deirdre
Senior Member
and Egypt. singling out israel is a bit unfair.
2026 Israeli–United States strikes on Iran
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
and Egypt. singling out israel is a bit unfair.
deirdre
Senior Member
when our criminals make themselves unwanted by society, we imprison them. That's why her terminology doesn't bother me so much.
I get that her angle in using those words is likely more to demonize Israel then my interpretation of the term 'imprisoned'.. but still i dont personally find the term imprisoned so far fetched.
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
When it comes to Israel, I don't agree with the people who think they are just pure evil, or they control the U.S.'s foreign policy in the Middle East, or U.S. bends the knee to them, etc. But to minimize the oppression on the Gazan people is puzzling to me. For all intents and purposes, these people are "imprisoned". Israel has clearly oppressed these people for a long time and in a way that would not be remotely tolerated in any Western country today.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
There are LEGAL differences, that matter. That YOU do not know this is not all that worrying, that the regime in Washington does not know this is a problem.
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
What are these legal differences that matter? Why do they matter? And what makes you think the current "regime" does not know this?
Obama carried out airstrikes against Libya in 2011. It lasted 7 months. Was this a "war"? The ongoing conflict was already labeled a "civil war", yet the Obama "regime" called it a "military action" and refused to call it a war. I'm fine with the Obama regime's labeling... because who gives a shit????? And did the Obama "regime" not know there are legal differences between "war" and "military action"?
Mendel
Senior Member.
No research, eh?
Article: In light of ongoing serious human rights violations, the United Nations Security Council established a no-fly zone over Libya and authorized the member states of the UN to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack. Two days later, a coalition of states—including the United States, the United Kingdom, and France—began to carry out air strikes against military targets in Libya. By the end of March 2011, NATO had taken over the international military operation in Libya.
Article: President Obama directed United States forces to "conduct[] a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster"; American airstrikes accordingly were to be "limited in their nature, duration, and scope." Obama March 21, 2011 Report to Congress. As the President explained, "we are not going to use force to go beyond [this] well-defined goal."
I invite you to show us
- Trump's letter to Congress
- UN authorization
- clear definition of mission goals
- NATO authority
I haven't seen any of that happening.
And members of both parties in Congress condemned the involvement nonetheless. Where are these Republicans today?
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
Cool research. Care to address my point?
Ann K
Senior Member.
He did. You are not addressing his.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Generally, supporting a UN security council resolution is different from declaring war.
I invite you to read the second link I cited, it goes into the nuances of the legal discussion. Due to the differences I've listed, none of it applies to the present situation. You're comparing apples and oranges.
People call the current US government a "regime" because it appears to have subverted the legislative and the judicative (Congress and the Supreme Court) to break the law and the constitution unchallenged. That's another difference.
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
He did not. My point is it doesn't matter what the administration labels this thing - war, conflict, military action, etc. I do agree the administration's justification matters, but not the word they choose to call it. Some people are quibbling over Trump and company refusing to call it a war. Obama did the same thing in a very similar situation... who cares!? And there are other instances of this throughout US history. Congress hasn't declared "war" in 84 years. Some presidents since WWII have sought AUMFs (Authorizations for Use of Military Force) from Congress (both Bush's did this, for example). Neither Trump nor Obama sought these approvals. Mendel mentioned the UN and NATO... ok. They have nothing to do with the Obama admin refusing to call their "military action" a "war".
I don't understand this constant need to find any little thing to complain about the other side. It's nauseating.
deirdre
Senior Member
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/27725118-war-powers-report-iran/#document/p1
noone cares about the UN. The real question is why did the UN do squat about Iran for 47 years?
you think Obama's quote you gave is "clear definition of mission goals?"
Noone cares about NATO. The real question is why did NATO do squat about Iran for 47 years?
Taking out the terrorists.
Source: https://x.com/SenFettermanPA/status/2030263941574635832
deirdre
Senior Member
well that is just completely wrong. which is why attempts in congress to stop him 2 days ago failed in the house and the senate.
Article: Accordingly, we conclude that President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya—which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration—without prior congressional authorization. /s/ CAROLINE D. KRASS Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
in fact the House reaffirmed it's feeling about iran.
Article: The House did pass a separate nonbinding resolution, backed by GOP leaders, reaffirming that Iran remains the largest state sponsor of terrorism. That vote was 372-53, with all of the no votes coming from Democrats.
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member
Article: PRESS RELEASE | March 8, 2026
U.S. Forces Issue Safety Warning to Civilians in Iran
USCENTCOM
TAMPA, Fla. – U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) is issuing a safety warning to civilians in Iran, March 8, as Iran's terrorist regime blatantly disregards the safety of innocent people.
The Iranian regime is using heavily populated civilian areas to conduct military operations, including launching one-way attack drones and ballistic missiles. This dangerous decision risks the lives of all civilians in Iran since locations used for military purposes lose protected status and could become legitimate military targets under international law.
Iranian forces are using crowded areas surrounded by civilians in cities such as Dezful, Esfahan and Shiraz to launch attack drones and ballistic missiles.
John J.
Senior Member.
Because the UN Security Council has the USA, Russia (formerly USSR), China, France and UK as permanent members. Any of those nations can veto any resolution voted for by other Security Council members. Only the Security Council can authorise use of force on behalf of the UN; this is rare and can only happen if the 5 permanent members all agree (or at least abstain and don't veto a resolution that gets passed).
Almost all nations, including Iran, are members of the UN.
The UN isn't a military or defence organisation, it doesn't have its own troops. Troops deployed on UN operations are provided by member states if they choose to do so; there is no obligation for member states to provide military assistance to UN operations.
NATO is a defence organisation. A member state can invoke Article 5, invoking the principle of collective defence, if it is attacked.
No NATO nation (including the USA, by far its most influential member) has done this regarding Iran.
Ann K
Senior Member.
That's not a statement. That's a complaint. Furthermore it's a complaint about complaining. Irony is dead.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Obama:
Trump:
Obama can be understood as: Gaddafi is bombing his own populace, even the UN disapproves, we'll establish a no-fly zone and support his people until he stops doing that. In practical terms, the US supported the regime change that was under way, and prevented it getting bloodier than it needed to be.
Trump can only be understood as: we are working to occupy Iran. I don't see any other way how that stated goal would be achievable. It's noteworthy that Trump has not ruled out the use of ground troops.
And if that goal does not mean that it's a war, then the word 'war' has no meaning. Like, imagine FDR wrote that after Pearl Harbor, and substitute "Japan" or "Germany" for "the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran", it fits.
To deny that this describes a war is in itself a political statement, and it's worthy of being de-bunked.
The public discourse in the US around this comes across as "we're calling it a war because that's what it is, but if you call it a war, you're accusing us of breaking the Constitution, and we can't have that".
In practical terms, Trump allied with Israel to start a war, and means to see it through.
Article: President Obama determined that the use of force in Libya by the United States would be limited to airstrikes and associated support missions; the President made clear that "[t]he United States is not going to deploy ground troops in Libya."
President Obama directed United States forces to "conduct[] a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster"; American airstrikes accordingly were to be "limited in their nature, duration, and scope." Obama March 21, 2011 Report to Congress. As the President explained, "we are not going to use force to go beyond [this] well-defined goal."
Trump:
Article: Although the United States desires a quick and enduring peace, it is not possible at this time to know the full scope and duration of military operations that may be necessary. As such, United States forces remain postured to take further action, as necessary and appropriate, to address further threats and attacks upon the United States or its allies and partners, and ensure the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran ceases being a threat to the United States, its allies, and the international community.
Obama can be understood as: Gaddafi is bombing his own populace, even the UN disapproves, we'll establish a no-fly zone and support his people until he stops doing that. In practical terms, the US supported the regime change that was under way, and prevented it getting bloodier than it needed to be.
Trump can only be understood as: we are working to occupy Iran. I don't see any other way how that stated goal would be achievable. It's noteworthy that Trump has not ruled out the use of ground troops.
And if that goal does not mean that it's a war, then the word 'war' has no meaning. Like, imagine FDR wrote that after Pearl Harbor, and substitute "Japan" or "Germany" for "the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran", it fits.
To deny that this describes a war is in itself a political statement, and it's worthy of being de-bunked.
The public discourse in the US around this comes across as "we're calling it a war because that's what it is, but if you call it a war, you're accusing us of breaking the Constitution, and we can't have that".
In practical terms, Trump allied with Israel to start a war, and means to see it through.
Mendel
Senior Member.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles...cades-of-terrorism-against-american-citizens/
Not only does the very first example on the list not have any casualties, it's also clear that the seizure was not initiated by the government. The list goes on to basically attribute every terrorist activity in the Middle East to Iran. At the same time, the casualties pale in comparison to what the US military has influcted on the region directly or through military support.External Quote:
TEEJ
Senior Member.
As part of regime change in Iran a Farsi Number Station has appeared on shortwave radio (High Frequency).
The station will of US or Israeli intelligence service origin. Possibly joint CIA/Mossad? The station was first heard at the start of the conflict. It has been a while since either the CIA or Mossad have ran a shortwave number station. E10 was the last one ran by Mossad which ceased transmission during 2011.
https://priyom.org/number-stations/english/e10
See Priyom website webpage. It has been assigned station identifier V32.
https://priyom.org/number-stations/other/v32
Number Stations are shortwave transmissions from foreign intelligence agencies to spies in the field of foreign countries. They carry encrypted messages in form of groups of numbers or letters, using either automated voice, Morse code, or a digital mode. While the encryption methods used by most number stations are unknown, some have used and others are widely believed to use one-time pad: mathematical addition of a set of random numbers (the key) to the cleartext, which can be used only once, and must be destroyed after usage.
From
https://priyom.org/number-stations
Farsi Number Station on 7910 kilohertz USB (Upper Sideband)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZEpMPpYYog
The Iranians have been playing Whack-a-Mole with the number station transmission and have been jamming the frequency. They are using the same bubble jammers as they have been using against Radio Farda (anti-Iran government radio) that is beamed into Iran.
Iranian jammer on 7910 kilohertz.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NBpiYh2Ryik
Yesterday the Farsi Number Station was transmitting on a new frequency. The Iranians continued to jam the old frequency.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oTWAv3w0iI
The station will of US or Israeli intelligence service origin. Possibly joint CIA/Mossad? The station was first heard at the start of the conflict. It has been a while since either the CIA or Mossad have ran a shortwave number station. E10 was the last one ran by Mossad which ceased transmission during 2011.
https://priyom.org/number-stations/english/e10
See Priyom website webpage. It has been assigned station identifier V32.
https://priyom.org/number-stations/other/v32
Number Stations are shortwave transmissions from foreign intelligence agencies to spies in the field of foreign countries. They carry encrypted messages in form of groups of numbers or letters, using either automated voice, Morse code, or a digital mode. While the encryption methods used by most number stations are unknown, some have used and others are widely believed to use one-time pad: mathematical addition of a set of random numbers (the key) to the cleartext, which can be used only once, and must be destroyed after usage.
From
https://priyom.org/number-stations
Farsi Number Station on 7910 kilohertz USB (Upper Sideband)
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZEpMPpYYog
The Iranians have been playing Whack-a-Mole with the number station transmission and have been jamming the frequency. They are using the same bubble jammers as they have been using against Radio Farda (anti-Iran government radio) that is beamed into Iran.
Iranian jammer on 7910 kilohertz.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NBpiYh2Ryik
Yesterday the Farsi Number Station was transmitting on a new frequency. The Iranians continued to jam the old frequency.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oTWAv3w0iI
deirdre
Senior Member
Obamas letter to congress https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/21/letter-president-regarding-commencement-operations-libya#:~:text=At approximately 3:00 p.m.,multilateral response authorized under U.N.
Trump can be understood as: Iran is the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism and has attacked western countries for decades, it murders and tortures its own citizens-including children- by the thousands, we will take out all it's munitions to support it's people. In practical terms, the US supports the regime change that is desired by the iranian people and the western and middle eastern world.
note: you dont have to approve of the us military operations in Iran.
(you do realize that iran supports Russia alot in the ukraine war. so, youre welcome.)
Trump can be understood as: Iran is the world's biggest sponsor of terrorism and has attacked western countries for decades, it murders and tortures its own citizens-including children- by the thousands, we will take out all it's munitions to support it's people. In practical terms, the US supports the regime change that is desired by the iranian people and the western and middle eastern world.
note: you dont have to approve of the us military operations in Iran.
(you do realize that iran supports Russia alot in the ukraine war. so, youre welcome.)
NoParty
Senior Member.
I agree with most of this post, except this last line.
Close observation of the last half century of Trump's personal, business & political life reveals a basic lack of core values
(about the only consistent thing in his life over those 50 years, is fear of black people & attempts to harm them).
I don't think Trump has any ideology re. Iran. Israel & hawks led him into it...but he seems to prefer his Mar-A-Lago parties.
I think that if/when he determines that the Iran debacle is hurting him more with independents, than it is
helping him with his base, he will withdraw. And the mostly negative world-wide response to his "
isn't helping.
I interpreted his multiple "...we've already won!" comments this week, to be something of a trial balloon:
A test to see if he could get out soon, and re-write the history to have people believe it was actually a success.
(Of course, Israel has different, more serious motivations...but ultimately, due to military might, the will of the child king wins out...)
https://www.reuters.com/world/europ...es-not-need-its-help-win-iran-war-2026-03-07/
deirdre
Senior Member
yea i read that on Before It's News.
deirdre
Senior Member
really? i see mostly positive response. people dancing all over the world, parades, the NATO leader seems pretty positive. etc
People are understandably worried about gas prices, and some left leaners pretend they are appalled but Trump could cure cancer and they'd be appalled. (<just like some right leaners are appalled about everything the dems do).
Obviously some are, quite understandably, scared of the extremist muslim reaction (as opposed to regular muslims) in our countries. If the libs pushed the price tag more, then more people would likely be appalled.
But overall i think most of the world is ok with the idea of regime being taken out.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I was going off what he wrote Congress.
There aren't many wars in history that turned out shorter than anticipated, are there?
Gary C
Senior Member.
Today's episode is brought to you by the letters "C" and "B". Can you say, "Confirmation Bias" boys and girls? I knew you could.really? i see mostly positive response. people dancing all over the world, parades, the NATO leader seems pretty positive. etc
People are understandably worried about gas prices, and some left leaners pretend they are appalled but Trump could cure cancer and they'd be appalled. (<just like some right leaners are appalled about everything the dems do).
Obviously some are, quite understandably, scared of the extremist muslim reaction (as opposed to regular muslims) in our countries. If the libs pushed the price tag more, then more people would likely be appalled.
But overall i think most of the world is ok with the idea of regime being taken out.
(My apologies to the late Mr Rogers)
Last edited:
deirdre
Senior Member
I don't think No Party made that statement because of his confirmation bias. I think he made it because he is obsessed with finding any reason or made-up reason to make Trump and Republicans look bad.
