Best Of

I agree with Morris Dancer's earlier comment: would we be so keen to mock a politician or a subset of the electorate who believe in a god (or local equivalent)? Because I don't see any functional difference between believing in ghosts or believing in a god.

I believe in not mocking people.

This is my take.

We shouldn't mock people for sincerely held beliefs that do no harm. Belief in ghosts is valid and cannot be disproven. As with God and any number of other things. Mocking the beliefs is unkind and marginalises people. I don't believe in any of the above, but that's neither here not there.

However, I do think there's something to be said about people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. A Christian or Muslim or Hindu mocking someone who believes in ghosts deserves to have their own ludicrous belief system mocked in equal measure.

Fox News, so who knows ?

https://x.com/TreyYingst/status/1933493841392177570
On the strikes against IRGC Air Force leadership: Israel tricked the top command of Iran’s air force into a meeting and then kept them there, I’m told by an Israeli security official.

“We did specific activities to help us understand things about them and then used that information to make them act in a specific way,” the official said. “We knew this would make them meet, but more importantly we knew how to keep them there.

All these stories we hear about the Israelis don't make them sound very nice do they? I wonder how the Western world would react if the Iranians had out of the blue sent war planes over and killed several Israeli scientists and their families? The US and UK would go bananas

Iranians risking their own lives, instead of using poorer proxies such as Palestinians, Houthis, Syrians or Lebanese? Don't be stupid.

NB. That Spectator story that claimed that 4% of young women in the UK are on OnlyFans: it seems to be total bollocks.

https://x.com/ScottGoetz_/status/1933099350592491987

The 280,000 figure appears to be sourced from this entirely anonymous Google Spreadsheet labelled “Enterprise Statistics” which is high in the search results if you search for “OnlyFans statistics”: https://simplebeen.com/onlyfans-statistics/

If you dig into that spreadsheet you’ll discover that the 280,000 figure for the UK is marked in Grey which means (see the Documentazione tab on the spreadsheet) that the source for that figure is ... wait for it ... ChatGPT.

So the Spectator splashed a story on the front page where the source turns out ultimately to be ChatGPT. Shocking failure all round: Do they not fact check anything?

It is amusing to me how some of our sites most ardent Labour/Tony Blair supporters are vicious critics of what Israel is doing with regards to Iran. The rank hypocrisy absolutely stinks.

Regardless of what you think of the wisdom of the Iraq war in hindsight, when it comes to legitimacy, comparing the two side-by-side is instructive.

We claimed the right to invade Iraq due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (non-nuclear)
Israel claims the right to bomb (not invade) Iran due to self-defence due to their seeking WMDs (nuclear).

Iraq had not attacked the UK, either directly or indirectly.
Iran has repeatedly attacked Israel, both directly and indirectly.

Iraq was not seeking the destruction of the UK.
Iran is seeking the destruction of Israel.

We claimed due to some controversial evidence that Iraq was seeking non-nuclear WMDs (which in hindsight was wrong).
There is uncontroversial evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear WMDs.

Regardless of what you think of Israel in general, or the war in Iraq in hindsight, as far as legitimate claims to self-defence go . . . the Israeli claims of self-defence here are a million times stronger than anything Blair could claim.

As far as I'm concerned, Israel bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, killing top generals and nuclear scientists, is fine. Israel has shown that it can carry out well-targeted strikes against those who threaten it, whilst keeping civilian casualties to a minimum.

Unfortunately, that is the opposite of what it's doing in Gaza. My conclusion is that if large numbers of civilians are being killed there, it's because the IDF wants to kill them.

Netanyahu calling for regime change in Iran. Good!

During the address, he said that Israel's fight is not with the Iranian people, but against Iran's leadership.

He listed Iranian targets that have been hit by Israel, including military and nuclear sites, and adds: "More is on the way. The regime does not know what hit them, or what will hit them. It has never been weaker.

"This is your opportunity to stand up and let your voices be heard," he tells the Iranian people.

He reiterates that Israel's objective is to thwart what he describes as Iran's nuclear and missile "threat".

"As we achieve our objective, we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom," he says, adding: "The time has come for the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime.

Regime change, unless you - or some other army - is prepared to occupy the enemy country, is a complete red herring. Good though the end of the Iranian regime would be, I find it odd that it is dominating the discourse so much, since there is no army willing and able to occupy Iran.

If the population can be inspired to rise up, that could be enough.

When has that ever happened before?

It hasn't. It's a complete red herring. It's not going to happen.

The nearest example would be the uprising against Saddam in the 1990-91 Gulf War - but in that conflict a large portion of the Iraqi army was engaged and and destroyed in a ground war, which resulted in the defeat of the Iraqi army and its ejection from occupied Kuwait.

Where is Israel going to fight Iranian army forces on the ground to produce a similar level of defeat?

The possibility of regime change is not a justification for Israel's attack (though it may be justifiable on other grounds). It's a red herring. It's irrelevant to the matter at hand.