The impossible has happened - Trump has made me a Keir Starmer supporter!

[mumofoneAloneandwell]

'This is not the age of churchill'

Thank God. Fucking orange twat.

Complete?

That's good

No need for any more bombing

No need for UK and other allies to pitch in.

The regime in Iran hasn't changed

So what has is achieved?

“I think the war is very complete, pretty much."

He's got bored and is moving on to something else?

He's a well-known cheat.

Trump actually said these things last night:

Trump: All of the people that died through the roadside bombs. Died and are right now walking around with no legs.

Trump says US Navy sank Iran's warship off the coast of Sri Lanka because "it's more fun" to sink ships than capture them.

Hmm - nice try on misinformation again but factually incorrect. The exact quote from Trump was:

"Iran's drone and missile capability is being utterly demolished. The Navy is gone. It's all lying at the bottom of the ocean. 46 ships, can you believe it? In fact I got a little upset with our people. When I said, 'What quality of ship?'. They said, 'Excellent, Sir. 'Top-of-the-line'. I said, 'Why didn't we just capture the ships?' We could use it. Why did we sink them?',"

"He said, 'It's more fun to sink them',"

So to correct your misinformation the statement about it being "more fun"
came from a US military commander and not Trump.

@DuncinToffee

The quote on "walking around with no legs" is from Trump referring to the the Iraq war, where many American and British soldiers were wounded by roadside bombs with material provide by Iran.

The exact quote was:

“A lot of our people were being killed. They were being maimed. They were being destroyed with their bombs all over the place, planted in roads, and we called them the roadside bombs. Walking around without legs, without arms, face blasted. Killed many, many people.”

No clearly Trump is not a master of articulate speech but I think most "normal people " understood what he was referring to and did not mean that people without legs can walk around.

Equally though you have to be "not a normal person" with no respect and no compassion for wounded soldiers to take a badly spoken speech as a cheap opportunity to ridicule Trump. The intention of what he was saying was very clear, even if his wording was wrong.

Are you saying Trump didn't mean what he said, he just got muddled up?

Feels a bit like Fox News 'mistakingly' showing the wrong footage of the dignified transfer ceromony.

This was another thing he said,

Q: You just suggested Iran got a Tomahawk & bombed its own school. But you're the only person in your govt saying this. Even your defense secretary wouldn't say that. Why are you the only person saying this?

TRUMP: I just don't know enough about it. It's something I was told is under investigation.

(Iran does not own Tomahawks)

@1dayatatime so you think it is OK that Trump approves of sinking ships rather than capturing them because it is more fun?

Do you also think it is OK that he is unashamedly lying about the massacre of school girls? Or that he says he can "live with" what ever the investigation into that incident finally proves (i.e that it was a US strike, as we all know).

He has no sorrow, no remorse, no regret about the deaths he has caused.

This is straight out of the Hamas playbook. Put a school next door to a military compound, then shout "foul !" when it becomes collateral damage

Who does that for goodness sake? Surely it could be located elsewhere ?

Bombing during school hours, not an issue for you?

What's that got to do with anything?

The IRG allowed a school to be put within a military compound with disastrous consequences. Ask yourself why it was there in the first place and also why it was not evacuated?

More info here - https://www.ukfactcheck.com/article/178/minab-girls-school-strike-what-we-know-whats-disputed-and-the-evidence

There wasn't time for the school to be evacuated according to your source, uk fact check (whoever they are).

Maybe, but that doesn't explain why it was there in the first place ?

Well there's two interpretations then:
a) Trump believes it is possible to walk around with no legs or
b) he indeed got his words muddled up when explaining the consequences to British and US of Iranian support to road side IED attacks in Iraq. And criticising this Iranian support.

But it's a very distasteful attempt to use amputee servicemen injured in Iraq as a means to criticise Trump.

Of course Iran doesn't own Tomahawk missiles, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this (no pun intended!).

As I previously stated his speaking is very inarticulate, my guess he was referring to a misfired Iranian drone or missile, similar to what happened to the hospital in Gaza which was falsely blamed on Israel at the time :

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/human-rights-watch-says-rocket-misfire-likely-cause-deadly-gaza-hospital-blast-2023-11-26/

I think submarines sinking ships rather than capturing them is exactly what submarines are designed to do.

This is exactly what HMS Conqueror did to the Belgrano in 1982, what Pakistan did to the Indian frigate INS Khukri in 1971. And what the entire German U boat fleet did in WW2.

To suggest that submarines in a conflict should go around "capturing ships" does not demonstrate any level of moral high ground, instead it just demonstrates zero knowledge of submarine warfare or of how wars in general operate.

So this is an interesting response and demonstrates exactly the problem we are facing.

You have those in the West criticising any Western military action where unfortunately and despite best efforts not to there are civilian casualties.

At the same time there is an absence of criticism for the opposing side where 30,000 protesters are deliberately killed by the Iranian regime, 20 attempted terrorist attacks in the UK and supporting terrorist attacks across the Middle East that killed children.

The point is on one hand you expect the Western military to follow international rules and not kill civilians even if this is unintentional whilst fighting an adversary (Iranian regime) that doesn't care about international rules or killing innocent civilians.

If you insist on that approach any military action by the West will fail and evil theocratic regimes will succeed. Is that what you want?

Are you back to the argument that 'the Left' or those who oppose the war don't care about Iranian women?

Nobody knows what the outcome of this war will be - personally I think it will lead to internal chaos, further violence as the IRGC try to maintain their power and a humanitarian disaster.

I just do not think people understand how regimes work. In a regime, a very large proportion of the population is part of the regime, all checking up on each other via a toxic power structure. So if the leader is toppled, that still leaves around 40% of the population as part of the regime.
It would be like toppling the entire public sector in the UK and the entire NHS and some, when we get a new leading party. Just to give a comparison people can relate to.
So real change in Iran can only be done by working with the existing power structure and letting them reform themselves with guidance and agreement from other neighbouring countries. There will be plenty of people within the regime structure who are paranoid too and cannot wait for it to end in its current form, as the checking up on each other is hardly a comfortable place to live in either. But ultimately, the people who come out as leaders will be those who are already well versed in that power structure. Just like ex KGB Putin took hold pretty soon after the Soviet regime toppled itself. It is just inevitable. Nobody can reinvent the wheel overnight. It is also why it is so incredibly naive to think eg Reform here is going to do all that much differently when the existing systems in the UK will continue as is for the foreseeable future.

"So real change in Iran can only be done by working with the existing power structure and letting them reform themselves with guidance and agreement from other neighbouring countries."

Can I have some of what you're smoking?

Iran don't want to change/reform themselves. They want to rule over a Middle Eastern Caliphate (that has no room for Jews & Christians) and are quite happy to use proxies to foment instability in the ME so they can take over.

The IRG should have been proscribed years ago.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/breaking-mi5-spies-foil-43-33845620

Why give them what they want then?

So what is your solution @Hyacinthbucketsgarden - topple 40% of the Iranian population who has been involved in the regime structure somehow? Not a workable solution I am afraid. I think it is you who has been smoking the proverbial wishful thinking.