Mpower
If the objective was one man and his inner circle, wouldn’t a targeted special forces operation have limited civilian loss instead of large-scale bombing?
You want a ground war in Iran, No rezonabe people knowin g anything about military intelligence will come up woth BS like that/
Well, of course, the objective can't be one man and his inner circle.
They would just be replaced... potentially by someone even worse.
I like how Blob posts 20 pages from Al Jazeera. What next, the Hamas Times?
I like how Blob posts 20 pages from Al Jazeera. What next, the Hamas Times?
Al Jazeera's English service is generally regarded as reliable and factual. It's Arabic service not so much, but Blob's link was from the English service.
Plum
We are all ron g th Ayatollah went to the grls school to idenify the 72 vifrgins that needed to be kill o that they could be provided to him when he died, Tht is why there was a aschool in the midst of a miliitary compound,
By the way the following may give a realincite of what was doe o kill the Aytollah:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWIVbLSWF2Y
The Iran people hate the regime and passed on the real info where the Ayatollah and his fellow murderers were. If there was a school in that compound i may have been to find the virgins needed or better still to serve as human shields in the case of an attack on the compound.
PlumHall Of Famer
18,560 posts
Mar 04, 2026, 07:23
Well, of course, the objective can't be one man and his inner circle.
They would just be replaced... potentially by someone even worse.
-----------------------------------------
Iran is filled with religious fanatics, who outnumber the people who want the current regime to fall.
So, unless the plan is to kill more than 50% of the population, there will also be a conveyor belt of replacements.
This is not some imaginary situation of the population mostly wanting to reject clerical authoritarian rule.
Ou Maaik, you're further gone than the lunatic you're imagining.
Iran is filled with religious fanatics, who outnumber the people who want the current regime to fall.
So, unless the plan is to kill more than 50% of the population, there will also be a conveyor belt of replacements.
This is not some imaginary situation of the population mostly wanting to reject clerical authoritarian rule.
What? From the available information out there the majority of the Iranian population want the current regime gone.
Visser, I'm thinking it's a 80-20 split...I haven't checked yet but I'll ask chat and see what it says...
Okay, here is what i got back;
"Best guess: about 65–75% of Iranians are broadly anti-regime / want major change, about 15–20% are still pro-regime, and about 10–15% are uncertain, cautious, or politically disengaged.
Why that’s the best rough estimate:
Big caveat: this is not the same as saying 65–75% are all liberal democrats. Some anti-regime people want a secular republic, some want monarchy, and some are even open to a “strong leader.” In that same survey, 43% said they were open to authoritarian rule by a strong individual.
So, in one line: roughly 7 in 10 Iranians seem anti-regime, and roughly 2 in 10 still back it."
Haha that was a decent guess on my part!
Still, 20-30% of a population of 80 million is a lot of people.
DB, at first it was “800 deaths were necessary.” Now it’s “we don’t know if 800 is even real.”
If the numbers are unreliable, then that goes both ways. You can’t question civilian deaths as propaganda while repeating claims about thousands killed by the other side.
Either uncertainty matters, or it doesn’t. You don’t get to use it only when it suits your agenda. DB when you say “we don’t really know anything,” then what exactly are you defending?
If everything is fog, then you’re not arguing necessity anymore...it just looks like you avoiding making a moral call.
My position is simple: when civilians die in large numbers, that matters. Intentions don’t cancel consequences. Saying “best interest of the mission” doesn’t answer the moral cost. The results matter.
Then there’s the intelligence argument.
“You don’t know the classified details.”
Yes we don't We’re observers. But to what principle do we default to? I default to restraint and precision. You default to assumed necessity and escalation. That’s the difference.
When I suggest targeted force, Uncle BS reframe it as “you want a ground war.” That’s exaggeration. Precision does not automatically mean full invasion. There are more options in the real world than “do nothing” or “bomb broadly.”
Plum says removing one man and his inner circle won’t change the system. If that’s true, then why argue that Bombing was strategically necessary in the first place??
It doesn't make sense saying: the leader must be stopped but also that removing leadership achieves nothing or possibly
brings in someone worse.
The bigger issue: once we normalize civilian deaths as acceptable trade offs, the moral line keeps moving.
You guys have concluded that tragic trade-offs are unavoidable, but I’m saying we shouldn’t rush to treat them as normal.
If you want to defend bombing everyone, just say it. Don’t hide behind "we don’t know’" or try and make me look weak for asking about civilians. Human life isn’t a military slogan...it actually matters.
Al Jazeera's English service is generally regarded as reliable and factual. It's Arabic service not so much, but Blob's link was from the English service.
And the English service of Al Jazeera says the US possibly deliberately attacked a girls’ school? That’s responsible, credible reporting? This is a sad occurrence, the worst kind of tragedy one can imagine. But to suggest the American military would do this deliberately is nonsense.
"When I suggest targeted force, Uncle BS reframe it as “you want a ground war.” That’s exaggeration. Precision does not automatically mean full invasion. There are more options in the real world than “do nothing” or “bomb broadly.”
Who is bombing broadly?
As far as I can tell, it's very precise bombing of particular sites manufacturing, storing and launching missiles and drones, various communications facilities, different heads of the regime, naval vessels...
Are you arguing for literally one missile to kill the leader and then calling it a day? Is anything beyond that "broad"?
And dude, you're saying all this while Iran are bombing civilian apartment complexes...
I don't actually know what type of argument you're trying to make.
So M let’s hear it….what should the world have done about Iran, who is now firing missiles with multiple warheads targeting civilian populations and who has been building a massive stock of missiles with the money released by the 2015 Treaty.
"DB, at first it was “800 deaths were necessary.” Now it’s “we don’t know if 800 is even real.”
Liar...I didn't say that...you are being argumentative and disingenuous. War has casualties... that's the reality...I'm not even support this war, I know little about it ...but I know sometimes leaders get caught between a rock and a hard place and there is no easy choices ...you seem to think that there were and that the loss of civilian life was either intentional or due to reckless behaviour...which is absurd.
"And the English service of Al Jazeera says the US possibly deliberately attacked a girls’ school?"
These guys are actually that deranged.
And the English service of Al Jazeera says the US possibly deliberately attacked a girls’ school? That’s responsible, credible reporting? This is a sad occurrence, the worst kind of tragedy one can imagine. But to suggest the American military would do this deliberately is nonsense.
You selectively frame the Al Jazeera article, it stated the US-Israel possibly deliberately attacked a girls school, because at this time it's actually unknown who launched the attacked.
But they also stated that a deliberately attack was one of two possibility, the other was a catastrophic intelligence failure.
Now I'm inclined to agree the US would not deliberately attack a girls school, but it has shown itself in the past capable of making terrible mistakes caused by gross incompetence . What's that old WW2 saying, when the German's bombed the British ducked, when the British bombed the German's ducked, and when the American's bombed everyone ducked.
Israel on the other hand going by it's past actions is more than capable of either deliberately targeting civilians and or is capable of intelligence failures.
Well Plum, a bomb is not a bullet. A bomb explodes, hits a bigger area, the Kill radius is much larger.
I’m not saying “one missile and done.” I’m saying hit the leader and his inner circle precisely, not hundreds of civilians.
And you claim, “what’s your argument?” I can say the same thing to you. First, you say the target can’t just be the leader and his circle.
So what now, should they just go ahead and kill 50% of Iran to kill off all the fanaticals? Is that what you saying?
I have made my point as clear as daylight: Once we start normalizing civilian deaths as acceptable trade offs, the moral line keeps moving. Human life isn’t a military slogan...it actually matters. Stop twisting my words to suit your agenda, Dude.
Israel's failures are wh at? They knew exactly when and where the Ayatollah was and that signed his death cerftificate. They exactly knew where the mass murderer and his partners were,
"were there actually 800 killed by the US? Is there proof that? How reliable?" OK DB fair enough you didn't say that.
Moz, Do you really think killing even more people solves the original problem, then we’re not even debating the same thing. You talk about “retaliation” like it ends the conflict. History shows retaliation fuels more retaliation.
We all see the missiles and the strikes...I am not arguing Iran fired missiles. The issue is that Trump and his Israel buddies shouldn’t have started the war in the first place.
When I suggested a precise military strike, without bombing, you mocked it and said, "just go ahead, send Rambo in." So what’s the point of me even talking to you?
Using your words: I am clearly wasting my time:)
That’s my point...whether bombing with massive collateral deaths was really the only option, or whether more restraint and precision should have been pursued first.
And just by the way Moz, did I not say this was gonna cause a chain reaction? Yet all you war experts conveniently ignore that point. I don’t know much about war, but one thing I do know is that it’s fucked up and I fucking hate it!!
I’ve made my point, and I’m sticking to it. You mock it, twist it, and defend war and authority while innocent people die.
You keep repeating “best interest of the mission” until you blue in the face...it settles nothing.
That’s why I question the priorities...because human lives should matter more than Military slogans.
M
Nobody is twisting your words.
Nobody is advocating for civilian deaths.
Nobody thinks half of the Iranian population need to be killed.
Here's a question for you...
Which of the following can be destroyed with a bullet?
a) ballistic missile bunker
b) a radar
c) battleship
d) none of the above
I don’t selectively frame anything…,I focus on their claim that America or Israel have …..possibly……done this deliberately. The fact that you are capable of believing either of these countries is capable of targeting a school demonstrates just how far gone you are.
When I suggested a precise military strike, without bombing, you mocked it and said, "just go ahead, send Rambo in." So what’s the point of me even talking to you?
Stop lying….I said that when you said special forces could do the job,
Far gone?, no I live in a reality where there isn't this simple black and white situation of their just being good guys and bad guys, Israel has demonstrated on ample occasions it's completely indifferent to killing civilians.
Fool's Paradise...
"The U.S. has the best-trained special forces, Navy seals and Marines, and a properly executed operation could have taken out Khamenei and his inner circle without killing hundreds of innocent people. " — This is my original post and what I suggested.
When I mentioned bullets versus bombs, it was to explain precision. In a special forces, precise Military strike, you use close-range force.
A bomb has a wide kill radius. That is a basic fact. A precise strike with special forces is designed to minimise collateral damage and target specific individuals.
So when you ask, “What can be destroyed with a bullet?” you are deliberately twisting the point again. The point was never about what a single bullet can destroy. The point was about precision versus bombing.
I suggested a properly executed, special forces Military strike, targeting Khamenei and his inner circle to avoid killing hundreds of civilians. That has been my position from the start.
When you say the target should not only be the leader and his inner circle, I asked a question in response. A question. I did not make a claim. I was asking what you were implying.
Mozart, the same applies to you. Just because I did not repeat the words “special forces” in one sentence does not mean I changed my position or that i am lying. That is what I meant from the beginning. You know that...
Moz I suggest you have a cup of tea and a Marie Biscuit:) And Plum I suggest you stick to the truth when you on here.
We all know how your nonsense have driven people away already. Or are you aiming on driving more people away? Because it's working...Dude :)
"I suggested a properly executed, special forces Military strike, targeting Khamenei and his inner circle to avoid killing hundreds of civilians. That has been my position from the start."
You are missing the point.
Their weapons, vessels, communications AND leaders need/needed to be taken out.
You can't do all of that with bullets or special forces.
In fact, all you can really do with bullets is assassinations, and with a much higher risk profile.
So, again, I don't know what type of argument you are trying to make.
Are you saying that you don't think they should have done this but if they did then they should have stuck to a few assassination squads taking out the Iranian regime leadership and then call it a day?
FYI, that would be pointless.
Far gone?, no I live in a reality where there isn't this simple black and white situation of their just being good guys and bad guys, Israel has demonstrated on ample occasions it's completely indifferent to killing civilians
So now you limit your response to Israel. But no……rubbish….neither the US or Israel would target a girl’s school.
Mozart, the same applies to you. Just because I did not repeat the words “special forces” in one sentence does not mean I changed my position or that i am lying. That is what I meant from the beginning. You know that...
I know you never used the words ‘special forces’ in your second posting because ‘precise military strike’ is sufficiently vague to make it seem less silly.
You have nothing useful to contribute….just decrying casualties caused by the US, while ignoring Iranian attacks on civilians which are completely intended. Your solution has been tried for 45 years with no results.
I appear to have overestimated the number of people who would want to have the current government or a clerical government, versus a democracy.
However, Syria overthrow their ruler, and the improvement is nowhere near a Democracy. It still seems like lots of intolerant factions that will lead to war.
So now you limit your response to Israel. But no……rubbish….neither the US or Israel would target a girl’s school.
Rubbish?, where you paying attention at all during the Gaza conflict, take the incident with the Red Cross Ambulances that where attacked one by one, did Israel accidentally crush the ambulances before burying them in the sand? When the bodies where recovered showing signs of deliberate execution and that several of the bodies showed signs of the hands and feet being restrained, was that an accident on Israel part?
You either have to be incredibly naive or incredible biased not to be able to see what the present Israeli government is and what they capable of.
Your solution has been tried for 45 years with no results.
You're lying to yourself and you know it.
However, Syria overthrow their ruler, and the improvement is nowhere near a Democracy. It still seems like lots of intolerant factions that will lead to war.
Yeah it's an improvement but it's too early to tell how it will go in Syria overall but I don't think anyone was really expecting a full democracy.
Rubbish?, where you paying attention at all during the Gaza conflict, take the incident with the Red Cross Ambulances that where attacked one by one, did Israel accidentally crush the ambulances before burying them in the sand? When the bodies where recovered showing signs of deliberate execution and that several of the bodies showed signs of the hands and feet being restrained, was that an accident on Israel part?
You either have to be incredibly naive or incredible biased not to be able to see what the present Israeli government is and what they capable of.
Never proven. Israel claims Hamas was using vehicles marked as ambulances as cover.
And targeting missiles in a joint operation with the US is a very different situation. Targeting is specific and embarrassing the ally that keeps you in existence isn’t smart. Regardless I don’t believe Israel will ever deliberately target a girls’ school.
You're lying to yourself and you know it.
‘
All negotiations with Iran achieved was delay enrichment by 9 months and provide Iran with the means to accelerate its missile program…..and you know it,
Is everybody pretty much on the same page on this one?
Yeah, I know some hate everything that Trump does.
But does everyone agree that, in principle at least, removing the Iranian regime and allowing the majority in Iran to decide what their future looks like is better for them and for the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East, than what has been the case until now?
Trouble is I don’t think it can be done without the Iranian army capitulating and that’s not likely without a ground force invasion, which America doesn’t want after Iraq and Afghanistan. So my prescription would be a withdrawal of negotiations until there is an offer to hold UN monitored elections. In the meantime we should allow the Israelis to wipe out Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hamas is already compromised.
We should also declare a no fly zone over Iran and ban any form of military activity and ordinance manufacture….to be taken out from the air wherever discovered. Leave the army in place but neuter them. So they have a choice, be part of the modern world or be an 18th century religious relic.
Never proven. Israel claims Hamas was using vehicles marked as ambulances as cover.
Isn't that convenient. You can hide behind the fact that no one is in a position to hold Israel to account as a get out of jail free card.
And targeting missiles in a joint operation with the US is a very different situation. Targeting is specific and embarrassing the ally that keeps you in existence isn’t smart. Regardless I don’t believe Israel will ever deliberately target a girls’ school.
It doesn't matter if it's embarrassing, America will do nothing more than to cover for Israel or offer a mild rebuke before going back to supplying them with bombs.
All negotiations with Iran achieved was delay enrichment by 9 months and provide Iran with the means to accelerate its missile program…..and you know it,
Iran and the US had a deal, Iran honoured it, the US broke it. I have corrected you multiple times on this, saying negotiation's have been tried for 45 years without a result is a lie plain and simple.
Isn't that convenient. You can hide behind the fact that no one is in a position to hold Israel to account as a get out of jail free card.
Not every country blows up horses in public parks or old men in boats…..those who live in glass terrorist houses.
Iran and the US had a deal, Iran honoured it, the US broke it. I have corrected you multiple times on this, saying negotiation's have been tried for 45 years without a result is a lie plain and simple.
And I have explained to you many times that was Obama trying to register one foreign policy win….lipstick on the pig…it wasn’t a deal that weakened Iran’s ability to make a bomb, it enhanced it by freeing up substantial resources.
Negotiations have been tried for 45 years without any progress in weaning Iran from it’s goals….there, are you happy now?
But does everyone agree that, in principle at least, removing the Iranian regime and allowing the majority in Iran to decide what their future looks like is better for them and for the rest of the world, particularly the Middle East, than what has been the case until now?
If only it was free lunch.
All the same things that your saying now could have been applied to Iraq and look how that turned out
I'm pretty sure before this the Trump supporters were like Iraq was a bad idea, it was stupid, I wasn't in favour of the Iraq War, now like a switch has been flicked, Iraq has been collectively erased from their memories and their all in on another war for regime change in the middle east.
"I'm pretty sure before this the Trump supporters where like Iraq was a bad idea, it was stupid, I wasn't in favour of the Iraq War, now like a switch has been flicked, Iraq has been collectively erased from their memories and their all in on another war for regime change in the middle east."
Exactly.
I'm pretty sure before this the Trump supporters where like Iraq was a bad idea
Hahaha….you sound like an American teenage girl…..like you could really fit in, get yourself a valid visa.
It's a valid point though, Mozart.
Iraq didn't turn out that well and it was on a similar very flimsy premise.
What do you think about Bozo's evacuation "plans" for Americans living in the Middle East . . . bearing in mind he's known about this attack for some time now? Seriously, I'm interested to know. Is there no outrage there in the US at the complete lack of foresight regarding American citizens in the Middle East?
Not every country blows up horses in public parks or old men in boats…..those who live in glass terrorist houses.
You need a new deflection, this one is worn out at this point.
And I have explained to you many times that was Obama trying to register one foreign policy win….lipstick on the pig…it wasn’t a deal that weakened Iran’s ability to make a bomb, it enhanced it by freeing up substantial resources.
No it didn't enhance it, it puts limit's on Iran enrichment levels, a reduction in the number of the centrifuges it operated, reduction in enrichment-uranium stockpile level to a fraction of its previous levels, conversion's of one it's reactor to a type that could not produce weapon grade plutonium and it allowed IAEA inspectors access to monitor compliance.
Iran complied with the term of the deal and had it run it's full course it might have led to trust increasing between the two sides allowing for future better deals. Trump killed it purely out of spite for Obama.
Negotiations have been tried for 45 years without any progress in weaning Iran from it’s goals….there, are you happy now?
Which is what exactly?