Forum Topic

Is Trump completely unhinged?

I think you know the answer to that: a resounding YES! First he launches a massive war on Iran because of its (nonexistent) imminent threat to produce nuclear bombs, or to produce regime change, or to stop it producing long-range rockets, or something – the supposed threats keep changing so no one really knows what the aims of the war are, except for the aggrandisement of President Donald J. Trump...
Then when the regime reacts with its only effective countermeasure (which anyone with a brain in the White House should have predicted), to close the Straits of Hormuz, he walks away saying he didn’t care, nothing to do with him, and someone else should clear up the mess he’d just made.
Now he’s been issuing ultimata (several times postponed!) to bomb Iran into the stone “ages” [sic] by bombing its energy sites and, by implication, its desalination plants – a war crime in itself.
Finally, we get yet another postponement: in an expletive-laden rant he has threatened Iran with “hell” if it doesn’t back down – to which the response is likely to be to destroy the desalination plants of the Gulf allies, which would render life there unsupportable.
You don’t have to be a supporter of the vile regime in Iran (and I’m certainly not one) to regard this as completely unhinged, the behaviour of a frustrated toddler, lying on the ground and kicking his legs in a temper - except that it is much more serious than that. Time to invoke the 25th Amendment I think, if anyone in Congress has the bottle to do it.

Richard Carter ● 11d117 Comments

AI Jesus - a healer? Fake DoorDash McDonald's delivery the White House - by someone who didn't have a view on trans athletes; insults about the Pope (even his Italian PM fan thinks that'sa step too far), although his MAGA brother gets a compliment ... while the President's navy is occupying the Stait of Hormaz and threatening to incinerate any errant Iranian boats and occupants! That does all sound unhinged but someone must have produced the fake Jesus video and organised the fake DoorDash order; is the whole White House unhinged (well, there's a few candidates: Hesgeth,  JFK jnr ...) - or is Trump such a bully everyone is too frightened to tell him the truth? Perhaps others like to see him look stupid?https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-is-waging-a-holy-war-with-mcnuggets-b2956856.html

Michael Ixer ● 3d

Have a listen to the conversation, Steve, you might pick up on a lot more subtleties than come through on your list of bullet points. You seem eager to find flaws, or misunderstand the points, which possibly means you then dismiss them. I think you would be better off considering his well informed view.Obviously, it's up to you.

Gerry Boyce ● 3d

I can see why those opposed to America’s intervention in Iran would be well disposed to the views expressed by the Iranian analyst, Ali Vaez,  but are they true? 1) It is probably true that the IRG has gained influence at the expense of the clerics but I doubt that this will bring Iran closer to Russia and China than it already is. Iran has supplied Russia with drones since the beginning of the war in Ukraine, while China is an important customer for its oil.2)The new hardliners may be less bothered about social restrictions on women  than the clerics, but that is hardly likely to defuse resentment against the regime. The protests in January were about more than the obligation on women to wear a head scarf in public. The protesters were demonstrating a desire for democracy and were brutally repressed by the hardliners who are still in power.3) The Iranian blockade of Hormuz is certainly a weapon in the hands of the regime but their strategy can be countered. The Americans are now blockading the Straits themselves, preventing Iran from exporting its oil. The Saudis are also likely to increase flows through the pipeline from the east of their country to the Red Sea, avoiding transit through Hormuz.4) The Iranian attacks on the Gulf States have probably affected confidence in American protection but the conflict is not yet over.5) Trump’s comments about bombing Iran back into the Stone Age no doubt alienated many people in Iran but I doubt that antipathy to America will reconcile the Iranian population to a regime which only three months ago murdered tens of thousands of their fellow citizens. In a city like Teheran everyone will either have lost a family member or know someone who has lost a family member.6) The view that bombing Iran’s  nuclear facilities will only delay the production of a nuclear device sounds very much like a counsel of despair. The analyst seems to be saying the regime is going to produce a nuclear bomb anyway, so we may as well let them get on with it.7) It is all very well to downplay the Iranian threat to wipe Israel off the map as a tribal rallying call, but the Israelis certainly don’t see it that way and who can blame them?

Steven Rose ● 3d

As William Blake said: “We become what we behold.”Anyway, Johnny, you've been ducking and diving a few questions I've posted for you about British heritage and whatnot, can you do the decent thing and respond now.Go raibh míle maith agaibh!

Gerry Boyce ● 3d

BoycieI am amazed that coming from a foul, potty mouthed bigot like yourself, what you have posted has some reasoned and plausible analysis of the situation.Much of which I agree with.Are you the same malignant leprechaun that posted earlier ?☘️😁

John Hawkes ● 3d

Mr Callaway''And somewhere in all this there are the Palestinians, most of whom who also want to live in peace and security.  Unfortunately many of them have also been radicalised by what they see as years of oppression and discrimination.  This takes its worst form in the illegal activities of the Jewish settlers on the West Bank who seem to be able to attack Palestinian communities with complete impunity.  It would be a starting point if they were reined in.'I agree with much of what you say.But please do not forget that Israel is surrounded by those Islamic countries and sheltered terrorist groups that wish to annihilate it.And to many in the West (see this Forum) and in the Middle East that is OK.Thus they have to defend themselves.And in a war, that is a messy business in which many innocents suffer.The Islamist terrorist groups and these aggressive countries that support them do not care.They want Israel gone from the face of the earth.A picture of a dead baby is a great recruiting poster for the gullible, be they fighters in the region or sympathisers in the West.You say you cannot think of a resolution.There is not one until negotiation achieves a peaceful settlement with Israel guaranteed the right to exist by its enemies.  I am sure you would agree that the few attacks by extreme Israelis on Palestinians are nothing in comparison to attacks made by Palestinian jihadists on Jews on and since October 2023.Israel does attempt to 'rein them in'.Who is reining in Hamas and other genocidal Iran backed terrorist groups ?Many are not even criticised but are lauded as 'freedom fighters'.Usually by Palestinians who have decided not to fight for their beliefs with weapons in their homeland but on the safe streets of London with placards. 'So there must be another way but I cannot think what that is'. There is not one until negotiation achieves a peaceful settlement with Israel guaranteed the right to exist by its enemies'But I do believe what we have witnessed over the last few  years since the appalling massacres of October 2023 has done little but harm to Israel's security and its international standing.  That surely must be a matter of huge concern for all those who wish Israel a secure and peaceful future'.Those that 'wish Israel a secure and peaceful future' know that it will only be secured by negotiation but also backed up by force.Force against the many who do NOT wish such a future for it.

John Hawkes ● 3d

'If she is upset by this I apologise.'Down with this sort of thing!

Gerry Boyce ● 3d

Hi Michael, I think you are right, it is the IRGC he mentioned.Cross training between the IRGC and IDF? Now, that is thinking outside the box; I like it, worth investigating anyway.

Gerry Boyce ● 3d

Gerry, I don't want to nick pit. but did you mean the IRGC? Then I had a thought, perhaps the solution to the Middle East problem is cross training between the IDF and IRGC - but perhaps not ...

Michael Ixer ● 3d

I agree with that assessment, Jonathan.I would add that there is a very interesting conversation on the Newsagent Podcast with Ali Vaez, an Iranian analyst; it is worth a listen.In brief, his assessment of Iran now is:1) The clerics have largely been replaced with men who have come through the IDF, a more military background then religious, and that the power base has shifted to them. They are more hardline and more strategic in their approach. They will very likely want Iran to form enhanced ties with Russia, and very possibly with China.2) He also thinks that these guys will not be so concerned about social restrictions as the clerics, and therefore, may well be able to defuse some of the heat that generated the recent protests. In short, he thinks the recent attacks by Israel and the US have set back the cause of democracy by a decade or more.3) The Strait of Hormuz has become a choke point that these guys are best placed to exploit, and he thinks they will do so relentlessly.4) In the wider region, the belief that relying on the US for stability has been severely undermined.5) The threat to bomb Iran back to the stone ages, has been propaganda gold to the regime; they can now point to this and say the US hates us all (Iranians) equally - not just the regime.6) Iran has a path to nuclear production, the question is, for how long will it be delayed. Confiscating some material, bombing facilities etc etc will not alter this fact.7) He describes the call to 'wipe Israel off the map' as a rallying cry that helped unify separate tribes and warring groups in Iran and the wider muslim world. It was more strategic than literal.I think his assessment is very interesting; others no doubt will have different opinions. This attack though, has been an absolute disaster for all. Why would anyone think that more of the same is the best way forward?

Gerry Boyce ● 3d

Israel concluded peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan over thirty years ago which are still intact. Israel was about to normalise relations with Saudi Arabia until the war in Gaza interrupted the negotiations (specifically when the BBC and Jeremy Bowen in particular falsely accused Israel of an attack on a Palestinian hospital). The problem is Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, all of whom want to see the destruction of the State of Israel. The Israelis know that a final victory against all these enemies is virtually impossible, so they make do with partial victories which allow them to survive for the moment.

Steven Rose ● 3d

Steven'John, like you, I disagree with Richard on this issue, but I think it would be best to leave his wife, Jane, out of the discussion, who in any case has not posted on Putney Forum for some time.'I made an assumption that Ms Carter was a relation of our friend Mr Carter, but which one exactly I had no idea.However when she has posted I recall her views are pretty much identical to his.And thus I called upon her as one of many, not necessarily related to him, that share his views and could answer on his behalf.For as we know he is very reluctant to declare them in his own words. If she is upset by this I apologise.

John Hawkes ● 3d

Who is running Gaza?  Hamas and other equally militant groups, and they still have their weapons.  Who controls those parts of southern Lebanon that Israel has not (yet) invaded?  Hezbollah, and they still have arms and rockets. Who runs Iran?  The same hardliners as before.  And they still have missiles and drones.That's not success.  Military supremacy is not delivering the peace and security that Israel so badly wants and needs.That is my point.  The Iran regime and its proxies have suffered huge damage but their ideology is unchanged and whatever Israel does militarily they will eventually regroup and continue their struggle.  It seems there is no way out of these endless rounds of bloodletting. So there must be another way.  I cannot define what that way is but I do believe what we have witnessed over the last few years since the appalling massacres of October 2023 has done little but harm to Israel's security and its international standing.  That surely must be a matter of huge concern for all those who wish Israel a secure and peaceful future. And somewhere in all this there are the Palestinians, most of whom who also want to live in peace and security.  Unfortunately many of them have also been radicalised by what they see as years of oppression and discrimination.  This takes its worst form in the illegal activities of the Jewish settlers on the West Bank who seem to be able to attack Palestinian communities with complete impunity.  It would be a starting point if they were reined in.

Jonathan Callaway ● 3d

That third group is looking a bit anaemic, did you run out of inspiration or names, John?General note; John has strenuously denied any use of stimulants like amphetamines, cocaine, and other stuff! Any suggestion that he may actually partake will be met by counter accusations and general mud flinging.Don not infer nothing from his over enthusiastic posting. Have a great day, guys!

Gerry Boyce ● 3d

Mr Callaway'And have lost Israel many (indeed most) of its friends and supporters around the world.'I doubt if Israel has lost many of its true friends and supporters.Even though there is no doubt its PR and media campaign to justify its attempts to respond to the threat against its very existence is not perfect.Yet what it has done it had to do, namely crush Hamas and militant Islam.But of course Jews have been under antisemitic attack for millennia and this continues today.And a new group of Israelophobes has now emerged.Those who will even side with the theocratic undemocratic rogue state that is Iran in order to defame and attack it.Some of us see the truth of the political conflict it is involved with and will stand by it.Those that have always hated its existence never will.

John Hawkes ● 3d

I understand your reluctance to advocate armed intervention, Jonathan, but where have negotiation and containment got us? Iran has funded and armed terrorist groups to attack Israel and has gone most of the way to constructing a nuclear bomb?While Israel’s hope of living at peace with its neighbours is clearly forlorn, I don’t think it is true to say that Netanyahu’s plan of defeating Israel’s enemies has utterly failed. On the contrary,  Israel has neutralised Hamas, severely weakened Hezbollah and together with America has inflicted serious damage on Iran, destroying its airforce, navy most of its missile capability as well as rendering its nuclear facilities inoperable for the moment.John, like you, I disagree with Richard on this issue, but I think it would be best to leave his wife, Jane, out of the discussion, who in any case has not posted on Putney Forum for some time.

Steven Rose ● 3d

Steven'Do you think Iran should be allowed to keeps its 400 kilos of purified uranium with no ban on further purification?'If that is a question directed at Mr Carter, you are surely not expecting a straight answer ??!!

John Hawkes ● 4d

Mr Carter'Not the least extraordinary part of the failed negotiations with Iran was Vance’s statement afterwards that “We’ve made it very clear what our redlines are, what we are willing to accommodate them on and what things we are not willing to accommodate them on. We’ve made that as clear as we possibly could, and they’ve chosen not to accept our terms.”Thanks for the daily reminder of your techniques of obfuscation and gaslighting, trying to change, with the subtlety of a dancing elephant, the topic of discussion rather than answer any direct questions.If you are unable to do so why not let Ms Carter try !

John Hawkes ● 4d

BoycieYou write -''if the IDF intended to exterminate the Palestinian population of Gaza, which is what is meant by genocide'I thought all of this had been thrashed out months ago. The literal meaning of genocide that you give above is not the same as the definition given by the UN in the The Genocide Convention:'The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; andA physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:Killing members of the groupCausing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the groupDeliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in partImposing measures intended to prevent births within the groupForcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'Have you not just figuratively hoisted yourself with your own petard ?You have just summed up what the Palestinians did in October 2023.Namely intending genocide and annihilation by invading Israel and murdering then carrying off women, children and the elderly and only very recently releasing them. And this genocidal aim of Palestinians is written into the Hamas Charter is it not which I am sure you will acknowledge.Doesn't your head spin when you give an idiot's guide to the Genocide Convention yet your interpretation of it condemns the very people you support who are contravening it by attacking Israel and its Jewish citizens.Do you really not get it ?

John Hawkes ● 4d

The question really should be how do we, the international community, stop Iran moving towards building a nuclear weapon. The US and Israeli bombing campaign - and now the threatened blockade - won’t achieve that. That’s already clear. In fact the IDF’s relentless bombing of Gaza and Lebanon has failed to achieve the eradication, or even the neutralisation, of Hamas and Hezbollah. So how they hope to persuade a deeply entrenched - and at the same time deeply unpopular- Iranian regime by bombing alone is beyond me. Flawed, as we all know, but with some limited successes, attempts at negotiation and containment are still the only viable option in my view. And result in far less bloodshed. Netanyahu’s promise to defeat Israel’s enemies and enable the country to live in peace and security have utterly failed. It is Israel’s tragedy that his methods so far guarantee only that the country will remain surrounded by new generations of highly radicalised enemies. And have lost Israel many (indeed most) of its friends and supporters around the world.

Jonathan Callaway ● 4d

Steven'The purveyors of the genocide libel can be divided into three groups, John. There are those whose antipathy to Israel is so great that they are prepared to believe any accusation, however grotesque, and no rational argument will ever convince them otherwise. When confronted with evidence to the contrary they tend to become abusive. Then  there are those who know perfectly well that there was no deliberate attempt to exterminate Palestinian civilians and  only made the this accusation  out of anger at the devastation in Gaza. But having made the accusation they are too embarrassed to withdraw it.  This group when  presented with the evidence, if they reply at all, tend to engage in intellectual sophistry in order to justify their position, for example by pretending that the word genocide doesn’t mean what everybody knows it means and can be applied in situations where there are high numbers of civilian casualties, whether civilians are deliberately targeted or not. Then there are the dimwits who know nothing about the history of the conflict but merely repeat the views of the social  circle in which they move, fearing that they might be ostracised if they ever questioned these opinions.'This Forum has many members of all groups you describe.'There are those whose antipathy to Israel is so great that they are prepared to believe any accusation, however grotesque, and no rational argument will ever convince them otherwise. When confronted with evidence to the contrary they tend to become abusive.'Namely the out and out antisemites.From what they post Messrs Ainsworth, Carter, Boyce and Brigo seem to fall into this category.'Then  there are those who know perfectly well that there was no deliberate attempt to exterminate Palestinian civilians and  only made the this accusation  out of anger at the devastation in Gaza. But having made the accusation they are too embarrassed to withdraw it.  This group when  presented with the evidence, if they reply at all, tend to engage in intellectual sophistry in order to justify their position, for example by pretending that the word genocide doesn’t mean what everybody knows it means'Strangely this group is predominately female - Ms Carter (!), Holliday, Bond though Messrs Ainsworth and Carter are so filled with anti-Israel/Jewish hatred that they qualify to join it ! 'Then there are the dimwits who know nothing about the history of the conflict but merely repeat the views of the social  circle in which they move, fearing that they might be ostracised if they ever questioned these opinions.'You must mean 'The West Putney Front for the Liberation of Palestine' !

John Hawkes ● 4d

America's red line is its insistence that Iran should give up its nuclear ambitions. Do you think Iran should be allowed to keeps its 400 kilos of purified uranium with no ban on further purification?

Steven Rose ● 4d

Not the least extraordinary part of the failed negotiations with Iran was Vance’s statement afterwards that “We’ve made it very clear what our redlines are, what we are willing to accommodate them on and what things we are not willing to accommodate them on. We’ve made that as clear as we possibly could, and they’ve chosen not to accept our terms.”
What this illustrates is his complete inability to understand that the other side has red lines too, and the art of negotiation is to find some way of trading off between the two sets, instead of fetching up and saying, in effect, “these are our red lines and you have to accept them or we’re off home.” And that illustrates perfectly the failure of the US team to include any trained, experienced diplomatic negotiators who would have that basic understanding the negotiating process, instead of which the ‘team’ consisted of blundering Vance and the Dopey Duo of Witless and the boy Kushner.

Richard Carter ● 4d

*They haven’t answered your question Steven because *they do not have any credible answers to give.*The pro-Palestine antisemitic mob

Sue Hammond ● 5d

'if the IDF intended to exterminate the Palestinian population of Gaza, which is what is meant by genocide'I thought all of this had been thrashed out months ago. The literal meaning of genocide that you give above is not the same as the definition given by the UN in the The Genocide Convention: 'The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; andA physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:Killing members of the groupCausing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the groupDeliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in partImposing measures intended to prevent births within the groupForcibly transferring children of the group to another group.'I'm no legal expert, I am guessing neither are you, however, we can both apply a layman's understanding to the above and assess what we know about the conflict in relation to this.We can arrive at different conclusions, without resorting to accusations of; blood-libel, anti-semitism, anti-zionism etc.In due course, hopefully, a court will decide. It won't necessarily be the end of the matter, or 'the truth'. It will be a legal judgement that may or may not be accepted by individuals.Attempting to shut down conversation or endlessly categorise people according to their opinions, or accuse them of vile ulterior motives and prejudices etc etc etc. is, at the very least, an extremely tedious exercise, let alone highly insulting.

Gerry Boyce ● 5d

The ‘fourth’ group is the same as the first group. But what all the groups have in common is that none of them is prepared to answer the simple question: if the IDF intended to exterminate the Palestinian population of Gaza, which is what is meant by genocide, why did they repeatedly give advance warnings of their attacks and try to move the civilian population out of the  way?

Steven Rose ● 5d

You forgot the fourth group, Steve, the ones who recognise a genocide when they see it.These tend to have little time for people who endlessly repeat; "don't mention the genocide'.

Gerry Boyce ● 5d

The purveyors of the genocide libel can be divided into three groups, John. There are those whose antipathy to Israel is so great that they are prepared to believe any accusation, however grotesque, and no rational argument will ever convince them otherwise. When confronted with evidence to the contrary they tend to become abusive. Then  there are those who know perfectly well that there was no deliberate attempt to exterminate Palestinian civilians and  only made the this accusation  out of anger at the devastation in Gaza. But having made the accusation they are too embarrassed to withdraw it.  This group when  presented with the evidence, if they reply at all, tend to engage in intellectual sophistry in order to justify their position, for example by pretending that the word genocide doesn’t mean what everybody knows it means and can be applied in situations where there are high numbers of civilian casualties, whether civilians are deliberately targeted or not. Then there are the dimwits who know nothing about the history of the conflict but merely repeat the views of the social  circle in which they move, fearing that they might be ostracised if they ever questioned these opinions.

Steven Rose ● 5d

John, surely you have had more than enough time by now to provide an answer to this question about background and British and what not? Could I ask you to settle and focus please?Thank you!

Gerry Boyce ● 5d

Steven'And the answer to my question?'Don't expect one from Boycie, the Carter Ainsworth Twins and the kind, gentle, caring philogynist and therapist Mr Brigo.All far too caught up in their antisemitic pro-Islam rantings to find time to answer direct questions as to how to end the Middle East conflict in a way that preserves the rights of Israel and a Palestinian state to co-exist.Sloganizing far easier.Fewer words and less thought required.

John Hawkes ● 5d

Ermmm! 42?

Gerry Boyce ● 6d

And the answer to my question?

Steven Rose ● 6d

Sorry to be a bit of a dick, but it is, 'Don't mention the war!'.Anyway, it's a good excuse to post a little bit of the brilliant comedy writing.Basil to Polly: Don’t mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right. . . (he returns to his guests) So it’s all forgotten now and let’s hear no more about it. So that’s two eggs mayonnaise, a prawn Goebbels, a Hermann Goering and four Colditz salads......'

Gerry Boyce ● 6d

This could go on and on for ever without our agreeing, so I propose to leave things there.
On a lighter note, you are clearly an amateur at invoking the Holocaust in defence of your arguments. Andrew Gant, a councillor, led a proposal for an LCN in Oxfordshire, and for his pains was attacked by a local hotelier in these terms: “Gant, along with his associates” were “experimenting” on the city as the Nazi doctor did on concentration camp victims. He later apologised, a piece in the Times reports. Just wow!https://www.thetimes.com/article/75b6d332-c5d6-4eaf-935d-9d51caf5815d?shareToken=c981a841dc17ed683ebf582895b3b0aa

Richard Carter ● 6d

The difference between the statement that the ICJ had ruled that South Africa’s accusation of genocide against Israel was plausible and the fact that the court had only ruled that the Palestinians had a plausible right to be protected from genocide was evidently important enough for the President of the ICJ to make  the distinction. She clearly did not believe that it was a ‘distinction without a difference’, otherwise she would not have gone on the BBC to clarify matters. Your version falsely suggests that the court had arrived at a judgment on the case against Israel whereas she made it clear that the court had done no such thing.But let’s not waste time quoting other people’s opinions, whether learned judges or not. Here is a question for you. If Israel is guilty of genocide, which means the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, ethnic or religious group (as a whole or in part), why did the IDF repeatedly give advance warning of their attacks in order to reduce civilian casualties? Why bother, if it was their intention to kill as many civilians as possible? As a matter of interest, has any army in the modern history of warfare other than the IDF ever given warning of their intention to attack a particular target?And by the way, it is absurd to accuse me of invoking the Holocaust when that is exactly what you have been doing with your reference to the Brownshirts. You could have compared the thugs among the Israeli settlers to any number of sectarian groups from the Loyalists in Belfast to the Hindu nationalists in Ayodhya. But you chose to compare them to the Brownshirts, a deliberate and offensive slur intended to equate Israelis with Nazis, which is a comparison often made by anti-Semites (with whom I am sure you would not wish to be associated). You have a perfect right to criticise the actions of Israeli settlers and the Israeli government but leave the Nazis out of it. Or as John Cleese put it, ‘Don’t talk about the war’.

Steven Rose ● 6d

Thanks, John, fascinating stuff indeed.Where did you pick that word up, as a matter of interest? Did you dig it up from the 1970’s, or the 50’s perhaps? Have you any examples that you could point to, besides me, that might throw a bit of light on the matter, or put some flesh on the bones? Would any / all of these go into your classification?Terry Wogan? Dave Allen? James Joyce? Sam Beckett? Seamus Heaney? Edna O’Brien? Paul Costello? JP McManus? Oscar Wilde? Cillian Murphy? Saoirse Ronan? Pierce Brosnan? Mary Robinson? Graham Norton? etc etc

Gerry Boyce ● 6d

Boycie'Oh! Clownstick’s are primitive clown puppets, John, that jig up and down on a stick as if they’re bursting for a piss. Check them out, you might enjoy then, or be triggered? I couldn’t possibly tell.'You disappoint me.I was expecting a serious response and then you revert to your old disgustingly foul urological jibes which no one except Mr Carter finds funny.Or perhaps I am mixing up Carter with Ainsworth or perhaps they are one and the same person.'"Curiouser and curiouser!" cried Alice, expressing her amazement as she experiences the strange changes in West Putney'.Oh and I expect gentle therapist Mr Brigo also had a chuckle .'By the way, what is ‘oirish’? I’ve never come across it before.''"Oirish" is a slang term describing exaggerated, stereotypical, or performative Irish traits, often used in a derogatory or humorous context"'.☘️😉On the face of it oirish sums you up in my opinion.Boorish, bullying, self-pitying, vulgar, always looking for a fight.....But I may be wrong and in reality you may be a bundle of laughs, nay even a pussy cat !😸

John Hawkes ● 6d

Thanks, John. Could you expand a little on, ‘ …….who these days has the background such that they could be called British ?’I don’t think I’m quite getting the full extent of your meaning.

Gerry Boyce ● 6d

Boycie'What?? Am I not on your list of local antisemites, terrorist-supporters, willing-idiots etc etc already?'Indeed you are.Condemned by your own posts.'Anyway, look I'm sure you're relieved that Bibi is not stopping his attacks on Lebanon ..... maybe your 'one to one fighting with Arabs and such to create some kind of cordon-sanitaire' is still a possibility.'Let's hope so.'I salute your bravery, John, not many are as willing as you to sacrifice other people's lives for your unwavering demands.'I am not 'willing' anyone to do anything.I just saluted the brave young Israelis who have the will to fight Islamic terrorists and their Islamic sponsor Iran who threaten to annihilate their country.How different from attitudes in the UK were we to be faced with similar threats as an IPSOS survey showed.'Almost half (48%) of Britons say there are no circumstances where they would be willing to take up arms for Britain, a third (35%) say there are. However, 42% of those aged 18-34 say there are circumstances where they would be willing to take up arms (the younger age group are more likely to be of conscription age), compared with 28% of those aged 35-54 and 36% of those aged 55-75. There is an even bigger gender divide, with 49% of men saying they would be willing to serve compared with 21% of women'.But then who these days has the background such that they could be called British ?They are also set such a poor example by their elders and are further ignorant of the dangers this country faces from the spread of Islamism if not Islam.And of course they are egged on by foreigners such as yourself under the cover of freedoms that Islamism would take away.The only unwavering demands I have are that Israel not be under constant attack from its Islamic neighbours and it be supported in its right as a sovereign state to defend itself.What is wrong with that ?Do you not agree ?As soon as Israel is no longer under attack by fascist racists and can concentrate on what it is.Namely a unique shining example for in the region, running an innovative and prosperous economy for its people.Then all this death and destruction would cease.Some specific questions for you.1) Do you think Iran is a danger to peace and stability in the Middle East ?2) If you do, how should it be handled or contained ?3) Do you think Israel has the sovereign right to exist on the territory its borders define which are supported by the UN ?4) If not, what should be done to remove it and where should its people, who would immediately be under existential threat, move to. Genuine questions and not attempts at point scoring.To sum them up "what do you think should happen next"?

John Hawkes ● 6d

Mr Hawkes. Long term if the Straight of Hormaz issue isn’t resolved it'll probably affect everyone. The US is the biggest producer but also probably the biggest user. Short term it seems likely that Taiwan and South Korea are the most vulnerable as they source helium from Qatar, which produces around a third of the global supply and is currently unavailable.I understand new sources are likely to become available in Canada and are being Explored in Greenland - so perhaps Europe could be okay as it appears a number of Canadians want to join the EU and Greenland already has its Danish connection ...Well, the real reason for putting AI Stargate on the shelf (or table, as the Americans would say) may be politics, particularly over regulations ... but maybe if AI is going rogue like Claude we need to slow down and have more regulations?https://www.forbes.com/sites/amirhusain/2026/04/01/ai-just-hacked-one-of-the-worlds-most-secure-operating-systems/Anyway, some of this could be 3-4 yests away; a new person in the White House then?

Michael Ixer ● 6d

In other words, a distinction without a difference.

Richard Carter ● 6d

".....are you becoming as antisemitic in your opinions as are too many others on this Forum ?"What?? Am I not on your list of local antisemites, terrorist-supporters, willing-idiots etc etc already? Anyway, look I'm sure you're relieved that Bibi is not stopping his attacks on Lebanon ..... maybe your 'one to one fighting with Arabs and such to create some kind of cordon-sanitaire' is still a possibility. I salute your bravery, John, not many are as willing as you to sacrifice other people's lives for your unwavering demands.

Gerry Boyce ● 6d

Richard, it is certainly my opinion that the accusation of genocide against Israel is false,  but on the principle that a person (or a country) is innocent until proved guilty, I don’t have to prove my claim. It is for you and all the other misguided people who regularly repeat this monstrous charge to prove their claim. Yet you provide no evidence and when contradictory arguments are presented, you simply ignore them. All you do is quote sources who agree with you and then not always faithfully. For example, it is not true that the ICJ has called South Africa’s accusation of genocide ‘plausible’. Joan Donoghue, former President of the ICJ, gave an interview to the BBC where she stated that she wanted to correct the misconception that the court found a ‘plausible case of genocide’. What the ICJ concluded is that the Palestinians had a ‘plausible right’ to be protected from genocide and that it was prepared to hear South Africa’s case.

Steven Rose ● 6d

Oh! Clownstick’s are primitive clown puppets, John, that jig up and down on a stick as if they’re bursting for a piss. Check them out, you might enjoy then, or be triggered? I couldn’t possibly tell.By the way, what is ‘oirish’? I’ve never come across it before.

Gerry Boyce ● 6d

🤣🤣🤣 that’s it in a nutshell!

Gerry Boyce ● 6d

Boycie'moronic clownssticks'.Another old Oirish term ?

John Hawkes ● 6d

Steven, it is your opinion, not proven fact, that the accusation of genocide is false because the accusation is still before the ICJ which, against your false reading of its statement so far, is clearly “plausible:” see para 54 of the ICJ’s first provisional statementt (https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/192/192-20240126-ord-01-00-en.pdf).
“In the Court’s view, the facts and circumstances mentioned above are sufficient to conclude that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection are plausible”

And whilst I’m here, your continual invoking of the Holocaust in defence of Israel is becoming very tired. Specifically on my reference to the actions of the settlers on the West Bank, which even you admit to be extremist, as akin to the actions of the Brownshirts in 1930s Germany is indeed valid – not, to be clear, in their ideology which is obviously different, but in their behaviour. Perhaps you could explain how attacking, killing and injuring Palestinians, burning their houses, denying access to their crops and burning or uprooting olive groves and generally making their lives impossible, is functionally different from what the Brownshiirts got up to. Invoking the Holocaust in this context is completely invalid because that terrible event was far into the future from when the Brownshirts rampaged through Germany: and they were anyway absorbed into the SS in 1934. You perhaps didn’t notice – or chose to ignore – that I referred to the Brownshirts “in the 1930s.”

Next time, if you’re going to comment on this (or, indeed, any other, you could try reading what people wrote first.

Richard Carter ● 6d

Mr Ixer'Everyone is  worrying about the oil and gas shortage but longer term US tech companies in the AI and data centre businesses may find this an issue 'And may this not be a bigger problem for the UK because of the messianic 'policies' of 'lil Red Ed and the Labour Party ?I read 'OpenAI has paused its UK data centre initiative due to unfavorable regulations and energy costs, potentially impacting the UK government's AI ambitions. The Stargate UK project, aimed to enhance Britain's AI infrastructure, faces challenges as OpenAI seeks supportive conditions for future investment'.

John Hawkes ● 6d

Boycie'True! except in this case, we have all seen what Netanyahu has ordered the IDF to do, in slow, remorseless, vicious, repugnant and drawn out detail. We know what was done and how many victims were murdered. We have a very good idea of the scale of destruction. We do not know the full extent of injuries and lives torn apart by this unspeakable act, but it is probably incalculable'.What specifically has Netanyahu asked the IDF to do other than strengthen Israel's borders with Lebanon to stop incursions by Hezbollah terrorists intent on killing its citizens ?Also, as I am sure you would also agree, we know how many Israeli victims, women, children and the elderly, were raped and butchered by Hamas Palestinians in the October 2023 Gaza genocide.That was shown in 'slow, remorseless, vicious, repugnant and drawn out detail' in the videos the Islamists published. They don't count in your view ?And then of course we have dozens of British citizens killed on our streets by Islamic terrorists.Or are they freedom fighters ?Peace will be restored in the Middle East when Islamic fanatics retract their objective of the annihilation of Israel and its Jewish citizens.And more specifically Iran that funds this campaign is at least neutered if not more radically contained. Would you agree or are you becoming as antisemitic in your opinions as are too many others on this Forum ?And is your defence of the indefensible rise of Islamic terrorism simply not prolonging the agony ?

John Hawkes ● 6d

The best comment I've seen about the ceasefire deal. Schrödinger's Strait. Both open and closed depending on who is observing it ...

Michael Ixer ● 6d

What I was talking about, Michael, was the false accusation of genocide against Israel, amounting to an anti-Semitic blood libel - a charge which is not supported by the British government or the EU. Nor (contrary to Richard’s misleading post) was it called plausible by the International Court of Justice.

Steven Rose ● 7d

are we talking about Mickey or Bibi?If Bibi, all he has to do is let the court proceedings um proceed. Oddly he seems to keep finding reasons for them not to though.How odd.

Michael Brigo ● 7d

It seems that a dispassionate assessment of the evidence after the accused has had an opportunity to defend himself is no longer necessary when 'large amounts of the public have already made up their minds'.

Steven Rose ● 7d

'..... any more than the fact that a man is on trial implies that he is guilty'.True! except in this case, we have all seen what Netanyahu has ordered the IDF to do, in slow, remorseless, vicious, repugnant and drawn out detail. We know what was done and how many victims were murdered. We have a very good idea of the scale of destruction. We do not know the full extent of injuries and lives torn apart by this unspeakable act, but it is probably incalculable. Whether justice is served or not is an important but separate matter; large amounts of the public have already made up their minds. They recognise genocide when they see it.In a similar way that we recognised a murderer on the run when we saw O.J. Simpson's slow-speed police through Los Angeles, five days after the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.Remember, OJ was found not guilty but to the vast majority of people following the case, it was simply a failure of the system to bring to justice the murderer of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

Gerry Boyce ● 7d

Yikes! So it’s not just Micky Mouse impersonators who will be impacted!! ‘Don ‘n Bibi you absolute pair of moronic clownssticks’

Gerry Boyce ● 7d

Everyone is worrying about the oil and gas shortage but longer term US tech companies in the AI and data centre businesses may find this an issue ... and those party balloons are going to get expensive, or should it be illegal to fritter away such a valuable resource?https://www.forbes.com/sites/tiriasresearch/2026/04/07/helium-crisis-tightens-grip-on-global-chip-supply-chain/

Michael Ixer ● 7d

StevenYou rightly reply to Mr Carter - 'Richard, the ICJ's decision to hear the case brought by South Africa against Israel emphatically does not mean that the accusation  of genocide has been accepted, any more than the fact that a man is on trial implies that he is guilty'.Am I not correct in recalling that the prosecuting counsel for the ICJ namely Karim Asad Ahmad Khan has had to withdraw as he himself has been accused of sexual harassment, for the second time in his career, of a junior member of his staff ?And which state brought this case forward ?South Africa, that model of modern African democracy ruled by President Cyril Ramaphosa.He himself does not seem whiter than white (sic) when it comes to money matters. "Ramaphosa won't face criminal charges over a hidden cash scandal that was revealed more than two years ago and led to an investigation by a special police unit, prosecutors said Thursday.A former national security chief laid a criminal complaint against Ramaphosa in June 2022, accusing him of kidnapping, bribery and other crimes in relation to the theft of $580,000 in U.S. banknotes that was stashed in a couch at the president's ranch.The former security boss, Arthur Fraser, alleged that Ramaphosa had been keeping the cash hidden in furniture at his ranch to evade South Africa's foreign currency laws when it was stolen.Instead of reporting the theft, Ramaphosa tried to cover it up by having members of his presidential protection unit track down the thieves, kidnap them and then bribe them to keep quiet about the existence of the money, Fraser said in the affidavit filed with police.The theft happened at Ramaphosa's game farm in rural northern South Africa in early 2020 and had been kept quiet until Fraser's allegations. It forced Ramaphosa to admit the theft took place and threw his presidency into turmoil ahead of a crucial party leadership vote.He survived the scandal and was reelected as South African leader this June, while the criminal investigation had been ongoing. Ramaphosa, 71, was also accused of money laundering, tax evasion and breaching foreign currency laws over the cash.He denied wrongdoing and said the cash came from the legitimate sale of buffaloes at his Phala Phala game farm.(This makes wonderful biltong as the many expatriate South Africans in the Wimbledon are will testify).Ramaphosa said he reported the theft to the head of his police protection unit, though he didn’t explain why the money was hidden in the couch.Prosecutors said in a statement that the decision not to bring any charges against Ramaphosa or anyone on his security detail came after “a comprehensive investigation process.”The scandal, at times referred to as “farmgate” in South Africa, led to opposition parties bringing an impeachment motion against Ramaphosa in Parliament. His African National Congress party used its majority to block the motion in late 2022, while the reserve bank and an independent watchdog also cleared Ramaphosa.'So that's alright then 😉😁

John Hawkes ● 7d

Richard, the ICJ's decision to hear the case brought by South Africa against Israel emphatically does not mean that the accusation  of genocide has been accepted, any more than the fact that a man is on trial implies that he is guilty. Hiding behind a procedural judgment by the ICJ in order to justify this slur does you no credit. In my view the accusation of genocide is entirely without merit, a blood libel of a kind of which Jews have been victims for centuries. The IDF did not attempt to exterminate the the civilian population of Gaza (or any part of it). That is why they gave advance warnings of their attacks. Unfortunately Hamas chose to fire on the IDF from residential areas, making civilian casualties impossible to avoid. The double standard applied to Israel, whereby civilian deaths in Gaza are cited as evidence of genocide whereas, for example, the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths in Germany during the Second World War are merely regarded as the inevitable consequence of a justified struggle, is fundamentally racist. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance protocols identify the practice of judging Israel by standards not applied to other nations as anti-Semitic. I also reject your justification for the use of the term brownshirts to describe the extremist settlers. It is quite legitimate to describe them as thugs and fanatics but there was absolutely no need to invoke the Nazis who did not just engage in sectarian violence but carried out a programme of actual genocide.

Steven Rose ● 8d

I think JD Vance's trip to Hungary to show his support for Orban to be truly revealing and worrying as it is a confirmation of Putin and Trump's "friendship".

Ivonne Holliday ● 8d

Mr Carter'Meanwhile, in another part of the woods, "JD Vance accuses EU of ‘interference’ as he visits Hungary to help Orbán win election".I believe there's a word for this, what is it now?'Regarding statements from you that are given no context the word you are seeking is obfuscation.

John Hawkes ● 8d

Mr Carter'Meanwhile, in another part of the woods, "JD Vance accuses EU of ‘interference’ as he visits Hungary to help Orbán win election".'Is this a reply to my post of 8/4/26 @ 12.02 regarding whether the use of the term Brownshirts could be used to describe the Hamas Palestinians who carried out a genocidal pogrom against Jews in October 2023 and whether you condemned this attack ?If not I assume you are up to your old schoolboy tricks of ignoring questions whose answers might embarrass you and resorting to gaslighting and other obfuscation methods.Starting a sentence with 'meanwhile' is a bit of a give away even for someone like you !

John Hawkes ● 8d

Meanwhile, in another part of the woods, "JD Vance accuses EU of ‘interference’ as he visits Hungary to help Orbán win election".I believe there's a word for this, what is it now?https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/07/jd-vance-eu-interference-hungary-election-viktor-orban

Richard Carter ● 8d

Mr Carter'Perhaps you could explain how attacking, killing and injuring Palestinians, burning their houses, denying access to their crops and burning or uprooting olive groves and generally making their lives impossible, is functionally different from what the Brownshiirts did.'But did not Hamas Palestinians on October 7, 2023, launch a coordinated, multi-pronged attack on Israel, killing over 1,200 people and taking more than 250 hostages, marking the deadliest day in Israel’s history ?Was this not a 'Brownshirt' style attack or are we to believe that for you any attack on a Jew is perfectly acceptable in the name of 'freedom fighting for Palestine ?Do not recall you getting too upset by this unprovoked attack.Perhaps you supported it and thought it justifiable.Be honest; is that the case ?You are not concerned to indulge in any reasoned debate on the Palestine/Israel conflict and its consequences.You will defend what the Arabs do under any circumstances and your comments to my mind seem to define you as one sidedly anti-Israel, and even I am coming to conclude, antisemitic.

John Hawkes ● 8d

"There have been several examples of this on the Forum including false accusations of genocide, an implicit comparison with the Holocaust, and most recently a description of extremist settlers as Nazi brownshirts."Theres a lot to unpick here, but I'll try. The accusation of genocide was made by Sourh Africa and, when considered by the International Court of Justice, was described as "plausible," so dismissing it as "false" is a triumph of hope over evidence. Better to wait for the conclusion of the case.Second, on "an implicit comparison with the Holocaust," this invoking of the Holocaust as an instant excuse for whatever Israel's defence forces get up to is becoming rather tired.Finally, the comparison of what even you admit to be extremist settlers with the Brownshirts is indeed valid - not in their ideology which is obviously different, but the behaviour. Perhaps you could explain how attacking, killing and injuring Palestinians, burning their houses, denying access to their crops and burning or uprooting olive groves and generally making their lives impossible, is functionally different from what the Brownshiirts did. And, by the way, invoking the Holocaust in this context is invalid because that terrible event was far into the future from when the Brownshirts rampaged through Germany in the 1930s.

Richard Carter ● 8d

StevenI posted yesterday -"You and I plus Ms Hammond and one or two others are the only posters on this topic that defend the right of Israel to exist and do not support the actions and intentions of Iran and its proxies to annihilate it.All of the others support the malign actions of Iran and other Islamic states in their evil objective of exclusively dominating the whole region and then spreading ummah throughout the world.I am continually intrigued why non-Islamics should want to take up this position.What is it they find so attractive in Islam's religious beliefs and social practices that they would want to do so.Are they planning to convert to Islam ?If you also can find no rhyme nor reason for this perhaps one of the majority Islamist fellow travellers that post on this topic might do so."No reply yet from the usual gang that take the anti-Israel/Jewish and pro Arab/Islam party lines on this Forum.You continue to make reasoned arguments to support Israel against the existential and concrete attacks upon it by fascist Muslim states as well as the flea bites by those with similar persuasions on this Forum.They will have no effect of course as neither did words written in pre-war Germany to counter the Nazi's initially vocal rather than genocidal attacks on Jews in that country.That is why Jews in the UK and around the world must be on constant alert to the threats they face.There is a very perceptive discussion on this very point between Brenden O'Neill the Irish polemicist and antifascist and Melanie Phillips – Times columnist and author of the new book, 'Fighting the Hate: A Handbook for Jews Under Siege'.https://www.spiked-online.com/2026/04/07/were-told-that-all-the-west-does-is-evil-and-all-our-enemies-do-is-good/It was Ms Phillips who directed me a couple of years back to "Myths and Facts  - A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Mitchell G Bard ISBN 9781537152721."It does exactly what it says on the cover" !Keep up the fight for decency and anti-racism in the UK.

John Hawkes ● 8d

Those who make gratuitous and offensive comparisons between Israel and the Nazis are implicitly emphasising the Jewish heritage of Israelis.

Steven Rose ● 9d

Thank you Steven.My question related to you saying Jews.  In this response you use the word Israeli which is correct.

Ivonne Holliday ● 9d

Well, Ivonne, Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005 but for the next 18 years was subjected to continual rocket attacks from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, culminating in the massacre of October 7. Terrorism from Gaza has blighted the lives of Israelis living in the south of the country. At the same time rocket attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon forced thousands of Israelis living in the north of the country to leave their homes.  These groups have been armed and funded by Iran, a country which has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and is a short step away from constructing a nuclear bomb.The Israelis have tried to neutralise these threats, attacking Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and now the Iranian regime itself. The response of many people, including contributors to the Forum, has been to criticise to Israel while glossing over the crimes committed by their enemies and downplaying the threat they pose. So we have been told that ‘the war didn’t start on October 7’, only around 1000 people were killed on that day, Hamas doesn’t have the capability to kill every Jewish citizen of Israel as written in their constitution, Iran’s nuclear threat is ‘non-existent’ and so on.While it is perfectly legitimate to criticise the actions of the Israeli government, the conduct of the war by the IDF and the behaviour of some of the settlers on the West Bank, some of the language used has been extreme. The worst aspects of the criticism have been the comparisons, sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit, between the Israelis and the Nazis. Gratuitous comparisons of this kind are designated as anti-Semitic under the Holocaust Remembrance Alliance protocols, accepted by the UK and the EU. There have been several examples of this on the Forum including false accusations of genocide, an implicit comparison with the Holocaust, and most recently a description of extremist settlers as Nazi brownshirts.

Steven Rose ● 9d

Still, he's been given the FIFA Peace Prize ... that must be good grounds to boycott the 2026 World Cup?

Michael Ixer ● 9d

Hello Steven,Would you care to expand on your statement about Jews fighting back and being compared to Nazis, please?

Ivonne Holliday ● 9d

So President Trump’s "ending Iranian civilisation" (what's the legal definition of genocide?) has gone too far for Mr Farage ...https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/apr/07/doctors-strike-wes-streeting-snp-fuel-prices-nigel-farage-reform-uk-keir-starmer-labour-strait-hormuz-uk-politics-latest-updatesPossibly just sloppy use of language by DJT ...

Michael Ixer ● 9d

Steven'Richard, Jews are only popular when they are victims.When they fight back, it’s a war of aggression and they are compared to Nazis.'To many, Jews are never popular and their comparative superiority over their neighbouring Islamic ethnic groups in fighting as well as pretty much every other field simply makes them even less so.You and I plus Ms Hammond and one or two others are the only posters on this topic that defend the right of Israel to exist and do not support the actions and intentions of Iran and its proxies to annihilate it.All of the others support the malign actions of Iran and other Islamic states in their evil objective of exclusively dominating the whole region and then spreading ummah throughout the world.I am continually intrigued why non-Islamics should want to take up this position.What is it they find so attractive in Islam's religious beliefs and social practices that they would want to do so.Are they planning to convert to Islam ?If you also can find no rhyme nor reason for this perhaps one of the majority Islamist fellow travellers that post on this topic might do so.Mr Ainsworth ?I would hate to think that in the end it is not the attraction of Islam that drives them but rather antisemitism 😟. 

John Hawkes ● 9d

Mr Carter'Steven, if you can't or won't understand the difference between a war of defence and a war of aggression, I can't help you.'You seem to be in favour of Ukraine pre-emptively fighting back against Russian invasion with at least moral support from the UK, but against similar attacks on Iran whose funding of and devious use of proxy Islamic terrorist groups threatens the existence of Israel and those of us further afield as recent individual attacks in the UK prove.And apparently MI5 is aware of more than 43,000 people who pose a potential terrorist threat to the UK, according to a government report — almost twice the number of terror suspects previously disclosed.And it could be argued that more to the point Iran is a state with a fundamentalist theocratic and anti-western apocalyptic view of the world and is close to having nuclear weapons.And I have no doubt they would use them in order not just to get to the front of the queue to the hereafter.This puts billions of lives at risk even those sheltering in leafy West Putney.I concede that Trump's temperament does not make him the best ambassador for the cause of facing down Iran and its intentions.Though on the other hand his own MAD posture is perhaps what is required to push back on the real mad mullahs.I am interested in what drives your views.Is it just a personal hatred of Trump or do you support the ambitions, intentions and behaviour of Iran towards the West as a whole and particularly Israel ?Please answer.Oh in a more light hearted vein did you read in the Mail that - 'The niece and grand-niece of a notorious late Iranian general have been arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles and had their green cards revoked.Hamideh Soleimani Afshar, 47, and her daughter Sarinasadat Hosseiny, 25, were detained by ICE on Friday while living in the City of Angels. Afshar had celebrated the deaths of US soldiers during President Donald Trump's ongoing war with Iran, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said'https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15706499/Hamideh-Soleimani-Afshar-qasem-niece-iran-green-card-ice.html. Interesting photos of them in clothes and poses that I suspect would have resulted in them being stoned to death in their 'home land'.Still one can see why they would prefer to live in the 'land of Satan' rather than having to wander around dressed head to toe in black escourted by their brothers !Smart cookies !

John Hawkes ● 9d

Richard, Jews are only popular when they are victims.When they fight back, it’s a war of aggression and they are compared to Nazis.

Steven Rose ● 9d

Michael Brigo ● 9d

I see President Stable McGenius is now saying; 'the whole civilisation will die tonight if Iran fails to make deal with US." "I don’t want that to happen, but it probably will.”“God Bless the Great People of Iran!"Is that the kind of helping hand Steve and others have been talking about?

Gerry Boyce ● 9d

Steven, if you can't or won't understand the difference between a war of defence and a war of aggression, I can't help you.

Richard Carter ● 9d

Steven'Why is it, Richard, that you are in favour of the Americans helping Ukraine to fight Russia but against them helping Israel to fight Iran?'There is no political logic in Mr Carter's political posturing.The only consistency is his antisemitism.

John Hawkes ● 9d

Hello Richard,I agree, the Ukraine war has not been mentioned much, either here or on the news.  However, I do not think many people have forgotten about the war in Ukraine or noticed the discrepancies of Trump's "announcements"....  And yes, Putin is rubbing his hand in glee particularly after Trump eased the restrictions on countries buying oil from Russia.By the way, neither have we heard anything about the war in Gaza.

Ivonne Holliday ● 9d

Why is it, Richard, that you are in favour of the Americans helping Ukraine to fight Russia but against them helping Israel to fight Iran?

Steven Rose ● 10d

Just one of the disturbing aspects of Trump's war that hasn't been discussed much, is the effect on Ukraine's ability to fight off the Russians. Before he launched his attacks on Iran, Trump had refused to supply Ukraine with advanced weapons because stockpiles were low. But now he's spaffed thousands and thousands of bombs on Iran that excuse looks more feeble than ever. The only one laughing at this is Putin.

Richard Carter ● 10d

oh and btw, Trump has been telling us for two weeks that the "Iranians are begging for a deal"How's that going?

Michael Brigo ● 10d

"and now has attacked several Arab nations and closed the Straits of Hormuz "Odd statement to make considering you have been telling us for a couple of years that Israel has a right to defend itself.TBH - If you didn't know the first thing that Iran would do was close the straight of Hormuz when attacked then you are as utterly imbecilic as the Orange one.

Michael Brigo ● 10d

To be accurate, the Arab countries which  Iran has attacked and the closing of the Stait of Hormuz were in retaliation against the US and Israel's attacks. One would have thought it was predictable that the Strait might be used as a bargaining chip and what seems odd is that the US had no prepared contingency plan for that before starting the action. I guess the attacks on Arab countries is in retaliation for them hosting US bases (I believe those countries asked the US not to attack Iran) and attacks initially were targeted on the bases and US assets such as AWS data centres, although they have since spread to petroleum installations. I'm not saying that's good but perhaps to be expected unless one seriously underestimated Iran's military capability?

Michael Ixer ● 10d

‘…. Even one or two individuals have sought to downplay the murderous nature of the Uranian regime, suggesting that the number of victims may have been as low as 7000.’I don’t want to get into a scrap about numbers of Iranian protesters deaths, I’m sure we can all agree that bandying about with numbers is quite grotesque and dehumanising; but at the same time facts do matter, the truth matters. I have no idea how many protesters have been killed by the Iranian regime, so I look at figures that are widely available for some indication:HRANA (Human Rights Activists News Agency – US-based, February 2026 deaths: 7,007 verified (6,488 protesters, 236 minors; 11,000+ under investigation)The Guardian (citing medics/morgue staff) January 2026 >30,000 deaths, (possible; official registrations <10% of real toll)Iran International (opposition/exile media, leaked docs) January 2026 36,500+Three different sources, three different estimates. Just the facts. Not ‘one or two individuals trying to downplay’ anything. Not ‘40,000 plus’ deaths that some individuals assert to justify an illegal, unplanned and chaotic attack putting the lives of millions at risk.

Gerry Boyce ● 10d

There's no evidence that Iran has ever tried to test a nuclear bomb - nuclear tests are being monitored to check compliance with various treaties- so it's very unlikely Iran could produce a viable nuclear device without testing. Although the scientific principles of making a bomb are reasonably straightforward, the engineering technicalities of delivering and triggering are, I think, a little more complex and would need a test programme. One could be fairly certain Iran hasn't yet produce a device - unless another nuclear state has assisted them.

Michael Ixer ● 10d

Donald Trump makes a bewildering number of statements. I am more interested in what he dies than what he says. So far he has committed no war crimes. Yet all the talk on the BBC this morning was about America and potential  war crimes. There was no mention and there has been none for weeks about Iran's actual crimes against humanity. Even one or two individuals have sought to downplay the murderous nature of the Uranian regime, suggesting that the number of victims may have been as low as 7000. Evidently for some people antipathy to Trump is greater than antipathy to the Iranian regime.The attack on Iran, however has little to do with the oppressive nature of the Iranian regime. The reason is that Iran in breach of undertakings has stockpiled hundreds of kilos of purified uramium, has sponsored terrorism, has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and now has attacked several Arab nations and closed the Straits of Hormuz and has so far refused to stop doing any of these things.

Steven Rose ● 10d

Hello Sue,I found this Chatham House article a few days ago and it  explains it all very well indeed.  The main reason that Iran was attacked is that it does not have nuclear weapons, at least, not yet.  Ukraine, Iraq and Libya all agreed to stop their nuclear programmes...  Surprisingly, they were all attacked....https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/03/iran-war-risks-triggering-new-wave-nuclear-proliferationAnother article that also helps is this one:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weaponsI suspect, and I stress the word suspect, that Iran was attacked mainly because of its hydrocarbon (10% of the world's oil reserves and 15% of gas reserves) plus, of course, uranium. From Wikipedia, "Trump and his administration made clear that access to Venezuelan oil was a core reason for the action [military strike in Venezuela]. The US announced a 50-million-barrel oil supply deal with the remaining government in Venezuela, with the first $300 million already received on 20 January. On 29 January, a new law was passed by Rodríguez to give private companies control over the production and sale of oil. In parallel, the US lifted sanctions imposed on Venezuelan oil trade and issued licenses for companies to trade Venezuelan oil.[18][19] According to US secretary of energy Chris Wright, who visited Venezuela in February, sales of Venezuelan oil have already reached over $1 billion since Maduro's capture and about $5 billion are expected in the upcoming months.[19]"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_VenezuelaCoincidence?

Ivonne Holliday ● 10d

Yes, Robert, estimates on the number of murders of protesters varies, if you’re struggling to get your head around this, Wikipedia could enlighten you. My point is that estimates vary because the Iranian regime, like Netanyahu in Gaza, do not allow the press or any independent agencies in to verify the numbers. I think we all agree that the Iranian authorities treat protester’s appallingly. Where, perhaps, we differ, is whether this illegal attack on Iran is motivated by genuine concern for the treatment of the protesters, or if the murder of them is used as a cynical cover to justify the attack.Threatening to bomb them back into the stone ages doesn’t sound like much of a helping hand to me.

Gerry Boyce ● 10d

So what you are saying is "because Iran committed a war crime the US is now allowed to commit war crimes against it"I had no idea that's how it worked!

Michael Brigo ● 10d

@Ivonne 20.17* 1950s–1970s: The program began with US assistance under the Shah, focusing on civilian energy.* Post-1979 Revolution: The program was temporarily halted but later revived.* Late 1980s–2003: Intelligence suggests Iran actively pursued a structured nuclear weapons program known as the Amad Project, which was allegedly halted in 2003.* 2002–Present: Discovery of undeclared nuclear sites (Natanz, Arak, Fordow) sparked international concern regarding weaponization.* 2021–2026: Iran began enriching uranium to 60%, a short technical step away from weapons-grade (90%), with reduced International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring. BTW, where is the proof that Iran doesn’t have functioninal nuclear weapons?

Sue Hammond ● 10d

“Testimony from medics, morgue and graveyard staff reveals huge state effort to conceal systematic killing of protesters” source the Guardian say 35,000 plus.Just ask google Gerry.

Robert Wheeler ● 10d

‘….. no mention at all of  Iran’s actual crimes against humanity, the systematic murder of over 40 000 of their own citizens over two weeks in January. Why is that?’I’ve no idea where you get your news from; perhaps try The Guardian and The BBC, plenty of coverage on the murders of Iranian protesters at the beginning of this year. Estimates range from 7000 to 36500. Can’t see your point, really.

Gerry Boyce ● 10d

Yes, Sue.  Attack is the best form of defence.  Could you please expand on the aspect of possible attack?By the way, where is the proof that Iran actually produced nuclear weapons?

Ivonne Holliday ● 10d

Steven. Yes. Iran is an authoritarian dictatorship. Can you explain how destroying the Pasture Institute Vaccine Research facility will help the people of Iran? It's likely going to result in more illness and deaths. Trump's plans doesn't seem to include how a significantly different regime is installed. I think with the targeting of civilian facilities Iranian's are becoming doubtful about the US intentions ...

Michael Ixer ● 10d

There is much concern about Trump’s potential war crimes but no mention at all of  Iran’s actual crimes against humanity, the systematic murder of over 40 000 of their own citizens over two weeks in January. Why is that?

Steven Rose ● 10d

Hello Steven,Please bear in mind that Trump cancelled Obama's agreement in 2018 - only because it was an Obama Agreement......

Ivonne Holliday ● 10d

NATO would never agree to use a nuclear weapon, for one instance it would take too long to agree to anything .  Europe can’t even protect its borders.This would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.  The hand wringing over whether this war was legal when we had nothing of use to send anyway.  We are involved in this war whether we like it or not due to energy costs.

Robert Wheeler ● 10d

The US attacks last year destroyed Iran's nuclear bomb making ability.  There was no excuse for targeting Pasteur Institute in Tehran. I expect the lawyers will come to the conclusion that was a war crime.https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2026/04/03/what-is-irans-historic-pasteur-institute-that-was-destroyed-in-us-israeli-attacks/What I find interesting is that everyone seems to have forgotten the MAD principle that has prevented war between the USSR, Russia, Britain, France, China and those that have protection under degfence alliances such as NATO. Even if Iran developed a nuclear capability, would they risk attacking another country such as the UK with a nuclear response - or Israel with the Iron Dome protection and nuclear weapons to decimate Iran - and even if the US leaves NATO. the organisation has the UK and France as nuclear responders.

Michael Ixer ● 10d

Yes, obviously Trump has the best interest of the Iranians at heart; I’m sure they are beside themselves with joy at the prospect of being bombed back to ‘the stone ages’.

Gerry Boyce ● 10d

So if Iran had not been halted in its quest and actually produced nuclear weapons that had the capability to reach the UK which is extremely likely, would NATO be there to protect us?  Doubtful because it is toothless without America. The best form of defence is attack …

Sue Hammond ● 10d

Thanks for linking that article, Ivonne.I think Montgomery is too understanding of Trump. Under normal circumstances my instinct would be for politicians to engage with other leaders to attempt to overcome differences, and find a compromise solution that probably leaves everyone somewhat frustrated, but avoids catastrophic showdowns. But Trump is a different beast altogether, and I certainly would have no idea how to deal with him; obviously, different tactics have been used from, playing along with his whims, to pushing back and drawing a line. Nothing has worked so far, he just gets more outrageous, reckless and impossible to deal with. Pedro Sanchez is a very skilled politician who has managed to navigate the tightest of political margins in Spain ; Catalunya was in open rebellion a few years ago and is now relatively calm, Vox ( the Spanish Reform Party) were on the rise and he’s managed to slow that momentum down, he’s also overseen a very successful economy and has managed to introduce a sense of humanity into the discussion surrounding immigrants. Asshole is definitely not an accurate description of him.The issue with NATO and Europe countries spending goes in part to the heart of the problem; eastern countries see Russia as a massive threat and want proportionate spending, this is not the case for Southern countries where immigration is a huge issue. This division in priorities needs to be sorted out.I think Sanchez made the decision re US planes using their airspace in the best interest of Spain, why would he jeopardise the security of his nation by going along with an illegal attack?I don’t think this article displays an understanding of the current situation under Trump.I hope Europe has the wherewithal to figure out how best to deal with current and future threats that does not rely on the US.

Gerry Boyce ● 10d

NATO is a defence alliance - an attack on one is an attack on all. It does not initiate wars on countries. Trump forgets that the only time the NATO mutual defence alliance was triggered was when the 9/11 attack took place on the World Trade Centre, New York City, and George W Bush wanted assistance. 

Michael Ixer ● 10d

NO!I would like to ask our resident pearl-clutcher and all the the other TDS-afflicted members currently pee’ing their pants with feverish derision of Trump, what should have been done to stop Iran’s evil slaughter of 30.000+ of its habitants; and to prevent the completion of a nuclear weapons program which started in the 1980’s ie the AMAD Project. So, who would/should have taken a stand against the evil fanatical Ayatollahs?  NATO?  The mythical European army? Well they’ve all had 40+ years to do something but  nothing, nada, naught  zilch!  Well done to Trump for taking it on and shame on Starmer and the EU for cowering on the sidelines.

Sue Hammond ● 10d

In 2015 the Iranians agreed not to enrich uranium beyond 3,6% . They are clearly in breach of the agreement with President Obama.

Steven Rose ● 10d

Perhaps Trump is looking at his usual metrics of US gas prices, stock market indices, etc and getting worried? His MAGA vase might be forgiving but not many people with pensions, and most of the US where there's no public transport. These Christian Nationalist have invaded Venezuela, and have eyed up Greenland and Canada. I guess as they control the most powerful army in the world they're not considered terrorists, but similarly we don't consider the Russian attack on Ukraine as being terrorism, do we, it's an illegal war?Iran still has its uranium, without a US ground force to seize it they'll keep it, won't they? Trump cancelled the Obama talks so we don't know how they would have concluded. It would seem the strike last year stopped the nuclear weapons development as there's been no attempt to use the uranium.Who next, North Korea, who probably have a realistic chance of developing a nuclear weapon and missile to reach part of the US?Obviously, much of this is speculation ...

Michael Ixer ● 10d

1) I don’t think Trump is ‘unhinged’. His threat to destroy Iranian infrastructure is designed to bully the Iranians into opening the Straits of Hormuz as well as extorting other concessions. According to the BBC News site, there is now frantic diplomacy taking place, which suggests to me that the Iranians are taking his threats seriously.2) The threat from Iran is not ‘non-existent’ though it may not be imminent. Given that Iran has stockpiled over 400 kilos of uranium purified to 60%, amassed hundreds if not thousands of missiles and drones, armed terrorist groups  and states that it wishes to ‘wipe Israel off the map’, I think the world and Israel in particular has every right to take the threat seriously. Does anyone believe that the world should wait until the Iranian regime has produced all the weapons it needs to achieve its aims? If not, what should be done? More negotiations? What have negotiations achieved since the Obama deal in  2015?3) I don’t think the world is threatened by ‘white Christian nationalists’ right now. Are Christians responsible for the terror plots which now take up most of MI5’s time? The threat comes from militant Islamists.

Steven Rose ● 10d

This is an interesting article.  Continue beyond the title please.  It is an interview by the i with Mark Montgomery, a retired vice-admiral.https://inews.co.uk/news/world/trump-leave-nato-unless-european-leaders-stop-being-aholes-4335182

Ivonne Holliday ● 10d

The problem is Vance and a majority of Trump’s appointed cabinet would need to instigate section 4 of the 25th  Amendment. The VP becomes acting President. The "disabled" President can challenge the move, and a two thirds majority of Congress is necessary to ratify the VP as President ...

Michael Ixer ● 10d

I suppose the problem I have with guys like JD Vance, Hegseth, Trump and, to a lesser extent, Rubio, is that I don't even believe that they believe the nonsense they come out with; it all seems like performative stuff for the gallery.Hegseth's claim to be a religious fundamentalist is about as credible as any of the TV Preacher's who are found in motel rooms shagging their assistants and claiming their private jets are necessary tools to spread the Lord's message!By the way, his broker tried to make an enormous investment in defence funds just prior to the Iran attack! That's the real Hegseth, the rest is just nonsense for his base.Someone said once 'follow the money'; I think it as simple as that with these guys. They're not particularly complex individuals, just utter dicks out to enrich themselves.

Gerry Boyce ● 10d

I agree, Richard, he is totally unhinged - completely lost it.  His post on his beloved Truth Social was as unbelievable as it was shocking.  And to finish it Praise be to Allah is shameful.  The man has shown in his latests statements that he is not fit to be a president.I also wish somebody would invoke the 25th Amendment - soon please!

Ivonne Holliday ● 10d

However, J D Vance claiming UFOs and  aliens are demons isn't very encouraging should anything happen to Trump (there were reports he'd been hospitalised but I think that was disinformation)https://www.unilad.com/news/us-news/avi-loeb-responds-jd-vance-claims-aliens-demons-759579-20260405https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/article/white-house-denies-viral-rumors-trump-was-hospitalized-at-walter-reed-180849977.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALh74KUrA0I88y1_eebDg3oR_iiD_bF3tO8ZrJiNUMkvAexSFAE2-KfRZSF5wOnjFGqKVclEViyKWw9H7Vo6MxCEozEP-jXPBaTltk0XYdmQSPK5C_5JwCdp-bGyetadN9zTvdVqMPezicA3wICx3wCgmvRvz4t7Sl3Vrud6EuRZ

Michael Ixer ● 10d

Congress has a Republican majority and many of the federal courts, where Trump has appointed judges, are supporting his MAGA initiatives but I think there's some concern that he's not working within his original remit. I've seen unverified reports that Vance was against the war with Iran, and he's certainly been quiet recently? Of course, unlike the positions appointed by Trump, Bondi & Noem, Trump is stuck with Vance as the Vice President is elected by the American people. It will be interesting to see if Congress and the courts start pushing back on Trump's orders ... "Birthright" will be a good test.The religions extremism is concerning - apparently the rescue mission of the two air men is an "Easter Miracle" - surely a well managed execution of military planning, albeit several expensive aircraft in the process (perhaps that's why Trump is annoyed?) - and why his reference to Allah in his Truth Social post?Sounds like he's stressed out. Let's hope Pakistan (and Egypt & Turkey?) can bring some sanity to the region ...

Michael Ixer ● 10d

It definitely speaks volumes about Trump when even Marjorie Taylor concludes that he has lost the plot.In fairness to her though, she has been very consistent with her ‘American First’ line; whereas Trump is literally all over the place. What is really concerning is the complete failure of any state institution to limit Donald’s insanity; what may have been excused as his recklessness is now the US’s ; it is a failed state; no system, no structure and no ability to curtail a rogue leader. They own it as much as him.I hope Europe wake up and realise this is not an Issue which ‘revert to normal’ when this presidency is over, it runs much deeper than that.

Gerry Boyce ● 10d

Even Marjorie Taylor Greene thinks he has gone mad and the 25th amendment should be invoked. I never thought I would ever agree with a thing that woman said!

Jonathan Callaway ● 10d

I think his outburst has shocked a lot of people who worry there’s nobody around him to control his wilder impulses. I have read that Pakistan has prepared new ceasefire terms that might at least get the warring parties back round the table. Let’s hope so. This war of choice is costing European and Asian economies billions and they are seemingly unable to influence any of the combatants. What is also very worrying is the growing influence of the white Christian nationalists, who are essentially religious fundamentalists (such as Hegseth and any number of Bible Belt tele-evangelists) and see this war as a form of religious crusade. Fundamentalists and extremists of any religion are impossible to bargain with, so utterly convinced are they of the justness of their cause.

Jonathan Callaway ● 10d

An interesting outburst, and he seemed to be so pleased about the rescue of the two airmail who bailed out over Iran (and that was an amazing exercise, I doubt whether Hesgeth or Trump had much to do with that, just experienced military planners). Worrying that Hesgeth has sacked some of his senior commanders; did they give him some honest feedback on some of his plans?One can only assume Trump's upset because he's miscalculated and underestimated Iran's military and government capabilities? It's an appalling regime but seems to be tightly controlled and, of course, Iran's scientists and technicians are well educated.I find a certain irony in that at the same time as Trump's outbursts Artemis II is heading for the far side of the moon. Or,  as Pink Floyd erroneously called it, the Dark Side of the moon. His irrational outburst made me think of Brain Damage from that album ...https://genius.com/Pink-floyd-brain-damage-lyrics