Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

One enabler of Hamas attacks another – politicalbetting.com

1246

Comments

  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,597
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    A typical Labour voter managed to get onto Question Time yesterday:

    https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1933293124807246206

    "I voted Labour, and if there was an election tomorrow I would still vote Labour, but they would lose and we would be under a Reform government"

    "A government with no plan and no clue what they're doing"

    "Send border force out there, as soon as the dinghies leave French waters we turn them round, send them back.. That's how you smash the gangs"

    "And instead of saying lets build more homes for immigrants, lets have less immigrants for homes"

    The labour minister on that show tried to claim that “most people in the boats are women children and babies”

    He actually said that. Like we can’t all see with our own eyes or read the official data

    It was such a bare faced lie it went far beyond gaslighting. I wonder if he actually believes it in some mad woke parallel universe
    The minister clearly has swallowed the propaganda that they are economic migrants, in which case we would expect women and families on the boats. Instead, as we have previously discussed, they are mainly young men escaping conscription, war or gang war. Setting fire to the Middle East will not help.
    Indeed

    From the Migration Observatory, on arrivals crossing the Channel in small boats in the 12 months up to March 31, 2024:
    • 75 % adult males (aged 18+)
    • 16 % children (under 18)
    • The remaining 9 % are mostly adult females (with a very small “unknown” category)

    It’s quite shocking that a Labour minister can simply come on telly and unashamedly lie to the British people on a really serious matter, and everyone just shrugs. Like this is now normal

    Or maybe I still have a shred of foolish naivety
    Why isn't the media picking up on this?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,924

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 35,597

    Mid Suffolk Green Party
    @MidSuffolkGreen

    Huge congratulations to Dr Agnes Watson on being elected as councillor for Haughley, Stowupland & Wetherden, joining Cllr Janet Pearson in the 23-strong team running Mid Suffolk.

    https://x.com/MidSuffolkGreen/status/1933305545785504221


    64% of vote.

    Reform didn't contest the seat. They might have come 2nd if they had.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,316

    Trump tells ABC that the Israeli attack on Iran "has been excellent" and "there's more to come. A lot more."

    https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1933485818955333640

    I can't think why Ukraine failed to tell the USA about their recent drone incursions into Russia.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,316

    MattW said:

    carnforth said:

    Rogerdamus strikes again:

    https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1933296589344211324

    Darren Jones, lauded here yesterday, claims most boat asylum seekers are women and children. Away with the fairies.

    That looks like a faceplant, which will be extensively used against him. He needs to cap it off - "Sorry, I got it wrong, but our strategy is still correct because ...".
    It's unbelievable that someone could operate at the highest levels of electoral politics and not know the most basic facts about one of the most pressing issues facing the country.
    Are you referring to Jones or Trump?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,615

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Gaddafi.

    There was more in play than just the bombings of course, but bombings played a part.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,797

    kinabalu said:

    Visegrád 24
    @visegrad24
    ·
    3m
    “There's more to come. A lot more,” says Trump tells ABC after calling the Israeli attack on Iran "excellent".

    Bit rich threatening further strikes by another country's military. Must be feeling left out.
    If he wants to take credit, he should be joining in and doing the right thing.

    But he won't. For two reasons.

    1: He wouldn't know the right thing to do if it slapped him in the face.
    2: 🌮
    Are you so naive to believe Israel did this without American help and complicity?

    Deerrrr

    Trump knew. The pentagon knew. They assuredly helped Israel. America doesn’t want a nuclear armed Iran either

    BUT America does not want to be SEEN to be involved. Trump wants plausible deniability
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,310
    tlg86 said:

    Netanyahu needs it to go on longer.

    Israel may have war objectives that require more than 24 hours of airstrikes, but I don't think they have the same incentives to drag out a conflict with Iran as they do in Gaza, and the downsides from a protracted conflict are also greater.

    All the signs so far are that the attacks on Iran are very well targeted and have aimed to cause maximum damage in the minimum amount of time. So it looks like they will intend to be done soon.

    The uncertainty is how Iran respond, particularly if Israel have effectively destroyed their long-range drone and missile capability.
    I think they have one card left to play. Sky News had a Iranian shill on this morning and he said explicitly that they'd bring down the world economy if needed (by blocking the Strait of Hormuz). I note their relations with Saudi have improved. They might deteriorate again should Iran do that.
    Yes. I think HMS Lancaster is currently deployed to the Gulf, and you'd expect her to be involved in that scenario.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,615
    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    I don't often see eye to eye with you, but on this I agree with you 100%.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,668

    MattW said:

    carnforth said:

    Rogerdamus strikes again:

    https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1933296589344211324

    Darren Jones, lauded here yesterday, claims most boat asylum seekers are women and children. Away with the fairies.

    That looks like a faceplant, which will be extensively used against him. He needs to cap it off - "Sorry, I got it wrong, but our strategy is still correct because ...".
    It's unbelievable that someone could operate at the highest levels of electoral politics and not know the most basic facts about one of the most pressing issues facing the country.
    Are you referring to Jones or Trump?
    Jones obviously. He lectures people on the dangers of misinformation but is totally misinformed about one of the central issues of British politics.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,288

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    This last wicket partnership is proving a bit annoying for South Africa, especially after they dropped that catch last night.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/c14xy30d3x4t#Scorecard

    And its still going. Australia were favourites anyway but this a match winning partnership beyond a doubt.

    Finished now but surely Australia out of sight.
    Beyond a doubt? I'm not sure. 281 is a challenging target, but the pitch and the weather have become increasingly docile. You never know.
    (I remember the greatest innings of my youth, when Greenidge scored 200+ for WI as they chased down well over 300 on the final day - I think at Lords, but could have been the Oval. I think they only lost a couple of wickets).
    It was indeed Lords.

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/gordon-greenidge-s-brutal-assault-862451
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,615
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Visegrád 24
    @visegrad24
    ·
    3m
    “There's more to come. A lot more,” says Trump tells ABC after calling the Israeli attack on Iran "excellent".

    Bit rich threatening further strikes by another country's military. Must be feeling left out.
    If he wants to take credit, he should be joining in and doing the right thing.

    But he won't. For two reasons.

    1: He wouldn't know the right thing to do if it slapped him in the face.
    2: 🌮
    Are you so naive to believe Israel did this without American help and complicity?

    Deerrrr

    Trump knew. The pentagon knew. They assuredly helped Israel. America doesn’t want a nuclear armed Iran either

    BUT America does not want to be SEEN to be involved. Trump wants plausible deniability
    I am sure the Americans knew, yes.

    I am equally positive that Mossad and Israeli intelligence and military did the bulk of the legwork, even if the Americans (and us potentially) may have helped a bit behind the scenes.

    I know we helped with shooting down Iran's retaliatory drones for instance.

    Trump wants plausible deniability, agreed. He doesn't get credit therefore.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,688

    kinabalu said:

    Trump tells ABC that the Israeli attack on Iran "has been excellent" and "there's more to come. A lot more."

    https://x.com/disclosetv/status/1933485818955333640

    Has there ever been such a resolute and fearless man in the White House?
    The image of Trump the peacemaker is taking a bit of a hit today.

    It's instructive to compare his reaction to the Israeli attack on Iran with Ukraine's attacks on Russia.
    Indeed. Maybe the Supreme Leader needs to buy a few billion of Trumpcoin or give him a solid gold plane. Oh and tell him what a magnificent man he is.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,924
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Visegrád 24
    @visegrad24
    ·
    3m
    “There's more to come. A lot more,” says Trump tells ABC after calling the Israeli attack on Iran "excellent".

    Bit rich threatening further strikes by another country's military. Must be feeling left out.
    If he wants to take credit, he should be joining in and doing the right thing.

    But he won't. For two reasons.

    1: He wouldn't know the right thing to do if it slapped him in the face.
    2: 🌮
    Are you so naive to believe Israel did this without American help and complicity?

    Deerrrr

    Trump knew. The pentagon knew. They assuredly helped Israel. America doesn’t want a nuclear armed Iran either

    BUT America does not want to be SEEN to be involved. Trump wants plausible deniability
    Plausible deniability means having an idea that something is going on, while not knowing the details of what went on.

    But would you trust The Donald with such sensitive information. You wouldn't bet against him announcing it in advance in a press conference for political or, rather, personal gain.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,794
    Call me a pessimist but I am not sure that nuclear powers, soon to be nuclear powers, and wannabe nuclear powers trading blows is on the whole a good thing.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,615
    Leon said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Saddam.
    Nope, there was a land invasion in 2003, remember?
    Yes, but the bombing seems to have almost destroyed the regime first, from what I remember.

    That could have been exaggerated, ofcourse.
    The 'mission accomplished' photo op was certainly ill judged.

    Netanyahu of course was very pro Iraq war. He's a bit gung ho for war in general.
    This is nothing to do with Netanyahu nor with continuing the war on Bibi’s behalf

    Watch the tv drama series Tehran

    Israel will never accept a nuclear armed Iran as it is a mortal threat to the entire Jewish state. As long as Israel is able and willing to do so, it will therefore check Iran before it reaches nuclear armed status. That’s the ethos that underpins Tehran the series, it’s made plain this has been Israel’s stance for decades and will be in the future

    And obvs this amazing attack has been in the planning for many years - like the Hezbollah pager attack. It’s not something Bibi concocted in April on his Tod

    The only reason it is happening now is because this is the right moment for multiple military and geopolitical reasons
    I have to say, I despise Netanyahu as an individual and what he stands for and how corrupt he is, he should be in prison.

    However Israel has had an incredibly successful few years militarily since the failings of 7 October for which Netanyahu and his policy of compliantly encouraging Hamas deserves huge responsibility.

    They've denuded Hamas's leadership, Hezbollah, seen the liberation of Syria, taken steps to secure areas in Syria and now denuding Iran too. The pagers attack was a stroke of bloody genius and so was last night it seems.

    There are some incredibly talented individuals who deserve a lot of praise at the top of Mossad especially. Long may it continue.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,615
    biggles said:

    Call me a pessimist but I am not sure that nuclear powers, soon to be nuclear powers, and wannabe nuclear powers trading blows is on the whole a good thing.

    Call me an optimist but its better for a nuclear power to take out a wannabe nuclear power before they gain nukes rather than after the fact.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,938
    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    My barber is Iranian. Been here since the late seventies. Cracking guy, as gay as Christmas Eve and never been back. Has to meet family in Turkey where they don’t string the gays up on gibbets. He’s rather pleased at this and I suspect a lot of the diaspora is.
  • isamisam Posts: 42,004
    CatMan said:

    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    This last wicket partnership is proving a bit annoying for South Africa, especially after they dropped that catch last night.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/c14xy30d3x4t#Scorecard

    And its still going. Australia were favourites anyway but this a match winning partnership beyond a doubt.

    Finished now but surely Australia out of sight.
    Beyond a doubt? I'm not sure. 281 is a challenging target, but the pitch and the weather have become increasingly docile. You never know.
    (I remember the greatest innings of my youth, when Greenidge scored 200+ for WI as they chased down well over 300 on the final day - I think at Lords, but could have been the Oval. I think they only lost a couple of wickets).
    It was indeed Lords.

    https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/gordon-greenidge-s-brutal-assault-862451
    I remember it well. Went to school on Monday morning (or was it Tuesday back then?) expecting England to have finally beaten the West Indies, got home to see they’d pissed up.

    The commentators today made a good point though; this is only a third day pitch, not a fifth, despite it being the fourth innings. Supposedly the best time to bat
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,913
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Yeah.
    Apart from the unending outraged shrieking.

    'In that case they should probably be a bit less worried about describing every unsympathetic word about them as antisemitism or blood libel. That Israel does that endlessly suggests that they're desperate to get sympathy but are just really shit at it.'
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,310
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Visegrád 24
    @visegrad24
    ·
    3m
    “There's more to come. A lot more,” says Trump tells ABC after calling the Israeli attack on Iran "excellent".

    Bit rich threatening further strikes by another country's military. Must be feeling left out.
    If he wants to take credit, he should be joining in and doing the right thing.

    But he won't. For two reasons.

    1: He wouldn't know the right thing to do if it slapped him in the face.
    2: 🌮
    Are you so naive to believe Israel did this without American help and complicity?

    Deerrrr

    Trump knew. The pentagon knew. They assuredly helped Israel. America doesn’t want a nuclear armed Iran either

    BUT America does not want to be SEEN to be involved. Trump wants plausible deniability
    Plausible deniability means having an idea that something is going on, while not knowing the details of what went on.

    But would you trust The Donald with such sensitive information. You wouldn't bet against him announcing it in advance in a press conference for political or, rather, personal gain.
    I would give Trump false information about an attack.

    1. If he leaks it, you don't lose anything, maybe it tricks your adversary.
    2. Trump isn't going to know the difference between true and false information. He doesn't do details like that. But he gets to feel important and on the inside and in the know.

    There's zero upside to giving him the genuine information. What's he going to do, offer useful advice?
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,938
    edited June 13
    Leon said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Saddam.
    Nope, there was a land invasion in 2003, remember?
    Yes, but the bombing seems to have almost destroyed the regime first, from what I remember.

    That could have been exaggerated, ofcourse.
    The 'mission accomplished' photo op was certainly ill judged.

    Netanyahu of course was very pro Iraq war. He's a bit gung ho for war in general.
    This is nothing to do with Netanyahu nor with continuing the war on Bibi’s behalf

    Watch the tv drama series Tehran

    Israel will never accept a nuclear armed Iran as it is a mortal threat to the entire Jewish state. As long as Israel is able and willing to do so, it will therefore check Iran before it reaches nuclear armed status. That’s the ethos that underpins Tehran the series, it’s made plain this has been Israel’s stance for decades and will be in the future

    And obvs this amazing attack has been in the planning for many years - like the Hezbollah pager attack. It’s not something Bibi concocted in April on his Tod

    The only reason it is happening now is because this is the right moment for multiple military and geopolitical reasons
    I have no doubt the Saudis, for all their performative complaints, are delighted.

    I can’t say I have a great deal of time for Bibi or the far right Israeli regime but the pager attack was genius.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,797

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Gaddafi.

    There was more in play than just the bombings of course, but bombings played a part.
    Also Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That is probably the greatest single example of bombing leading to total regime change - in about one week. And this with possibly the most stubborn suicidal regime in human history

    Extreme, but it can work
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,167

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,547

    biggles said:

    Call me a pessimist but I am not sure that nuclear powers, soon to be nuclear powers, and wannabe nuclear powers trading blows is on the whole a good thing.

    Call me an optimist but its better for a nuclear power to take out a wannabe nuclear power before they gain nukes rather than after the fact.
    Russia versus Ukraine?
  • TresTres Posts: 2,869

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,688
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Visegrád 24
    @visegrad24
    ·
    3m
    “There's more to come. A lot more,” says Trump tells ABC after calling the Israeli attack on Iran "excellent".

    Bit rich threatening further strikes by another country's military. Must be feeling left out.
    If he wants to take credit, he should be joining in and doing the right thing.

    But he won't. For two reasons.

    1: He wouldn't know the right thing to do if it slapped him in the face.
    2: 🌮
    Are you so naive to believe Israel did this without American help and complicity?

    Deerrrr

    Trump knew. The pentagon knew. They assuredly helped Israel. America doesn’t want a nuclear armed Iran either

    BUT America does not want to be SEEN to be involved. Trump wants plausible deniability
    If there's an imperative not to appear involved why is he warning about more Israeli strikes to come?

    That has something of a "being involved" feel to it.

    Course he is thick as pigshit so ...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,688
    biggles said:

    Call me a pessimist but I am not sure that nuclear powers, soon to be nuclear powers, and wannabe nuclear powers trading blows is on the whole a good thing.

    It absolutely isn't.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,167
    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    I seem to recall we had bombed Germany rather well by then and the regime did indeed change. What's your point?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,924
    edited June 13

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Yeah.
    Apart from the unending outraged shrieking.

    'In that case they should probably be a bit less worried about describing every unsympathetic word about them as antisemitism or blood libel. That Israel does that endlessly suggests that they're desperate to get sympathy but are just really shit at it.'
    Nah - they are happy to call out what they see as antisemitism or blood libel (although it is usually via Brits - eg Fox, Murray, Hausdorff, Kemp, etc). Why wouldn't they. But the Israelis themselves are not huddled round their laptops wondering how Owen Jones or Theuniondivvie might respond to their latest move.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,938
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Visegrád 24
    @visegrad24
    ·
    3m
    “There's more to come. A lot more,” says Trump tells ABC after calling the Israeli attack on Iran "excellent".

    Bit rich threatening further strikes by another country's military. Must be feeling left out.
    If he wants to take credit, he should be joining in and doing the right thing.

    But he won't. For two reasons.

    1: He wouldn't know the right thing to do if it slapped him in the face.
    2: 🌮
    Are you so naive to believe Israel did this without American help and complicity?

    Deerrrr

    Trump knew. The pentagon knew. They assuredly helped Israel. America doesn’t want a nuclear armed Iran either

    BUT America does not want to be SEEN to be involved. Trump wants plausible deniability
    If there's an imperative not to appear involved why is he warning about more Israeli strikes to come?

    That has something of a "being involved" feel to it.

    Course he is thick as pigshit so ...
    Jesus wept, PB never fails to disappoint. This is now all about Donald Fucking Trump. Nutters.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,039
    Andy_JS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    A typical Labour voter managed to get onto Question Time yesterday:

    https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1933293124807246206

    "I voted Labour, and if there was an election tomorrow I would still vote Labour, but they would lose and we would be under a Reform government"

    "A government with no plan and no clue what they're doing"

    "Send border force out there, as soon as the dinghies leave French waters we turn them round, send them back.. That's how you smash the gangs"

    "And instead of saying lets build more homes for immigrants, lets have less immigrants for homes"

    The labour minister on that show tried to claim that “most people in the boats are women children and babies”

    He actually said that. Like we can’t all see with our own eyes or read the official data

    It was such a bare faced lie it went far beyond gaslighting. I wonder if he actually believes it in some mad woke parallel universe
    The minister clearly has swallowed the propaganda that they are economic migrants, in which case we would expect women and families on the boats. Instead, as we have previously discussed, they are mainly young men escaping conscription, war or gang war. Setting fire to the Middle East will not help.
    Indeed

    From the Migration Observatory, on arrivals crossing the Channel in small boats in the 12 months up to March 31, 2024:
    • 75 % adult males (aged 18+)
    • 16 % children (under 18)
    • The remaining 9 % are mostly adult females (with a very small “unknown” category)

    It’s quite shocking that a Labour minister can simply come on telly and unashamedly lie to the British people on a really serious matter, and everyone just shrugs. Like this is now normal

    Or maybe I still have a shred of foolish naivety
    Why isn't the media picking up on this?
    Because fact checking has been lost, along with actual journalism.

    It's largely been replaced with churnalism - copy & pasta from Twatter, TikTok & Farcebook.

    For example, on the Indian aircrash, journalists are swarming pprune.org, desperate for something to write
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,924

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    LOL yes.

    But I'm sure plenty of PBers would have been on the weekly marches through our nation's cities demanding an end to the awful killing of German soldiers and civilians.

  • TresTres Posts: 2,869

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    I seem to recall we had bombed Germany rather well by then and the regime did indeed change. What's your point?
    Ever heard of the red army, patton, montgomery etc
  • isamisam Posts: 42,004

    MattW said:

    carnforth said:

    Rogerdamus strikes again:

    https://x.com/implausibleblog/status/1933296589344211324

    Darren Jones, lauded here yesterday, claims most boat asylum seekers are women and children. Away with the fairies.

    That looks like a faceplant, which will be extensively used against him. He needs to cap it off - "Sorry, I got it wrong, but our strategy is still correct because ...".
    It's unbelievable that someone could operate at the highest levels of electoral politics and not know the most basic facts about one of the most pressing issues facing the country.
    Someone at Reform or the Conservatives social media should tie this in with Sir Keir’s inability to know what a woman is
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,797
    edited June 13
    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,039
    biggles said:

    Call me a pessimist but I am not sure that nuclear powers, soon to be nuclear powers, and wannabe nuclear powers trading blows is on the whole a good thing.

    Which is why I advocate universal nuclear armament.

    Reintroduction of school CCF will be made more fun with the addition of Davy Crockett.

    Traffic wardens will have Special Weapons Units, to deal with really problematic drivers.

    When Britains go abroad, a large gap will open for them in every crowd.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,615

    biggles said:

    Call me a pessimist but I am not sure that nuclear powers, soon to be nuclear powers, and wannabe nuclear powers trading blows is on the whole a good thing.

    Call me an optimist but its better for a nuclear power to take out a wannabe nuclear power before they gain nukes rather than after the fact.
    Russia versus Ukraine?
    Ukraine are an ex-nuclear power who made the foolish decision to trust Russia and give up their nukes, not a wannabe nuclear power.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 45,688
    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Visegrád 24
    @visegrad24
    ·
    3m
    “There's more to come. A lot more,” says Trump tells ABC after calling the Israeli attack on Iran "excellent".

    Bit rich threatening further strikes by another country's military. Must be feeling left out.
    If he wants to take credit, he should be joining in and doing the right thing.

    But he won't. For two reasons.

    1: He wouldn't know the right thing to do if it slapped him in the face.
    2: 🌮
    Are you so naive to believe Israel did this without American help and complicity?

    Deerrrr

    Trump knew. The pentagon knew. They assuredly helped Israel. America doesn’t want a nuclear armed Iran either

    BUT America does not want to be SEEN to be involved. Trump wants plausible deniability
    If there's an imperative not to appear involved why is he warning about more Israeli strikes to come?

    That has something of a "being involved" feel to it.

    Course he is thick as pigshit so ...
    Jesus wept, PB never fails to disappoint. This is now all about Donald Fucking Trump. Nutters.
    The World Champion of "Everything is all about Donald Trump" is not on PB.

    Least not yet. I wouldn't put it past him if he finds us.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,975

    Russia: “Unprovoked military strikes against a sovereign UN member state, its citizens, peaceful cities, and nuclear energy infrastructure are categorically unacceptable, Hang on, we've been using Iranian drones to murder Ukrainians. If Iran stops providing them (because they'll want to use them to kill Israelis now) then that will affect our ability to kill Ukrainians.”

    Just :lol:

    Fixed it for the Russian government.

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,167
    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,241
    "...they are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse !"
    https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1933474554862600242
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,797
    I’m on a car ferry to Sudoroy


    Why do I enjoy car ferries so much. The smell of diesel and oil when you park in the gunwhales. The climb to the cafes and restaurants with bad overcooked food. The weird little souvenir shops. Choosing your seat to stare pointlessly at the sea
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,668
    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    The economic and industrial cost of trying to defend against the bombers was a substantial factor too.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,167
    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    The economic and industrial cost of trying to defend against the bombers was a substantial factor too.
    Quite. Every 88 involved in air defence of the Reich was not raining down shells on Omaha.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,938
    Reform really are incompetent part 94

    They’d have won both seats here had they not entered too many candidates 😂😂😂😂

    The other parties are equally useless. Especially the NIMBY Lib Dem’s.

    https://x.com/electionmapsuk/status/1933487646074122539?s=61
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,975
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,924
    edited June 13

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    I think the phrase "not even wrong" was formed specifically for posts such as yours.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,615
    Nigelb said:

    "...they are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse !"
    https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1933474554862600242

    'This is by no means a condemnation, or even a mild criticism, of Israel’s action. He knew and approved.'

    WTF!? Why the hell would he condemn or criticise Israel's actions?

    Anyone sane would absolutely approve. A nuclear armed Iran is in nobodies interests.

    Its amusing to see the way some of our regular Israel-critics squirming to avoid acknowledging that rather than giving credit where credit is due.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 24,615

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    No, its less complicated than that.

    Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
    Iran can't be allowed to get nuclear weapons.
    Israel can deal with it.
    Nobody else wants to deal with it.
    Israel have dealt with it.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,913
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Yeah.
    Apart from the unending outraged shrieking.

    'In that case they should probably be a bit less worried about describing every unsympathetic word about them as antisemitism or blood libel. That Israel does that endlessly suggests that they're desperate to get sympathy but are just really shit at it.'
    Nah - they are happy to call out what they see as antisemitism or blood libel (although it is usually via Brits - eg Fox, Murray, Hausdorff, Kemp, etc). Why wouldn't they. But the Israelis themselves are not huddled round their laptops wondering how Owen Jones or Theuniondivvie might respond to their latest move.
    Yep, with their yellow stars and their tiny paper shredders Israel saves 'they're not giving a shit' for the big stage like the UN. They could probably enter these kind of histrionics for the Turner if they weren't so ridiculous and unselfaware.


  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,797

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Yes quite. There is some weird determination to assert that “bombing made no difference”. Is it a kind of political correctness for military historians? I just don’t get it, because it’s obviously wrong

    If you bomb a country into ruins that will lead, in part or in total, to its defeat

    The argument against bombing is like saying “you can only knock a man out with a direct punch to the face, uppercuts have no effect”

    That may (or may not) be technically true but if you continuously uppercut your opponent smashing his brains against the top of his skull so he becomes cognitively damaged and has blood squirting through his eyes, then he is going to be rather less able to defend himself against the knockout blow
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,913
    edited June 13
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Yes quite. There is some weird determination to assert that “bombing made no difference”. Is it a kind of political correctness for military historians? I just don’t get it, because it’s obviously wrong

    If you bomb a country into ruins that will lead, in part or in total, to its defeat

    The argument against bombing is like saying “you can only knock a man out with a direct punch to the face, uppercuts have no effect”

    That may (or may not) be technically true but if you continuously uppercut your opponent smashing his brains against the top of his skull so he becomes cognitively damaged and has blood squirting through his eyes, then he is going to be rather less able to defend himself against the knockout blow
    It may have made a difference by soaking up miltary resources but it didn't break the German civilian spirit which was what Harris and others predicted. Of course there's a school of thought that on a more atavistic level Harris just wanted to kill Germans, but he got an awful lot of his 'boys' killed as well.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,797

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    You think Bibi cooked this up over the weekend? After looking at his polling?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 11,668
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Yes quite. There is some weird determination to assert that “bombing made no difference”. Is it a kind of political correctness for military historians? I just don’t get it, because it’s obviously wrong

    If you bomb a country into ruins that will lead, in part or in total, to its defeat

    The argument against bombing is like saying “you can only knock a man out with a direct punch to the face, uppercuts have no effect”

    That may (or may not) be technically true but if you continuously uppercut your opponent smashing his brains against the top of his skull so he becomes cognitively damaged and has blood squirting through his eyes, then he is going to be rather less able to defend himself against the knockout blow
    In part I think it's because the inter-war RAF (and the French Air Force) strategy was that long range bombing would be a war winner, and the actual outcome in the first years of the war was very much otherwise. It was only much later with numbers, better tech, etc that it started working and then achieved the fairly big part that as you say it achieved.


  • TazTaz Posts: 18,938
    I think this is the right line of attack for Labour.

    If Reform want to be taken seriously they need to be honest as to how they’d fund their
    Plans

    https://x.com/lukepollard/status/1933263224637366775?s=61
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,241
    Leon said:

    Jesus F Christ


    They are STILL DOING IT

    “South Korea Lab Makes Bird Flu 100% Lethal In Mammals: 'Virology Journal'”

    “Classic Gain of Function Research…”

    https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1933182540145184997?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    Why? WHY? Who benefits from this? Five years after Wuhan and they’re still making new viruses that can kill humanity

    As usual, zerohedge talking shit.

    The virus in question isn't "newly created" - it's a wild virus, already circulating worldwide.
    A single mammalian cross infection is all that's required to mutate it. Which is already ongoing in the wild.

    Immediate PB2-E627K amino acid substitution after single infection of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b in mice

    https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-025-02811-w
    The highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b has rapidly disseminated globally, with mammalian infections reported in multiple species. Recent evidence of mammal-to-mammal transmission has heightened concerns about the virus’s potential adaptation to mammals. The polymerase basic 2 (PB2) protein E627K mutation appears to be of key importance for mammalian adaptation. We isolated an HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus from wild birds in Korea with 96% E and 4% K at amino acid position 627 of PB2. To investigate the genomic characteristics of this clade regarding mammalian adaptation, we studied the replication and transmission of the H5N1 virus in mice. Two experiments with different challenge-to-contact ratios were conducted to assess transmission dynamics and mutation development. In experiment 1, a 4:1 challenge-to-contact ratio resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection. In experiment 2, a 1:1 ratio yielded 50% transmission, with all challenged mice also succumbing. High viral loads were observed in the lungs and brains in both experiments, with viral titers increasing over time. Notably, the PB2-E627K variant, initially present at 4% in the virus stock, was selected and reached near-fixation (~ 100%) in the lungs and brains by 6 days post-challenge and was subsequently transmitted. No other mammalian-adaptive mutations were identified, emphasizing the pivotal role of PB2-E627K in early stages of mammalian adaptation. These findings highlight the need for continuous genomic monitoring to detect mammalian adaptation markers and assess interspecies transmission risks...
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,938

    Nigelb said:

    "...they are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse !"
    https://x.com/michaeldweiss/status/1933474554862600242

    'This is by no means a condemnation, or even a mild criticism, of Israel’s action. He knew and approved.'

    WTF!? Why the hell would he condemn or criticise Israel's actions?

    Anyone sane would absolutely approve. A nuclear armed Iran is in nobodies interests.

    Its amusing to see the way some of our regular Israel-critics squirming to avoid acknowledging that rather than giving credit where credit is due.
    How dare people criticise Israel

    They’re above criticism

    Have you got your crusty sock in the wash 🤔
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,924

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Yeah.
    Apart from the unending outraged shrieking.

    'In that case they should probably be a bit less worried about describing every unsympathetic word about them as antisemitism or blood libel. That Israel does that endlessly suggests that they're desperate to get sympathy but are just really shit at it.'
    Nah - they are happy to call out what they see as antisemitism or blood libel (although it is usually via Brits - eg Fox, Murray, Hausdorff, Kemp, etc). Why wouldn't they. But the Israelis themselves are not huddled round their laptops wondering how Owen Jones or Theuniondivvie might respond to their latest move.
    Yep, with their yellow stars and their tiny paper shredders Israel saves 'they're not giving a shit' for the big stage like the UN. They could probably enter these kind of histrionics for the Turner if they weren't so ridiculous and unselfaware.


    You seem strangely obsessed with it all.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,794
    edited June 13

    biggles said:

    Call me a pessimist but I am not sure that nuclear powers, soon to be nuclear powers, and wannabe nuclear powers trading blows is on the whole a good thing.

    Which is why I advocate universal nuclear armament.

    Reintroduction of school CCF will be made more fun with the addition of Davy Crockett.

    Traffic wardens will have Special Weapons Units, to deal with really problematic drivers.

    When Britains go abroad, a large gap will open for them in every crowd.
    This a close cousin to my theory that a £100Bn influence campaign to convince people we had a well funded nuclear triad would be even more effective than actually having Trident.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,938
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus F Christ


    They are STILL DOING IT

    “South Korea Lab Makes Bird Flu 100% Lethal In Mammals: 'Virology Journal'”

    “Classic Gain of Function Research…”

    https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1933182540145184997?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    Why? WHY? Who benefits from this? Five years after Wuhan and they’re still making new viruses that can kill humanity

    As usual, zerohedge talking shit.

    The virus in question isn't "newly created" - it's a wild virus, already circulating worldwide.
    A single mammalian cross infection is all that's required to mutate it. Which is already ongoing in the wild.

    Immediate PB2-E627K amino acid substitution after single infection of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b in mice

    https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-025-02811-w
    The highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b has rapidly disseminated globally, with mammalian infections reported in multiple species. Recent evidence of mammal-to-mammal transmission has heightened concerns about the virus’s potential adaptation to mammals. The polymerase basic 2 (PB2) protein E627K mutation appears to be of key importance for mammalian adaptation. We isolated an HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus from wild birds in Korea with 96% E and 4% K at amino acid position 627 of PB2. To investigate the genomic characteristics of this clade regarding mammalian adaptation, we studied the replication and transmission of the H5N1 virus in mice. Two experiments with different challenge-to-contact ratios were conducted to assess transmission dynamics and mutation development. In experiment 1, a 4:1 challenge-to-contact ratio resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection. In experiment 2, a 1:1 ratio yielded 50% transmission, with all challenged mice also succumbing. High viral loads were observed in the lungs and brains in both experiments, with viral titers increasing over time. Notably, the PB2-E627K variant, initially present at 4% in the virus stock, was selected and reached near-fixation (~ 100%) in the lungs and brains by 6 days post-challenge and was subsequently transmitted. No other mammalian-adaptive mutations were identified, emphasizing the pivotal role of PB2-E627K in early stages of mammalian adaptation. These findings highlight the need for continuous genomic monitoring to detect mammalian adaptation markers and assess interspecies transmission risks...
    Blocked these idiots ages ago.
  • TresTres Posts: 2,869
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Yes quite. There is some weird determination to assert that “bombing made no difference”. Is it a kind of political correctness for military historians? I just don’t get it, because it’s obviously wrong

    If you bomb a country into ruins that will lead, in part or in total, to its defeat

    The argument against bombing is like saying “you can only knock a man out with a direct punch to the face, uppercuts have no effect”

    That may (or may not) be technically true but if you continuously uppercut your opponent smashing his brains against the top of his skull so he becomes cognitively damaged and has blood squirting through his eyes, then he is going to be rather less able to defend himself against the knockout blow
    Never change PB. Using bombing with invasion as an example to prove that bombing on it's own leads to regime change, and then typing several paragraphs of waffle when you point out its nonsense.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,527
    edited June 13

    biggles said:

    Call me a pessimist but I am not sure that nuclear powers, soon to be nuclear powers, and wannabe nuclear powers trading blows is on the whole a good thing.

    Call me an optimist but its better for a nuclear power to take out a wannabe nuclear power before they gain nukes rather than after the fact.
    Iran has also shown it is perfectly happy authorising its proxies to attack Israel for years now, and has recently attacked them directly.

    I think once Iran let loose the missiles back in October it was fairly inevitable Israel would be waiting for a moment to strike. Once the taboo about the two trading direct blows was broken, what’s to say Iran would exercise restraint if it held a nuclear weapon?
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 1,975

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    No, its less complicated than that.

    Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
    Iran can't be allowed to get nuclear weapons.
    Israel can deal with it.
    Nobody else wants to deal with it.
    Israel have dealt with it.
    Then, why now? Iran's been trying for.... who knows how long. Twenty years?
    Why an all out strike now? Why not another surgical strike like they've been doing.

    Today wasn't a surgical strike. They've hit significant non-nuclear targets as well. What does that have to do with stopping a nuclear programme?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,705

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Gaddafi.

    There was more in play than just the bombings of course, but bombings played a part.
    In Libya, and in Germany, bombing played an important part, but there were significant (to say the least) boots on the ground as well.

    I should’ve phrased my question better - apologies. Has bombing alone ever led to regime change? The obvious answer is, of course, Japan 1945 (if we don’t count Okinawa). I don’t see the same overwhelming force lined up against Iran.

    While these Israeli attacks may degrade Iran’s capacities, it seems to me unlikely that they will lead to regime change. In the past, attacks on Iran have strengthened the regime at home.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,527

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    No, its less complicated than that.

    Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
    Iran can't be allowed to get nuclear weapons.
    Israel can deal with it.
    Nobody else wants to deal with it.
    Israel have dealt with it.
    Then, why now? Iran's been trying for.... who knows how long. Twenty years?
    Why an all out strike now? Why not another surgical strike like they've been doing.

    Today wasn't a surgical strike. They've hit significant non-nuclear targets as well. What does that have to do with stopping a nuclear programme?
    Israel doesn’t trust Iran to exercise the restraint to merely fight proxy wars any more. I think that is the big difference.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,547

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    No we had boots on the ground for that one!
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,794

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    No, its less complicated than that.

    Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
    Iran can't be allowed to get nuclear weapons.
    Israel can deal with it.
    Nobody else wants to deal with it.
    Israel have dealt with it.
    You don’t see any potential downsides to an escalating conflict between Israel and Iran that might equal the risks of Iran having a couple of bombs?

    You’re not willing to consider the Iranian perspective (whether or not you agree with it) and why it may want the bomb, and think about ways the West could help it decide not to purse that route via peaceful negotiation?

    Military action of all kinds is messy and painful, and civilians die. You try the other stuff first.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,241
    biggles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    No, its less complicated than that.

    Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
    Iran can't be allowed to get nuclear weapons.
    Israel can deal with it.
    Nobody else wants to deal with it.
    Israel have dealt with it.
    You don’t see any potential downsides to an escalating conflict between Israel and Iran that might equal the risks of Iran having a couple of bombs?

    You’re not willing to consider the Iranian perspective (whether or not you agree with it) and why it may want the bomb, and think about ways the West could help it decide not to purse that route via peaceful negotiation?

    Military action of all kinds is messy and painful, and civilians die. You try the other stuff first.
    What cheerleaders don't seem to be thinking about is the possibility that Iran will still be able to develop a bomb.
    Which is definitely a non zero chance.

    It's a gamble which might pay off; it also might not.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,797
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus F Christ


    They are STILL DOING IT

    “South Korea Lab Makes Bird Flu 100% Lethal In Mammals: 'Virology Journal'”

    “Classic Gain of Function Research…”

    https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1933182540145184997?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    Why? WHY? Who benefits from this? Five years after Wuhan and they’re still making new viruses that can kill humanity

    As usual, zerohedge talking shit.

    The virus in question isn't "newly created" - it's a wild virus, already circulating worldwide.
    A single mammalian cross infection is all that's required to mutate it. Which is already ongoing in the wild.

    Immediate PB2-E627K amino acid substitution after single infection of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b in mice

    https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-025-02811-w
    The highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b has rapidly disseminated globally, with mammalian infections reported in multiple species. Recent evidence of mammal-to-mammal transmission has heightened concerns about the virus’s potential adaptation to mammals. The polymerase basic 2 (PB2) protein E627K mutation appears to be of key importance for mammalian adaptation. We isolated an HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus from wild birds in Korea with 96% E and 4% K at amino acid position 627 of PB2. To investigate the genomic characteristics of this clade regarding mammalian adaptation, we studied the replication and transmission of the H5N1 virus in mice. Two experiments with different challenge-to-contact ratios were conducted to assess transmission dynamics and mutation development. In experiment 1, a 4:1 challenge-to-contact ratio resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection. In experiment 2, a 1:1 ratio yielded 50% transmission, with all challenged mice also succumbing. High viral loads were observed in the lungs and brains in both experiments, with viral titers increasing over time. Notably, the PB2-E627K variant, initially present at 4% in the virus stock, was selected and reached near-fixation (~ 100%) in the lungs and brains by 6 days post-challenge and was subsequently transmitted. No other mammalian-adaptive mutations were identified, emphasizing the pivotal role of PB2-E627K in early stages of mammalian adaptation. These findings highlight the need for continuous genomic monitoring to detect mammalian adaptation markers and assess interspecies transmission risks...
    Are you sure? I asked a virological expert friend…


    “Yes, this study does constitute “gain-of-function” (GoF) research, though it falls into a nuanced and often-debated category of GoF.

    Here’s why:

    ✅ Definition of Gain-of-Function (GoF):

    GoF research refers to experiments that increase the transmissibility, pathogenicity, or host range of a pathogen—especially when it involves pathogens with pandemic potential (like H5N1). The controversial subset is called “potential pandemic pathogen” gain-of-function research (PPP-GoF).



    ✅ What this study did:
    • Used a wild-type H5N1 virus with a known mammalian-adaptive mutation (PB2-E627K) present at 4%.
    • Infected mice, a mammalian model, which led to:
    • Selection and fixation of E627K in vivo.
    • Increased pathogenicity, including neuroinvasion and death.
    • Transmission between mammals, with E627K reaching near-fixation in the transmitted virus.

    Though they did not deliberately insert E627K or other mutations into the genome, the experimental conditions promoted and selected for this mammalian-adaptive mutation, increasing its prevalence and functional impact.”
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,794
    Taz said:

    I think this is the right line of attack for Labour.

    If Reform want to be taken seriously they need to be honest as to how they’d fund their
    Plans

    https://x.com/lukepollard/status/1933263224637366775?s=61

    I am less sure. Aren’t Remain voters exactly the sort of ex-Tory and ex-Labour voters who don’t care about that? They think this country has had enough of experts.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,547

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Max Hastings wrong? Some anonymous dudes called "turbotubbs" and "Leon" are right?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,794
    Nigelb said:

    biggles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    No, its less complicated than that.

    Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
    Iran can't be allowed to get nuclear weapons.
    Israel can deal with it.
    Nobody else wants to deal with it.
    Israel have dealt with it.
    You don’t see any potential downsides to an escalating conflict between Israel and Iran that might equal the risks of Iran having a couple of bombs?

    You’re not willing to consider the Iranian perspective (whether or not you agree with it) and why it may want the bomb, and think about ways the West could help it decide not to purse that route via peaceful negotiation?

    Military action of all kinds is messy and painful, and civilians die. You try the other stuff first.
    What cheerleaders don't seem to be thinking about is the possibility that Iran will still be able to develop a bomb.
    Which is definitely a non zero chance.

    It's a gamble which might pay off; it also might not.
    Or they may already have one, which slipped the net. Or they may have Pakistani mates.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,241
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus F Christ


    They are STILL DOING IT

    “South Korea Lab Makes Bird Flu 100% Lethal In Mammals: 'Virology Journal'”

    “Classic Gain of Function Research…”

    https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1933182540145184997?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    Why? WHY? Who benefits from this? Five years after Wuhan and they’re still making new viruses that can kill humanity

    As usual, zerohedge talking shit.

    The virus in question isn't "newly created" - it's a wild virus, already circulating worldwide.
    A single mammalian cross infection is all that's required to mutate it. Which is already ongoing in the wild.

    Immediate PB2-E627K amino acid substitution after single infection of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b in mice

    https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-025-02811-w
    The highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b has rapidly disseminated globally, with mammalian infections reported in multiple species. Recent evidence of mammal-to-mammal transmission has heightened concerns about the virus’s potential adaptation to mammals. The polymerase basic 2 (PB2) protein E627K mutation appears to be of key importance for mammalian adaptation. We isolated an HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus from wild birds in Korea with 96% E and 4% K at amino acid position 627 of PB2. To investigate the genomic characteristics of this clade regarding mammalian adaptation, we studied the replication and transmission of the H5N1 virus in mice. Two experiments with different challenge-to-contact ratios were conducted to assess transmission dynamics and mutation development. In experiment 1, a 4:1 challenge-to-contact ratio resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection. In experiment 2, a 1:1 ratio yielded 50% transmission, with all challenged mice also succumbing. High viral loads were observed in the lungs and brains in both experiments, with viral titers increasing over time. Notably, the PB2-E627K variant, initially present at 4% in the virus stock, was selected and reached near-fixation (~ 100%) in the lungs and brains by 6 days post-challenge and was subsequently transmitted. No other mammalian-adaptive mutations were identified, emphasizing the pivotal role of PB2-E627K in early stages of mammalian adaptation. These findings highlight the need for continuous genomic monitoring to detect mammalian adaptation markers and assess interspecies transmission risks...
    Are you sure? I asked a virological expert friend…


    “Yes, this study does constitute “gain-of-function” (GoF) research, though it falls into a nuanced and often-debated category of GoF.

    Here’s why:

    ✅ Definition of Gain-of-Function (GoF):

    GoF research refers to experiments that increase the transmissibility, pathogenicity, or host range of a pathogen—especially when it involves pathogens with pandemic potential (like H5N1). The controversial subset is called “potential pandemic pathogen” gain-of-function research (PPP-GoF).



    ✅ What this study did:
    • Used a wild-type H5N1 virus with a known mammalian-adaptive mutation (PB2-E627K) present at 4%.
    • Infected mice, a mammalian model, which led to:
    • Selection and fixation of E627K in vivo.
    • Increased pathogenicity, including neuroinvasion and death.
    • Transmission between mammals, with E627K reaching near-fixation in the transmitted virus.

    Though they did not deliberately insert E627K or other mutations into the genome, the experimental conditions promoted and selected for this mammalian-adaptive mutation, increasing its prevalence and functional impact.”
    If you don't think that exactly this kind of infection is happening constantly in the wild, then you don't understand what you're talking about.

    Labelling it "nuanced gain of function" doesn't alter that.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 43,913
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Yeah.
    Apart from the unending outraged shrieking.

    'In that case they should probably be a bit less worried about describing every unsympathetic word about them as antisemitism or blood libel. That Israel does that endlessly suggests that they're desperate to get sympathy but are just really shit at it.'
    Nah - they are happy to call out what they see as antisemitism or blood libel (although it is usually via Brits - eg Fox, Murray, Hausdorff, Kemp, etc). Why wouldn't they. But the Israelis themselves are not huddled round their laptops wondering how Owen Jones or Theuniondivvie might respond to their latest move.
    Yep, with their yellow stars and their tiny paper shredders Israel saves 'they're not giving a shit' for the big stage like the UN. They could probably enter these kind of histrionics for the Turner if they weren't so ridiculous and unselfaware.


    You seem strangely obsessed with it all.
    I know I can always count on you to be sniffing about any posts on the subject with your tedious ex-military-man-of-the-world-isms. Keep up the good, non-obsessive work.
  • Leon said:

    Yes quite. There is some weird determination to assert that “bombing made no difference”. Is it a kind of political correctness for military historians? I just don’t get it, because it’s obviously wrong

    If you bomb a country into ruins that will lead, in part or in total, to its defeat

    It did make a difference, but initially not enough to justify the enormous resources put into it. If even a quarter of the money, personnel and aircraft used for the bombing offensive pre-1943 had been given to the RN and Coastal Command to fight U-Boats it would have returned far greater benefits.

    The accuracy and effectiveness of bombing was hugely overestimated pre-war. And not just by Britain.

    Once aircraft, navigation aids, bombs and bomb sights improved the bomber offensive did become very powerful. Precision dropping a single Tallboy or Grand Slam on an important industrial or military target could cause far more damage to the German war effort than randomly dropping a few hundred tons of bombs on a city.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,547
    You could argue that the Allied victory in World War One didn't require us to invade officially German territory.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,039
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    You think Bibi cooked this up over the weekend? After looking at his polling?
    The Israeli military has been planning a series of options for strikes on Iran for a long, long time.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,705
    Don’t we have a ban on Leon spamming PB with generative AI output?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,039
    biggles said:

    biggles said:

    Call me a pessimist but I am not sure that nuclear powers, soon to be nuclear powers, and wannabe nuclear powers trading blows is on the whole a good thing.

    Which is why I advocate universal nuclear armament.

    Reintroduction of school CCF will be made more fun with the addition of Davy Crockett.

    Traffic wardens will have Special Weapons Units, to deal with really problematic drivers.

    When Britains go abroad, a large gap will open for them in every crowd.
    This a close cousin to my theory that a £100Bn influence campaign to convince people we had a well funded nuclear triad would be even more effective than actually having Trident.
    More the reverse - "These guys don't just have nukes. They give them to school children and traffic wardens. And use them for generating power on a daily basis. They are fucking nuts."
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 14,705
    biggles said:

    Nigelb said:

    biggles said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    No, its less complicated than that.

    Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
    Iran can't be allowed to get nuclear weapons.
    Israel can deal with it.
    Nobody else wants to deal with it.
    Israel have dealt with it.
    You don’t see any potential downsides to an escalating conflict between Israel and Iran that might equal the risks of Iran having a couple of bombs?

    You’re not willing to consider the Iranian perspective (whether or not you agree with it) and why it may want the bomb, and think about ways the West could help it decide not to purse that route via peaceful negotiation?

    Military action of all kinds is messy and painful, and civilians die. You try the other stuff first.
    What cheerleaders don't seem to be thinking about is the possibility that Iran will still be able to develop a bomb.
    Which is definitely a non zero chance.

    It's a gamble which might pay off; it also might not.
    Or they may already have one, which slipped the net. Or they may have Pakistani mates.
    Iran and Pakistan don’t usually get on.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,167

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Max Hastings wrong? Some anonymous dudes called "turbotubbs" and "Leon" are right?
    I'm allowed to disagree with Hastings. He asserts that the bombing campaign was a failure, partly I think because it didn't win the war without an invasion, as Harris hoped. Yet he ignores the devastating effects on Germany's ability to fight from 1944 onwards. Just as the Germans needed to defeat the RAF in 1940 if they wanted to invade, so the bombing campaign paved the way for D-day. He also ignored the paralysis of Germans rail and transport. For sure we lost nearly 90,000 killed bombing Germany and spent a lot of coin, but how many lives were saved in the army? Unknowable.
  • Don’t we have a ban on Leon spamming PB with generative AI output?

    "Ooh, Sir! Sir! That nasty Leon is posting something that I really, really hope will get him banned!"



  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,167
    edited June 13
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus F Christ


    They are STILL DOING IT

    “South Korea Lab Makes Bird Flu 100% Lethal In Mammals: 'Virology Journal'”

    “Classic Gain of Function Research…”

    https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1933182540145184997?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    Why? WHY? Who benefits from this? Five years after Wuhan and they’re still making new viruses that can kill humanity

    As usual, zerohedge talking shit.

    The virus in question isn't "newly created" - it's a wild virus, already circulating worldwide.
    A single mammalian cross infection is all that's required to mutate it. Which is already ongoing in the wild.

    Immediate PB2-E627K amino acid substitution after single infection of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b in mice

    https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-025-02811-w
    The highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b has rapidly disseminated globally, with mammalian infections reported in multiple species. Recent evidence of mammal-to-mammal transmission has heightened concerns about the virus’s potential adaptation to mammals. The polymerase basic 2 (PB2) protein E627K mutation appears to be of key importance for mammalian adaptation. We isolated an HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus from wild birds in Korea with 96% E and 4% K at amino acid position 627 of PB2. To investigate the genomic characteristics of this clade regarding mammalian adaptation, we studied the replication and transmission of the H5N1 virus in mice. Two experiments with different challenge-to-contact ratios were conducted to assess transmission dynamics and mutation development. In experiment 1, a 4:1 challenge-to-contact ratio resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection. In experiment 2, a 1:1 ratio yielded 50% transmission, with all challenged mice also succumbing. High viral loads were observed in the lungs and brains in both experiments, with viral titers increasing over time. Notably, the PB2-E627K variant, initially present at 4% in the virus stock, was selected and reached near-fixation (~ 100%) in the lungs and brains by 6 days post-challenge and was subsequently transmitted. No other mammalian-adaptive mutations were identified, emphasizing the pivotal role of PB2-E627K in early stages of mammalian adaptation. These findings highlight the need for continuous genomic monitoring to detect mammalian adaptation markers and assess interspecies transmission risks...
    Are you sure? I asked a virological expert friend…


    “Yes, this study does constitute “gain-of-function” (GoF) research, though it falls into a nuanced and often-debated category of GoF.

    Here’s why:

    ✅ Definition of Gain-of-Function (GoF):

    GoF research refers to experiments that increase the transmissibility, pathogenicity, or host range of a pathogen—especially when it involves pathogens with pandemic potential (like H5N1). The controversial subset is called “potential pandemic pathogen” gain-of-function research (PPP-GoF).



    ✅ What this study did:
    • Used a wild-type H5N1 virus with a known mammalian-adaptive mutation (PB2-E627K) present at 4%.
    • Infected mice, a mammalian model, which led to:
    • Selection and fixation of E627K in vivo.
    • Increased pathogenicity, including neuroinvasion and death.
    • Transmission between mammals, with E627K reaching near-fixation in the transmitted virus.

    Though they did not deliberately insert E627K or other mutations into the genome, the experimental conditions promoted and selected for this mammalian-adaptive mutation, increasing its prevalence and functional impact.”
    If you don't think that exactly this kind of infection is happening constantly in the wild, then you don't understand what you're talking about.

    Labelling it "nuanced gain of function" doesn't alter that.
    Gain of function per Leons version of Lab Leak involves genetic tinkering, not simply studying wild type virus behaviour.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,167

    You could argue that the Allied victory in World War One didn't require us to invade officially German territory.

    Arguably if we had, it might have helped avoid the second round
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,547

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Max Hastings wrong? Some anonymous dudes called "turbotubbs" and "Leon" are right?
    I'm allowed to disagree with Hastings. He asserts that the bombing campaign was a failure, partly I think because it didn't win the war without an invasion, as Harris hoped. Yet he ignores the devastating effects on Germany's ability to fight from 1944 onwards. Just as the Germans needed to defeat the RAF in 1940 if they wanted to invade, so the bombing campaign paved the way for D-day. He also ignored the paralysis of Germans rail and transport. For sure we lost nearly 90,000 killed bombing Germany and spent a lot of coin, but how many lives were saved in the army? Unknowable.
    Hitler didn't top himself (ie. regime change occurring - which is how this convo started IIRC?) until the Red Army were within sight of his Bunker.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,547
    edited June 13

    You could argue that the Allied victory in World War One didn't require us to invade officially German territory.

    Arguably if we had, it might have helped avoid the second round
    But the Kaiser abdicated (regime-change occurred) BEFORE the Armistice on 11/11/18.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 55,668

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Max Hastings wrong? Some anonymous dudes called "turbotubbs" and "Leon" are right?
    I'm allowed to disagree with Hastings. He asserts that the bombing campaign was a failure, partly I think because it didn't win the war without an invasion, as Harris hoped. Yet he ignores the devastating effects on Germany's ability to fight from 1944 onwards. Just as the Germans needed to defeat the RAF in 1940 if they wanted to invade, so the bombing campaign paved the way for D-day. He also ignored the paralysis of Germans rail and transport. For sure we lost nearly 90,000 killed bombing Germany and spent a lot of coin, but how many lives were saved in the army? Unknowable.
    Hitler didn't top himself (ie. regime change occurring - which is how this convo started IIRC?) until the Red Army were within sight of his Bunker.
    However people within his regime did try to overthrow him. If they'd succeeded then we'd be having a very different conversation.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,797
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Jesus F Christ


    They are STILL DOING IT

    “South Korea Lab Makes Bird Flu 100% Lethal In Mammals: 'Virology Journal'”

    “Classic Gain of Function Research…”

    https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1933182540145184997?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    Why? WHY? Who benefits from this? Five years after Wuhan and they’re still making new viruses that can kill humanity

    As usual, zerohedge talking shit.

    The virus in question isn't "newly created" - it's a wild virus, already circulating worldwide.
    A single mammalian cross infection is all that's required to mutate it. Which is already ongoing in the wild.

    Immediate PB2-E627K amino acid substitution after single infection of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b in mice

    https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12985-025-02811-w
    The highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIV) H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b has rapidly disseminated globally, with mammalian infections reported in multiple species. Recent evidence of mammal-to-mammal transmission has heightened concerns about the virus’s potential adaptation to mammals. The polymerase basic 2 (PB2) protein E627K mutation appears to be of key importance for mammalian adaptation. We isolated an HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b virus from wild birds in Korea with 96% E and 4% K at amino acid position 627 of PB2. To investigate the genomic characteristics of this clade regarding mammalian adaptation, we studied the replication and transmission of the H5N1 virus in mice. Two experiments with different challenge-to-contact ratios were conducted to assess transmission dynamics and mutation development. In experiment 1, a 4:1 challenge-to-contact ratio resulted in 100% transmission among direct-contact mice, with all mice succumbing to the infection. In experiment 2, a 1:1 ratio yielded 50% transmission, with all challenged mice also succumbing. High viral loads were observed in the lungs and brains in both experiments, with viral titers increasing over time. Notably, the PB2-E627K variant, initially present at 4% in the virus stock, was selected and reached near-fixation (~ 100%) in the lungs and brains by 6 days post-challenge and was subsequently transmitted. No other mammalian-adaptive mutations were identified, emphasizing the pivotal role of PB2-E627K in early stages of mammalian adaptation. These findings highlight the need for continuous genomic monitoring to detect mammalian adaptation markers and assess interspecies transmission risks...
    Are you sure? I asked a virological expert friend…


    “Yes, this study does constitute “gain-of-function” (GoF) research, though it falls into a nuanced and often-debated category of GoF.

    Here’s why:

    ✅ Definition of Gain-of-Function (GoF):

    GoF research refers to experiments that increase the transmissibility, pathogenicity, or host range of a pathogen—especially when it involves pathogens with pandemic potential (like H5N1). The controversial subset is called “potential pandemic pathogen” gain-of-function research (PPP-GoF).



    ✅ What this study did:
    • Used a wild-type H5N1 virus with a known mammalian-adaptive mutation (PB2-E627K) present at 4%.
    • Infected mice, a mammalian model, which led to:
    • Selection and fixation of E627K in vivo.
    • Increased pathogenicity, including neuroinvasion and death.
    • Transmission between mammals, with E627K reaching near-fixation in the transmitted virus.

    Though they did not deliberately insert E627K or other mutations into the genome, the experimental conditions promoted and selected for this mammalian-adaptive mutation, increasing its prevalence and functional impact.”
    If you don't think that exactly this kind of infection is happening constantly in the wild, then you don't understand what you're talking about.

    Labelling it "nuanced gain of function" doesn't alter that.
    Hmmm

    The zero hedge headline is inflammatory but hmmm

    This is why we need a big worldwide inquiry (and, if necessary, trials) to truly investigate what happened in Wuhan. So we can all agree what is allowable and what isn’t, from now on

    Whether you agree with lab leak or not it is clear (spoiler: it leaked from the lab) the fact is the pandemic COULD have leaked from the lab because they were doing exactly this kind of gain of function research - making them more dangerous - on novel bat coronaviruses, and then bam a really dangerous novel bat coronavirus popped up 20 feet away and killed 20 million people. Talk about bad luck

    And the batwoman herself Shi Zhengli - before she had her tongue cut out by the CCP - admitted that her first reaction on hearing the news about the pandemic was “shit, that probably came from my lab”

    Then she rushed home and checked her diary to see if she wrote “create pandemic that kills millions” in the relevant week and she found that she hadn’t written that in her diary so it was all good and she
    was innocent and it obviously came from a pangolin in an antique shop
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,797

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    You think Bibi cooked this up over the weekend? After looking at his polling?
    The Israeli military has been planning a series of options for strikes on Iran for a long, long time.
    Quite
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,547

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Max Hastings wrong? Some anonymous dudes called "turbotubbs" and "Leon" are right?
    I'm allowed to disagree with Hastings. He asserts that the bombing campaign was a failure, partly I think because it didn't win the war without an invasion, as Harris hoped. Yet he ignores the devastating effects on Germany's ability to fight from 1944 onwards. Just as the Germans needed to defeat the RAF in 1940 if they wanted to invade, so the bombing campaign paved the way for D-day. He also ignored the paralysis of Germans rail and transport. For sure we lost nearly 90,000 killed bombing Germany and spent a lot of coin, but how many lives were saved in the army? Unknowable.
    Hitler didn't top himself (ie. regime change occurring - which is how this convo started IIRC?) until the Red Army were within sight of his Bunker.
    However people within his regime did try to overthrow him. If they'd succeeded then we'd be having a very different conversation.
    Ihr trugt die Schande nicht.

    Ihr wehrtet euch.

    Ihr gabt das große ewig wache Zeichen der Umkehr,

    opfernd Euer heißes Leben für Freiheit, Recht und Ehre.
  • TazTaz Posts: 18,938
    biggles said:

    Taz said:

    I think this is the right line of attack for Labour.

    If Reform want to be taken seriously they need to be honest as to how they’d fund their
    Plans

    https://x.com/lukepollard/status/1933263224637366775?s=61

    I am less sure. Aren’t Remain voters exactly the sort of ex-Tory and ex-Labour voters who don’t care about that? They think this country has had enough of experts.
    They don’t need to convince all of them, just enough of them.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,039

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Max Hastings wrong? Some anonymous dudes called "turbotubbs" and "Leon" are right?
    I'm allowed to disagree with Hastings. He asserts that the bombing campaign was a failure, partly I think because it didn't win the war without an invasion, as Harris hoped. Yet he ignores the devastating effects on Germany's ability to fight from 1944 onwards. Just as the Germans needed to defeat the RAF in 1940 if they wanted to invade, so the bombing campaign paved the way for D-day. He also ignored the paralysis of Germans rail and transport. For sure we lost nearly 90,000 killed bombing Germany and spent a lot of coin, but how many lives were saved in the army? Unknowable.
    The issue that doesn't get discussed is that there were multiple air campaigns against Germany, using multiple technology levels.

    The early raids often hit the wrong country

    By late 44, the Mosquito Oboe raids were discovering that the maps for Germany were a few hundred yards wrong in the way they connected to other maps.

    They were getting 30% hit rates on pin point targets - and the "playing card" attacks, where they used a small formation of Mosquitos were getting 70%+ on the overall raid.

    Stuff like literally "down the throat" on blast furnaces. The Germans couldn't work out what was going on.

    The problem was that Harris and the other air commanders were so used to accuracies measured in miles, that when raids got down to such accuracies, they didn't really absorb it into their tactics.

    That and the failure of "panacea" raids, earlier in the war, delayed the Oil and Transportation plans. In particular, the Transportation raids ended the German economy.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,167

    You could argue that the Allied victory in World War One didn't require us to invade officially German territory.

    Arguably if we had, it might have helped avoid the second round
    But the Kaiser abdicated (regime-change occurred) BEFORE the Armistice on 11/11/18.
    As no French, British, US troops made it to Germany soil it was easier for Germans to claim that they hadn't been defeated in the field, hence the stab in the back nonsense. So while I accept that the Germans surrendered in 1918 (because their leaders were acting rationally) it would have been better if the German army was utterly smashed. Not possible because they had their hands up.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,310

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    The Israeli attack on Iran looks increasingly audacious and clever. They’ve taken out half of Iran’s leadership. They’ve paralysed Tehran

    Unbelievable stuff

    “Similar patterns to the Hezbollah attack. This will likely be revealed as one of the largest operations in modern history. Well-protected sites, top regime officials and key scientists are being targeted. The culmination of decades of Israeli intelligence work inside Iran.”

    Mossad agents smuggled weapons into Iran and destroyed Iran’s missile capability from within. So now Iran is defenceless and Israel is pounding the nuclear sites. They won’t stop until it is all pulverised


    In this instance I am entirely pro Israel. Go Jerusalem. I hope they take out the entire Iranian elite and the Iranian people are liberated

    And yet the audacious and clever Israelis can’t employ a single talking head that might get the rest of the world that aren’t right wing lunatics to feel sympathy towards them. I’ll put that in their ‘things they are very bad at’ folder.
    They really, really don't care.
    Tell me if I've got this wrong.

    Netanyahu knows he'll lose power the minute Israel isn't at war.
    The war with Gaza is 'petering' out, mainly because they've now murdered nearly everyone anyway.
    So he needs a new war to avoid facing the music.
    So he attacks Iran. That'll keep a nice long war going. Fuck Iran, and to be fair, fuck his own civilians and military who will also be murdered in the war.
    At least he keeps power.

    Is it more complicated than that?
    There's a minimum of two countries between Iran and Israel. A protracted war isn't possible. Iran would very quickly lose almost all it's long-range capability - that it hasn't already lost.

    It's in the West Bank that Israel would continue a forever war, if the war in Gaza comes to an end, which I don't see much sign of.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,731
    biggles said:

    Taz said:

    I think this is the right line of attack for Labour.

    If Reform want to be taken seriously they need to be honest as to how they’d fund their
    Plans

    https://x.com/lukepollard/status/1933263224637366775?s=61

    I am less sure. Aren’t Remain voters exactly the sort of ex-Tory and ex-Labour voters who don’t care about that? They think this country has had enough of experts.
    Morons in other words.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,167

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Max Hastings wrong? Some anonymous dudes called "turbotubbs" and "Leon" are right?
    I'm allowed to disagree with Hastings. He asserts that the bombing campaign was a failure, partly I think because it didn't win the war without an invasion, as Harris hoped. Yet he ignores the devastating effects on Germany's ability to fight from 1944 onwards. Just as the Germans needed to defeat the RAF in 1940 if they wanted to invade, so the bombing campaign paved the way for D-day. He also ignored the paralysis of Germans rail and transport. For sure we lost nearly 90,000 killed bombing Germany and spent a lot of coin, but how many lives were saved in the army? Unknowable.
    The issue that doesn't get discussed is that there were multiple air campaigns against Germany, using multiple technology levels.

    The early raids often hit the wrong country

    By late 44, the Mosquito Oboe raids were discovering that the maps for Germany were a few hundred yards wrong in the way they connected to other maps.

    They were getting 30% hit rates on pin point targets - and the "playing card" attacks, where they used a small formation of Mosquitos were getting 70%+ on the overall raid.

    Stuff like literally "down the throat" on blast furnaces. The Germans couldn't work out what was going on.

    The problem was that Harris and the other air commanders were so used to accuracies measured in miles, that when raids got down to such accuracies, they didn't really absorb it into their tactics.

    That and the failure of "panacea" raids, earlier in the war, delayed the Oil and Transportation plans. In particular, the Transportation raids ended the German economy.
    I think sometimes we forget how much things changed in so short a time. It's five years since the pandemic which is the same as Dunkirk to VE day. In that time we went from Fairy Battles and Wellington's to thousand bomber raids supported by fighters and ultimately nuclear bombs.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 61,797

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Tres said:

    Has bombing ever led to regime change? It seems overly optimistic to imagine that these attacks on Iran will lead to regime change.

    Germany 1945?
    facepalm
    It’s a perfectly reasonable example. The German war machine was annihilated by British and US bombing from about 1942 onwards. By the end the Germans were literally starving

    I’ve just read the history of the battle of the bulge and this point is made repeatedly - that Allied bombing by 1944 had wrecked the German economy and obliterated so many cities and this had led to a collapse in civilian morale (when Hitler went to Berlin to command the counter attack they deliberately drove down the few unruined streets so he wouldn’t be driven to hysterical despair)

    One reason the battle of the bulge failed is because the Germans were unable to continue it because the country was so fucked by endless bombing

    Now, you can dispute how much the allied bombing contributed to the eventual defeat - compared with the eastern front and then d day - but it definitely helped
    Thanks - I haven't the time to explain to people not prepared to think why the bombing won the war. Of course it took armies invading to complete the victory, but you only need to see the state of Germanies economy, war production and inability to move by spring 1945 to see that Max Hastings was wrong.
    Yes quite. There is some weird determination to assert that “bombing made no difference”. Is it a kind of political correctness for military historians? I just don’t get it, because it’s obviously wrong

    If you bomb a country into ruins that will lead, in part or in total, to its defeat

    The argument against bombing is like saying “you can only knock a man out with a direct punch to the face, uppercuts have no effect”

    That may (or may not) be technically true but if you continuously uppercut your opponent smashing his brains against the top of his skull so he becomes cognitively damaged and has blood squirting through his eyes, then he is going to be rather less able to defend himself against the knockout blow
    It may have made a difference by soaking up miltary resources but it didn't break the German civilian spirit which was what Harris and others predicted. Of course there's a school of thought that on a more atavistic level Harris just wanted to kill Germans, but he got an awful lot of his 'boys' killed as well.
    That’s not what Antony beevor says in “the battle of the bulge” - and he’s a far better writer than max bleedin’ Hastings

    It’s a theme throughout the book. The terrible morale on the German side because bombing. The German soldiers were getting letters from home saying “we are sitting in ruins with no bread and hiding from bombs. Son, please surrender to the allies at it means the war will end sooner and it’s better than the red army. Stop fighting”

    What’s that if not a collapse in morale?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,039

    You could argue that the Allied victory in World War One didn't require us to invade officially German territory.

    Arguably if we had, it might have helped avoid the second round
    But the Kaiser abdicated (regime-change occurred) BEFORE the Armistice on 11/11/18.
    As no French, British, US troops made it to Germany soil it was easier for Germans to claim that they hadn't been defeated in the field, hence the stab in the back nonsense. So while I accept that the Germans surrendered in 1918 (because their leaders were acting rationally) it would have been better if the German army was utterly smashed. Not possible because they had their hands up.
    Which was a very widespread feeling in WWII - that it would only be over when the Allies got to Berlin, Rome & Tokyo. And made absolutely sure, this time, that the result was clear.

    My grandfather noted conversations like that, in his diary. Not enthusiasm - but "make bloody sure this time otherwise it will happen again."
Sign In or Register to comment.