Let's face it Iran is indiscriminatly hitting Israeli civilians targets including schools using cluster bombs.....

[mids2019]

Iran is firing missiles into heavily populated Israeli towns and have abandoned the pretence of targeting anything military.....this is just pure terrorism and does make you think what would happen if Iran did manage to develop a nuclear weapon.

Just hoping more of the missile launch sites can be taken out and this terrorist regime falls.

I’m not sure either, is this what you think @RedTagAlan?

TBH that seems to be the standard response from at least 3 posters on here when presented with uncomfortable truths they don't wish to accept.

Ahh. It's move the goalposts time. This is the claim I am disputing.

" Its the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world and a threat to all of us."

Where is the evidence for this claim. That is all I am asking.

@dairydebris . This is the point I am making.

It's proscribed because it's a group of terrorists.

If it came to the UK no doubt it would attempt to terrorise here.

Thats why its proscribed.

Much like the way Boko Haram in proscribed in the UK.

Because they are terrorists, and we don't want them operating here. So we proscribe them so the law has special powers to deal with them should we suspect they are here or attempting anything here.

I really can't follow your points. You seem to be arguing that the IRGC isn't a sponsor of terrorism. You're repeatedly asking for proof? Why? Do you not believe they are a major sponsor or terrorism? Or are you making a cerebral point about... something?

As I understand it under UK law the IIRG cannot be proscribed because it is part of the Iranian government/regime and is not an autonomous organisation - 'terrorist regimes/governments' are dealt with by means of sanctions not proscription which is what has already happened over many years

I posted the official UK government document, HAMAS is proscribed because it does terrorism against Israel, Nowhere in that document does it say "If it came to the UK no doubt it would attempt to terrorise here."

I would just like to see evidence for this claim, referring to Iran.

" Its the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world and a threat to all of us."

But nobody who supports that claim appears to be able to provide evidence for it being true. And evidence is pretty important when it comes to justifications for war.

If someone says we should be bombing Iran because of reason X. I think it only fair to ask evidence of X. Is it wrong of me to ask that ?

Maybe people don't see it as all that relevant whether it's 'the biggest' or just 'a major' sponsor of terrorism? The point is that it's a destabilizing influence everywhere it gets its fingers into.

If you're interested in learning more about the influence and consequences the revolution in 1979 has had all over the ME in particular I could recommend something for you to read? As you don't want to accept it from posters on here?

How is this difficult to follow? Terrorist organisations are proscribed because they are terrorist organisations. Iran supports terrorist organisations.

I guess if anyone supports Hezbollah, Hamas, The Houthis and any other terrorist organisations thry might consider they shouldn't be proscribed so that they can spread their terror freely.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is designated as a sponsor of terrorism by several countries and entities, including the United States, the European Union, Canada, and Australia. Iran as a state has been designated a "State Sponsor of Terrorism" by the U.S. since 1984.

@RedTagAlan

No i just genuinely don't understand how highlighting the difference between targeting civilians and accidently hitting civilians due to flawed intelligence proves your point.

So you have no evidence for " Its the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world and a threat to all of us."

You say " Maybe people don't see it as all that relevant whether it's 'the biggest' or just 'a major' sponsor of terrorism?". But it does appear to be very relevant to those folk who are using it to justify the war.

And my reasoning is simple. If someone gives 5 reasons for a war, then everyone has a right to see evidence for each of these reasons. Not just a nonchalant handwave of "everyone knows that" for reason number 4.

And if that list of 5 reasons is not valid, say there are 3 reasons, then justification for the war changes significantly. If someone says "support the war to support Israel", fair enough. If someone says "support the war otherwise Iran will bomb a place local to you", then I want to see evidence for that statement.

Do you follow that thought process ? Do you agree with the logic ?

Exactly. I expect 'the biggest' changes from time to time anyway. Iran has been at it for over 40 years. If people want to dance on a pin about exactly HOW bad Iran is they can go ahead, I suppose. If some other state is worse, it doesn't alter how bad Iran is.

No, I don't have evidence they are 'the biggest'. I'm am overweight middle aged Mum in home counties England with am interest in history, not c suite MI6. However I do accept the opinions of various experts in the area, and a 10 second google would tell you same. Do you? Do you think Iran are a major sponsor of international terrorism or not?

As far as using that Iran are a major sponsor of terrorism as a reason for war, again I don't see the relevance of whether or not its 'major' or 'biggest ever'. I'd argue you are getting bogged down a detail and missing the bigger picture. Iran being a sponsor of terrorism and a source of much destabilization in the ME is seen as a reason enough for war.

As to whether or not these reasons are enough- the prosecutors of this war- in particular the US- are absolutely all over the place when it comes to their justification for this war. We do not have a right to see these reasons- we are lowly civilians. We don't run this country. We elect people to run it on our behalf. These people obviously have access to a lot of intelligence that we don't. You and I don't decide a thing.

I'm not here to defend this war. I was on the fence initially but as it's progressed my feeling has become the following. No matter the justification given, the prosecution of the war, and seeming utter lack of a solid plan for alternative leadership and how to get that leadership in place, makes me believe this war was a flawed venture from the start. I'm deeply concerned the regime will not fall and the Iranian people will be left worse off than before. I believe war always comes at a cost of civilian life, and therefore shouldn't be waged unless the outcome is all but certain. Hence if the regime falls, I'll see it as just. If it doesn't, I'll see it as an egotistical folly on the part of the US ( somewhat different on Israels side but not prepared to go into that here ).

I am still only here to ask you if you actually believe Iran is not a major sponsor of terrorism? And also to push back on your frankly silly suggestion that Hamas is proscribed as a diplomatic gesture.

Well, HAMAS are not proscribed in the UK for the reason you gave. I would say proscribing an entity for the benefit of another nation is fundamentally solidarity and diplomatic based.

As for the rest, you have sort of come in mid discussion and deflected from the original bit, which was evidence for the "biggest sponsor in the world" claim.

And no, me asking for evidence of that that claim does not mean I believe the exact opposite.

Oh fgs. HAMAS are proscribed because they are terrorists. And black is black and white is white. If thats also to the benefit of an ally well and good. A side effect is not the same as a reason.

It's you who is deflecting away from the issue of Iran's sponsoring of terrorism by repeatedly asking for proof that they are the 'biggest'. It doesn't matter if they are the biggest. It just matters they do it a lot. And some find that enough reason for waging a war. If you don't find their sponsoring of terrorism reason enough then feel free to focus on that. But the way you keep demanding proof they are the 'biggest' is a deflection from the more salient point that they do indeed sponsor international terrorism.

Completely agree @dairydebris. What a ridiculous conversation.

These are the criteria for proscription:

• the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities;
• the specific threat that it poses to the UK;
• the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas;
• the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK; and
• the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism.

The 'benefit of another nation' is not on the list except in seeing that we all participate in making the world safer from terrorists. That is not about diplomacy but tangible, real world measures to keep us all safe because the threats outside those borders are very real if they are not contained. That is why Jewish organisations over the last couple of weeks have had to increase security on the advice of counter terrorism experts.

You made this statement:

" Its the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the world and a threat to all of us."

I and other posters asked for evidence for this. None has been posted so far, and off down the rabbit hole we went of deflections, goal post moving and down playing rather than just post evidence for something that "everyone knows ".

Not all your rabbit holes of course, but all stemming from asking for evidence for that statement. And yes, this is all similar to debating a flat earther.

Perhaps stop with the flat earth jibes, they’re not useful.

Most if not all agree they are a major sponsor of terror, some state the biggest. You can’t prove they’re not tbf, maybe they are.

If people want to post they’re a major sponsor of terrorism instead no one is going to debate it.

Do you believe Iran are a major sponsor of international terrorism or not?

Did you just want someone to apologize for saying 'biggest ever' or whatever it was without an exhaustive list to hand of who the 'biggest ever' sponsor of international terrorism is?

Just curious 😇

I don't know where you got that list. Buy anyway.

This last item on there : "the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism."

Then you say this :"'benefit of another nation' is not on the list except in seeing that we all participate in making the world safer from terrorists".

"Other nations" and "other members of the international community " are the same thing are they not ?

So you are saying "other members of the international community" are not "other nations" ?

And you changed this " the global fight against terrorism" to this "except in seeing that we all participate in making the world safer from terrorists"

A subtle change.

I think if you state the Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism across multiple threads for 5 weeks, you can’t also be irritated when someone asks you to expand on that.

Regardless the regime remains in place and I highly doubt their terrorist activities will stop now.

Alan. We proscribe terrorists for this reason-

''the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism."

Because they are terrorists. We work together against terrorists. If the terrorists weren't terrorists, regardless of where they were terroristing, they would not be proscribed.

They are terrorists in Israel. They are terrorists wherever they are. So we proscribed them. It's not because we are friends with Israel Alan, though we are. Its because they are terrorists.

I‘m not sure what the IRGC did to deserve the posts taking the pp to task over the wording, but at best they are major sponsors of terrorism and worst they are the biggest sponsors of..

Either way it’s a lot of terror.

Have you got proof tho?

😈