over, peck-hunting for the keys. He starts typing bombs. No, he thinks. Slowly backspaces. Starts giggling to himself as he presses the caps lock key. "This will show them how serious I am about my bombs!"
peck peck peck "B-O-M-B-S"
Probably sits back in his chair admiring it for a moment. "Perfect. Very strong. Very powerful bombs."
Then immediately starts typing about peace in the same shouty caps because why not? Everything deserves caps lock! BOMBS! PEACE! WHATEVER!
Then ends it with "Thank you for your attention to this matter" like he just sent out a memo about updating the office dress code instead of announcing he bombed another country.
It's such a weirdly formal, corporate sign-off after the most unhinged announcement possible. As if bombing other countries is just another agenda item he's keeping us informed about. Very considerate of him to loop us in on World War III via Twitter memo.
Absolutely deranged.
He most likely didn't type this
He’s used that sign off on a couple other messages. It is such an odd change of tone.
Makes me think it’s some weird manipulation tactic, or like the 17th time he says it it’s a code word to dismantle Congress or some shit.
I hope that Iran will make Project 2025's backers find out. Our bastard leadership think there are no consequences for doing evil and stupid things, and are in severe need of an attitude readjustment.
Iran would be perfectly within their rights to assassinate various US government officials. After all, that's exactly what the US and Israel have been doing in Iran.
But do they really have that capability? I agree, it'd be totally justifiable and a credible war target, but let's be realistic here.
Considering some rando nearly got Trump, and how the MAGATs have dismantled their intelligence apparatus and completely lack an interest in risk assessment...Iran actually has a decent shot. Literally and figuratively. After all, you don't have to ID yourself if you claim to be a member of ICE. Just wear a mask, don't use license plates, and carry weapons, you will look like every other random gravy seal.
Damn, that's a really good point. They've created the scenario that is most likely to haunt them.
They probably dismantled it for that reason. Good excuse to arm up and lock down
Depends on the official, really.
True, but taking out a mayor isn't their goal.
Anyway, the San Diego Naval Amphibious Base Coronado shows the american dream
Any member of the US army is a criminal, you are not defending your nation, you are attacking another one.
To be fair, it was probably the US Air Force, not the Army, who flew the planes and dropped the bombs...
thanks for the clarification i guess "military" is the right word
Just for fun it seems like it may have been the US Navy also
We've launched an unprovoked and unwarranted attack Upon A Sovereign Nation. Now's the Time For Peace. It's an amazing sentiment. It's like a school bullies who hits you and then says you can't hit me back.
trump indeed has the same mental capacity as an elementary school bully
The violated international by proliferation of nuclear arms.
No, they didn’t. The Did you learn nothing from the Iraq War?
So you are saying everyone saying Iran was building nukes were lying? At that point, how do you know the news of the us bombing Iran isn't also lies?
I mean the intelligence reports said it wasn't. The people who said it was are known liars Trump and Netanyahu.
Id believe the Intelligence community over those clowns.
Tell me you learned nothing from the Iraq War without telling me you learned nothing from the Iraq War.
Chris Hedges: War Deja Vu | The lies told to ignite the war with Iraq have been resurrected to ignite a war with Iran. The assessments of intelligence agencies and international bodies are dismissed, replaced by hallucinations.
Forget the intelligence community’s Annual Threat Assessment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003,”
Weirdly enough that assessment says
In the past year, we've seen an erosion of a decades long taboo in Iran on discussing nuclear weapons in public likely emboldening nuclear weapons advocates within Iran's decision-making apparatus. Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons
Iran’s stockpile is still within the bounds allowed under the nonproliferation treaty that Iran, the US, and all but five UN states are party to. And given what the US and Israel have been up to in West & Central Asia over the last 23 years, why wouldn’t that public taboo have been broken?
General Wesley Clark 📺 “7 countries in 5 years”: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Iran
Jake, turn off the bot farm!!!
I was going to be rude but then I got the pun.
That's not something that happened yesterday. There have been no serious chances in the last 20 years or so, according to the oecd I believe IAEA.
It doesn't seem like it would be the organization to specialize nuclear proliferation investigations .
Yeah I forgot which letters belong to it, the one that does chemical weapons too
Edit: meant the IAEA earlier.
Hopefully Iran keeps to its promise to bomb every US military installation in the Middle East if the US intervened.
Yemen also promised to attack every US ship in this occasion.
They may make the US shoot down there own airplanes and dump them into the sea.
Iranies are not orange pigs posing as gods. If they promised it, they will stick to it, unless something truly convenient for them all is in the horizon.
They used all their bombs on Israel . \s
Can we have like a week or so where everything isn't totally fucked? Is that asking too much?
I think it'll require digging a trench for baby boomers
This is what happens after a failure of a parade and being laughed at enough to leave the g7 early. This was his ego boost he needed. Oh. And oil or something.
Well... Hopefully my 2 year old doesn't have to fight in this bull shit. :/
I know you meant that this could escalate to a long war that your child may eventually be drafted into, but my initial mental image was a battalion of toddlers each carrying a Fisher Price branded "Baby's First Assault Rifle".
DON'T GIVE TRUMP IDEAS.
Fisher Price
What are you smoking
I don't see ww3 taking long enough for that to happen, take that for what it's worth.
This should never have happened. Fucking psychopathic orange lunatic.
Bombing for peace. What a clown.
nOw iS tHE tiMe foR pEaCe
Give bombs a chance, buddy.
No new wars Trump strikes again, once again, with war.
Gotta prop up your masters when they tell you to invade.
America. Fucking. Sucks.
This cunt Just Started World War 3.
Palantir, Meta, Microsoft are all going to control the world's armies. They're trying to remove the working class. The Rich are doing their own genocide of the working class.
Their executives have been given military titles of Lieutenant Colonel already! Without any military training or fitness test.
On the bright side, they can now be court martialed.
Now would be the time for you Americans to get your sacred guns out and eliminate your tyrannical goverment. Please act quickly before the fascist cunts get us all killed.
Unfortunately the liberals scared all the cities from gun ownership...
The Americans who have a problem with this administration and are also gun owners are unfortunately rather few in numbers.
I honestly thought he wasn't a war monger judging from last term. Man, was I wrong. He's a complete POS.
Republicans, you can fire him at any time, you're letting this happen.
here is a trick to determine if they are warmongers:
are they capitalists? yes? then on a large enough timeline they will support war as long as it bring them profit. and war is always profit.
You mean the guy who assassinated one of Iran's top military commanders during his first term?
His first term was complete shock, that one slipped by me.
sigh, that settles that then. More blood will be spilt before any of this comes to an end. Shame, shame on all of us for allowing this to pass. May God have mercy on us all.
Goodbye Hormuz, I mean, why wouldn't they?
This isn’t on the majority of US citizens.
Its obvious our entire socio/political system is corrupted by money. The idea that a group of sociopaths who behave as if their socio economic status grants them impunity to act as though they have divine provenance to manipulate whatever they please for some reason view the us democratic system as too sacred for them to touch is foolishly naive.
There is the election fraud case in rockwell county new york that is moving forward. And besides that i like to call attention to Germany the supreme court of which decided that electronic voting is unconstitutional as it is impossible to determine the difference between fraudulent results and legitimate ones for lay people or anyone who is not a cybersecurity/ IT expert.
This coupled with the corporate media’s narrative manipulation and successful attempts to shift the Overton window as far right as possible in the last 5 decades as well as such insidious techno fascist tactics such as Israel’s consortium of tech contractors called Team Jorge in operation since st least 2015 which engage in hacking, and social media narrative manipulation through sophisticated bot farming it paints a picture that the American electorate is ultimately powerless and being insidiously controlled by a group of disgusting power hungry fascists that are engaged in a class war with us.
Anyone directly responsible for the current state of the USA and gloval affairs involving Israel deserve no mercy whatsoever. Including the overly audible minority of conservatives who have been lead to believe they are the majority and the world is their oyster to shit on and step on freely with complete impunity.
But the majority of us are good people who dont want this. Especially the millennials and gen z. The Democratic party has shifted so far right to appease it’s corporatist(fascist) masters and education standards have been gutted so most people dont even understand how we are being victimized. Maybe my faith in humanity is misplaced considering how igly things are but leftism has always been popular especially among educated people and this is why the right has destroyed education standards. As nixon and reagan advisor roger freeman said “we are on the verge of having a highly educated proletariat, this is dynamite! We have to be more selective of who we allow through higher education. At the time he said this before the Reagan administration some public universities especially federal Land grant universities has free tuition and many others that were not free were $50 per semester. Even yale was $700 per semester for tuition before the 1970’s now you need yo go into massive debt to get a degree that might gaurantee you a wage of $25-30 after you graduate with a debt of 50-100K at least if not 4-10 times that.
They want dumb complacent obedient workers who will not object to being looted so they can live in opulence at our expense while simultaneously funding their forever wars to further their imperialist agenda and profit motives.
You honestly believe that there is a peacefull path left at this point? The system is rigged by design, and you are not going to restore democracy in the courtroom.
Quit playing Martin and start playing Malcolm. Pick up a gun and kill your fascist leaders before they kill all of us.
tHe PeAcE pReSiDeNt
(Rather, the clown president)
Gotta feed $ to Raytheon, Halliburton, Lougheed Martin & the billionaire class.
🤷🤷♀️🤷♂️
LOL impeachable AF but the US 😴😴😴
International laws doesnt exist for amrika.
Fucking scum
This feels a lot like start of a WW3 for the third time in past few years.
First it was Russia-Ukraine war, then it was Israel Hamas conflict, now its this.
WW2 didn't start overnight. There was a series of military actions that went unchallenged. That only made the belligerents bolder.
Indeed. WW2 was a massive slow-walk into the full war. Everyone saw it coming from a mile away and nobody did anything to stop it. Similar to now where everyone can see that this is going to open more fronts.
At one point all the fronts might band together with more and more suddenly joining each side, and boom you have WW3.
WWI flashbacks. No UN. Reactionary military operations...
then it was Israel Hamas conflict
Stop acting like a genocide is a war
You're supporting it
It will be a proxy war as usual.
There are theories online that say it was a symbolic attack and that they even warned Iran where and when they would strike.
First some technical stuff and facts:
There is much doubt even bunker busters would do significant dammage to Iranian facilities.
At an estimated 90 -120 meters depth they are well below the range of their capabilities (60 meters).
And they are heavily protected by various layers and nobody knows where they are exactly.
Only the entrance and building on the surface is visible.
The US have only used them once against Yemen and claim they could go deeper by doing double taps.
This has obviously never been tested.
Now some speculation:
The Americans knew they only had a small chance of success (despite the reported mission success propaganda) and 100% certainty of committing an act of war.
Then why would they do it?
Fact is the genocide state is getting hit harder and harder, as Iran announced they would.
There is huge devastation and the situation is untenable.
They realise they have bitten off more than they can chew and already showed signs of weakness.
The US 'taking out' the imaginary threat and casus belli would solve that problem and give the genociders a way out of the war without losing face.
As the Iranians said they would stop attacking if they did.
For Trump it would OC be a huge media victory showing how powerful they are and how they saved the poor genociders.
Too soon to tell what is true for now.
We'll have to see what the actual dammage is, if Iran strikes back and if the war ends.
I don't think he knows what the word "peace" means.
He made a typo. It should read "there is not another military in the world that would have done this"
Where are the 3 US bases in Canada.
I very much challenge that statement.
I don't think the US owns and operates all these bases. I think many of them are local military bases that the US has stationed troops at.
Soldiers attached to units are common practice. Canada does the same with other countries. Some are specific liaison position and others are one time exposure and training jobs. It’s very similar to colleges sending students to other countries for a semester. Both are very different than full blown bases or complete units.
I agree this seems wrong. Could be referring to the historical bases like Pepperrell, Argentia, Goose Bay etc. but they were closed by the 1960s. NORAD bases do have US personnel on them, so do some Navy bases but by that count it would be far more than 3.
Damn it. :(
Didnt he promise not to start a war?
And he didn't, he's starting peace like it says in the tweet
with BOMBS 💣
He promised a lot of things. His promises are useless
So did Hitler and for that matter the Kaiser.
Lol... oh honey...
Why did he write bombs in all-caps?
Cuz they're loud, duh
When Bush got the US into a war in the middle east, he at least did it after a terrorist attack on the US (which had nothing to do with Iraq, but he was able to fudge that part), and as a result of the stupidity of Americans, he had a 60+% approval rating at the time.
Trump didn't even manage a false flag or anything, as a result, a lot of conservatives are pissed off about this. Probably not enough to crack the MAGA coalition, but every little bit chipped away from it helps. With margins in the senate and house so close, it's actually possible that he could be stopped by congress and the US doesn't become a failed state, instead merely becoming an illiberal democracy.
But, what I wonder is if this will actually win him any converts from the Democratic side. I bet there are ultra pro-Israel people who were formerly Democrats who actually think this is a good idea, and will now start supporting Trump. Still, I think he's going to lose 90 MAGAs for every 10 Democrats he gains.
The Senate and the House need to do something for margins to matter though.
The whole reason they're not doing anything is that the democrats (who might do something) are in the minority in both the house and senate, so what they can do (without breaking rules and norms) is very limited. The Republicans either don't want to do something because they support what Trump is doing, or they're scared to go against him.
If you get a dozen Republicans who are willing to go against Trump, suddenly the anti-Trump side has a majority, which gives them a massive amount of power to do something.
60+%
It was 90%. Only 10% of Americans were capable of resisting the massive propaganda apparatus that manufactures consent at the start of every war of aggression. Vietnam was also very popular at the start.
But you are right that he's doing this without a strong justification. From what I've seen, mainstream media is still on his side, they love war, great for business. Whether enough Americans have learned anything from the disaster of the War on Terror to make any sort of lasting dent in the number capable of resisting propaganda remains to be seen, you'd think Vietnam would have but it's always "different this time," and people are frequently "anti-war, except the current one."
I don't think the media is necessarily "on his side". When the media sticks to just reporting the facts, people interpret it as the media taking the other side.
Also, his approval rating never got up to 90%. It was in the 80s in the days after 9/11 (which was sickening) but it dropped pretty quickly, and by the time the Iraq war began it was back down to almost 50%. It briefly went up after the war started, but then kept going down and down until he finally left office.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2008/12/18/bush-and-public-opinion/
Your source says a peak of 86%, Gallup got 90% but either way it was an overwhelming majority.
The media told all sorts of lies to justify the war in Iraq, more recently, the New York Times published a false story about Hamas committing mass rape, if you want to go further back they lied to get us into Vietnam, and in every case it takes time for the lies to be exposed and by the time they are, fewer people see the retractions and it's usually too late to do anything about it anyway. Even when they aren't lying, they're using biased language and framing to push their agenda, and their agenda is, as I said, always pro-war, because war sells papers and if they're hostile to the White House (especially with Trump in there) then they'll get press passes revoked and won't be privy to information they would otherwise receive. Never in my life have I seen widespread media condemnation of any military action (unless you count the withdrawal from Afghanistan), and I believe you'll see the same thing if you look in the past, in conflicts like Vietnam. When Trump launched an unprovoked missile strike on Syria, during his first term, these people jumped over each other to praise him, to say that "that was the moment he became presidential," even publications that had been very critical of him before.
None of the media people (just like none of the politicians) were ever held accountable in any way for lying the public into a war, which set a clear precedent that they can do so freely going forward. Worse yet, it's often the very same people in similar positions of power. If you think that they're trustworthy and not biased, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
The media told all sorts of lies to justify the war in Iraq
A lie is something they were aware was not true and published it anyhow. What sources do you have that the media was publishing stories it knew weren't true about Iraq? What examples do you have?
more recently, the New York Times published a false story about Hamas committing mass rape
What story are you talking about, and what specific allegations do you think it got wrong?
if you want to go further back they lied to get us into Vietnam
You're saying the media knowingly made up stories because they wanted to trick the US into going to war in Vietnam? What specific examples do you have of that? Again, if this is your claim, it isn't enough to show that they got some reports wrong. It's not even enough to show that they printed some things that in hindsight they should have known were wrong. Your bar is to prove that they knew ahead of time that they were publishing things they knew were untrue and did it for the express purpose of trying to get the US into war in Vietnam.
I see what you're saying here: if the media prints lies from a government it's not the media lying, it's the government. If Israel says Hamas beheaded 40 babies and that's found out to be a lie, it wasn't the media lying about Hamas beheading 40 babies and so the media is entirely innocent of printing the lies fed to it by a government like Israel.
Here's the thing: if a government lies all the fucking time and the media keeps printing what the government claims anyway, then that makes them complicit in spreading the government's lies. We all know Israel's government spreads lies, so printing the lies it spread about Hamas is just doing the government's work for them. The media doesn't get to wash its hands of the things it prints just because it puts "Israel says" before the headline.
I see what you're saying here: if the media prints lies from a government it's not the media lying, it's the government
If the government manages to fool the media, yeah. If the government says to the media "the truth is X, but we're going to pretend that it's Y, so you print Y, ok?" and then the media goes along with it, then you can blame the media. In many cases, the media isn't able to fact check the things the government tells them. But, relaying what the government is saying is still important. Similarly, even though the media can't independently fact check the numbers that the Gaza Health Ministry reports, it's still valuable to have those numbers released too.
If the media is lazy about their fact checking you can call them lazy, but you can't call them liars, because lying requires knowing the truth and intentionally saying something untrue.
Here's the thing: if a government lies all the fucking time and the media keeps printing what the government claims anyway, then that makes them complicit in spreading the government's lies.
If the government says "the truth is X" and then the media says "X is true" then sure, you're right. But, if the media says "the government said that the truth is X", then it's up to readers / viewers to understand that the media isn't endorsing what the government said as being true, the media is simply telling you what was said.
The media doesn't get to wash its hands of the things it prints just because it puts "Israel says" before the headline.
Why should it need to wash its hands? That is exactly what Israel said. Because Israel has a complete ban on reporters in Gaza, for example, there's no way to corroborate or refute what Israel said. It's newsworthy to repeat what Israel said, but you can't blame the media when someone reads that and assumes that the government is telling the truth. As you said yourself, the government lies all the time, so why would you assume that "the government said X happened" means that "X happened".
Because Israel has a complete ban on reporters in Gaza, for example, there’s no way to corroborate or refute what Israel said. It’s newsworthy to repeat what Israel said, but you can’t blame the media when someone reads that and assumes that the government is telling the truth
If there's no way to corroborate or refute what Israel said, don't print what Israel said. Lies aren't newsworthy, except as a way to report on the lies themselves for the purpose of debunking them.
Remember when Israel first started bombing hospitals and blamed Islamic Jihad for it? They still don't claim responsibility for Al-Ahli Arab Hospital, but after a year of targeting hospitals and doctors it's ridiculous to deny it at this point.
Yet there were few retractions or corrections. As far as CNN and The Guardian are concerned, Israel didn't bomb that hospital. What a joke.
As you said yourself, the government lies all the time, so why would you assume that “the government said X happened” means that “X happened”.
I don't think people make that assumption anymore, but that's because people stopped trusting the media. They published and promoted so many government lies that they've destroyed their own credibility.
People expect the media to investigate government claims and to publish the truth, not just parrot the lies they're fed. When the media doesn't do that, when all the major news outlets become court stenographers, people lose faith in the media.
Maybe people are expecting too much, but that's what people have been taught to expect. They were taught that journalists find the truth and report on it. They're finding out that journalists basically just print what their sources say and they can't just trust things because they're in the news anymore.
And it's going to get worse forever.
If there's no way to corroborate or refute what Israel said, don't print what Israel said.
Why? What they said is newsworthy.
"Israel bombed this building"
"Why?"
"Dunno, didn't ask."
Even if you don't believe the answer, getting an answer is still newsworthy. Everyone should be aware that it's not necessarily the truth, but it's newsworthy as the justification they're using. If it comes out later that the building was an orphanage, you can't use that to challenge the government's justification that it was a command and control center if you never got them on the record saying they bombed it because it was a command and control center.
They don't report Russia's claims this way. They don't report Iran's claims this way.
And people can see it, which is why they don't trust the media anymore.
Russia claimed to have captured Mariupol on Friday in what would be its biggest victory yet in its war with Ukraine
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/russia-ukraine-war-1.6460410
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said on Friday that Ukraine was working on
According to the Ukrainian Air Force, Russia deployed 368 aerial weapons, including 352 attack drones
Iran says it launched an attack on United States forces at Al Udeid Air Base.
Russia claimed on Sunday that its forces had reached the border of Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk region
President Biden claimed former President Trump was "exaggerating" and "lying" about the crisis at the southern border during the first presidential debate.
They report on Russia and Iran's claims exactly the same way they report on anyone else's claims.
Do you think they're so incompetent as to leave evidence laying around that they had advance knowledge? I wonder, if that's the bar you set for US media, do you also set the bar there for, say, Chinese media? If Chinese state media publishes something that's untrue, would you dispute someone calling it a lie if you didn't have access to some official document openly confessing to advance knowledge? Even if such records did exist, it's not as if I, a private citizen, could get a warrant to raid their offices for it. You're setting the standard unreasonably high, you're just trying to shut down reasonable skepticism and legitimate criticism in favor of blind trust. I mean, what kind of idiot would write down "I know this story is false but I want you to publish it anyway," and then leave it lying around where someone could find it, when there's absolutely no reason to?
Here is an Intercept article about the fake news story published by the NYT to justify Israeli aggression in Gaza.
You’re saying the media knowingly made up stories because they wanted to trick the US into going to war in Vietnam? What specific examples do you have of that?
That's not what I said at all. The US government wanted to go to war with Vietnam, the media simply wanted to win favor with the government and sell papers.
Were you aware that, in the aftermath of the Kent State Massacre, the vast majority of Americans placed more blame on the students for getting shot than on the National Guard for shooting them? Were you aware that, leading up to the shooting, there were all kinds of fake news stories on TV about how, for example, the protesters were putting LSD into the water supply? Stories that they conveniently retracted, after the moment had passed and the chance for a backlash was gone?
Anyway, the fact that they lie frequently isn't even the main point. The main currency of propaganda is not lies, it's emphasis. Biased framing and leading language are perfectly capable of shaping public opinion towards their agenda. Historical events that would justify or explain hostile actions of other countries are very rarely deemed relevant, and the same with internal politics that might show that only certain factions supported it. Our own crimes and acts of aggression are downplayed or ignored, so that when the other side retaliates, it seems to come out of nowhere.
For example, the 1953 coup in Iran, which was conducted by the CIA and successfully covered up for decades, demonstrates that even if Iran had a peaceful, democratic government, it would still likely be subject to US aggression so long as they tried to assert control over their own oil. The breakdown of relations in the 1979 revolution occurred when the revolutionaries took hostages at the US embassy, but what provoked that action was the US granting refuge to the deposed shah - the very same man who they had previously installed as a dictator in 1953. I think both of those events are very important to understanding US-Iranian relations, but you won't hear the news mention them, the hostage crisis is always presented as this unprovoked act of aggression.
This is just basic media literacy, really. You should always be skeptical and aware of bias and conflicts of interests with anything you read. Unfortunately, there's a tendency some people have to put certain sources on a pedestal as if critical thinking and skepticism isn't necessary when reading them.
I'm still waiting for a single example of a lie. It's a very simple request, and if you can't find one, you claim that the media lies is wrong.
Ridiculous double standard. Has Putin ever lied, once in his life? Yes or no please, and be prepared to meet your own standard of evidence.
I don't know, but it definitely seems like it. OTOH, it seems like journalists really care about the truth and bend over backwards to fact check things.
So, are you admitting you can't actually find a single lie told by the press?
I don’t know, but it definitely seems like it.
So, are you admitting you can't actually find a single lie told by Vladimir Putin?
Where are you getting this, "seems like" he lies and "seems like" journalists care about truth and fact checking? Exactly the same number of "lies" have been produced for each in this conversation. I mean, I did link to a fake news story from the NYT but that doesn't count because I didn't break into their offices and find a signed confession.
You set an impossibly high standard for proof in the one case, but "seems like" is enough in the other, you're operating off pure vibes, or more accurately, your own bias and preconceptions, with zero critical thought.
But sure, I stand corrected, they didn't "lie" in those cases (since basically nobody ever lies, by your absurd standard), they just published blatant falsehoods at just the right time to advance their interests, then suddenly realized their "mistakes" as soon as what they wanted to happen happened.
Jesus loves me The media is reliable, this I know, for the Bible media tells me so. Blind faith rivaling any Bible-thumper.
So, are you admitting you can't actually find a single lie told by Vladimir Putin?
I never made any claims about Putin. You, however, did make claims about the media. Back up your claims.
I have. I just can't meet an impossible standard of evidence that you're obviously selectively applying in order to exclude evidence that you want to pretend doesn't exist.
An impossible standard of evidence? You think proving someone lied is impossible? And yet, despite knowing you can't prove it, you want to throw around accusations that someone lied.
In that case, you're a liar. I don't need to prove it, because proving someone lied is impossible. I can just say you lied and then call it done.
And there's the double standard, plain as day. To call me a liar, you would need to prove not only that I said something false, but also that I had knowledge and intent that it was false. Short of a signed confession, you cannot call me a liar, because it's impossible for you to read my mind. Perhaps I thought there was proof when there wasn't. Isn't that what you're saying is true of the media, for example, with the fake news story the NYT put out? If anyone's a liar here, it's you, for accusing me of lying when you can't meet your own standard of evidence for making that claim.
There's no point in reasoning with you any more than there is in reasoning with any other religious fanatic operating on blind faith and refusing to apply reason, skepticism, and critical thinking. You've simply chosen a worse God to worship.
And there's the double standard, plain as day. To call me a liar, you would need to prove not only that I said something false
No, your new standard is "vibes". You have "vibes" that the media lies, so you get to call them liars. I'm appyling the same logic to what you say, liar.
No, I presented plenty of evidence. The problem is that you consider anything short of 100% to mean 0% (only when it comes to the media, ofc). Like, you're expecting me to be able to prove it in a court of law, but obviously there are a lot of things that are true where the evidence doesn't meet that standard. Even in a court setting, there are situations where they'd be concerned with standards like "more likely than not" or "reasonable cause to believe" rather than the standard you're applying of, "beyond any reasonable doubt," for example, if I shot someone in self defense, I wouldn't have to prove "beyond any reasonable doubt" that they were trying to kill me, only that I had probable cause to believe that was the case. "Beyond any reasonable doubt" is only the standard for a conviction because the state's monopoly on violence creates a special danger for abuse, and because the state has special abilities and privileges that allow it to conduct investigations, beyond what a private citizen could. To hold private citizens to that standard as a requirement for their beliefs to be considered rational is completely and utterly insane.
I definitely have good reason to believe that the media lies, and I have presented plenty of evidence and arguments to that effect. What I can't do is present evidence like a signed confession, which obviously would never exist regardless of whether they're lying or not. If you want to come back down to earth, stop having blind faith in the media, and actually engage with the evidence I have presented, then we can have a discussion. I highly doubt that you have any interest in doing so, in fact, I'm sure that if I had presented the signed confession you're demanding, you'd dismiss it, move the goalposts, and say it was just an isolated incident. Because you prefer the comfort of your faith over facing the reality the evidence shows.
You didn't present evidence of lying, you presented evidence that what they reported ended up being untrue. That's part of lying, and I don't dispute that part. The key part is that they knew that what they were reporting was untrue and they reported it anyway. You've presented no evidence to support that.
So, based on your rules, I can say you're a liar, because you've said some things that are not true, so I'm just going to assume that you know they're untrue and you're lying.
That's so obviously a double standard. Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying, which means I'm telling the truth. Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn't lying, and neither am I. The only possible way you can get to me being a liar is if you apply a more favorable standard to the media, and switch to a more unfavorable standard with me. It's literally the textbook definition of a double standard.
Your bias is so obvious, and it's also really fucking stupid. These people are not your friends. You're no different from people who go around stanning billionaires, against all sense and reason.
Apply my rules to both cases, and the media is lying
And so are you. Those are your rules. You chose them, and so now they apply to you.
Apply your rules in both cases, and the media isn't lying, and neither am I
Apply my rules and we don't know if the media is lying, but there's no evidence to suggest that they knew that what they were saying is untrue, so it's unreasonable to say they're lying. As for you, who knows.
Your bias is so obvious
My bias? You're the guy who claims the media is lying without any evidence that they knew what they were saying was wrong, and you insist that you can still call that lying. But, when that same standard is applied to you, you want to reject it. You want to have your cake and eat it too, liar.
Again, you're literally flipping the standard halfway through your chain of "reasoning" 🤣 You don't get to apply your absurdly generous standard to them and my reasonable standard to me, that's not how logic works. You have to either be reasonable in both cases or be absurdly generous in both cases.
It doesn't really matter how much reason or evidence I present to you, can't argue with blind faith. It seems you're not only unwilling to reason and think critically, but unable to.
I weep for our education system. I suppose it's achieved it's objective of producing an unquestioningly loyal subject incapable of thinking for yourself or reasoning independently, following whatever your told. You must be an American, because only my countrymen are this confidently stupid.
Now you're lying about what I'm saying? Your standard for "lying" is that someone says something untrue and it's hard to prove that they knew in advance it was untrue. So, clearly you're a liar.
Let me dumb this down to your level.
"Double" is a word for when you have two of something.
You use one standard when looking at whether the media is lying.
You use another standard when looking at whether I'm lying.
1+1=2
So, you're using a double standard.
That means that your logic is complete bullshit. End of story.
A child could understand this. If you can't, you're either brain damaged or trolling.
You use another standard when looking at whether I'm lying.
Yes, I'm using your standard when looking at whether you're lying, and I've determined you're lying.
That's not how logic works, dumbass. That's not a thing. If you want to apply my standard, you have to apply it consistently.
What you're probably trying to do, very badly, is a reductio ad absurdum, where you show that accepting my position would lead to an absurd or self-contradictory conclusion. The problem is that my position doesn't lead to any absurd conclusions, so what you've done is assume my position, and then assume the opposite of my position in the same line of logic. Naturally, if you assume self-contradictory positions, then the result will be absurd, but that doesn't prove anything except that you don't understand how logic works. It's not self-contradiction if you have to flip back and forth between your standard and mine to get there.
But then, of course you don't understand logic because you operate on blind faith.
Troll.
I'd just like to remind you that I started out trying to have an intelligent, civil conversation. Sorry you were too dumb to keep up. Sad that this is all you've got, I genuinely pity you.
The dems have been supporting genocide for a long time. They've always been with Trump when it comes to anti-arab racism. Just look at their track record. Dems have constantly attacked Palestine, Syria, Iran, etc.
Death to America
So, this has gotta make it officially WW3 now ay? like, there absofukinglutely no way Iran takes this on the chin.
I mean, they aren't going to attack the US...
Hopefully this doesn’t backfire af on American civilians..
Sorry, but I hope it does. Aggression must have consequences, or there is no justice.
Because civilians are always the most worthy and deserving target of state-sanctioned violence.
Yeah, kill the leaders, they deserve it.
His voters and liberal voters definitely are
At least 1/3rd of the US population fully deserves it, and another 1/3rd is in the gray area
The US are a democracy, which means the people is responsible for the acts of their country. Sorry guys, you need to take responsibility.
To be fair, the US isn't a democracy at all, and even among USians this war is extremely unpopular.
Then, you're expected to topple your government, as much as you expect Iranians to bring down theirs. You're no better, expect you are on the dropping side of the bombs (and, sorry for the image, on the receiving side of Israel's dick).
Once you've done that and stop killing abroad, then you'll have some respect from the rest of the world. For the time being, no wonder airplanes inbound the US will stay half empty.
I think you're confused, I'm a communist, I despise the US Empirevand condemn the war. Further, Israel doesn't control the US, the US supports Israel because Israel is like a giant millitary base for the US to terrorize its geopolitical adversaries.
it will. get ready
JFC. Pretty sure that Iranian civilians are the ones who need to worry.... Not to mention Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians, Yemenis, etc.
"Ok Google. Send a tweet to xhitter. Say...
I am going to put certain WORDS in CAPS to accentuate them for REASONS that no one can really understand. Then I'm going to SPOUT bullshit about the traitors flying high miles away from any DANGER but I'll laughingly call them HEROIC and PATRIOTIC.
Then I'll touch my little mushroom peepee and do a nazi salute to MYSELF in the MIRROR.
Thank you for your attention to my EGO!!!
Send tweet.
Right, where the little kiddies at? I'm feeling super viagra masculine today!! Shit, how do I delete this. No, stop. Don't send. Everyone IGNORE that last bit about the kiddies!! Phew, got away with that! Hegseth. HEGSETH. change me, I've shit myself again. Get right in there and clean the folds."
How many bombs did he drop on Russia? Because he said he would end the war against Ukraine.
Israël didn't order him to do that
The MIC in USA and Russia is making mega bucks regardless.
"Pakistan Doubles Down On Nobel Prize Boost"
--tm probably
Love this part of the timeline yet? Welcome to your 1984
Little baby Trump must have really had some diaper rash from all of the taco memes after he mentioned the two-week window.
Any American blood spilled by Iran if/when they retaliate will be on Trump's hands.
I like how he ends his e-mail, treating the public populous as a corporate employee.
Remove Trump now!
Thank you for your attention to this matter
I can't remember the exact context, but I made a comment to a friend that voted for Trump (now former friend) back in 2016/7 just after the election along the lines of 'if the country isn't a smoking crater by the next election'. I thought I was being hyperbolic.
And Israel just bombed the location again. Guess the US didn’t obliterate it.
We have the greatest BOMBS, they are truly magnificent.
I have been trying really hard to avoid politics, but this guy just doesn't stop. He's dumb fucking us into oblivion.
The Saudis and Israel repeating their influence on the USA. Iraq was first and Iran has been on a waiting list for a long fucking time.
It's fitting because at the end of that episode, they learn that the US was in fact the alien invaders declaring war on other planets.
Just going add early now since no one is talking about it yet, this is why nuclear isn't the way over renewables. Because as soon as any country wants a domestic nuclear energy program, the US will have a freebie wildcard to bomb them.
He can't even speak or spell for shit, he is truly the least qualified human being that should lead any position of power.
Thank you for your attention this matter
What it costed Israel to make you do it and also announce it? A promised land of gazan golf courses or another Trump Tower there? I can't get how he is still breathing with everything that he did in his life.
Henry Kissinger lived to 100.
Henry was clever and sneaky in his malice, like today's Thiel. The cheeto guy though pulls all the levers but dodges shit like he had 10 LUCK or something.
I mean, atleast we're safe from nuclear bombs, am i right?
Well, I'm mildly surprised.
The suddenness kind of reminds me of when he bombed Assad.
"Thank you for your attention to this matter!" has some really strong Wesley Willis "Rock over London, rock on Chicago" vibes.
🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕
A peacefull world
Religion isn't the cause, the mode of production is. Economic factors are far more important when it comes to war, including this one.
If there is no religion people will find something else to fight over.
Maybe, but religion had caused infinite more wars than all other reasons together in the whole history.
No, economic factors matter far more. Religion is often used as an excuse, or plays some role, but the real drive is access to trade or resources or labor in the vast majority of cases.
Yes, and it's almost entirely due to one religion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion
In reality nobody is actually fighting for "religion". They're actually fighting for nationalism, capitalism, etc.
Yeah Donald Trump is a devout Christian that must be the problem.
Do you know any social advanced, free and human rights respecting Theocracy? The problem with Trump is, apart of the religion, that he is an ignorant and stupid nazi asshole.
The reason I know this is fake is because the book isn't upside down
First of all, no. Secondly, no.
Gotta erase all those disgusting borders.
Likewise gotta end the most violent and brainwashed religion of them all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion
greed first. its religion AND capital. cherry-picked fairy tales used to oppress and control, making the privileged more powerful and less empathetic, brainwashing the ignorant and leading to so much pointless hate-- religion is a sword and greed is the hand holding it. maybe im wrong but religion wouldnt exist if people didnt want more and more and more. more power, more superiority, more land (bc saying the land is holy and promised to you means its ok to take it by force), even the audacity to believe death isnt the end, they can have more life and shit? you cant own death. mankind evolved with so much creativity and abstract capabilities and this is where we are, dumb as hell.
The Democrats support this
Yeah, the republicans make a mess like the Israeli air force, the democrats"clean up" like the IGF
Yeah I remember Biden cleaning up everything. Ending the genocide in Palestine. Making peace with Iran... JFC.
I think we can expect Iran to just keep on fighting back, but who I'm REALLY looking at now is Pakistan. They said that if anyone attacked Iran besides Israel, they would enter the war on the side of Iran. Even if America's participation in the war stopped here (not fucking likely) if Pakistan follows through with their threat then this escalation really, honest to God, could be the start of WW3.
Because here's the thing: India has been trying to goad Pakistan into their own war for a few months now. So here's my prediction, although be warned it gets a little crazy after the first 5 points:
- Pakistan attacks Israel as an ally of Iran
- India attacks Pakistan as an ally of Israel
- Afghanistan supports Pakistan with supplies and possibly troops, out of fear of India
- Israel continues to pressure Trump, who supports Israel the way the USA (used to) support Ukraine. But direct action is possible, as seen today.
- European support for Israel disintegrates, and they focus on Ukraine.
- Russia declares support for Israel. Now Afghanistan has aggressors to the North (Russia) and India (South) albeit with a buffer country in both directions. They're highly motivated to support both buffer countries, but also wary of the USA coming after them (again).
- Europe can no longer simply ignore Israel as it has become a second front in the war for Ukraine.
- Kazakhstan declares allyship with Afghanistan because they understand that Russia has to go through them to get to Afghanistan and they really really don't want that.
- Russian allies (Turkey, Belarús, Hungary) hamper the EU response.
- Trump takes advantage and makes a play for Greenland and Panama.
- NATO invokes Article 5 against the USA, uses this to justify attacking Russia (who is now aligned with the USA via Israel) directly IF they didn't decide to focus on America first (likely).
- Canada is part of NATO, talks Mexico into joining against the USA because it's the only way they stand a chance.
- China grasps at the opportunity to seize Taiwan and cement its claim to South China Sea.
- Japan, South Korea, and most is Southeast Asia and the South Pacific band together against China to drive them out of the South China Sea and Taiwan.
- Egypt and neighboring countries take strict control of the Red Sea, denying passage to ships belonging to Israel/Russia/China/et allies.
Ultimately, the two sides:
THE AGGRESSORS
- Israel
- Russia
- India
- America
- Hungary
- Turkey
- Belarús
- North Korea
- China
THE RESPONSE
- Iran
- Pakistan
- Afghanistan
- The EU (and the UK)
- Egypt and neighbors
- Canada
- Mexico
- Japan
- South Korea
- Most/all of Southeast Asia and the South Pacific
- South Africa
Oddly I see Australia sitting this one out, as their politics are far enough right to not want to go to war with their traditional allies (eg, the USA) but not left enough to support the response in any meaningful way. Something would have to force their involvement.
As for Central and South America, it's a mixed bag. Obviously some countries like El Salvador will support Trump, but I think most of them will defend Panama if they get involved at all. I certainly can't see Argentina and Chile being ok with just letting anybody pass Cape Horn.
Africa I just have no fucking clue. China has been involved in a lot of African countries in very big ways that the African countries aren't entirely happy about. They could take advantage of the circumstances to seize and nationalize Chinese assets within their borders, which puts them at odds with China/Russia/Israel/et allies and I think they would be pretty ok with that. South Africa in particular I think may take a more active role against the aggressors, given their position controlling the Cape of Good Hope.
Tldr if this plays out anything even remotely like what I've written here, and I really REALLY how it doesn't, we're all VERY FUCKED.
(This is a work of total conjecture, I'm probably wrong, so don't waste your breath telling me I'm wrong. That said some of my logic may not be obvious, so I'm happy to answer questions to clarify my thoughts)
Placing the US, Russia and China as allies during a hypothetical WWIII? That's a VERY bold claim.
Also, really doubt the EU could use NATO to declare war on the US, as the US are still the vast majority of NATO's firepower and command.
Yeah and I just saw (after writing all that!) that Russia and China had warned the USA to not attack Iran, so I could absolutely be way off base there.
Edit: the logic had more to do with Russia's ambitions to reform their lost empire. Afaik it's widely believed that after Ukraine, Russia will go for Kazakhstan and possibly Afghanistan. It's less that I see Russia siding with the USA and Israel, and more that I think Russia will be opportunistic in its military expansion.
it’s widely believed
Whenever you see this phrase, it's going to followed by nonsense nobody serious believes.
the logic
The logic is that you went "oh, China and Russia are bad guy countries, so they'll go on the bad guy team, just like in the comic books!"
My logic was exactly what I said it was. I never claimed it was good logic. And I never claimed to be psychic and magically understand what other people's logic is despite them plainly saying their logic is something else. But if that's what makes you feel superior enough to get through the day then you do you.
Despite Western war propaganda to the contrary, Russia doesn’t presently have expansionist ambitions. Previously. Previously. Previously.
Australia will fall in line behind the US because we always fucking do like a bunch of patsies.
Europe and Canada would never ally with Iran.
Pakistan. They said that if anyone attacked Iran besides Israel
We have no record of Pakistan saying that. Iran claimed Pakistan said that.
But in terms of what we do know Pakistan is doing, is it nominates Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
pakistan will do fuck all. Talking shit is cheap, actually goto war will not happen
do pakistan has weapons to reach israel? and maintain offence for a week?
where's pakistan gonna buy weapons from, china?
Not only does Pakistan have weapons to reach Israel, it has nuclear weapons to reach it.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaheen-III
Also, Pakistan borders Iran, which means together they could move such weapons much closer to Israel.