"It’s clear Trump’s plan to take control of the Strait of Hormuz wasn’t well thought out."

[toomuchtime_]

Really? It were ayatollahs, who simply supported certain patriotic groups? May be it was Israel, who directly and militarily invaded Lebadon with their policy of mass murders and genocide? Wasn't the massacre in Sabra and Shatila a bit "destabilising"?


In fact, it was entirely internal Yemeni business until Saudi and UAE invaded them.



And Zionists have been working to destabilize the Middle East since, at least, second half of XIX century. Say nothing about Americans who have been sponsoring Algerian pirates since 1795.

Again, as always nothing but bullshit in any of your posts. Israel never invaded Lebanon, it invaded land that had been taken from Lebanon first by the PLO in the 1980's and then by Iran's Arab proxy, Hezbollah, since. No matter where you look in the ME, Iran is the source of all the suffering and death the people are suffering.

 

[Zavulon]

Again, as always nothing but bullshit in any of your posts. Israel never invaded Lebanon, it invaded land that had been taken from Lebanon first by the PLO in the 1980's and then by Iran's Arab proxy, Hezbollah, since.

It's simply not true. PLO was invited in the Lebadon by their official government, according Cairo 1969 and Melkart 1973 agreements. They didn't proclaim independence and it was the territory of Lebadon. And it was Israel, who committed the act of illegal aggression in 1982 and organised acts of genocide (like Massacre in Sabra and Shatila) in Southern Lebadon.
And Hezbollah raised from the local national resistance (with some support of foreign forces) after Israel invasion and illegal occupation.

No matter where you look in the ME, Iran is the source of all the suffering and death the people are suffering.

Depends by what angle do you look. In fact, comparing with other countries of Middle East, Europe and America, Iran is just an innocent lamb, who never committed open and illegal acts of unprovoked aggressions. While America, Europe, Israel, and Arab states committed many.

 

[toomuchtime_]

It's simply not true. PLO was invited in the Lebadon by their official government, according Cairo 1969 and Melkart 1973 agreements. They didn't proclaim independence and it was the territory of Lebadon. And it was Israel, who committed the act of illegal aggression in 1982 and organised acts of genocide (like Massacre in Sabra and Shatila) in Southern Lebadon.
And Hezbollah raised from the local national resistance (with some support of foreign forces) after Israel invasion and illegal occupation.


Depends by what angle do you look. In fact, comparing with other countries of Middle East, Europe and America, Iran is just an innocent lamb, who never committed open and illegal acts of unprovoked aggressions. While America, Europe, Israel, and Arab states committed many.

As always, nothing but bullshit in any of your posts. The PLO, after being massacred by Jordan for trying to set up a nation within the nation of Jordan, fled to Lebanon where it tried to do the same thing and when it launched attacks into Israel, Israel invaded southern Lebanon to stop the attacks. After the PLO was banished to Tunisia, Iran proxy, Hezbollah, tried to take over and Israel foolishly agreed to withdraw in a peace overture to Lebanon, and has suffered Iran/Hezbollah attacks ever since.

 

[Zavulon]

As always, nothing but bullshit in any of your posts. The PLO, after being massacred by Jordan for trying to set up a nation within the nation of Jordan, fled to Lebanon where it tried to do the same thing and when it launched attacks into Israel, Israel invaded southern Lebanon to stop the attacks. After the PLO was banished to Tunisia, Iran proxy, Hezbollah, tried to take over and Israel foolishly agreed to withdraw in a peace overture to Lebanon, and has suffered Iran/Hezbollah attacks ever since.

Do you denie existence of Cairo and Melkart agreements? Do you denie the fact that Israel invaded Lebadon in 1982 without permission of the legal government and without decision of SC UN? Do you denie the facts of Massacre in Sabra and Shatila, commited by Israel's proxies?

Did Iran openly invaded in Lebadon by military force? No, it didn't. They just gave some money to local Lebanese patriots, fighting against foreign occupants. It was Israel who both sponsor terrorist and invade foreign countries by military force.

Therefore, from any rational and unbiased point of view, Israel is much more significant source of destabilisation, death and suffering than Iran.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Do you denie existence of Cairo and Melkart agreements? Do you denie the fact that Israel invaded Lebadon in 1982 without permission of the legal government and without decision of SC UN? Do you denie the facts of Massacre in Sabra and Shatila, commited by Israel's proxies?

Did Iran openly invaded in Lebadon by military force? No, it didn't. They just gave some money to local Lebanese patriots, fighting against foreign occupants. It was Israel who both sponsor terrorist and invade foreign countries by military force.

Therefore, from any rational and unbiased point of view, Israel is much more significant source of destabilisation, death and suffering than Iran.

Again, never an honest word from you in any of your posts. When Israel has entered Lebanon is has always been in response to attacks from Lebanese soil from either the PLO or Iran's proxy, Hezbollah.

 

[Dante]

what an ignorantly stupid conflat

Obama dropped more than 12,000 bombs on foreigners during his Nobel Peace Prize reign, but democrats till adore the barbarian leftist warlord.

What a completely ignorant, stupid, and failed attempt at some sort of equivalency

 

[Zavulon]

Again, never an honest word from you in any of your posts. When Israel has entered Lebanon is has always been in response to attacks from Lebanese soil from either the PLO or Iran's proxy, Hezbollah.

It was PLO. Hezbollah starting its existence long after Israels invasion. And PLO, as an internationally recognised national liberation movement, has right to fight for the liberation of the land of Palestine (at least its Arabic part, according UN decision of 1948).
And self-defense by destroying certain non-government armed groups is one thing (while it still may be a violation of the international law), and commiting acts of genocide by local proxies (like Massacre in Sabra and Shatila) is entirely different thing.

 

[markef]

what an ignorantly stupid conflat

What a completely ignorant, stupid, and failed attempt at some sort of equivalency

When democrats criticize how Trump is handling Iran, they forget what Obama did during his term.

How Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016

Obama did not obtain an act from Congress to conduct his military operations; however, his actions were not illegal.

www.yahoo.com

How Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016​

Nur Ibrahim
Sat, July 5, 2025 at 9:00 AM EDT
11 min read
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.

 

[Dante]

When democrats criticize how Trump is handling Iran, they forget what Obama did during his term.

How Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016

Obama did not obtain an act from Congress to conduct his military operations; however, his actions were not illegal.

www.yahoo.com

How Obama dropped more than 26K bombs on 7 countries without congressional approval in 2016​

Nur Ibrahim
Sat, July 5, 2025 at 9:00 AM EDT
11 min read
Add Yahoo as a preferred source to see more of our stories on Google.

Apples and Oranges, or better yet Apples and Lettuce. The comparison begs for a look, but we believe you would just ignore any pertinent facts.

carry on

 

[markef]

Apples and Oranges, or better yet Apples and Lettuce. The comparison begs for a look, but we believe you would just ignore any pertinent facts.

carry on

Did Democrats challenge Hillary when she said she would bomb Iran to ashes of they did not straighten up?

 

[Dante]

Did Democrats challenge Hillary when she said she would bomb Iran to ashes of they did not straighten up?

Conflate and attempt false equivalencies. Do you people ever consider acquiring any critical thinking skills, or you all just delighted being parrots?

First off, Hillary was not speaking as the Leader of the Free World. and Secondly, "The clip, posted by multiple accounts and spliced in different ways, begins with Clinton asserting, “If I’m the president, we will attack Iran.”"

"In reality, Clinton was responding to a question about how she would respond to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, a U.S. ally, as other videos and a report from ABC News at the time show." - false equivalency

Video of Clinton on Iran Taken Out of Context - FactCheck.org

An out-of-context clip from a 2008 interview with then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is circulating on Facebook. It shows her saying the U.S. "will attack Iran" if she becomes president. But she was responding to a question about a hypothetical nuclear attack by Iran on Israel.

www.factcheck.org

 

[markef]

Conflate and attempt false equivalencies. Do you people ever consider acquiring any critical thinking skills, or you all just delighted being parrots?

First off, Hillary was not speaking as the Leader of the Free World. and Secondly, "The clip, posted by multiple accounts and spliced in different ways, begins with Clinton asserting, “If I’m the president, we will attack Iran.”"

"In reality, Clinton was responding to a question about how she would respond to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, a U.S. ally, as other videos and a report from ABC News at the time show." - false equivalency

Video of Clinton on Iran Taken Out of Context - FactCheck.org

An out-of-context clip from a 2008 interview with then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is circulating on Facebook. It shows her saying the U.S. "will attack Iran" if she becomes president. But she was responding to a question about a hypothetical nuclear attack by Iran on Israel.

www.factcheck.org

So, was Hillary right to suggest good American leaders might have to bomb Iran to ashes for some reasons?

 

[Dante]

So, was Hillary right to suggest good American leaders might have to bomb Iran to ashes for some reasons?

"In reality, Clinton was responding to a question about how she would respond to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, a U.S. ally, as other videos and a report from ABC News at the time show." - false equivalency

 

[markef]

"In reality, Clinton was responding to a question about how she would respond to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, a U.S. ally, as other videos and a report from ABC News at the time show." - false equivalency

Why do Democrats believe Iran would have to annihilate Israel before any nation could move to dismantle their nuclear weapons program paid for in part with US taxpayer dollars?

 

[toomuchtime_]

It was PLO. Hezbollah starting its existence long

It was PLO. Hezbollah starting its existence long after Israels invasion. And PLO, as an internationally recognised national liberation movement, has right to fight for the liberation of the land of Palestine (at least its Arabic part, according UN decision of 1948).
And self-defense by destroying certain non-government armed groups is one thing (while it still may be a violation of the international law), and committing acts of genocide by local proxies (like Massacre in Sabra and Shatila) is entirely different thing.

Here you are drifting off into your fantasy world again. Israel was attacked by the PLO from southern Lebanon, you say with the approval of the Lebanese government, and Israel responded by pushing the PLO out of Lebanon to Tunisia. That's the whole story.

After the PLO was gone, saved by the US, Israel came under attack by Amal, a Shi'ite group that Ian funded but couldn't control, so Iran dropped its support of Amal and began funding Hezbollah, which it could control.

Why did iran switch from supporting amal to hezbollah?

AI Overview



Iran pivoted from supporting the secular, politically focused Amal movement to nurturing Hezbollah in the early 1980s primarily to export its Islamic Revolution, create a more ideologically aligned proxy, and establish a dedicated force to fight Israel and Western interests in Lebanon. Hezbollah provided unwavering allegiance to Iran's Supreme Leader, whereas Amal was more moderate and focused on Lebanese domestic politics. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key Reasons for the Shift:

• Ideological Alignment: Unlike Amal, which had a secular orientation, Hezbollah was founded on Shia Islam, directly inspired by the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and adopted Khomeini’s ideology.
• Proxy Strategy: Following the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Iran sought a dedicated, hardline proxy to operate in the Levant to counter Israel and target U.S./French interests.
• Revolutionary Export: Iran, through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), wanted a group that would aim for an Islamic state, rather than just representing Lebanese sectarian interests within the existing political system.
• Dissatisfaction with Amal: Amal, led by Nabih Berri, was seen as too moderate and, at times, allied with Syria, which had its own interests in Lebanon that sometimes conflicted with Iran’s. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

While Iran established Hezbollah, it did not entirely abandon Amal, resulting in a complex, managed rivalry where both groups are now part of a broader alliance with Tehran, though Hezbollah remains the primary, armed proxy. [1]

 

[Zavulon]

Here you are drifting off into your fantasy world again. Israel was attacked by the PLO from southern Lebanon, you say with the approval of the Lebanese government, and Israel responded by pushing the PLO out of Lebanon to Tunisia. That's the whole story.

After the PLO was gone, saved by the US, Israel came under attack by Amal, a Shi'ite group that Ian funded but couldn't control, so Iran dropped its support of Amal and began funding Hezbollah, which it could control.

Why did iran switch from supporting amal to hezbollah?

AI Overview



Iran pivoted from supporting the secular, politically focused Amal movement to nurturing Hezbollah in the early 1980s primarily to export its Islamic Revolution, create a more ideologically aligned proxy, and establish a dedicated force to fight Israel and Western interests in Lebanon. Hezbollah provided unwavering allegiance to Iran's Supreme Leader, whereas Amal was more moderate and focused on Lebanese domestic politics. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Key Reasons for the Shift:

• Ideological Alignment: Unlike Amal, which had a secular orientation, Hezbollah was founded on Shia Islam, directly inspired by the 1979 Iranian Revolution, and adopted Khomeini’s ideology.
• Proxy Strategy: Following the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Iran sought a dedicated, hardline proxy to operate in the Levant to counter Israel and target U.S./French interests.
• Revolutionary Export: Iran, through its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), wanted a group that would aim for an Islamic state, rather than just representing Lebanese sectarian interests within the existing political system.
• Dissatisfaction with Amal: Amal, led by Nabih Berri, was seen as too moderate and, at times, allied with Syria, which had its own interests in Lebanon that sometimes conflicted with Iran’s. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

While Iran established Hezbollah, it did not entirely abandon Amal, resulting in a complex, managed rivalry where both groups are now part of a broader alliance with Tehran, though Hezbollah remains the primary, armed proxy. [1]

So, Iran supported certain groups in Lebadon financially which is "Soft Power", and Israel invaded Lebadon militarily, commiting certain acts of genocide, which is "Hard Power". They are not equal.

 

[HikerGuy83]

So, Iran supported certain groups in Lebadon financially which is "Soft Power", and Israel invaded Lebadon militarily, commiting certain acts of genocide, which is "Hard Power". They are not equal.

Hamas has always been slime just slightly lower than the IRG.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Again, as always nothing but bullshit in any of your posts.

I keep thinking he'll change his name to bs, but then I think that Zavulon must mean bs is some middle east language. Maybe a form of slang.

 

[Zavulon]

I keep thinking he'll change his name to bs, but then I think that Zavulon must mean bs is some middle east language. Maybe a form of slang.

What exactly is BS in my posts? The facts about Massacre in Sabra and Shatila or the facts about direct military invasion of Israel in Lebadon? Or the fact that Hezbollah was created after Israel's invasion in Lebadon? Or the fact that Iran didn't invade directly in any country since, at least, the Revolution?

 

[markef]

So, Iran supported certain groups in Lebadon financially which is "Soft Power", and Israel invaded Lebadon militarily, commiting certain acts of genocide, which is "Hard Power". They are not equal.

Israel was justified in retaliating against Palestinian mass kidnappings and murders. The US is also justified in retaliating against those moronic Muslim murderers and their moronic supporters for murdering US servicemen and citizens overseas and at home.