1) Iran has a long history of foreign sabotage and proxy warfare. I didn't really think I needed to provide any additional context.

2) Inspections that don't include military sites. Again, this isn't me theorizing or the IAEA saying "we-we think we could visit them... not that we would... but maybe if we asked nicely". Straight from those who speak for Khamenei, military sites are off-limits, end of discussion.

3) Where do you think the Vietcong were drawn from? We are talking about fighting a war of occupation. If flattening North Vietnam was all that was required, then the United States indisputably won the war in Vietnam. Obviously not the case. For reference, I don't think anyone is suggesting that we invade Iran today.

1) so how does their 'sabotage' and 'proxy warfare' compare to american imperialism? how many democratically elected leaders did they assassinate, how many regimes have they toppled, how many countries have they started illegal wars with, how many did they invade, bomb, and starve?

2) more neocon propaganda. what you are referring to was a publicity stunt by the trump administration (executed by nikki haley) in order to convince gullible idiots that iran was secretly working on the bomb, to justify breaking the agreement. the IAEA had access to ALL facilities capable of enriching nuclear material. they WOULD have gotten access to military sites as well, IF they suspected iran of violating terms of the deal there and credible concerns were raised.

the trump administration, however, demanded such inspections without ANY credible information regarding any violations, and the IAEA never made any such requests. it was a cheap and transparent move in order to create headlines reading 'iran says military sites are off limits', to stoke fear in ignorant people and gain public support to abandon the deal - so i'm not surprised you swallowed that shit hook, line, and sinker.

3) fair enough, make it 20 million then versus more than 80 million iranians. even with extremely generous math we're still not even close to your ignorant claim.

1) The picture is factually incorrect. It looks like we agree. The rest of your post is a complete non sequitur.

2) Two concerns were raised. That one, access to undeclared sites involved too long of a delay. Two, that military sites were off-limits. All the IAEA had to do was say "Don't worry, we've investigated military sites". Except they hadn't, and Iran made clear (explicitly) that they would not. These concerns were raised by 3rd parties first, and adopted by the administration second. I don't know why you accuse Goom of being a propagandist, you're an unrepentant shill.

3) 46 v 190 / 90 v 330.

If you want to say that it would be somewhat more challenging to occupy Iran that Vietnam, I would agree, although that's not really what anyone is proposing.

Just like with MH17, Bellingcat is on the case and doing incredible detective work:

https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1215245278388899840







Accidental missile strike seems to be increasing in likelihood. Still nothing definitive tho.

1) i'm glad i tought you a new term, it doesn't mean what you think it means though. i'm also glad we seem to agree that it's not even close between american imperialism in the last couple of decades, and whatever iran did in the similar time frame - which makes the picture rather representative of their real record - even if you insist on adding two minor items on the left side in order to call it 'technically incorrect', haha...

2) again, this is pure neocon propaganda. the IAEA stated unequivocally that it had access to ANY facilities in regards to which credible concerns were raised, but also clarified that they had no reason to follow trump's demands, and that they didn't have ANY sign of iran violating the deal. this administration's efforts to sow distrust, by demanding unreasonable and previously not agreed upon items, they KNEW iran would reject out of espionage concerns, was a transparent move to fool ignorant people, and it worked like a charm - thank you for the demonstration.

3) 20 was already incredibly generous - and no matter how desperately you're trying to save face here by failing at math, the simple truth is that your point was simply incorrect. that's the problem with just googling information without knowing the context...

Yeah kill innocent kids. Great idea psycho

5 user(s) are reading this topic (2 anonymous): thesnipa, Werwulf, remco6, Brian_D

kek, the summoning has begun

Believe it or not, glass is made from liquid sand. You can make glass by heating ordinary sand (which is mostly made of silicon dioxide) until it melts and turns into a liquid. You won't find that happening on your local beach: sand melts at the incredibly high temperature of 1700°C (3090°F).

Who said a thing about kids , I was just talking about super heating sand.

You should really apologize to people if you don't know what their speaking of. And name calling just plain rude Mate.

i hope this won't escalate too much. Nearest bunker is 2 hours from here .

Uh huh, sure. Walk it back sonny.