Military Strikes on Iran Imminent
- Thread starter PalmettoTiger1
- Start date
You’d think, but nah. Orange man bully. Same bullsh!!t from our resident limps that we heard with Maduro operation
There are some protests. It's not widespread and they are currently being drowned out by the Iranian rallies to appreciate President Trump.
Where are the protests?
I am mainly just tired of the dichotomy of “you support these actions 100% OR you like love Iran and the Ayatollah”. It’s ridiculous. I can be against getting in the middle of another Middle East quagmire and not be pro-Iran.
Just lamenting the loss of nuance I guess. But I really haven’t seen a single protest, especially for Iran or anything, just people disagreeing with certain actions or justifications, lack of congressional involvement etc.
This is ******* heartbreaking
~160 kids killed in a bombing at a school
~160 kids killed in a bombing at a school
There is no nuance. TDS is real and a lot of the far left has lost it literally. I'm not saying you are that way of course.
Not really. I was 18-19 and in college. I was probably partying or slipping out of some dorm in the horseshoe.
But I can look at the total air dominance, total sea dominance, complete elimination of several layers of leadership, zero aircraft shot down by Iran, etc and confidently say this is a special kind of asskicking.
And it couldn’t happen to a more deserving group. The most evil major country leadership in the world. Huge funders of terrorism. Oppressors of women. A country living in fear of terrorist leadership, desperate to be free.
The world will be a better place because of this. We should all be celebrating like the Iranians and Persians are.
Great sentiment, TG. Too bad Trump himself won't pay heed to it. His DOJ makes conservative complaints about Biden's DOJ look hilariously quaint.
I'm not so sure about that. Judaism seems to be a bit wishy washy when it comes to both Heaven and Hell. Viz.:
Judaism does recognize concepts of an afterlife, traditionally termed Olam Ha-Ba (the World to Come), but it differs significantly from popular, eternal heaven/hell narratives. It emphasizes life on Earth, viewing the afterlife as a temporary, spiritual, and corrective process rather than eternal punishment.
Key aspects of the Jewish afterlife include:
- Gan Eden (Heaven): Considered a place of spiritual pleasure and closeness to God where the soul is refined.
- Gehinnom (Hell/Purgatory): Not a place of eternal damnation, but a temporary, rehabilitative period—usually lasting up to 12 months—where the soul is cleansed of sins and reflects on past actions.
- Focus on Action: Beliefs are less focused on dogma and more on how one lives; Judaism focuses on moral actions (mitzvot) over specific, rigid afterlife expectations.
- Diverse Views: Beliefs range from literal, traditional interpretations of reward/punishment to more mystical and modern interpretations, where heaven and hell are viewed as present, internal states of mind.
Attachments
-
1772687517345.png -
1772687517384.png
Here's something.
#OPINION: China’s propaganda machine went into overdrive as the first U.S. and Israeli missiles started hitting Iranian targets early Saturday. In fact, China’s foreign influence operators started organizing marches in U.S. cities 10 minutes before President Donald Trump announced the operation.
The reaction involved such interest groups with ties to China as the People’s Forum, the ANSWER Coalition, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, CodePink, and, yes, the Democratic Socialists of America (which has begun to co-brand with the PSL), to name only a few. All swung into organizing street mayhem or at least condemning the attacks.
STORY: trib.al/svneoUp
THE DONROE DOCTRINE JUST WENT LIVE AND IT’S A ******* MASTERCLASS IN LETHAL AMERICAN SUPREMACY.
While the world was hypnotized by bombs and headlines, President Trump dropped the hammer:
Effective IMMEDIATELY, the U.S. Development Finance Corporation is underwriting cheap political risk insurance for EVERY maritime trade route through the Persian Gulf...energy first, no exceptions.
Navy escorts through the Strait of Hormuz on standby. Free flow of oil secured by American guns, American capital, American will.
This isn’t “diplomacy".
This is the Donroe Doctrine...Trump’s iron-fisted evolution of the Monroe Doctrine, but projected across the planet’s most critical chokepoint.
No more foreign powers...Chinese proxies, Iranian fanatics, or London parasites...dictating terms in America’s economic sphere.
The Gulf isn’t their playground.
It’s our leverage.
GEOPOLITICAL KILL-SHOT BREAKDOWN:
I. China’s oil jugular sliced clean.
Beijing sucks down 90% of Iran’s crude exports...discounted barrels paid in yuan under their pathetic BRICS de-dollarization fantasy.
Hormuz carries the lifeblood of their economy. Disrupt that artery with Houthi/Iranian threats and insurance rates explode?
Trump just nationalized the insurance game.
U.S. guarantees at “reasonable prices” flood the market, Lloyd’s of London...those smug UK globalists who own 40% of marine war-risk coverage...get eviscerated.
China’s 20% oil lifeline? Starved.
Their refineries scramble, their stockpiles burn faster, their “unlimited partnership” with Tehran turns into a noose.
II. Pathology exposed.
The CCP’s entire strategy is built on parasitic dependency...gobble cheap sanctioned oil from failing states, launder it through shadow fleets, fund global chaos...hello, campus riots and proxy militias...while pretending they’re a superpower.
This doctrine reveals the rot:
Xi’s regime is one energy spike away from domestic implosion.
Their people already seethe under zero-growth hell.
Watch the psychological fracture...panic buying, internal purges, the “peaceful rise” lie collapsing as their economy chokes on American terms.
That’s not strategy; that’s the pathology of a paper tiger addicted to other people’s oil.
III. War by other means...pure Sun Tzu with American teeth.
No endless occupations.
No trillion-dollar nation-building. Just precision dominance:
Underwrite the risk, escort the tankers, control the insurance premiums, and pocket billions while adversaries bleed revenue.
Iran’s threats? Neutered.
Houthis? Starved of relevance.
Russia and China’s non-dollar schemes? Dead on arrival...because tankers still need U.S.-backed security to move.
This is hybrid warfare at its apex: military muscle meets economic strangulation, all while restoring U.S. energy leverage and pricing out foreign middlemen.
The old order is pathology incarnate...British insurers profiteering off chaos they can’t fix, Chinese communists weaponizing dependency, Iranian theocrats hiding behind proxies.
Trump sees it. He doesn’t negotiate with weakness.
He exploits it.
Donroe Doctrine in one sentence:
The world’s energy arteries run through American-controlled waters now...or they don’t run at all.
China is reeling. The UK is sidelined. Iran is isolated. America is back...ferocious, lethal, and in total control.
This is what winning looks like when a real leader wields power without apology.
Steve Witkoff noted earlier this week that during negotiations with Iran that the regime was "proud" that it evaded "oversight protocols":
“In that first meeting, the Iranian negotiators said to us, with no shame, they controlled 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium and they're aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs.”
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has effectively verified these numbers.
It's also noteworthy that Iran started building its current stockpile of enriched uranium almost immediately after President Biden was sworn into office (check graphic in second post).
This is like listening to golden oldies. All of these same points were made about Iraq and Afghanistan.
Well we kicked their *** too.
You can argue good or bad etc. But it’s clear they got their *** kicked.
Probably some that wake up every morning scrolling through X secretly hoping for some bad news so that they can feel better and maybe get to that failure that the dem leadership is predicting and hoping for.
Killing the hard-line mullahs is the way. Good to see that they are working down the target list. The more successes that we / israel have the better the intel gets.
Kind of like some that wake up every morning scrolling through X secretly hoping for some new propaganda or news of "Dem's bad" so they can feel outraged and maybe get that dopamine rush from the GOP leadership propaganda machine
A mini-rant...
News gathering and news coverage is truly on life support.
We are in the early stages of a massive military action, which I sincerely believe could have decades-long global geopolitica consequences for better or worse. So first and foremost, I'm interested in simple things: just what's going on, and how's it going.
The last two nights, I sat down in the evening and did something I don't often get to do - turn on putative news shows to try to find out. They are completely worthless. Fox and News Nation are quite literally just cheering sections, pretty much just showing an endless loop of three or four trucks getting hit by precision weapons on half the screen, while someone yammers on or they show a press statement by the administration on the other half. But certainly nothing from the administration which seeks to provide a basic explanation of where we are on strategy (other than 15 out of 10). Quite literally, no boots on the ground, pretty much anywhere.
On the other side of the coin, MSN and CNN are obviously the other side of that coin, showing endless loops of US or allied positions being hit or shot at by this or that, and Erin Burnett was simply an unwatchable sob story of people having to wait a few days for air travel. Now I want to give some credit to CNN in that they seem to be trying - Ward is someone I respect for at least always being in theater, Cooper's show featured a not-bad strategic/tactical discussion with a general before I fell asleep, and I understand this am they actually sent a crew into Iran (pursuant to some Iranian granted visa, which I'm sure will be interesting in terms of what they can report on). But they otherwise seem to have very minimal networks of people.
The BBC is surprisingly not that much better, though that may be a simple function of them being "less" of a combatant.
And of course, don't get me started on the Internet and social platforms.
Note, I do recognize that reporting on a war in a repressive country that shuts down the internet presents unique challenges, and there's a natural tendency to default to reporting on stuff you can actually see, which in this case is (i) what's been given to you by the G or (ii) the missiles shot at the regional country where you're located. But man, this is bad. I'm going to guess - though I've not had a chance to test it yet - that al jazeera may actually be the best option here.
News gathering and news coverage is truly on life support.
We are in the early stages of a massive military action, which I sincerely believe could have decades-long global geopolitica consequences for better or worse. So first and foremost, I'm interested in simple things: just what's going on, and how's it going.
The last two nights, I sat down in the evening and did something I don't often get to do - turn on putative news shows to try to find out. They are completely worthless. Fox and News Nation are quite literally just cheering sections, pretty much just showing an endless loop of three or four trucks getting hit by precision weapons on half the screen, while someone yammers on or they show a press statement by the administration on the other half. But certainly nothing from the administration which seeks to provide a basic explanation of where we are on strategy (other than 15 out of 10). Quite literally, no boots on the ground, pretty much anywhere.
On the other side of the coin, MSN and CNN are obviously the other side of that coin, showing endless loops of US or allied positions being hit or shot at by this or that, and Erin Burnett was simply an unwatchable sob story of people having to wait a few days for air travel. Now I want to give some credit to CNN in that they seem to be trying - Ward is someone I respect for at least always being in theater, Cooper's show featured a not-bad strategic/tactical discussion with a general before I fell asleep, and I understand this am they actually sent a crew into Iran (pursuant to some Iranian granted visa, which I'm sure will be interesting in terms of what they can report on). But they otherwise seem to have very minimal networks of people.
The BBC is surprisingly not that much better, though that may be a simple function of them being "less" of a combatant.
And of course, don't get me started on the Internet and social platforms.
Note, I do recognize that reporting on a war in a repressive country that shuts down the internet presents unique challenges, and there's a natural tendency to default to reporting on stuff you can actually see, which in this case is (i) what's been given to you by the G or (ii) the missiles shot at the regional country where you're located. But man, this is bad. I'm going to guess - though I've not had a chance to test it yet - that al jazeera may actually be the best option here.
Last edited:
Cable News/Opinion TV gets less "newsy" as the night gets later. You tend to have your best news to opinon ratio, IMO, early in the evening at the traditional 6pm evening news slot. After that it gets more opiniony. However, as you get into prime time evening you tend to get "better" guests or at least more consequential ones, like administration officials.
And the talking heads ... some random general or admiral who isn't involved in the plannning and who may never have had any experience in that theater or dealing with the problem set, shouldnt have his opinions taken as gospel.
Did you listen to the SecWar briefing yesterday? Gen Caine got into "specifics" . He talked about estimates of iran's missle lauch capabilities, talked about volume trends of inbound missile/drones from iran. Talked about air superiority and what that means in a general sense for how we are conducting opns. --
This is what the talking heads listen to, as well as any comments from other admin officials, they watch the same news you do and the figure out what they are going to say when they go on at 8pm. The value that a good military-related talking head (a senior guy or former strategic planner type or instructor) is that within their knowledge experience (which you don't really know) they can read between the lines of what is being said or what is not being said and make some guesses.
EDIT: Yesterday's briefing that i saw was an update from the SecWar. CJCS was there to provide deail and answer questions.
Last edited:
Rarely home to watch the 600, which is probably unamerican in some sense, but I get the idea that they still understand their core mission.
Definitely see a wide range in terms of generals as you note - there are certainly some that are better and more circumspect than others. And of course I certainly recognize the limits of what can be described on CJCS, etc. But even there, the selection discretion in terms of what gets covered by the TH's is...interesting.
Still...crazy to think that many years ago, during the whole Libya Gulf of Sidra "line of death" thing, there were parts of government that were getting their most-real time/on site information by turning on CNN.
Which part is your favorite of the *** kicking? The 165 dead Iranian school girls buried in the rubble of the school we obliterated?
Last edited:
Agree with both of you. Just that this is almost the entire point or goal of social media these days. Both sides have their algorithm aimed at that. Showing you only either the news you want to see or the news or comments that will specifically make you angry. It's infuriating and literally driving the wedge further and further. Everyone is susceptible. I have made a concerted effort to take a moment when I get news that feels "too good to be true" as far as confirming my already pre-conceived notions, and sometimes that research shows me that yes, that person does suck that much, or that person really did that completely redeeming thing. But there are a lot of times where I research and get the full context, or just find out it is completely made up. Challenge everyone to do this. Doesn't mean you'll agree with me and I am always right, just that we should always make sure the context is clear and that whatever it is isn't actually just made up.
You have to triangulate and verify info, but with social media and AI it's really easy to end up consuming multiple "data points' that make somethng seem legit but really what you are getting all comes from a single, or very related sources.
I don't have an x account or facebook.
Donald Trump tweet, 2013: "Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly - not skilled."
Donald Trump tweet, 2013: "I predict that President Obama at some point will attack Iran in order to save face!"
Donald Trump, 2026: "We thought we had a deal, but then they backed out, then they came back and we thought we had a deal and they backed out ... I said 'You can't deal with these people.'"
Donald Trump, 2016: "Regime change is an absolute, proven failure."
“We must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change."
Donald Trump, 2025: “In the end, the so-called ‘nation-builders’ wrecked far more nations than they built ... interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.”
Donald Trump, 2026: "When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations."
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said March 2, "This is not a so-called regime change war, but the regime sure did change and the world is better off for it."
That same day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the U.S. operation’s objective was to block Iran’s weapons access. Yet he also called for new leadership.
"We would love to see this regime be replaced," Rubio said, adding that Trump "would love for the people of Iran to use this as an opportunity to rise up and remove these leaders."
I try EXTREMELY hard to only post articles or things that are verified or data points that are verified. I almost never post social media posts or slanted articles.
Everything else is just hyperbole and/or propaganda
Facebook is just crazy relatives posting obviously insane things. It's harmless, unless you're completely mentally infirm.
Twitter (it'll never be x) is fun. It's like watching a right-wing terrorist training ground in action. You just have to click on a few known nutters (Alex Jones level), and then watch the algorithm do its work ... almost immediately, you're flooded with obviously false/faked up information from right-wing operatives for profit. That Daughtery guy, Eagleman, etc. ... then you sit back and wonder what kind of easily misled buffoon would take this stuff seriously. Just don't click on the comments, because you'll see all the bots going crazy in their broken English mindlessly agreeing with whatever the propagandist has said. The right wing extremists are simple people, easily placated by pictures/memes, so it's very light reading.
But it's an easy way to keep track of what the loons are promoting as their alternate facts.