Iranian attack hit water desalination plant in Kuwait

We all have to hope n pray, this will be another TACO moment....

...or watch much of the world economy go into freefall.... as Putin laughs.

My stance is that blowing up infrastructure is a probable war crime (there can be grey areas but that’s not for me or you to determine but a court).

That is true whoever commits them including Iran blowing up infrastructure in other countries (this is where you become obsessed by the potential grey areas).

@Twiglets1

Re war crimes. I was scrolling the CNN feed and here it is :

• War crime: It’s considered a war crime to target civilian infrastructure critical to a population’s survival. Infrastructure might be considered a valid target if it has a dual use for Iran’s military – but Trump has threatened to blow up all of Iran’s power plants, not just some. Several countries have privately reached out to the Trump administration to warn against such attacks; publicly, the Trump administration has shrugged off these concerns.

As I have been saying. And you did sort of agree eventually I think, but it looks like you reverted above ? Anyway, here it is from CNN, put in a much better way than I can.

I doubt it given that and the 20.29 post.

When are some people going to learn that "Regime Change" rarely, if ever, brings about freedom, democracy or any other benefit?
What it usually does is to kill lots of people, destroy large parts of the country, followed by an equally oppressive regime.

I can just about remember the toppling of the Shah... worked out well didn't it?

In more recent times, we've Libya, Iraq, Syria... all fucking "fantastic" for their oppressed peoples and btw pretty awful for the EU and the UK too.

The double tragedy for the world is Trump has "brilliantly" taken the focus (not too mention a lot of anti missile systems/munitions) from Ukraine, more children killed by Russia in that conflict yesterday.

People are dying where the bombs fall, not living.

Trump/Netanyahu are both war criminals for what they doing.

Did you read that excellent article on war crimes that a PP posted up ? Have you read anything on war crimes ? Did you read what I wrote?

It is not binary. Like near everything in the world, war crimes are on a scale.

Destroy a countries total water system so that it causes starvation to the citizens, war crime. Destroy the water supply to a military base, not a war crime. It is gauged on the basis of military advantage gained v damage to citizens. And when I say water supply here, that includes desalination plants, and also infrastructure such as dams. Hence the debate by the way, if the WW2 Dambusters raid of WW2 would constitute a war crime according to todays laws. Some say yes, some no. Because of this proportional thing.

So the question I asked you is totally valid. as you appear to want things to be binary. It is not binary. There is a scale, and at some point on that scale there is a switch, at which point it changes from no to yes. The debate is where on that scale the switch happens.

So when Trump says :

“You know the war crime? The war crime is allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

He is unilaterally redefining what is or is not a war crime. He is saying that HE gets to decide.

Does that make sense? I am not making that up. I am not re-inventing how war crimes are defined. It is Trump that is doing that. And as usual, he makes no sense at all, does no public deliberation, and presents absolutely no evidence at all to support his conclusion.

From reading these threads, it appears many posters work on the premise that if Iran does anything, it's an automatic war crime. Instant binary from the get go. But if the US/Israel do something bad, then its "hmmmm.. dont know".

Do you see the double standards in play there ?

To the posters who use that double standard, I want to add that crime is based on the specific action. Whataboutisms can't be added. As in, "Iran bombed a water plant and it's a war crime because they also shot protestors". That is something I see posters do. That is just not how it works.

I suspect @PandoraSocks follows US politics.

Its a common argument/myth in US Republican politics and the pro gun crowd/ lobby, that if the Jews had guns in 30's Germany that would have fought back and defeated the Nazis. The build up to the argument is that the first thing the Nazis did when they took power was take the guns. Therefore, by their odd logic, any gun controls the dems want are akin to the Nazis and that the US citizenry must be armed to resist tyranny.

It's a fallacy of course because the Nazis did not take guns away, and also there were Jewish armed uprisings, that were brutally put down.

This is one of the bedrock arguments made by the US pro 2nd folk.

Lauren Boebert, a repub congresswoman even expanded on it. She said if Jesus had owned an AR-15, then he would not have been crucified.

So when Trump says this, it is a dog whistle to the US pro gun folk, who also happen to be his base.

Yes, I definitely read that. How strange.

The BBC has edited that story since you first posted it @TopPocketFind . The quote (I think it was attributed to Radin, but not sure) which said they would be OK if Trump uses nukes on Iran has vanished? How odd.

‘’My mum is filling every bottle she can find in the house with water," said Mina, also in her 20s and from Tehran.
I've no idea what we're going to do now. I think more and more in Iran have realised that Trump doesn't care about them at all. I hate him from the bottom of my heart, and hate those who support him too."

I read the article, why are you highlighting only those two people?

And destroying their infrastructure and their historical buildings.
I have read he in fact increasing support for the regime by uniting Iranians against the damage being inflicted on their country.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl0ng8z0do

He has now said "intercepted communications", what ever that means.

"Speaking to reporters from the White House press room, Trump dismissed concerns that targeting Iran’s power grid and civilian infrastructure would punish ordinary Iranians rather than the regime, saying without evidence that US intelligence had intercepts of civilians near active bombing sites urging American forces to continue."

" “Please keep bombing,” Trump quoted intercepted communications as saying, adding: “These are people that are living where the bombs are exploding.” "

Any comment on Trump's speech @EasternStandard ?

Why Instagram particularly, a bit like your earlier post?

Who knows to the rest

Q: You message has moved from 'the war is coming to an end' to 'we're gonna be bombing Iran to the stone ages.' So which is it?

TRUMP: Can't tell you. I don't know

Still going with what? That Trump is lying out of his fat backside? It was sarcasm. Do you really think the Iranian people have told him directly that they "like the bombing"?

I am tickety-boo, thank you.

Why even announce that you have given anyone ammunition to incite or aid a possible uprising? Sounds like you're informing the other side?

Are you still going with this?

Are you ok?

I wonder how he knows that? Instagram or other SM accounts?

Don't give him ideas.

He is also saying that the Iranian people like the bombing and are asking him to continue

Any comment?

Can't he just buy some more, in that case?