Please or to access all these features

Conflict in the Middle East

(Lack of) US Iran Peace Agreement Part 5

295 replies

OnePeppyFatball · 14/09/2026 10:37

Part 5

OP posts:
Thread gallery
36
OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 08:30

Yes, I understand that they were supposed to target Hezbollah. However, the devices went off in cafes, shops, streets etc when innocent Lebanese people were just going about their daily lives. And injured a hell of a lot of people. Yet another example of disproportionate killing of innocents to get a few.

OP posts:
Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 08:35

@OnePeppyFatball ,

‘And injured a hell of a lot of people. Yet another example of disproportionate killing of innocents to get a few.’

As I said, I don’t think international law deals well with terrorist or narcotic organisations that are parasitic on weaker states.

The Lebanese would love Hezbollah to go, but they won’t.

I don’t think (please correct me if I am wrong) that the civilian casualties and deaths were even close to the Hezbollah casualties and deaths, so they were very proportionate.

Without the pager attacks, there would have been far more large blind ordnance from the air falling on Beirut and killing and maiming far more civilians.

OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 08:45

I agree that Hezbollah needs to fuck off.

I could only find this on stats from Wiki:
According to the Lebanese government, the attack killed 42 people,[11] including 12 civilians,[12] and injured 4,000 civilians (according to Mustafa Bairam ar; de], Minister of Labour and a member of Hezbollah).[13][14]Especially affected were women and children.[15] Victims had injuries including losing fingers, hands, and eyes, as well as brain shrapnel

2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device_attacks#cite_note-:10-13

OP posts:
trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 08:51

I take a pragmatic view that the pagers probably net saved civilian lives, given the alternative

This is the Utilitarian 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' argument. Not agreeing with this view is why capital punishment is banned in some countries. One innocent life being ended unnecessarily is one too many for some governments.

Agreeing with the 'pragmatic view' ipso facto means that you agree with your own and innocent family members' lives ending is acceptable colateral damage.
However, I also note that other Philosophy argument on Truth and Lies that statements made are only true when followed by the relevant action.

Where there no alternatives that would only involve combatants?

RedTagAlan · 25/09/2026 09:40

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 08:51

I take a pragmatic view that the pagers probably net saved civilian lives, given the alternative

This is the Utilitarian 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' argument. Not agreeing with this view is why capital punishment is banned in some countries. One innocent life being ended unnecessarily is one too many for some governments.

Agreeing with the 'pragmatic view' ipso facto means that you agree with your own and innocent family members' lives ending is acceptable colateral damage.
However, I also note that other Philosophy argument on Truth and Lies that statements made are only true when followed by the relevant action.

Where there no alternatives that would only involve combatants?

Edited

Quote " 'needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few'"

It's a powerful phrase isn't it. One that communism uses. And I think we can say the Iranian Government too, in a religious context. As in, we can save lots of souls at the cost of a few.

Even suicide bombers can use it.

Not sure what I am trying to say really. Just that it is a powerful phrase.

I suppose the real problem with it comes from how selectively it is applied ? And maybe who it is applied to, and by whom ?

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 09:54

Not sure what I am trying to say really. Just that it is a powerful phrase.

It's powerful because on the surface it sounds reasonable. Choosing when, where and how to apply it however...

eta
eg Is this a reason enough for unaliving Trump, Vance, Rubio etc and where does it stop?

RedTagAlan · 25/09/2026 09:56

Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 08:35

@OnePeppyFatball ,

‘And injured a hell of a lot of people. Yet another example of disproportionate killing of innocents to get a few.’

As I said, I don’t think international law deals well with terrorist or narcotic organisations that are parasitic on weaker states.

The Lebanese would love Hezbollah to go, but they won’t.

I don’t think (please correct me if I am wrong) that the civilian casualties and deaths were even close to the Hezbollah casualties and deaths, so they were very proportionate.

Without the pager attacks, there would have been far more large blind ordnance from the air falling on Beirut and killing and maiming far more civilians.

Quote " The Lebanese would love Hezbollah to go, but they won’t."

That is an interesting statement to me. We see it all over, or variations of. It has an implication that Hezbollah are somehow foreign and should somehow be ejected. Send back home.

But that is not the case really, is it ? It is a loaded phrase in many ways, because a large number of them, if not most, are Lebanese Shiites. So go where ?

I think phrases like that can lead people to think they are all Iranian soldiers. And that follows onto "destroy Iran, and Hezbollah will vanish". But that is not how it works. It's their cause that need to be tackled. Or at least talked about, and deals made.

I am not posting to argue. I just think it is an interesting point to consider how such phrases work.

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 10:01

@RedTagAlan Time to investigate Wittgenstein and the philosophy of language?

RedTagAlan · 25/09/2026 10:42

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 10:01

@RedTagAlan Time to investigate Wittgenstein and the philosophy of language?

I am not keen on philosophy. First up, I am not really smart enough to understand it. And second, it's a bit like that scene in Hitch hikers. Where they have just built deep thought and the philosophers are complaining they will be made redundant.

Philosophy just seems a bit pointless to me in so many ways. But I do sometimes ponder if I just think that because I am not able to understand it.

But how propaganda works. I do understand that. Sort of. But then again, that might be the Dunning-Kruger thing at work.

:-)

Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 10:43

@trumpredcard ,

‘Agreeing with the 'pragmatic view' ipso facto means that you agree with your own and innocent family members' lives ending is acceptable colateral damage.’

Not really, and you would have to define what you mean by ‘accept’.

But, if I play your game and assume that London has been take over by an Iranian proxy, who are lobbing missiles out of Kensington Gardens, targeting New York, and we have let our military and police get so run down that they can’t get this group out (maybe not so far fetched), then I know America will be attacking London soon, targeting the Iranian proxy.

And then, if I had the choice of pagers going off in London and a tiny chance of me and my family dying, or being targeted by cruise missiles and bombs and a larger chance of losing my family, I choose the former.

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 11:33

you would have to define what you mean by ‘accept’.
In this context, can it have any meaning other than to believe that something is true?

But, if I play your game
Sorry, not my 'game'. In Philosophy, a method for determining whether a person has a genuine belief. So close adjacent to phrases such as 'walk the talk', and 'actions speak louder than words'.

@RedTagAlan Useless fun fact. Physics (which I assume you studied) evolved from Natural Philosopy.😀

I could be well off the mark here, but I think that if whoever on the US side agreed on the wording of the recent MOU had studied Philosophy things could well be different now. Without any evidence whatsoever, I suspect that the Iranian side had the intellectual edge. 🤔

Twiglets1 · 25/09/2026 12:08

Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 07:36

@OnePeppyFatball ,

‘Well the realia he used this time was holding up a pager. Some of which killed children in Lebanon. And people laughed’

The pagers were really clever and held by members of a terrorist organisation. They were an incredibly efficient way to attack the enemy with minimum civilian casualties.

Far better than massive ordnance from the air.

You’re brave to say that on this board but I agree.

They were very clever and targeted terrorists.

OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 12:17

Meanwhile injuring 4,000 civilians. 12 dead civilians for 28 Hezbollah.

Maybe not so clever.

OP posts:
Newbutoldfather · 25/09/2026 12:24

‘More than 3,000 members of the Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon were seriously wounded’

Source: NDTV

If you accept Hezbollah and Israel were at war, the pagers had an incredibly good civilian/combatant ratio in terms of both deaths and injuries.

Twiglets1 · 25/09/2026 13:24

OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 12:17

Meanwhile injuring 4,000 civilians. 12 dead civilians for 28 Hezbollah.

Maybe not so clever.

Hezbollah terrorists aren’t civilians so no reason to include them in the count of dead or injured civilians.

RedTagAlan · 25/09/2026 13:42

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 11:33

you would have to define what you mean by ‘accept’.
In this context, can it have any meaning other than to believe that something is true?

But, if I play your game
Sorry, not my 'game'. In Philosophy, a method for determining whether a person has a genuine belief. So close adjacent to phrases such as 'walk the talk', and 'actions speak louder than words'.

@RedTagAlan Useless fun fact. Physics (which I assume you studied) evolved from Natural Philosopy.😀

I could be well off the mark here, but I think that if whoever on the US side agreed on the wording of the recent MOU had studied Philosophy things could well be different now. Without any evidence whatsoever, I suspect that the Iranian side had the intellectual edge. 🤔

Agree with you partially re the MOU. Partially because, as an Engineer ( You were spot on with that), I would say the scientific method, if applied would give Iran an edge over the US, who appear to be using the "Sycophantic" system.

And yes. Of course philosophy came before the scientific method. But that does not mean the latter evolved from the former. And I might be totally wrong here, not having studied philosophy, but we did spend thousands of years sitting in select groups wearing robes, discussing "what is the meaning of life, the world and everything", until some 18th century fella in a boiler suit figured out that boiling water in a closed container and adding bits of linkages, could be used to pump water out on mines.

I oversimplify of course. Light hearted post.

But what happened with engineering and the scientific method, is it exploded. Suddenly near anyone ( with a blacksmiths shop) could invent and improve. And it all happened so fast that it is near impossible to put it into chronological order.

I liken it to a dandelion. There we were, on the stalk of the plant growing taller as time passed, and boom, it flowers. And such a mass of seeds are scattered that one can't follow where they land.

I know I missed out Newton. And he fits firmly into my model. But I think that is maybe beyond the scope of this thread.

On Iran though. Communism tends to take it leaders from Engineers. And although Iran is a Theocratic militaristic state, I wonder if they do the same for their "civilian" leaders.

That is an interesting thought. And might be worth looking at a few bios to explore ?

:-)

Squeezingwildoranges · 25/09/2026 13:45

RedTagAlan · 25/09/2026 09:56

Quote " The Lebanese would love Hezbollah to go, but they won’t."

That is an interesting statement to me. We see it all over, or variations of. It has an implication that Hezbollah are somehow foreign and should somehow be ejected. Send back home.

But that is not the case really, is it ? It is a loaded phrase in many ways, because a large number of them, if not most, are Lebanese Shiites. So go where ?

I think phrases like that can lead people to think they are all Iranian soldiers. And that follows onto "destroy Iran, and Hezbollah will vanish". But that is not how it works. It's their cause that need to be tackled. Or at least talked about, and deals made.

I am not posting to argue. I just think it is an interesting point to consider how such phrases work.

"Hezbollah ("Party of God," also spelled Hizballah) is an Iran-backed Lebanese Shia militia."
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF10703

OnePeppyFatball · 25/09/2026 13:54

Read this in Foreign Policy, which I thought was interesting:

“Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly called Trump twice after the pipeline hit, asking the United States to bomb the Houthis to slow their advancement. The White House declined, and when asked about Yemen at a press conference, the U.S. president said this: “The Houthis called us. They don’t want to fight with us. They let us know they don’t want to fight with us. They don’t want us to go after them. They would much prefer not having us involved, and they are letting most ships go through. There’s just one country they’re not too happy with.”
That may be Trumpian fantasy or an actual conversation where he chose to take the Houthis at their word. Either is terrible for Riyadh.
This must be frustrating for the Saudis because they’ve been paying Trump off for years, along with his son-in-law and international envoy Jared Kushner. The U.S.-Saudi relationship has always been transactional—but at the national level of security and oil, not personalist like this.”
“The Saudis appeared to welcome U.S. democratic backsliding and corruption, using their money to take advantage. After Trump won the presidency in 2016, they started spending a lot at his hotels. Trump made Saudi Arabia his first foreign destination as president, and they showered him with opulent flattery.
At first, it looked like a successful investment. On that trip, Trump signed an arms deal with Saudi Arabia worth $110 billion. When Mohammed bin Salman consolidated power in 2018, Kushner likely provided U.S. intelligence against Saudi family rivals to help, and the crown prince reportedly bragged that Kushner was “in his pocket.” Later that year, Trump withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal—to Saudi approval—and publicly dismissed a CIA assessment that Mohammed bin Salman had ordered the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
After Trump’s first term, Saudi Arabia doubled down. The Saudi-backed LIV Golf league paid Trump-owned courses to host tournaments. State-connected Saudi companies made real estate deals with the Trump Organization, paying him millions of dollars in licensing fees, with the promise of more.”
“Most blatantly, the Saudi government gave $2 billion to Kushner’s new investment firm. Saudi sovereign wealth fund managers objected, a due diligence report found Kushner’s company “unsatisfactory in all aspects,” and the deal included unusually high fees, with Kushner and Co. pocketing $25 million of Saudi money every year regardless of fund performance. Mohammed bin Salman went through with it anyway.
With Trump president again and Kushner leading U.S. diplomacy on Gaza, it looked as if that money had been well spent. Then Trump attacked Iran.
Riyadh tried to publicly stay out of the conflict while privately urging Trump to go for regime change and then, as it became clear that wasn’t happening, backed a cease-fire and negotiations. When the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding fell apart this summer and Trump tried bombing Iran again, Iran activated allied militias in Yemen and Iraq, which they were apparently restraining earlier in the war, and those groups have attacked Saudi Arabia from multiple angles.”
“From the Saudi perspective: Trump caused attacks on their country and restrictions on their shipping by launching a war of choice, then wimped out on the actions that might win it—a ground invasion and real regime change—tried diplomacy instead, failed, and got Saudi Arabia attacked more.
Under assault by forces they can’t sufficiently counter on their own, the Saudis really need the United States, except their decades-long security patron can’t solve the problem. Saudi forces are bombing Yemen, responding to Houthi attacks. But they bombed Yemen and backed the local government for years in Yemen’s civil war without defeating the Houthis. Saudi Arabia has a large military budget but structurally weak armed forces with a record of poor performance, which both encourages and is partially due to its dependence on the United States.
Trump’s first response to the Houthi advance was a familiar one: pretending it’s not a problem and demanding everyone else pretend, too. That has been his main strategy for the Iran war since the original U.S.-Israeli assault failed to achieve regime change or “unconditional surrender” as he first demanded.”
“Trump has a clear way of war: big threats and grandiose declared aims, a casualty-averse aerial campaign, and then backing down and lying if the bluster and bombing don’t succeed. It’s failing against Iran, but it already failed against the Houthis.
In 2025, the Houthis were shooting at Red Sea shipping, claiming solidarity with Palestinians against Israel’s war in Gaza. That March, Trump launched airstrikes into Yemen, with U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth vowing an “unrelenting” effort to restore freedom of navigation.
The United States tried an air-only campaign. A month and a half later, after burning through about $1 billion worth of munitions and losing a couple fighter jets while destroying some targets but failing to stop Houthi fire—and, in a display of Trump administration incompetence, accidentally leaking war plans via Signal—the United States quit, claiming that it was a great success.
That leaves Saudi Arabia in a tough position. Shipping lanes and pipelines are much easier to attack than reliably protect. The Saudis are trying to compensate with more tanker-to-tanker transfers off the coast of Oman, but there’s no way that can cover all the lost volume.”
“The one real positive return on Saudi Arabia’s Trump-Kushner investment this term is a nuclear deal that would facilitate Saudi uranium enrichment without the most intrusive international inspections. No previous U.S. president would do that, due to proliferation risks and it undermining the argument for stopping Iran’s uranium enrichment. But this U.S. president, the only one to get Saudi money deposited into his personal accounts, did. The White House recently submitted the deal to Congress, where Trump’s Republican Party controls both houses and has mostly acted as a rubber stamp.
But still, the Saudis might not get the nuclear benefits. Trying to parry criticism of weakness and corruption, Trump said the deal depends on recognizing Israel, and Saudi Arabia isn’t going to do that, at least not without a Palestinian state, which Israel won’t allow.
And even if it goes through, Democrats could reverse the deal whenever they next get power, not only due to the international security concerns but also because Trump’s private associates stand to corruptly profit. A poorer Saudi Arabia also means less money for lobbying in Washington to stop this.”
“It looks as if the Saudis believed that a corrupt U.S. government was in their interest, that they could get competence and relative stability without any of that pesky integrity, ethics, law, or human rights. But in reality, bribable usually means selfish and weak.
Bribable leaders are inherently irresponsible. Personalist and corrupt leaders, such as Ferdinand Marcos, Saddam Hussein, and Mobutu Sese Seko—or more recently, Viktor Orban—have a terrible record when it comes to national interests, whether their country’s or others’. We haven’t seen anything like this at the center of the world’s dominant military power before, at least in the modern era, but the U.S. descent into personalism has proved no less disastrous. A bribed leader might tell you what you want to hear, but that doesn’t mean they can deliver.
Corrupt leaders are good at breaking things, especially laws and norms, but bad at just about everything else. Saudi Arabia wrongly believed that Trump’s destruction could be limited to the United States itself and that a buyable Washington could keep serving it well.”

Excerpt From
“Saudi Arabia Bribed the Wrong People”
Nicholas Grossman
Foreign Policy
https://apple.news/AVwNRZkfIRZKkvUUgL5z4UQ
This material may be protected by copyright.

They Went to Jared — Mother Jones

How Donald Trump’s son-in-law used his position to hop in bed with autocrats—and sell out America.

https://apple.news/Ampr4T4I8S_u2YDqKDpBmAA

OP posts:
trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 17:57

That article was more than interesting. It was grim reading and made me despair of what Trump, his family, and his hangers on have done to the international reputation of the US. No wonder US tourists in Europe are pretending to be Canadian.

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 18:11

Last bit on the subject - Physics did develop from Natural Philosophy (my very old uni est. in the 15th century - has a Natural Philosophy (ie Physics) building) when philosophers turned their minds to empirical investigations.
Newton did call his major work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

grokipedia.com/page/the_evolution_of_physics

Twiglets1 · 25/09/2026 18:16

Iran offers US new seven-day ceasefire proposal

Tehran has offered Washington a new seven-day proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and to restart broader talks to find a final resolution to the war, which the US and Israel launched against Iran six months ago.

“We have introduced a plan to the United States through the mediators that if certain conditions are met . . . the strait will be open in seven days” and Iran and the US would restart negotiations for a final deal, Araghchi told a group of reporters and academics gathered on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly meeting in New York.

Oil prices eased on hopes of a truce. Global benchmark Brent crude was down 2.9 per cent at $103.48 a barrel at midday in New York on Friday while US marker West Texas Intermediate was down 3.1 per cent at $91.63.

The Iranians said their proposal built on the memorandum of understanding agreed between the US and Iran in June.

https://www.ft.com/content/917a9cba-6afd-4ba3-8742-2b7601ecc2ba?syn-25a6b1a6=1

RedTagAlan · Yesterday 02:20

trumpredcard · 25/09/2026 18:11

Last bit on the subject - Physics did develop from Natural Philosophy (my very old uni est. in the 15th century - has a Natural Philosophy (ie Physics) building) when philosophers turned their minds to empirical investigations.
Newton did call his major work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica

grokipedia.com/page/the_evolution_of_physics

Fair enough. As I said, happy to be corrected because I never studied philosophy.

I think there is something important in this though, and you mentioning what thought process each side used formulating the MOU, is an astoundingly important point really. First time I have seen it mentioned. My thoughts are a bit muddled and I don't think I can tie them together well, but here goes. Again, happy to be corrected if wrong.

As well as having a keen interest in the history of Engineering, I am also interested in Christianity, and history of. ( I am ex Christian, now atheist). At the moment, for example, my reading material is early Popes, and what they got up to.

This combines with my Engineering interest. Because I often ponder, what was the world like before the scientific method ? Throw in the printing press here too. And random thoughts. How could Christians be Christians when Bibles were so rare, and few people could read them. Did pre printing press Christians actually know the Bible when they done trials for heresy etc. Now I am getting into Dunning- Kruger because I do not know Anthropology.

Printing press. They were first used to print Bibles. It was not till likes of Newton was printed that things kicked off. China had a printing press first. It never took off and was forgotten. I have pondered that and wont get into it. It's gonna get more Random now sorry.

Peasants. Not an insult. I know some. Come across them. I think difficult concept for most westerners to understand. I think basically prescientific logic. Local superstition rules. Mao. How can we say Peasants were Marxists, when Marxism is so difficult to understand. Does anyone understand Marxism... I struggle. Cultural revolution. The 4 olds.

On peasants. An example. We live in a high rise. All high rises where I am. And a problem is old country folk visiting. Think pre lost generation folk. They often just throw rubbish out the window. A 20th floor window. Cos their logic is in their hometown house, ground floor, they sweep rubbish out the door. They have to be told NO.. do not throw out window. No cause and effect thinking. Action leads to result.

Now Iran. Phew. Theocracy. Thow in Afghanistan etc, And we often hear the term "Stone age" used. And then you post, what logic system did Iran use for the MOU.

Boom.

Re Iran. I have mostly been using my understanding of Authoritarianism, Propaganda etc.

But you saying "what thinking method do they use". Astoundingly important.

We can also throw in language. Because that affects logic too. But I am crap at that, so I can't explore it.

What does trump use ? Easy. Ker-ching $$$

Disclaimer. All the above is in MY mind. I try not to apply to all, Because I am not really all that smart. And I DO NOT KNOW, how smart people do this.. because I am not smart enough to know. And to anyone saying " you admit you are not smart, that explains why you do not understand why Iran should be bombed", I say... can you explain it better then please.

OnePeppyFatball · Yesterday 06:57

BBC:

While the US has yet to deliver its official response to the proposal, the Wall Street Journal, citing US officials, reported that US President Donald Trump had rejected the deal.
Trump was privately sceptical that Iran would meet his demands, it reported, and had told his staff that he saw a renewed bombing campaign as likely.

OP posts:
trumpredcard · Yesterday 06:57

Twiglets1 · 25/09/2026 12:08

You’re brave to say that on this board but I agree.

They were very clever and targeted terrorists.

Anyone can say anything on this thread so long as it isn't perceived as a personal attack, and even then, most posters will not report it.

On the cleverness of using the pagers. I agree that it was a clever move to eliminate the enemy in an efficient way, when all you care about is achieving your own aims.
It was also immoral ruthless in deliberately ignoring the innocent lives that would also be lost, as it would have been impossible know where the pagers were at the time they were set to explode.
A bit like throwing an explosive into the water to catch fish, with similar devastating results.

Twiglets1 · Yesterday 06:59

More on the 7 day ceasefire proposal that Iran has offered the US - this time from the BBC.

Asked about the Iranian offer, a US official told the BBC positive discussions were taking place through mediators, including about nuclear issues.

While the US has yet to deliver its official response to the proposal, the Wall Street Journal, citing US officials, reported that US President Donald Trump had rejected the deal.

In an interview with CBS News, the BBC's US partner, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said that the ceasefire process "will begin from the very day they accept it".

Pezeshkian also said Iran would now allow UN nuclear inspectors into the country.

Rejecting claims that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon, the Iranian president said: "If they wish to come in and have inspections, we can reach accords and agreements vis-à-vis that specific topic within the negotiations."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqgmrr9ekr7ko

Swipe left for the next trending thread