(03-13-2026, 07:21 PM)Ninurta Wrote: No disrespect meant to the AI, but there is nothing in there that proves the war to be "illegal".

The UN is not a legislative body, however much it wishes it was. It does not exercise legal jurisdiction over anyone at all.

Common Law does not require an actual wound for "self-defense". In other words, I would not have to wait for a man to shoot a hole in me before I am allowed to defend myself. The mere threat of being shot, along with my own sincere belief that he can (has arms) and will (has threatened me with those arms) is enough, legally, for me to neutralize that threat. Iran itself authorized the attacks by ending the negotiations with the claim that they "have 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, and can build 11 nuclear weapons with that". That statement, along with their ongoing ballistic missile production, taken together, are threat enough to justify defense. A prudent man does not wait for an attacker to pull the trigger at him before he neutralizes the threat. If he waits for the trigger pull, he may be too dead thereafter to defend himself.

Constitutional prohibitions likewise do not apply. No war has been declared by anyone. 60 days have not elapsed. So, nothing illegal there, either.

Some of the strikes MAY be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. We do not know yet, as no evidence either way has been presented. While the Geneva Conventions do prohibit strikes on civilian targets, those same conventions make allowances for strikes on civilian targets being employed as military infrastructure. For example, a hospital or school or religious structure that is currently being used as a military staging area or depot is a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions, because it has, at that point, been converted from a civilian target to a military target.

So, a bold claim of  "illegal war" is not a a statement of fact, it is a statement of speculation being masqueraded as a statement of fact. There is a name for those sorts of statements that escapes me at the moment...

FWIW, the Nuremberg Trials were factually illegal under "international law" for lack of jurisdiction, but I've never heard anyone complain about that.

Right or wrong, people will try to bend "law" to mean whatever they want it to mean, and in doing so will frequently bend it right out of the bounds of actual law in their efforts. It's not a "Left" or "Right" thing, it's just a "people" thing. That's why we have courts - to take that determination out of the hands of the individual, and put it into the hands of a supposedly disinterested "third party" of competent jurisdiction. It's not a perfect system, and the "third parties" sometimes display a startling lack of impartiality, but it's still the best system we've got.

=====================

ETA: regarding the Constitutional requirement for congress to declare war, that is true so far as it goes. However, Congress has not declared a war since WW II, yet we've had quite a few, and sometimes lengthy, military actions since then, none of them declared by Congress. Truman did it (Korea), JFK did it, LBJ did it, Nixon presided over and ended the same one the previous two presidents ran with (Vietnam), even Milquetoast Carter did it with his half-assed and failed  "attack" meant to spring the hostages in Iran, Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Clinton did it, Bush II did it, Obama did it, and Biden did it. Most of those actions were never questioned... but now, it's Trump, so now we have claims of an "illegal" war. The sole intent of those claims can only be to "muddy the waters",since nothing has been adjudicated anywhere in a competent court of law. "Illegal war" as a claimed statement of fact is premature.

Regarding the empty, hollow term "war of aggression", can anyone name for me a WAR that was NOT aggressive? If war isn't aggressive, you're doing it wrong... so, an empty, useless term that is merely an appeal to emotion.

.

(03-16-2026, 04:17 PM)YesItsMe Wrote:

(03-13-2026, 07:21 PM)Ninurta Wrote: No disrespect meant to the AI, but there is nothing in there that proves the war to be "illegal".

The UN is not a legislative body, however much it wishes it was. It does not exercise legal jurisdiction over anyone at all.

Common Law does not require an actual wound for "self-defense". In other words, I would not have to wait for a man to shoot a hole in me before I am allowed to defend myself. The mere threat of being shot, along with my own sincere belief that he can (has arms) and will (has threatened me with those arms) is enough, legally, for me to neutralize that threat. Iran itself authorized the attacks by ending the negotiations with the claim that they "have 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, and can build 11 nuclear weapons with that". That statement, along with their ongoing ballistic missile production, taken together, are threat enough to justify defense. A prudent man does not wait for an attacker to pull the trigger at him before he neutralizes the threat. If he waits for the trigger pull, he may be too dead thereafter to defend himself.

Constitutional prohibitions likewise do not apply. No war has been declared by anyone. 60 days have not elapsed. So, nothing illegal there, either.

Some of the strikes MAY be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. We do not know yet, as no evidence either way has been presented. While the Geneva Conventions do prohibit strikes on civilian targets, those same conventions make allowances for strikes on civilian targets being employed as military infrastructure. For example, a hospital or school or religious structure that is currently being used as a military staging area or depot is a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions, because it has, at that point, been converted from a civilian target to a military target.

So, a bold claim of  "illegal war" is not a a statement of fact, it is a statement of speculation being masqueraded as a statement of fact. There is a name for those sorts of statements that escapes me at the moment...

FWIW, the Nuremberg Trials were factually illegal under "international law" for lack of jurisdiction, but I've never heard anyone complain about that.

Right or wrong, people will try to bend "law" to mean whatever they want it to mean, and in doing so will frequently bend it right out of the bounds of actual law in their efforts. It's not a "Left" or "Right" thing, it's just a "people" thing. That's why we have courts - to take that determination out of the hands of the individual, and put it into the hands of a supposedly disinterested "third party" of competent jurisdiction. It's not a perfect system, and the "third parties" sometimes display a startling lack of impartiality, but it's still the best system we've got.

=====================

ETA: regarding the Constitutional requirement for congress to declare war, that is true so far as it goes. However, Congress has not declared a war since WW II, yet we've had quite a few, and sometimes lengthy, military actions since then, none of them declared by Congress. Truman did it (Korea), JFK did it, LBJ did it, Nixon presided over and ended the same one the previous two presidents ran with (Vietnam), even Milquetoast Carter did it with his half-assed and failed  "attack" meant to spring the hostages in Iran, Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Clinton did it, Bush II did it, Obama did it, and Biden did it. Most of those actions were never questioned... but now, it's Trump, so now we have claims of an "illegal" war. The sole intent of those claims can only be to "muddy the waters",since nothing has been adjudicated anywhere in a competent court of law. "Illegal war" as a claimed statement of fact is premature.

Regarding the empty, hollow term "war of aggression", can anyone name for me a WAR that was NOT aggressive? If war isn't aggressive, you're doing it wrong... so, an empty, useless term that is merely an appeal to emotion.

.

I think this needs to be bumped.
I'm still seeing that ridiculous 'illegal war' phrase being used.
This is a good reminder that it's NOT an 'illegal war'.

(03-16-2026, 04:24 PM)quintessentone Wrote:

(03-16-2026, 04:17 PM)YesItsMe Wrote:

(03-13-2026, 07:21 PM)Ninurta Wrote: No disrespect meant to the AI, but there is nothing in there that proves the war to be "illegal".

The UN is not a legislative body, however much it wishes it was. It does not exercise legal jurisdiction over anyone at all.

Common Law does not require an actual wound for "self-defense". In other words, I would not have to wait for a man to shoot a hole in me before I am allowed to defend myself. The mere threat of being shot, along with my own sincere belief that he can (has arms) and will (has threatened me with those arms) is enough, legally, for me to neutralize that threat. Iran itself authorized the attacks by ending the negotiations with the claim that they "have 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, and can build 11 nuclear weapons with that". That statement, along with their ongoing ballistic missile production, taken together, are threat enough to justify defense. A prudent man does not wait for an attacker to pull the trigger at him before he neutralizes the threat. If he waits for the trigger pull, he may be too dead thereafter to defend himself.

Constitutional prohibitions likewise do not apply. No war has been declared by anyone. 60 days have not elapsed. So, nothing illegal there, either.

Some of the strikes MAY be prohibited under the Geneva Conventions. We do not know yet, as no evidence either way has been presented. While the Geneva Conventions do prohibit strikes on civilian targets, those same conventions make allowances for strikes on civilian targets being employed as military infrastructure. For example, a hospital or school or religious structure that is currently being used as a military staging area or depot is a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions, because it has, at that point, been converted from a civilian target to a military target.

So, a bold claim of  "illegal war" is not a a statement of fact, it is a statement of speculation being masqueraded as a statement of fact. There is a name for those sorts of statements that escapes me at the moment...

FWIW, the Nuremberg Trials were factually illegal under "international law" for lack of jurisdiction, but I've never heard anyone complain about that.

Right or wrong, people will try to bend "law" to mean whatever they want it to mean, and in doing so will frequently bend it right out of the bounds of actual law in their efforts. It's not a "Left" or "Right" thing, it's just a "people" thing. That's why we have courts - to take that determination out of the hands of the individual, and put it into the hands of a supposedly disinterested "third party" of competent jurisdiction. It's not a perfect system, and the "third parties" sometimes display a startling lack of impartiality, but it's still the best system we've got.

=====================

ETA: regarding the Constitutional requirement for congress to declare war, that is true so far as it goes. However, Congress has not declared a war since WW II, yet we've had quite a few, and sometimes lengthy, military actions since then, none of them declared by Congress. Truman did it (Korea), JFK did it, LBJ did it, Nixon presided over and ended the same one the previous two presidents ran with (Vietnam), even Milquetoast Carter did it with his half-assed and failed  "attack" meant to spring the hostages in Iran, Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Clinton did it, Bush II did it, Obama did it, and Biden did it. Most of those actions were never questioned... but now, it's Trump, so now we have claims of an "illegal" war. The sole intent of those claims can only be to "muddy the waters",since nothing has been adjudicated anywhere in a competent court of law. "Illegal war" as a claimed statement of fact is premature.

Regarding the empty, hollow term "war of aggression", can anyone name for me a WAR that was NOT aggressive? If war isn't aggressive, you're doing it wrong... so, an empty, useless term that is merely an appeal to emotion.

.

I think this needs to be bumped.
I'm still seeing that ridiculous 'illegal war' phrase being used.
This is a good reminder that it's NOT an 'illegal war'.

Well if Trump's allies say it's an illegal war, then it's an illegal war that will stop them from joining said war, so Trump f**d himself.

(03-16-2026, 11:09 AM)727Sky Wrote: I screwed up as that video about the cease fire is 8 months old !! Sorry I will check better next time !!

I figure the current religious leadership will do everything to stay in power even if they are all that remains of Iran after we bomb the crap out of them..

Quote:Clandestine
@WarClandestine
·
1h
This is an EXTREMELY important clip.

Trump blasts NATO and calls out countries that “we’ve been protecting for 40 years”, for not being eager to assist with the Strait of Hormuz.

We don’t NEED the help, but I think Trump is using this moment to see/show who our true allies are. I think Trump is showing the world how our NATO “allies” provide no benefit to the US. I think Trump is making an example out of NATO, and making the argument as to why we should eventually withdraw from NATO.

This is why the Dems, under Biden in 2023, passed a bill with a provision that prevented the President from unilaterally withdrawing from NATO, without Congressional approval, just in case Trump won 2024 and wanted to leave NATO.

Well Trump won 2024, and here we are.

Quote: Wrote: 
 
The Vigilant Fox



@VigilantFox


Harry Enten devastates CNN viewers when he reveals Democrats have gained NO GROUND on Trump following the war with Iran.

“What we are seeing right now is a president whose approval rating is steady.” “This has NOT been a big deal politically.” “Americans who say they care a lot about the Iranian situation — look at this — it’s just 45%. Just 45% of Americans say they care a lot about the situation going on in Iran.” “So despite all the hubbub, right now we’re talking about less than a majority of Americans who say they care a lot about what’s going on in Iran right now.” “But take a look at Google searches right now because it just sort of reinforces that point. Americans’ Google searches for Iran. Look at this down 84% versus February 28th when of course the current war started in Iran.” “And if you look back on Sunday, you look back yesterday searches for the Academy Awards significantly higher are talking about three, four times as high as searches for Iran in the United States of America.” “I’m just not thinking that this is necessarily going to be the big political mover and shaker that you might expect.” “The president’s overall approval rating is the same. It’s the same. It was 41% before the current war in Iran started, and it is 41% now.” “So despite again, all the hubbub, despite all the critics of the president of the United States, what we are seeing right now is a president whose approval rating is steady. And this has not been a big deal politically.” Headline: The news media are yet again out of touch with the American public.

(03-16-2026, 11:58 PM)The Crying Bunny Wrote: Reports are indicating that Nepo-tollah is a gay.

Will he be throwing himself off a building?

And what's the gender of the 72 virgins?

---

So when gas went above 5 dollars under Biden because "muh climate" and the evil communist left was cool with that, then why are they soiling their Depends when it goes about 3 dollars because of war?

Quote:Amex [NEWS], NEWSGeolocator[size=1] — 8:41 PMMonday, March 16, 2026 at 8:41 PM[/size]

Rubio’s communication to diplomats doesn’t elaborate on the elevated risk of attack from Iran or its proxies, but stresses that a combined approach is the best strategy for offsetting the threat. "We assess that the Iranian regime is more sensitive to collective action than unilateral action, and that joint pressure is more likely to compel behavior change by the regime than unilateral actions alone," the cable says.

Quote:


Clandestine
@WarClandestine

Hear me out.

Trump called out Germany, South Korea, and Japan, for not willing to help with the Strait of Hormuz. What do these nations have in common? They are where we have the largest standing military presence outside the US.

I think Trump is not just setting up a withdrawal from NATO, I think he is setting up a withdrawal of our military presence around the globe, and will eventually begin the process of consolidating US MIL presence to the Western Hemisphere, once we are done with Iran and the war in Ukraine is over.

I think the end goal is normalized relations with Russia and China, and thus the permanent end to the Cold War that never really ended. This is only possible by removing US military presence off of China and Russia’s doorstep, as well as ending Russian/Chinese meddling in our hemisphere, via places like Venezuela and Cuba, which is already happening.

What if the US, Russia, and China, just agreed to stop the espionage, weapons of mass destruction, proxy wars, and meddling in each other’s regions? What if the superpowers were on the same side instead of against each other?

It’s possible, and things seem to be inching in that direction. Russia and China are losing their influence in the Western Hemisphere, and Trump is posturing like he is going to remove our presence in the Eastern Hemisphere.

I think we are witnessing a restructure of the global order, and the global “alliances” as we know them are about to shift dramatically.

(03-17-2026, 12:44 AM)putnam6 Wrote:

(03-16-2026, 11:58 PM)The Crying Bunny Wrote: Reports are indicating that Nepo-tollah is a gay.

Will he be throwing himself off a building?

And what's the gender of the 72 virgins?

So when gas went above 5 dollars under Biden because limate" and the evil communist left was cool with that, then why are they soiling their Depends when it goes about 3 dollars because of wa

Rubio is who I listen to... 

Amex [NEWS], NEWSGeolocator[size=1] — 8:41 PMMonday, March 16, 2026 at 8:41 PM[/size]

Rubio’s communication to diplomats doesn’t elaborate on the elevated risk of attack from Iran or its proxies, but stresses that a combined approach is the best strategy for offsetting the threat. "We assess that the Iranian regime is more sensitive to collective action than unilateral action, and that joint pressure is more likely to compel behavior change by the regime than unilateral actions alone," the cable says.

---

Clandestine always makes you think and go hmmm

Quote:Clandestine
@WarClandestine

Hear me out.

Trump called out Germany, South Korea, and Japan, for not willing to help with the Strait of Hormuz. What do these nations have in common? They are where we have the largest standing military presence outside the US.

I think Trump is not just setting up a withdrawal from NATO, I think he is setting up a withdrawal of our military presence around the globe, and will eventually begin the process of consolidating US MIL presence to the Western Hemisphere, once we are done with Iran and the war in Ukraine is over.

I think the end goal is normalized relations with Russia and China, and thus the permanent end to the Cold War that never really ended. This is only possible by removing US military presence off of China and Russia’s doorstep, as well as ending Russian/Chinese meddling in our hemisphere, via places like Venezuela and Cuba, which is already happening.

What if the US, Russia, and China, just agreed to stop the espionage, weapons of mass destruction, proxy wars, and meddling in each other’s regions? What if the superpowers were on the same side instead of against each other?

It’s possible, and things seem to be inching in that direction. Russia and China are losing their influence in the Western Hemisphere, and Trump is posturing like he is going to remove our presence in the Eastern Hemisphere.

I think we are witnessing a restructure of the global order, and the global “alliances” as we know them are about to shift dramatically.

(03-17-2026, 12:44 AM)putnam6 Wrote:

---

Clandestine always makes you think and go hmmm

Quote:


Clandestine
@WarClandestine

Hear me out.

Trump called out Germany, South Korea, and Japan, for not willing to help with the Strait of Hormuz. What do these nations have in common? They are where we have the largest standing military presence outside the US.

I think Trump is not just setting up a withdrawal from NATO, I think he is setting up a withdrawal of our military presence around the globe, and will eventually begin the process of consolidating US MIL presence to the Western Hemisphere, once we are done with Iran and the war in Ukraine is over.

I think the end goal is normalized relations with Russia and China, and thus the permanent end to the Cold War that never really ended. This is only possible by removing US military presence off of China and Russia’s doorstep, as well as ending Russian/Chinese meddling in our hemisphere, via places like Venezuela and Cuba, which is already happening.

What if the US, Russia, and China, just agreed to stop the espionage, weapons of mass destruction, proxy wars, and meddling in each other’s regions? What if the superpowers were on the same side instead of against each other?

It’s possible, and things seem to be inching in that direction. Russia and China are losing their influence in the Western Hemisphere, and Trump is posturing like he is going to remove our presence in the Eastern Hemisphere.

I think we are witnessing a restructure of the global order, and the global “alliances” as we know them are about to shift dramatically.

(03-17-2026, 01:15 AM)Ninurta Wrote:

(03-17-2026, 12:44 AM)putnam6 Wrote:

---

Clandestine always makes you think and go hmmm

Quote:


Clandestine
@WarClandestine

Hear me out.

Trump called out Germany, South Korea, and Japan, for not willing to help with the Strait of Hormuz. What do these nations have in common? They are where we have the largest standing military presence outside the US.

I think Trump is not just setting up a withdrawal from NATO, I think he is setting up a withdrawal of our military presence around the globe, and will eventually begin the process of consolidating US MIL presence to the Western Hemisphere, once we are done with Iran and the war in Ukraine is over.

I think the end goal is normalized relations with Russia and China, and thus the permanent end to the Cold War that never really ended. This is only possible by removing US military presence off of China and Russia’s doorstep, as well as ending Russian/Chinese meddling in our hemisphere, via places like Venezuela and Cuba, which is already happening.

What if the US, Russia, and China, just agreed to stop the espionage, weapons of mass destruction, proxy wars, and meddling in each other’s regions? What if the superpowers were on the same side instead of against each other?

It’s possible, and things seem to be inching in that direction. Russia and China are losing their influence in the Western Hemisphere, and Trump is posturing like he is going to remove our presence in the Eastern Hemisphere.

I think we are witnessing a restructure of the global order, and the global “alliances” as we know them are about to shift dramatically.

That sounds like a fine idea to me. Get the hell out of NATO (which I've been bitching about ever since the Soviet Union collapsed), and restructure all of our alliances to include only those allies who have proven to be allies. Who needs an "ally" that says "naw, bud, we're siting this out - but you go get 'em, Tiger!"?

Pulling back to the western hemisphere sounds a fine idea to me, too. The world is a mess. Always has been, always will be. I see no reason that the US should have to continually straighten the whole thing out while the rest just skate. Pulling back to just the western hemisphere halves our "responsibilities", and would allow us to concentrate on relationship building within the reach of our own arms rather than having to hug the whole damned planet.

If the eastern hemisphere wants a peaceful back yard, they can get up off their own damned asses and yell at the kids to settle down They've been able to rely on the US to do it for too damned long, and then have the effrontery to bitch about how, when, or why we do it while they just sit on their asses and watch. It'd be good for their blood circulation to have to stir around a bit.

With the Iron Lady at the helm, Japan is capable of holding their own. No particular reason we should keep hanging out there. Same goes for Germany. South Korea has been bitching to get the US out for decades now. The people that is, not necessarily the government. Give 'em what they want. Walk away and don't look back. they're big kids now, they can handle their own crap.

I don't necessarily mean alienate them, though. Maintain cordial relations as they are allowed, maybe some trade too, but there is no particular reason we should be sinking all of our military money into their defense... especially if they don't particularly want that defense.

Just pull back into our own back yard.

(03-17-2026, 01:25 AM)putnam6 Wrote:

(03-17-2026, 01:15 AM)Ninurta Wrote:

(03-17-2026, 12:44 AM)putnam6 Wrote:

---

Clandestine always makes you think and go hmmm

Quote:


Clandestine
@WarClandestine

Hear me out.

Trump called out Germany, South Korea, and Japan, for not willing to help with the Strait of Hormuz. What do these nations have in common? They are where we have the largest standing military presence outside the US.

I think Trump is not just setting up a withdrawal from NATO, I think he is setting up a withdrawal of our military presence around the globe, and will eventually begin the process of consolidating US MIL presence to the Western Hemisphere, once we are done with Iran and the war in Ukraine is over.

I think the end goal is normalized relations with Russia and China, and thus the permanent end to the Cold War that never really ended. This is only possible by removing US military presence off of China and Russia’s doorstep, as well as ending Russian/Chinese meddling in our hemisphere, via places like Venezuela and Cuba, which is already happening.

What if the US, Russia, and China, just agreed to stop the espionage, weapons of mass destruction, proxy wars, and meddling in each other’s regions? What if the superpowers were on the same side instead of against each other?

It’s possible, and things seem to be inching in that direction. Russia and China are losing their influence in the Western Hemisphere, and Trump is posturing like he is going to remove our presence in the Eastern Hemisphere.

I think we are witnessing a restructure of the global order, and the global “alliances” as we know them are about to shift dramatically.

That sounds like a fine idea to me. Get the hell out of NATO (which I've been bitching about ever since the Soviet Union collapsed), and restructure all of our alliances to include only those allies who have proven to be allies. Who needs an "ally" that says "naw, bud, we're siting this out - but you go get 'em, Tiger!"?

Pulling back to the western hemisphere sounds a fine idea to me, too. The world is a mess. Always has been, always will be. I see no reason that the US should have to continually straighten the whole thing out while the rest just skate. Pulling back to just the western hemisphere halves our "responsibilities", and would allow us to concentrate on relationship building within the reach of our own arms rather than having to hug the whole damned planet.

If the eastern hemisphere wants a peaceful back yard, they can get up off their own damned asses and yell at the kids to settle down They've been able to rely on the US to do it for too damned long, and then have the effrontery to bitch about how, when, or why we do it while they just sit on their asses and watch. It'd be good for their blood circulation to have to stir around a bit.

With the Iron Lady at the helm, Japan is capable of holding their own. No particular reason we should keep hanging out there. Same goes for Germany. South Korea has been bitching to get the US out for decades now. The people that is, not necessarily the government. Give 'em what they want. Walk away and don't look back. they're big kids now, they can handle their own crap.

I don't necessarily mean alienate them, though. Maintain cordial relations as they are allowed, maybe some trade too, but there is no particular reason we should be sinking all of our military money into their defense... especially if they don't particularly want that defense.

Just pull back into our own back yard.

100% 

Like the famous early NATO quote If NATO is still here in ten years, NATO failed

For the money Uncle Sam spent on being NATO's muscle, a better education system, no taxes, a base on the moon or Mars

(03-17-2026, 06:50 AM)Bally002 Wrote: Pretty happy with those thoughts.  And stop sending aid overseas to countries that display belligerence. The aid never gets into the mouths that need it. Australian Gov take note..

Bally

(03-17-2026, 01:15 AM)Ninurta Wrote: Just pull back into our own back yard.

.

(03-17-2026, 10:33 AM)727Sky Wrote: another one/two bites the dust

Quote:Iranian Drone Strikes Baghdad’s Al-Rashid Hotel Targeting Floor Housing EU Delegation and European Diplomatic Offices


An Iranian drone struck Baghdad’s Al-Rashid Hotel in Iraq, hitting the floor hosting the EU delegation and several European diplomatic offices. The attack occurred shortly after the EU announced it would not join the war or assist the US in reopening the Strait of Hormuz.

Quote:@MOSSADil
·
6h

IRAN: STRIKE ALL YOU WANT, WE ADAPTED

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf:
“They think they can destroy our facilities with bombers… but they don’t understand — our entire design has changed.”

Translation in plain terms:
Iran is signaling that its military and nuclear infrastructure has been restructured, hardened, or relocated — meaning strikes may not hit what they expect.

This message is now being amplified across Iranian state-linked media like Fars.

Context:
This is part of Iran’s deterrence messaging — projecting resilience after reported strikes and warning that future attacks may be less effective.

Quote:World War 3 Monitor
@AI_Fact_Checker
·
51m
After announcing death of Ali Larijani, Israel has also claimed of killing the commander of the Basij militia, Gholamreza Soleimani, neither of which Iran has commented on or confirmed.
If true, this is a massive blow to Iranian military, having suffered casualties in the war.

(03-17-2026, 08:03 PM)putnam6 Wrote: Its PAST time for Uncle Sam to withdraw from NATO