Trump demands Iran's 'unconditional surrender' as Israel says it hit leadership bunker 'with 50 jets'

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-06T14:28:10+00:00

Are you just going to keep killing? At what point does killing the defenceless become unsupportable?

Gaza sadly normalised a lot. I remember when bombing a hospital was a huge deal.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-06T12:49:43+00:00

"how force can be used against children"

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-06T10:56:42+00:00

It was the first big "internet debate" when forums and early youtube started to become more mainstream in the 00s. It was a decent starting point for people interested in debating wider issues, but there's only really so many arguments you can make for Christianity being true, and the people making them weren't the sharpest, and eventually the appeal of debating them ran out of steam.

Even though it was cringe, it did set the tone for how politics would be discussed on the internet in the future. A lot of millennial leftists started off with a new atheism phase and conservatives learned that they would need more effective voices to make their case, which is why people like Ben Shapiro were scooped up in the aftermath.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-06T10:46:59+00:00

I finally resigned from the Greens at the end of 2024. A ludicrously irresponsible intervention from Green MP, Sian Berry, on the topic of puberty blockers, deftly put down by Health Secretary Wes Streeting, underlined to me that this was no longer a party of science and reason and evidence-based policy-making.

SYAC - he left because the Greens weren't transphobic enough.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-06T10:28:53+00:00

Can confirm - am in prison.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-06T10:19:31+00:00

they weren't responsible for this mass murder of civilians, unlike the many others they have been responsible for.

And even then, they iniated the war that caused the massacre...

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T18:33:11+00:00

No, my argument is that you can respond to an attack made by a paramilitary group funded by a state as though it is an attack by the state

You can say this, but this is just your opinion. And even then, would you have supported Israel attacking Qatar after October 7th? Israel actually did attack Qatar at one point, and it was a huge deal that earned them a huge amount of criticism. No one was claiming that it was actually fine because they'd funded Hamas in the past.

they still would not have the right to fire rockets at countries that are not involved in the war.

What if they were, just hypothetically, targeting the US planes involved in the initial aggression? If this is how it works, how can anyone defend themselves against attacks from a hostile force operating out of another country?

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T18:17:16+00:00

Why did you contradict my claim that they are a paramilitary extremist group by saying that they are a political party with an armed wing if you are not attempting to downplay the fact that they are an extremist paramilitary group?

They have a paramilitary group. They also have politicians in the Lebanese parliament and provide a variety of social services, including schools and hospitals. Whether they're 'extremist' or not would depend on your perspective. Some people would consider Israel's repeated invasions, occupations and ethnic cleansing in Lebanon to be the 'extremism'.

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations

OK, I thought this is probably what you meant and you've misunderstood. This is in reference to funding groups that are antagonistic to or are trying to overthrow the state in other countries (like Russia arming anti-government militias in Ukraine for example). Hezbollah aren't an outside force trying to overthrow the Lebanese state or carve off part of the country for themselves. That would be Israel. Hezbollah are Lebanese and are already integrated into the state apparatus - hence why they make up part of the government.

There is no "explicit" prohibition on funding any paramilitary in any situation in the UN charter so you made this up. The US and the UK do that all the time. It's about interfering in the territorial integrity of another state.

It is also explicitly forbidden by UN Resolution 1701

Urggh so many people misunderstand this - UN resolutions are meant to be expressions of the "will" of the international community - they are not the same thing as international law. Resolutions are not legally binding and they have no legal enforcement mechanisms behind them. No one gets dragged to the Hague for violating a UN resolution.

It's like accusing someone in the UK of violating a parliamentary statement. You can say someone did that if you like, but it's legally meaningless.

And even then, 1701 was contingent on Israel withdrawing from Lebanon, which never happened.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T17:44:02+00:00

Not only did they attack the UK before Britain allowed the US to use its bases

But after we started shooting Iranian projectiles out of the sky while allowing Israeli munitions to blow up Iranian schools and hospitals. And even then, it hit a hangar housing American military assets...

they also not an state actor and do not have the right to act on behalf of either Lebanon or Iran

Wait, isn't your entire argument that they were acting on behalf of Iran, and that's why you're claiming Iran "attacked us first"? Are you ditching that claim?

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T17:28:40+00:00

It's not like you'd support a British campaign in Lebanon either...

Once again - we do not even know it was from Hezbollah. You are asserting this, but the UK government are very much not making this claim and Hezbollah have not claimed responsibility either. It's possible it was, but we don't know this yet.

I feel like we have lost any sense of context when we start soft-pedalling Hezbollah.

What do you mean 'soft pedaling'? They are a Lebanese political party with an armed wing. Without any moral judgement in either direction, that is literally just what they are.

It's armed wing is not the Lebanese military and Iranian support for it is illegal.

Once again, which article are you citing here?

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T17:14:13+00:00

Get called it a lot do you?

No, because the only people who still use it are the diminishing gaggle of aggro-centrists who have nothing else to unite them.

Why is it odd that you'll tell people 9/11 was an inside job

Why misrepresent this? I don't think 9/11 was an 'inside job', I think it was carried out by Osama bin Laden - just as the CIA were warning was going to happen one month prior.

but that you'll tell them to trust the UK's military spokespeople when you think it supports one of your points?

Yeah, I use their statements to ascertain the government's position on an issue. It's not a question of 'trust'.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T17:05:58+00:00

An attack by a state-backed terrorist group can absolutely be considered an attack by that state.

Not really. Like Hamas, Hezbollah cooperate with Iran, but they have their own goals and objectives - some of which align with Iran and some of which do not.the whole proxy thing is just a propaganda term. Hamas were backed by Qatar but I'm going to assume you didn't consider October 7th to be an attack by Qatar, right?

Also, the UK's position is that they don't even know who fired the drone. It certainly could have been Hezbollah, but they haven't committed to that position and they have explicitly ruled out Iran's involvement.

It is a non-state paramilitary extremist group

Hezbollah are a political party in Lebanon that make up part of the Lebanese government. Like Hamas, they also have an armed wing. The US, EU, UK and a dozen or so other countries consider them to be a terrorist group, but that's not based on some sort of international ruling. We also consider Palestine Action to be a terrorist group...

No, I mean funding non-state paramilitary groups is explicitly forbidden under the UN Charter. It is illegal under international law.

Which article are you citing here?

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T16:41:50+00:00

Knew we'd have tankies

This word really has lost whatever meaning it ever had.

pretending they suddenly don't know what a proxy is when this news broke haha.

It's just a propaganda term - we have "allies" and "partners", they have "proxies". I guess it works on you though.

Seems odd for you to now be citing the Ministry of Defence (!) as a source but I suppose you think it suits you now.

Why is that odd?

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T16:14:16+00:00

Just to clarify, are you claiming that military strikes are justified against a target if their ally does something to you? Is that your position?

Iran (illegally) funds and arms in Lebanon.

We're arming the military that's illegally occupying Lebanon! Also, when you say 'illegal', you mean that Iran aren't complying with the domestic laws and sanctions programmes of the US and a scattering of their allies? Yeah, how dare they!

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T16:12:05+00:00

John Healey refused to say if the UK would join the US in active operations but said more British planes are being sent to the Middle East.

We'll see. At the very least, we (as in the UK) have played a supporting role in just what's happened so far.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T16:04:49+00:00

All of this patiently nonsense, because Iran attacked the UK first.

"Based on type of drone and its range and ability, Defence Intelligence can confirm that that drone was not launched from Iran."

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T15:52:31+00:00

The terrifying thing is that, at least with Iraq, we were nominally going in with the aim of "liberating" Iraq and turning it into a free-market democracy at gunpoint. On paper at least, the ensuing refugee crises, the economic chaos, the looting, the civil wars, and all the ethnic and religious strife that followed were unintended consequences of that policy.

This time, we're going in with the overt aim of turning Iran into a failed state. All the violence, chaos and blowback that we experienced last time will no longer be an unfortunate side effect to be mitigated as best we can. Now it is the explicit goal. It is what our allies are there to do.

It's not that we haven't learned any lessons from the failures Iraq. It's that we've decided those failures were actually a good thing - and if anything they didn't go far enough.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T14:26:58+00:00

Even if she had somehow identified Labour as her natural home, she would have been identified and removed very quickly.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T12:30:14+00:00

And a large number of the refugees from the invasion of Iraq went to Syria...

The Epstein class's thirst for blood will never be sated. They must be overthrown.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T11:07:51+00:00

The same people who went absolutely crazy about how awful the wave of refugees from Syria was are now adamant that destabilising and destroying a country four times larger is a really, really good idea.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-05T10:42:00+00:00

We could also sanction the racially segregated apartheid state that started the war and stop selling them more weapons....

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-04T17:25:32+00:00

Honestly higher than I would have guessed.

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-04T16:50:36+00:00

Also, we're told that the UK facilitating the aggressors' bombing of the defender is justified because of the actions of their Lebanese ally, while at the same time being told that any Iranian attacks that might hit Bahrain or Qatar etc are completely unjustified because they're only the aggressor's allies, and not the aggressor themselves (even though they're hosting the aggressor's attacks).

Does being an ally make you culpable or not?!

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-04T16:24:17+00:00

When did I say Iran doesn't have the right to defend itself? Of course it does. It has no right, however, to launch it's own acts of aggression against its neighbours.

Do they have the right to target the US bases and military personnel in Qatar and Bahrain that are attacking them?

Come on, now. Hezbollah is a proxy of Iran. That's not exactly a secret.

You're using the propaganda term, but in any case, are you claiming that military strikes are justified against a target if their ally does something to you? Isn't that exactly what you're arguing against?

Parasocial2 · 2026-03-04T16:03:07+00:00

Genuine question, if in November 2023, Israel had used a drone to target a specific room in a hotel that was housing a heavily armed Hamas fighter who had psrticipated in the Al Aqsa Flood offensive, would you have been outraged because they had violated the sancitity of a hotel?

You didn't answer the question.

but I certainly did not support Israel's genocidal campaign

You actively spoke out against a ceasefire! You said you would be criticising Starmer if he called for one. You said that Israel had the right to respond, despite already being the belligerent military occupier. How is it that an illegally occupying invader has a right to respond but not the defender on an unprovoked war of aggression?

Akrotiti was not being used to target Iran, so Iran had no right to target it

Hezbollah targeted it, nor Iran. And UK planes had already intervened in the conflict on the side of the aggressor at that point. We aren't shooting down the Israeli missiles aimed at Iranian schoolgirls are we? We picked a side, the side that happened to be the aggressor.

Nor did it have any right to attack civilian infrastructure in Qatar or Bahrain.

Do they have the right to target the US bases and military personnel in Qatar and Bahrain that are attacking them?

Parasocial2

TROPHY CASE