Clavchad
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 22 Lut 2026
I'm retarded does that mean they're jeets? If so then bomb bomb, bomb iran.
Iran Crisis & the 2026 War between Iran and the United States, Gulf States, and Israel - Please focus on news and coverage, not argumentation.
- Twórca wątku Mister Fister
- Data rozpoczęcia
-
🔎 Please read my article, How to Dox Anyone: A Liz Fong-Jones Story. (Xitter), (Substack).
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Dołączono
- 18 Maj 2020
"But..but IRAN PROMISED they wouldn't make a ballistic missile with a range in excess of 2,000 kilometers - the EU"
Fucking retards, their entire space program was ICBM development cover first, military satellite launch capabilities second.
Oh and you think a nuclear Iran wouldn't tard rage and launch a few nukes at Europe?
Burnt Fish
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 7 Gru 2020
I don't really believe anyone ever truly believed otherwise. That was the point of the space race between the US and soviets in the first place and why we fired up chrome dome when the Russians launched Sputnik first
Alphasnail
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 29 Wrz 2020
I agree. It looks like this was both their plan, and basically all they could do. They had the foresight to plan it, but the way they keep hitting their neighbors seems less like a calculated strategy of economic attrition and more like lashing out at the world. Whatever passes for a government in Iran right now is probably mortified that things got this far. Possibly they could survive til the coalition gives up bombing them, but time is on the side of the us and Israel way more than the irgc right now. Whatever is left of the regime will be anything but galvanized now. They might become more extreme, but the world around them is intent on this never happening again and no population could be ruled by these forces, only held captive. This is an energized class of revolutionaries without the strong political apparatus they used to rule. The rift between them and the country is larger than ever before. It's not just exaggeration when Trump says we basically already won.
Reciprocity is very important to the Ukrainians right now. If the US tells the Euros to fuck off Europe might not immediately be conquered by the Russians. For the Ukrainians this is not the case.
It's natural that they're eager to help.
- Dołączono
- 29 Sty 2021
Fucking faggots, the real UNSC would be hammering Tehran with MAC rounds right now.
Burnt Fish
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 7 Gru 2020
well, we have no need of Gulf oil itself we're more than fine with our domestic production and we have friendly productions in our own neighborhood if we did somehow need more through Canada and now Venezuela. a caveat might be us buying fertilizers produced in the gulf primarily in the form of Urea which we import close to 30% of what we use from the middle east as well as other countries. (we technically import ammonia as well but we technically already have the industrial capacity to produce it all ourselves we just supplement our domestic supply with cheaper imports) It's production is a byproduct of natural gas production and is theoretically something we could scale up domestic production to cover though and as recently as 2023 we've been making efforts to do so.
The Benefit to America in the straight getting sorted out is both removing that leverage from the Iranians, and stabilizing global markets because market instability abroad results in market instability domestically as well.
- Dołączono
- 3 Lis 2019
It's a threat to send a harshly worded letter deploring the general situation and 'condemning in the strongest possible terms'. The EU must be doing training consultancy. If the mullahs aren't careful, there might be a letter sent deploring the Iranian attitude. BTFO basically.
- Dołączono
- 6 Paź 2020
At this point, I wouldn't even mind if Trump just pulls out of NATO and imposes an export ban on fossil fuels.
The Eurocucks don't wanna lift a finger to help something that directly affects them? They can enjoy $15/gal gas for all I care.
Sargon's wife's son
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 23 Lut 2019
That's literally just trying to avoid paying taxes. That did generally just sounds like someone's trying to cheat on the taxes. Yeah, we have a $20 billion loss due to the Iranian war.
- Dołączono
- 28 Lip 2022
You want to make alot of money invest in the military industrial complex right now. Once this is over shits gonna sky rocket.
Stupor Mario
kiwifarms.net
- Dołączono
- 11 Sty 2024
Do you imagine that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a "stable" Iran that just wants to live in peace and harmony with everybody, lol? If you think that Iran was this respectable trading partner that just minded it's own business and never did nuffin', you haven't been paying attention.
Like Ghostse said, this kind of thinking is "Peace in Our Time" naivete. Extremely short-sighted approach to a real growing threat. Europe is no longer run by responsible leaders with the will or foresight to do what needs to be done for the good of preserving a free world. European leaders couldn't care less about their countries being taken hostage to a China-backed Iran, but America doesn't want to live on it's knees.
- Dołączono
- 21 Wrz 2024
As a reward for showing up in place of the Euros, Ukraine shall be granted NATO membership. As a treat.
- Dołączono
- 12 Gru 2022
And now for the real casualty of the war, the climate. Gotta make everything about climate alarmism. From everyone's favorite non-biased, levelheaded and non-hysterical source "The Guardian" 
US and Israel’s war on Iran is a disaster for the environment, analysis shows
Tbh I think they'd have a point about the environmental impact of the war, they're pretty dirty all things considered but it's not about that it's just about Co2 levels.
US and Israel’s war on Iran is a disaster for the environment, analysis shows
lol
The US-Israel war on Iran is a disaster for the climate, according to an analysis that finds it is draining the global carbon budget faster than 84 countries combined.
As warplanes, drones and missiles kill thousands of people, level infrastructure and turn the Middle East into a gigantic environmental sacrifice zone, the first analysis of the climate cost has found the conflict led to 5m tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in its first 14 days.
The analysis, shared exclusively with the Guardian, adds another layer on to reporting of the catastrophic environmental harm being caused by attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure, military bases, civilian areas and ships at sea.
“Every missile strike is another downpayment on a hotter, more unstable planet, and none of it makes anyone safer,” said Patrick Bigger, a research director at the Climate and Community Institute and a co-author of the analysis.
“Every refinery fire and tanker strike is a reminder that fossil‑fuelled geopolitics is incompatible with a livable planet. This war shows, yet again, that the fastest way to supercharge the climate crisis is to let fossil fuel interests dictate foreign policy.”
The US-Israeli axis claims to have bombed thousands of targets inside Iran, and Israel has hit hundreds more targets in Lebanon. Reports from inside both countries show extensive destruction of infrastructure.
Destroyed buildings constitute the largest element of the estimated carbon cost. Based on reports by the Iranian Red Crescent humanitarian organisation that about 20,000 civilian buildings have been damaged by the conflict, the analysis estimates the total emissions from this sector to be 2.4m tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e).
Fuel is the second biggest element, with US heavy bombers flying from as far away as the west of England to carry out raids over Iran. The analysis estimates between 150m and 270m litres of fuel were consumed by aircraft and support vessels and vehicles in the first 14 days, producing a total emission of 529,000 tCO2e.
One of the most shocking images of the war has been the dark clouds and black rain that fell over Tehran after Israel bombed four major fuel storage depots surrounding the city, setting millions of litres of fuel ablaze. The analysis estimates that between 2.5m and 5.9m barrels of oil have been burned in that attack and similar strikes – including Iranian retaliations on its Gulf neighbours – emitting an estimated 1.88m tCO2e.
In the first 14 days, the US lost four aircraft, while Iran lost 28 aircraft, 21 naval vessels and about 300 missile launchers. This destroyed military hardware is estimated to account for embodied carbon emissions of 172,000 tCO2e.
There are also the bombs, missiles and drones themselves, the use of which has been extensive on all sides. Based on claims that in the first 14 days the US and Israel had bombed more than 6,000 targets inside Iran, while Iran had fired back about 1,000 missiles and 2,000 drones, plus an estimated 1,900 interceptors fired to defend against them, the analysis estimated that munitions contributed about 55,000 tCO2e in emissions.
In total, the first two weeks of the conflict led to emissions of 5,055,016 tCO2e, equivalent to 131,430,416 tCO2e in a year – roughly the same as a medium-size, fossil fuel-intensive economy such as Kuwait. But it is also the same as the 84 lowest emitting countries combined.
Fred Otu-Larbi, the study’s lead author, from the University of Energy and Natural Resources in Ghana, said: “We expect emissions to increase rapidly as the conflict proceeds, mainly due to the speed [at] which oil facilities are being targeted at an alarming rate.”
He added: “We all need to live with the climate aftermaths. Just what are the costs, no one really knows, that is why studies like this are so vital. Burning up the annual emissions of Iceland in two weeks is something we really cannot afford.”
As of June last year, climate scientists estimated humans could emit greenhouse gases equivalent to 130bn tonnes of CO2 to leave us with a 50% chance of stopping the climate from heating beyond 1.5C. At the present rate of 40bn tCO2e that budget will be exhausted by 2028.
Bigger said the disruption to fossil fuel supplies caused by the war would probably lead to more drilling. “Historically, every US‑driven energy shock has been followed by a surge in new drilling, new LNG terminals and new fossil‑fuel infrastructure. This war risks hard‑wiring another generation of carbon dependence.
“This is not a war for security. It’s a war for the political economy of fossil fuels – and the people paying the price are Iranian civilians and working‑class communities around the world.”
As warplanes, drones and missiles kill thousands of people, level infrastructure and turn the Middle East into a gigantic environmental sacrifice zone, the first analysis of the climate cost has found the conflict led to 5m tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in its first 14 days.
The analysis, shared exclusively with the Guardian, adds another layer on to reporting of the catastrophic environmental harm being caused by attacks on fossil fuel infrastructure, military bases, civilian areas and ships at sea.
“Every missile strike is another downpayment on a hotter, more unstable planet, and none of it makes anyone safer,” said Patrick Bigger, a research director at the Climate and Community Institute and a co-author of the analysis.
“Every refinery fire and tanker strike is a reminder that fossil‑fuelled geopolitics is incompatible with a livable planet. This war shows, yet again, that the fastest way to supercharge the climate crisis is to let fossil fuel interests dictate foreign policy.”
The US-Israeli axis claims to have bombed thousands of targets inside Iran, and Israel has hit hundreds more targets in Lebanon. Reports from inside both countries show extensive destruction of infrastructure.
Destroyed buildings constitute the largest element of the estimated carbon cost. Based on reports by the Iranian Red Crescent humanitarian organisation that about 20,000 civilian buildings have been damaged by the conflict, the analysis estimates the total emissions from this sector to be 2.4m tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2e).
Fuel is the second biggest element, with US heavy bombers flying from as far away as the west of England to carry out raids over Iran. The analysis estimates between 150m and 270m litres of fuel were consumed by aircraft and support vessels and vehicles in the first 14 days, producing a total emission of 529,000 tCO2e.
One of the most shocking images of the war has been the dark clouds and black rain that fell over Tehran after Israel bombed four major fuel storage depots surrounding the city, setting millions of litres of fuel ablaze. The analysis estimates that between 2.5m and 5.9m barrels of oil have been burned in that attack and similar strikes – including Iranian retaliations on its Gulf neighbours – emitting an estimated 1.88m tCO2e.
In the first 14 days, the US lost four aircraft, while Iran lost 28 aircraft, 21 naval vessels and about 300 missile launchers. This destroyed military hardware is estimated to account for embodied carbon emissions of 172,000 tCO2e.
There are also the bombs, missiles and drones themselves, the use of which has been extensive on all sides. Based on claims that in the first 14 days the US and Israel had bombed more than 6,000 targets inside Iran, while Iran had fired back about 1,000 missiles and 2,000 drones, plus an estimated 1,900 interceptors fired to defend against them, the analysis estimated that munitions contributed about 55,000 tCO2e in emissions.
In total, the first two weeks of the conflict led to emissions of 5,055,016 tCO2e, equivalent to 131,430,416 tCO2e in a year – roughly the same as a medium-size, fossil fuel-intensive economy such as Kuwait. But it is also the same as the 84 lowest emitting countries combined.
Fred Otu-Larbi, the study’s lead author, from the University of Energy and Natural Resources in Ghana, said: “We expect emissions to increase rapidly as the conflict proceeds, mainly due to the speed [at] which oil facilities are being targeted at an alarming rate.”
He added: “We all need to live with the climate aftermaths. Just what are the costs, no one really knows, that is why studies like this are so vital. Burning up the annual emissions of Iceland in two weeks is something we really cannot afford.”
As of June last year, climate scientists estimated humans could emit greenhouse gases equivalent to 130bn tonnes of CO2 to leave us with a 50% chance of stopping the climate from heating beyond 1.5C. At the present rate of 40bn tCO2e that budget will be exhausted by 2028.
Bigger said the disruption to fossil fuel supplies caused by the war would probably lead to more drilling. “Historically, every US‑driven energy shock has been followed by a surge in new drilling, new LNG terminals and new fossil‑fuel infrastructure. This war risks hard‑wiring another generation of carbon dependence.
“This is not a war for security. It’s a war for the political economy of fossil fuels – and the people paying the price are Iranian civilians and working‑class communities around the world.”
Tbh I think they'd have a point about the environmental impact of the war, they're pretty dirty all things considered but it's not about that it's just about Co2 levels.
- Dołączono
- 9 Maj 2019
NOW WAIT A MINUTE, EUROPE! NO!
But I thought Iran was no thread to the west, and could never do anything? They were just an innocent lil set of sandu nothins? Turns out now they're shooting a non-Middle Eastern Island owned entirely by the UK for over 50 years? Hm, weird. I suppose if they'd gotten a nuclear warhead... They could have easily attached it to one of these, and struck mainland Europe.
Apologize, Europeans. We saved your bacon (hah!) yet again, and all you've had to say about it is a bunch of faggot crying!
Will we hear a single word from the people who spent multiple pages telling us all that the US struck a school? No, of course we won't. Even though I would bet you good money this isn't in a military base, like the Iranian school was.
Ostatnio edytowane:
- Dołączono
- 7 Lip 2023
unfortunetaly they seem to have become a minority. I tried digging them up again but now it is flooded with blue checkmark "analysts" acting smug instead.
It already has been multiple pages ago.
And honestly it has become tiresome because it always end up being this.
- Dołączono
- 6 Paź 2020
- Dołączono
- 17 Gru 2019
The guys who invented Taqiyya pinky promised they wouldn't build a nuke.
They also pinky promised not to build a missile capable of carrying their nuke to infidel lands. *wink wink*
But... But John Lennon's "Imagine"!
Just imagine if the world were like it was in "Imagine"!!!
Plus the Gulf Arab oil states who think pay-to-play is a good military doctrine will in theory be placing orders for Ukrainian anti-Shahed drones.
Somewhat true. Ukraine can still manage, even if US cut out all ties now. What US currently does is basically giving the ok of transporting their weapons into Ukraine and using them, and providing some intelligence data. But Trump really did cut off basically all the aid after he took office. Europe has pretty much taken over of fuelling the Ukrainian war machine, but like I said, there is still very much a need to keep Trump and US happy. If US were to say that no more supplying US made weapons to Ukraine that would be problematic, but not catastrophic.
- Dołączono
- 26 Mar 2023
as someone who lived in Dire Dawa for multiple years, this is literally just how 90% of Somali people act. Pretty much every Somali forum acts like this.
A personal favorite of mine: