Iranian attack hit water desalination plant in Kuwait

[Ihatetomatoes]

Cannot find a link yet but was on BBC as breaking news.

"I've thanked Israel and the US for almost all of what they've hit so far," said Arman, in his 20s and from Karaj, west of Tehran. Iranian media said 13 people were killed and almost 100 injured when a bridge under construction in Karaj was bombed on Thursday.

"They must have had good reasons for them [sites which have been hit]. But I swear, hitting a power station just paralyses the country. It just plays into the Islamic Republic's hands. I live about a kilometre away from the biggest power station in Karaj, and if they hit it, it'll be nothing but misery for me."

Radin, also in his 20s and living in Tehran, said: "If attacking targets in the country brings down the Islamic Republic, I'm fine with that. Because if the Islamic Republic survives this war, it will stay forever."

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

‘’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."

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.

Yes, I definitely read that. How strange.

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.

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.

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.

I doubt it given that and the 20.29 post.

@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.

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).

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.

Yet you had no such concerns about calling out Iran and others for committing War Crimes.....

...but when it comes to Israel and the US... its for "courts to decide"

Agree. My top worry is the Iranian people though. I think it was just last Dec into January that Tehran was being partially evacuated because no water. They have had a long running drought.

Iran are committing war crimes in all probability.

So are Israel and the US which is why I said “this is true whoever commits them”.

Any country blowing up civilian infrastructure is likely committing war crimes but legally speaking that’s not for armchair analysts on MN to determine. Because there are grey areas so ultimately courts will decide though we all have opinions.

I think international law is out the window.

Who is going to enforce it? Who is going to recognise its validity? A bunch of Europeans wagging their fingers?

Israel and Iran feel this is existential for them. They won’t follow international law if it’s a suicide pact. The US is not going to enforce international law on itself. All bets are off.

You have no idea what was in my head, Eastern. And I expanded on my post of 20.29 with my post of 20:37.

Anyway. On another matter I am curious about that article the BBC edited. They should put footnotes to explain, like the Guardian and other sites do. I might email them.

Re war crimes.
Trump has said that possessing a nuclear weapon is a war crime. By his definition the nine countries (US included) that have nuclear weapons are all committing war crimes.

Yup. So perhaps what you should be posting is ""Iran might be committing war crimes" rather than "Iran is committing war crimes ? And variations of.

That might help prevent confusion and the appearance of double standards.

And yes, while it is ultimately up to the courts, posting on social media that can possibly influence public opinion does carry a bit of responsibility with it.

Oh, the irony of Israel posting on SM, warning to Iranians to stay off trains. Didn't their intelligence tell them of the internet blackout in Iran?

"Saudi Arabia: The Ministry of Defence says it has destroyed 18 drones fired at the country during the "past few" hours. Saudi Arabia also closed its King Fahd Causeway - the only road linking it to Bahrain - after Iran threatened to strike its Eastern Province, which houses a US Navy fleet.

Bahrain: Authorities asked residents to shelter in the nearest safe place overnight as alarm sirens activated.

United Arab Emirates: The country said it was working to intercept both missiles and drones from Iran overnight. On Monday, the Defence Ministry said that 519 ballistic missiles and 2,210 drones had been fired at the UAE since war broke out."

All from

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c5yw4g3z7qgt

Not sure why who you’re emailing is relevant to the intention of the earlier post.

And in tandem with whatever is happening in the Iran war, Israel is on a spree in Lebanon as it seeks to expand its border.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03-24/israel-planning-to-occupy-southern-lebanon-to-the-litani-river/106493608

It isn't. That is why I said "on another matter". Apologies if that wasn't clear to you but hopefully others will have understood.

If you’re going to police my every comment then maybe you should do the same to all the people saying Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza.

That hasn’t been determined by an international court of law either and won’t be for several years.

Double standard indeed seeing as you are making such a big deal about this but let comments by other people go without comment.