Key points, bolded what I consider the most important bit:
US officials have confirmed that Israel has carried out military operations against Iran. The officials said Israel warned the Biden administration earlier on Thursday that a strike was coming in the next 24 to 48 hours. According to CNN, the Israelis assured their US counterparts that Iran's nuclear facilities would not be targeted.
Iranian state media reported that air defence batteries had been activated after reports of explosions near a major airbase close to the city of Isfahan. The Iranian government appeared to play down the scale of the attack, with a senior commander in Iran's army saying there was no damage in Isfahan, according to state TV.
Isfahan is home to sites associated with Iran's nuclear program, including its underground Natanz enrichment site. State television described all sites in the area as "fully safe".
Key points, bolded what I consider the most important bit:
US officials have confirmed that Israel has carried out military operations against Iran. The officials said Israel warned the Biden administration earlier on Thursday that a strike was coming in the next 24 to 48 hours. According to CNN, the Israelis assured their US counterparts that Iran's nuclear facilities would not be targeted.
Iranian state media reported that air defence batteries had been activated after reports of explosions near a major airbase close to the city of Isfahan. The Iranian government appeared to play down the scale of the attack, with a senior commander in Iran's army saying there was no damage in Isfahan, according to state TV.
Isfahan is home to sites associated with Iran's nuclear program, including its underground Natanz enrichment site. State television described all sites in the area as "fully safe".
Everyone remember the allegation that UNRWA employees were involved in the October 7th attacks on Israel and were actively part of Hamas? The ones that everyone believed without question, because why would anyone possibly accuse an aid and disaster relief organisation of being involved with terrorism if it wasn't true? The ones that resulted in most major donors withdrawing support for the organisation that was the main channel of humanitarian support for the people of Gaza, just as the starvation and deprivation caused by the military action really started to kick in?
Yeah, turns out that there has been zero evidence provided of this and that “the Israeli government has not informed Unrwa of any concerns relating to any Unrwa staff based on these staff lists [provided to Israel for vetting on a yearly basis] since 2011”
Puja wrote: ↑Mon Apr 22, 2024 12:05 pm
Everyone remember the allegation that UNRWA employees were involved in the October 7th attacks on Israel and were actively part of Hamas? The ones that everyone believed without question, because why would anyone possibly accuse an aid and disaster relief organisation of being involved with terrorism if it wasn't true? The ones that resulted in most major donors withdrawing support for the organisation that was the main channel of humanitarian support for the people of Gaza, just as the starvation and deprivation caused by the military action really started to kick in?
Yeah, turns out that there has been zero evidence provided of this and that “the Israeli government has not informed Unrwa of any concerns relating to any Unrwa staff based on these staff lists [provided to Israel for vetting on a yearly basis] since 2011”
cashead wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 9:58 pm
Perhaps, but Corbyn was a very poor leader and as well-intentioned as he may have been, there's no way a Labour government under him wouldn't have been anything other than an utter shambles.
He couldn't even keep his party in line, how do you expect him to run a country?
Yeah well, for the record I disagree with most of that but it's all pretty subjective and unprovable either way.
Yeah, aside from Ukraine and Gaza, it's tough to see what Corbin could possibly have done worse than Johnson/Truss/Sunak.
That's a hell of an "aside" though.
What would have likely meant though, is a 1-term labour government, before the conservatives returned, probably with Johnson at the helm and probably with less tory infighting (having been able to unite against a common enemy for a few years)
cashead wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 9:58 pm
Perhaps, but Corbyn was a very poor leader and as well-intentioned as he may have been, there's no way a Labour government under him wouldn't have been anything other than an utter shambles.
He couldn't even keep his party in line, how do you expect him to run a country?
Johnson, for all his many and obvious faults, was one of those at the forefront of supporting Ukraine. Corbyn would not have supported Ukraine to the same degree, or at all. Corbyn's natural home is at a protest rally, not as a prime minister of what is still a major power.
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 10:19 am
Yeah, aside from Ukraine and Gaza, it's tough to see what Corbin could possibly have done worse than Johnson/Truss/Sunak.
That's a hell of an "aside" though.
What would have likely meant though, is a 1-term labour government, before the conservatives returned, probably with Johnson at the helm and probably with less tory infighting (having been able to unite against a common enemy for a few years)
Quite likely. And since we know that Corbyn was quite pro-Brexit, you can't even suggest that would have been better.
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 10:19 am
Yeah, aside from Ukraine and Gaza, it's tough to see what Corbin could possibly have done worse than Johnson/Truss/Sunak.
That's a hell of an "aside" though.
What would have likely meant though, is a 1-term labour government, before the conservatives returned, probably with Johnson at the helm and probably with less tory infighting (having been able to unite against a common enemy for a few years)
Quite likely. And since we know that Corbyn was quite pro-Brexit, you can't even suggest that would have been better.
Mind, pro-Brexit from a leftist "We'll subsidise things if we want to and damn your regulations" perspective is a very different kettle of fish to "Brexit means Brexit" and leaving the EEC/Euratom/Erasmus/everything that even mentions the word Europe that we ended up with.
Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 10:19 am
Yeah, aside from Ukraine and Gaza, it's tough to see what Corbin could possibly have done worse than Johnson/Truss/Sunak.
That's a hell of an "aside" though.
What would have likely meant though, is a 1-term labour government, before the conservatives returned, probably with Johnson at the helm and probably with less tory infighting (having been able to unite against a common enemy for a few years)
Quite likely. And since we know that Corbyn was quite pro-Brexit, you can't even suggest that would have been better.
Mind, pro-Brexit from a leftist "We'll subsidise things if we want to and damn your regulations" perspective is a very different kettle of fish to "Brexit means Brexit" and leaving the EEC/Euratom/Erasmus/everything that even mentions the word Europe that we ended up with.
Puja
If Corbyn had won there'd have been a second referendum (probably much delayed by Covid), so we might have avoided that shitshow completely. And if it had still gone ahead it would have been much softer, probably Norway-style.
Quite likely. And since we know that Corbyn was quite pro-Brexit, you can't even suggest that would have been better.
Mind, pro-Brexit from a leftist "We'll subsidise things if we want to and damn your regulations" perspective is a very different kettle of fish to "Brexit means Brexit" and leaving the EEC/Euratom/Erasmus/everything that even mentions the word Europe that we ended up with.
Puja
If Corbyn had won there'd have been a second referendum (probably much delayed by Covid), so we might have avoided that shitshow completely. And if it had still gone ahead it would have been much softer, probably Norway-style.
Which is also conjecture but he had the opportunity to help deliver a softer Brexit prior to the Boris landslide, and he was also conspicuously absent from the Brexit debate during the referendum, so given the shit show that leaving has become, that undermines the credibility of his judgement.
Mind, pro-Brexit from a leftist "We'll subsidise things if we want to and damn your regulations" perspective is a very different kettle of fish to "Brexit means Brexit" and leaving the EEC/Euratom/Erasmus/everything that even mentions the word Europe that we ended up with.
Puja
If Corbyn had won there'd have been a second referendum (probably much delayed by Covid), so we might have avoided that shitshow completely. And if it had still gone ahead it would have been much softer, probably Norway-style.
he had the opportunity to help deliver a softer Brexit prior to the Boris landslide
Mind, pro-Brexit from a leftist "We'll subsidise things if we want to and damn your regulations" perspective is a very different kettle of fish to "Brexit means Brexit" and leaving the EEC/Euratom/Erasmus/everything that even mentions the word Europe that we ended up with.
Puja
If Corbyn had won there'd have been a second referendum (probably much delayed by Covid), so we might have avoided that shitshow completely. And if it had still gone ahead it would have been much softer, probably Norway-style.
Which is also conjecture but he had the opportunity to help deliver a softer Brexit prior to the Boris landslide, and he was also conspicuously absent from the Brexit debate during the referendum, so given the shit show that leaving has become, that undermines the credibility of his judgement.
Sure, this is conjectural, but we know it was Labour's policy to have a 2nd referendum, so had he won that was very likely to have happened. Not totally sure he had an opportunity to bring about a softer Brexit with May - she was dead set on a hard Brexit, that was what stopped those discussions getting anywhere in mid-2019. Of course Corbyn's absence from the referendum debate wasn't great but the judgement of everyone who has run the country since 2019 has even less credibility, for the same reason.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 1:49 pm
If Corbyn had won there'd have been a second referendum (probably much delayed by Covid), so we might have avoided that shitshow completely. And if it had still gone ahead it would have been much softer, probably Norway-style.
Which is also conjecture but he had the opportunity to help deliver a softer Brexit prior to the Boris landslide, and he was also conspicuously absent from the Brexit debate during the referendum, so given the shit show that leaving has become, that undermines the credibility of his judgement.
Sure, this is conjectural, but we know it was Labour's policy to have a 2nd referendum, so had he won that was very likely to have happened. Not totally sure he had an opportunity to bring about a softer Brexit with May - she was dead set on a hard Brexit, that was what stopped those discussions getting anywhere in mid-2019. Of course Corbyn's absence from the referendum debate wasn't great but the judgement of everyone who has run the country since 2019 has even less credibility, for the same reason.
There is not 1 person alive who's judgement has less credibility than Corbyn. May was not dead set on a hard Brexit at all, she wanted a 2nd referendum before any withdrawal agreement was enacted; it was the hard Brexiteers in the Tory party who did for her.
This level of revisionism really needs to stop.
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
cashead wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2024 9:58 pm
Perhaps, but Corbyn was a very poor leader and as well-intentioned as he may have been, there's no way a Labour government under him wouldn't have been anything other than an utter shambles.
He couldn't even keep his party in line, how do you expect him to run a country?
Yeah well, for the record I disagree with most of that but it's all pretty subjective and unprovable either way.
His own MPs were telling him, in Parliament, to fuck off already. I wouldn't trust the guy to run a stand at a fucking carnival, let alone the UK.
Disagreements will always happen, but for party discipline to collapse to the point where he couldn't keep that shit behind closed doors, while his MPs were calling him a fuckface to his face in public? Come on, bro.
Sandydragon wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 9:50 am
Johnson, for all his many and obvious faults, was one of those at the forefront of supporting Ukraine. Corbyn would not have supported Ukraine to the same degree, or at all. Corbyn's natural home is at a protest rally, not as a prime minister of what is still a major power.
Corbyn calling for Ukraine to be stripped of their ability to resist the Russian invasion in any meaningful way on a Russian propaganda outlet is a matter of record. I said it before, but he is either incapable of differentiating between the friendly old socialists and the Russian Disinformation Squad Allstars - or is entirely complicit and endorses their views.
Oh, he's just rather dense. Not sure he's the intellect to be anything else.
No gray for Jeremy, the world is black and white...
He became leader of the Labour party as a representation of something the Labour party should be representing. Not because of who he was.
Which is also conjecture but he had the opportunity to help deliver a softer Brexit prior to the Boris landslide, and he was also conspicuously absent from the Brexit debate during the referendum, so given the shit show that leaving has become, that undermines the credibility of his judgement.
Sure, this is conjectural, but we know it was Labour's policy to have a 2nd referendum, so had he won that was very likely to have happened. Not totally sure he had an opportunity to bring about a softer Brexit with May - she was dead set on a hard Brexit, that was what stopped those discussions getting anywhere in mid-2019. Of course Corbyn's absence from the referendum debate wasn't great but the judgement of everyone who has run the country since 2019 has even less credibility, for the same reason.
There is not 1 person alive who's judgement has less credibility than Corbyn. May was not dead set on a hard Brexit at all, she wanted a 2nd referendum before any withdrawal agreement was enacted; it was the hard Brexiteers in the Tory party who did for her.
This level of revisionism really needs to stop.
Hyperbole perhaps? Unless you mean Piers Corbyn?
To be clear, obviously May was a remainer. Given a free choice she would not have had Brexit at all. But in 2019 (of course, because of pressure within the party) she was set on a hard Brexit.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 02, 2024 5:56 pm
Sure, this is conjectural, but we know it was Labour's policy to have a 2nd referendum, so had he won that was very likely to have happened. Not totally sure he had an opportunity to bring about a softer Brexit with May - she was dead set on a hard Brexit, that was what stopped those discussions getting anywhere in mid-2019. Of course Corbyn's absence from the referendum debate wasn't great but the judgement of everyone who has run the country since 2019 has even less credibility, for the same reason.
There is not 1 person alive who's judgement has less credibility than Corbyn. May was not dead set on a hard Brexit at all, she wanted a 2nd referendum before any withdrawal agreement was enacted; it was the hard Brexiteers in the Tory party who did for her.
This level of revisionism really needs to stop.
Hyperbole perhaps? Unless you mean Piers Corbyn?
To be clear, obviously May was a remainer. Given a free choice she would not have had Brexit at all. But in 2019 (of course, because of pressure within the party) she was set on a hard Brexit.
perhaps I mean, talking of shit judgement, I've been watching the SNP talk up John Swinney as an effective politician all week, and if that isn't a triumph of hope over experience I don't know what is.
May was only "set on hard Brexit" as a tool to try and control the Tory party, hahahaha, not for its own sake.
It was so much easier to blame Them. It was bleakly depressing to think They were Us. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
This isn't the most serious point but I was surprised to see Israel get the highest audience/televote score in Eurovision (much higher than its vote from the juries). I thought they'd get some flack from Gaza, but no, if anything the opposite (although maybe it was a well orchestrated vote from Israel fans). Ukraine got a pretty high sympathy vote. UK got nothing from the audience vote.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 10:33 am
This isn't the most serious point but I was surprised to see Israel get the highest audience/televote score in Eurovision (much higher than its vote from the juries). I thought they'd get some flack from Gaza, but no, if anything the opposite (although maybe it was a well orchestrated vote from Israel fans). Ukraine got a pretty high sympathy vote. UK got nothing from the audience vote.
It was rigged - at least in the sense that one person can vote multiple times, and they have a very large diaspora.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 10:33 am
This isn't the most serious point but I was surprised to see Israel get the highest audience/televote score in Eurovision (much higher than its vote from the juries). I thought they'd get some flack from Gaza, but no, if anything the opposite (although maybe it was a well orchestrated vote from Israel fans). Ukraine got a pretty high sympathy vote. UK got nothing from the audience vote.
It was rigged - at least in the sense that one person can vote multiple times, and they have a very large diaspora.
Yeah, a sufficiently motivated group can dominate it.
Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 10:33 am
This isn't the most serious point but I was surprised to see Israel get the highest audience/televote score in Eurovision (much higher than its vote from the juries). I thought they'd get some flack from Gaza, but no, if anything the opposite (although maybe it was a well orchestrated vote from Israel fans). Ukraine got a pretty high sympathy vote. UK got nothing from the audience vote.
It was rigged - at least in the sense that one person can vote multiple times, and they have a very large diaspora.
Yeah, a sufficiently motivated group can dominate it.
Lot of islamophobia coalesced into 1 country's vote
Or alternatively people liked the song and had some sympathy with the singer who was getting constant crap from other performers all week. None of the fighting is her fault.
Since many Jews aren’t necessarily Zionist outside of Israel is there any reason to suggest that they would have automatically voted for Israel?
I mean, talking of shit judgement, I've been watching the SNP talk up John Swinney as an effective politician all week, and if that isn't a triumph of hope over experience I don't know what is.