Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No no no. You were dead wrong on the specifics of the article you attacked. You don't get to pretend you're right with a transition into generalisation.
Secondly, it most definitely is your prejudice. You're so prejudiced you don't even appear to understand that you have literally just gone on to explain what your prejudice is: because that's what it is to judge an entire range of people you don't know as all being like a cartoon stereotype.
Marco Rubio says he has stripped Qassem Soleimani’s niece of US residency
In a statement, the US State Department has accused Hamideh Soleimani Afshar of being an 'outspoken supporter' of Iran.
Obama and or Biden shouldn't have given regime leadership relatives residencies anyways. Deport that stupid *****.
It is illegal (to the extent that means anything) to deport the relatives of the legislative and executive branches of the United States from the United States just based on their tenuous association with the US government.Marco Rubio says he has stripped Qassem Soleimani’s niece of US residency
In a statement, the US State Department has accused Hamideh Soleimani Afshar of being an 'outspoken supporter' of Iran.www.aljazeera.com
Obama and or Biden shouldn't have given regime leadership relatives residencies anyways. Deport that stupid *****.
A headline is part of an article. This one was fine, and you were just wrong.
The principle that everyone has to be assessed on their own individual merits is a fundamental concept in law: for instance, if your parent commits a crime, you can't be jailed for it.
A relative of someone high ranking in an enemy state may of course be in your country precisely because they dislike and oppose their homeland's regime: in which case turfing them out is potentially a major injustice.
These should be evidence-based decisions, and then we get to the evidence. I know Rubio says they were supporters of the Iranian regime and if so, there's a case to kick them out (even if it potentially sits uncomfortable with the principle of free speech). On the other hand, who here trusts the Trump administration to tell the truth?
Except they didn't kick them out. They revoked their legal residence status and then jailed them for not having a legal residence status.
The same abuse of law ICE did in so many other instances.
She was a useless socialite whose money came from her father being the manager of people who made IEDs to kill American service-members.
Quite possibly. And if she did comment on behalf of the Iranian regime (some other articles suggested her social media was known to be pro-Iran), particularly after the war started, she was also remarkably stupid.
Incidentally, it's worth point out that you blamed Obama/Biden, but they had an asylum (!!!) case accepted in 2019 which was under Trump.
Somewhere else in this forum the last few months, there is a post from me discussing the hypocrisy of scions of regimes like Iran making hay in the West whilst the family patriarchs incite hatred of the places their families live and work. The context of it was that this is the game of the elites: most of them know that the aim is to make sure that their dynasties thrive, and it's fine to play every side there is to do so. Just like aristocrats of old would happily migrate to countries where their best interests were, and used to send each other chummy messages of mutual respect and appreciation, on the eves before their peasants slaughtered each other so the winner could have a few extra square miles of estate.
Also, my prediction here:
Trump says he's going to level Iran's bridges and power plants. I think there's a very good chance he will (although maybe not Tuesday as he's threatened), and that Iran may then respond by trying to level pretty much everything it can in in UAE, Qatar, etc. In which case, maybe the global economy kind of goes pop.
He's started a war unwisely, appears to have lost control of it, his popularity is steadily declining from a low start point. His main way out is a "deal", and we know how much pride he puts in his image as a dealmaker. But Iran is very unlikely to give him a deal that will allow him to clearly claim the win he so badly wants. He is failing and he looks weak, with no good solution.
Looking weak and being a loser jabs right into his weakest point. I think he is cruel, vindictive and has low impulse control, and the chances are his rage boils over and he orders Iran flattened because the only thing he has left is to punish them. Maybe others in the US government can dissuade him, but if they haven't yet, I doubt they will now.
Trump says he's going to level Iran's bridges and power plants. I think there's a very good chance he will (although maybe not Tuesday as he's threatened), and that Iran may then respond by trying to level pretty much everything it can in in UAE, Qatar, etc. In which case, maybe the global economy kind of goes pop.
He's started a war unwisely, appears to have lost control of it, his popularity is steadily declining from a low start point. His main way out is a "deal", and we know how much pride he puts in his image as a dealmaker. But Iran is very unlikely to give him a deal that will allow him to clearly claim the win he so badly wants. He is failing and he looks weak, with no good solution.
Looking weak and being a loser jabs right into his weakest point. I think he is cruel, vindictive and has low impulse control, and the chances are his rage boils over and he orders Iran flattened because the only thing he has left is to punish them. Maybe others in the US government can dissuade him, but if they haven't yet, I doubt they will now.
Because they are opportunists. The IRGC and company didn't care about the 1953 coup because it wasn't their people getting couped it was some secular nationalist. They just use it to manipulate idiots like western leftists to believe America bad because we/the US did it because the west were relied on oil from their fields and we didn't want the USSR to have control over it and impose 1984 on all of us/the world.
Fuck France they got the US into Vietnam, sold weapons to Saddam, and sent back the first Ayatollah to Iran. How many more geopolitical problems are they going to cause my country.
This has been explained to you already. Do you also have a problem with reading comprehension?
Are there any other problems in your cognitive functioning you want to admit for why you cannot grasp the simple reality you got something badly wrong?
Right now its mostly just the US causing geopolitical problems for Europe(and thus France). Needlessly and then they act supremely ungrateful and want to steal our land. Take this stupid war for instance. If this creates yet another refugee stream its not the US they'll go to, and the economic disruption too are disproportionally for the rest of the world.
Considering the US loves to excuse them making troubles for us by saying ''without us you'd be speaking German!'' I think they should mind their manners when it comes to Frabce. After all without France the US would still be British
Last edited:
Like any organisation, there will be a mix of attitudes in Iran's leadership. Undoubtedly some of them are cynical careerists little interested in ideology, but plenty of them are also going to be genuine believers.
And in either case, I think they very much do care about the 1953 coup. I am willing to bet you the average Iranian patriot, irrespective of whether a supporter of the regime or not, feels some sense of outrage, injustice and/or maybe shame that their country was exploited and manipulated. I think members of the regime care from a pragmatic perspective of protecting their own regime: the fear and anxiety that foreign powers might always try to incite coups or public disorder to topple them, and the need to control Iran with an iron fist. And the genuine believers in the regime almost certainly have both pragmatism and ideology.
It definitely wouldn't.
US independence was an inevitability. The UK is a small island and the USA is huge and they are separated by 3000 miles. The very different positions of the two would guarantee that the interests of the two would diverge (indeed the revolution was because they had diverged sufficiently in the 1700s). Although I could imagine maybe the UK, if it had been able to devolve (as it did with Australia or Canada) could have split it into multiple independent countries. And even if somehow they had remained united, then it would be more accurate to say that the UK would be American, because the centre of gravity would move to the place that had the vast majority of the people.
And in a way, the UK wasn't necessarily that bothered because the North American colonies didn't contribute much to the UK's coffers. Indeed, were in many ways a drain, because the UK had to pay to defend them despite getting little back (that's part of why it was trying to tax the USA and thus sparked the rebellion). The UK was far more interested in India, which was where there was a real fortune to be plundered.
The IRGC as such did not exist in 1953. But those are the guys who did topple the opressive dicator installed by foreign powers to steal the Iranian oil and make a puppet state out of it. This is their founding moment and absolutely central to their self image. That the religious right was not exactly a fan of Mossadegh in 1953 tends to get widely downplayed. Which is easy as that was another generation and the Shah did turn on the religious groups later anyway.
Last edited:
While I otherwise agree, I'd question this bit, India was part of the empire until fairly recently, about 30 times the population of Britain when it left, but Britain wasn't Indian. Though other issues in play, of course.