Praising Iran’s evil leadership marks a new low for the BBC’s John Simpson - "Sadly, I’ve never had the honour of meeting the BBC’s John Simpson, but I feel sure that he’s a very nice man. The sort of person who is capable of seeing the good in everyone. That, at least, is all I can conclude from his extraordinary remarks about Ali Larijani, the de facto Iranian leader who was killed this week in an Israeli air strike. “I’ve met Ali Larijani several times over the years,” revealed the BBC’s world affairs editor on social media. “Yes, he was a top figure in a nasty regime. But he always seemed clever and reasonable – the kind of person you might want to negotiate a peace deal with.” Describing Larijani as “reasonable” is, I can’t help feeling, a touch on the generous side, even for a man as kind-hearted as Simpson. In the words of The New York Times, Larijani was “in charge of using lethal force to crush the recent protests demanding the end of Islamic rule”. This lethal force is reported to have killed as many as 40,000 protesters. Should those 40,000 victims simply have tried negotiating with dear old Ali? If only they’d known how tremendously reasonable he was. Anyway, Simpson has since deleted his post, because, he complained, it was “being interpreted wrongly”. Stupid public. Even so, this is hardly the first time he’s made puzzling remarks about Middle Eastern murderers. In December 2024, for example, he argued that Bashar al-Assad, the butcher of Syria, was “weak rather than wicked… In person, I found him meek and anxious to please”... It may also be recalled that, on October 11, 2023, Simpson controversially defended the BBC’s refusal to describe Hamas as terrorists – because, he declared, “terrorism is a loaded word”, and it’s “simply not the BBC’s job” to tell us “who are the good guys and who are the bad guys”. Mind you, perhaps we should be grateful that the BBC doesn’t tell us who it thinks the “good guys” and “bad guys” were on October 7, because I fear we might not like the answer. Funnily enough, on the same day that Simpson described Larijani as “reasonable”, Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, described the BBC as “essential to the health of our democracy”. Which suggests that she’s even more generous – or more deluded – than he is."
Meme - "Carter: IRAN TOOK HOSTAGES
Reagan: THEY'RE EVIL!
George HW Bush: THEY'RE A REAL THREAT!
Clinton: THEY'RE SPONSORING TERRORISM!
George W Bush: THEY'RE KILLING AMERICANS!
Obama: THEY'RE BUILDING NUKES!
Biden: WE HAVE TO STOP THEM!!
Trump: OKAY!"
I saw some idiot claim Obama bombed Iran
Meme - "LIBERALS HOPING THAT IRAN WILL NUKE US SO TRUMP WILL LOOK BAD *blue-haired woman crossing fingers*"
Meme - "DEMOCRATS THEN: Biden doesn't control gas prices.
DEMOCRATS NOW: Trump caused higher gas prices."
Lozzy B 🇦🇺𝕏 on X - "🔥 BREAKING 🔥 Another attack on Christianity. Israel has closed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre indefinitely for the first time in the history of Christianity. Holy Week and Easter services will be prohibited. Sunday masses and liturgies cancelled. A church that should be packed with hundreds of thousands these coming weeks is being forcibly shut and silenced. Israel cites it is for ‘security concerns’ while Jewish Israelis are allowed to celebrate in mass gatherings. Alongside the forced closure of Al-Aqsa mosque, reports cite priests aggressively being turned away to perform daily services. Throughout history, wars, tensions, or even the pandemic limited access to the sanctuary, but they had never prevented liturgical celebrations in this central place of Christian faith indefinitely."
Xed on X - "Actually In 1009 AD, the Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the complete destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (along with other non-Muslim sites). It was razed, with efforts to demolish even the foundational stones. Worship and access were impossible for decades. Reconstruction only began after negotiations, with a more modest rebuilding completed around 1048 AD under Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos. This was a total obliteration lasting nearly 40 years before partial restoration—not merely a closure, but far more extreme. The church has faced far more severe and prolonged closures/destructions in the pastIn The church has also been closed or heavily restricted at other times, such as: During the Persian (Sassanid) conquest in 614 CE, when it was burned and damaged. In 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, when it was closed to the public indefinitely (for months), with some reports calling it the first extended closure due to disease since the Black Death in the 14th century (around 1349). In 2018, church leaders themselves closed it for several days (though not indefinitely) in protest against Israeli municipal tax policies and land laws."
I saw a lot of gullible people lapping this up, of course
Lazar Berman on X - "Fragments of an Iranian missile strike meters away from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem"
HonestReporting on X - "The Church of the Holy Sepulchre is also near the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Western Wall. So instead of accusing Israel of curtailing Muslim worship on the Temple Mt, will the international media now understand exactly why there are safety restrictions in place to protect people all religions and none?"
International law is broken - The Globe and Mail - "Irwin Cotler understands the threat that the Islamic Republic of Iran poses far better than most. He’s studied Iran’s aggressive actions and repressive domestic policies for decades, as a lawyer trained in international law, a law professor, a federal cabinet minister and now, as the international chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights. Oh, and Iran has plotted to murder him (a backhanded validation of the influence of his efforts). All of which is to say: Mr. Cotler’s analysis of the intersection of international law and the U.S.-Israeli military action against Iran carries some justifiable heft. The accepted wisdom of the legality of the attacks on Iran is straightforward: they are illegal, full stop. The United Nations Security Council did not authorize the military action (nor was it asked). Neither Israel nor the United States are responding in self-defence, and even fall short of the restrictive standard for preemptive action, that of imminent threat of attack. So, the air campaign against Iran breaks international law, and nothing more need to be considered. The reality that Russia would veto any move against its ally in its war of aggression against Ukraine is irrelevant. The stated intent of Iran to wipe Israel off the map is irrelevant. Mr. Cotler rejects that view (as do we) as far too narrow. A broader perspective – one that takes into account the decades that Iran has spent fomenting war in the Middle East, terrorism across the globe and terror at home – leads to a very different conclusion, namely that it would be unjust and immoral to allow the Islamic Republic to use the letter of international law as a shield. “The UN charter is not a suicide pact,” he said in an interview, quoting his 1960s law professor. He warns of a sevenfold threat from Iran: the pursuit of nuclear weapons; state-backed incitement of genocide against Israel’s Jews; the sponsorship of international terrorism; destabilization of the Middle East; targeting dissidents around the world; cyber warfare; and lastly, domestic repression. Any one of the offences on that bill of indictment is serious. Together, they demonstrate that Iran has flouted international law for decades and has chosen to be a rogue regime. Now, the rogue, without shame, invokes the laws that it has mocked and debased. It didn’t take long for the newly born Islamic Republic to start down its path of violating international law – just over nine months. On Nov. 4, 1979, a mob stormed the United States embassy in Tehran, and took 66 Americans hostage. For centuries, diplomats and embassies have been off limits, an acknowledgement that even adversaries need to communicate with each other. The 1961 Vienna Convention on International Relations is quite clear: Embassies are “inviolable.” Not only that, states have a positive obligation “to take all appropriate steps to protect” embassies and other diplomatic premises. A 444-day hostage taking is somewhat out of step with those obligations. The hostage crisis would be the first, but far from the last, of Iran’s demonstrated contempt for international law... what would international law have to say if Iran gave Hezbollah or Hamas a nuclear weapon that was detonated in Tel Aviv? Condolences and an admonition not to launch reprisals against Tehran? The legal conceit that Israel must pretend that it is not being attacked by Iran while that country funnels vast resources into a one-step-removed war makes a mockery of international law... This is the regime that international law must seemingly protect: one that seeks refuge behind diplomatic conventions and then reaches from behind that shield to murder, kidnap and harass citizens of other countries, and to terrorize its own... the prioritization of stability, above all else, can itself be destabilizing. It is the insistence of international law on stability that has allowed Iran to pursue manifestly destabilizing policies across the Middle East, and elsewhere in the world. It is the rigid view of stability that has allowed Iran to pursue nuclear weapons (defying, oddly enough, UN resolutions to the contrary). It is a laudable goal to want to avoid war, and the misery it brings. But as Winston Churchill once presciently said in the wake of the 1938 Munich Agreement that dismembered Czechoslovakia for Nazi Germany, those who choose dishonour over war will get both. Less than a year later, his prophecy was proven correct, as the bloodiest war in history broke out. Ignoring a threat does not make it disappear, and more often than not, allows it to grow. The letter of international law is, unfortunately, clear. There is no legal basis to attack Iran merely because it murders and terrorizes its citizens and those of other countries, threatens Israel with annihilation, pursues nuclear arms and looks to destabilize the Middle East. The law never perfectly overlaps with morality. But the law, even the series of conventions known as international law, cannot be a stranger to morality, either. If the verdict of international law is that Iran must be protected, then that law is unjust, and it cannot be allowed to stand."
Left wingers tell us that slavery was legal, so that means legality is no guide to morality, after all
Michael Tracey on X - "Joe Kent blamed the Oct. 7 attack on Biden's insufficiently hostile policy toward Iran, attacked his Dem opponent for failing to punish "anti-Semitism," and pledged that if elected, he would make sure to generously arm Israel. Now he blames Israel for corrupting US foreign policy"
The Girondin 🇺🇸 🌲 on X - "If you are looking for a clue, his new wife is a Palestinian activist."
Joe Kent on X - "After much reflection, I have decided to resign from my position as Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, effective today. I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby. It has been an honor serving under @POTUS and @DNIGabbard and leading the professionals at NCTC. May God bless America."
Dustin Grage on X - "Looks like we dodged a bullet here. I, for one, think it’s a bad idea to have a Director of the National Counterterrorism Center who is upset that we took out the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. You know, the same people who tried to assassinate the President who appointed you to the position."
Caryma Sa'd - Lawyer + Political Satirist on X - "Al Quds Day counterprotesters bang their heads to the provocative song, “You Can Stick Your Palestine Up Your Hole.” 📸 Mar 14, 2026 #Toronto #ProtestMania Support our work covering the good, bad, and ugly on Canadian streets:"
مازن عبد العظيم Facebook - "One interesting that I have found about the Iranian attacks on Oman and most of the gulf is most Muslims - especially in Oman - are not upset about the attacks. The attacks on the UAE are seen as well-deserved, as the government there have proven themselves to be absolute and complete sellout traitor lapdogs for the Zionist occupiers. The attacks on Kuwait and others are seen as attacks on US installations, so there is no problem with them. And the attacks on Oman are almost unanimously (unanimously as far as those I've spoken to) perceived as false-flag attacks from either the UAE or the Zionists to push everyone in the region into the war against Iran. Basically, everyone is very supportive of Iran because it is seen as Muslims against the Kuffar, and no matter what Fiqhi or sectarian differences we have with other Muslims, they are still our Muslim brothers and we are one Ummah to the exclusion of all others. It's a very positive situation that is bringing the hearts of the Sunni and Shi'a Muslims together - despite the efforts of those who just want to spread hate and division within our Ummah. And I want to be clear, this is not me changing directions regarding what I've said about Iran. The Iranian government is still fighting for nationalism, they are murderers of Muslims, and they do not represent our Ummah as they do not rule by Islam. But this is about the Muslims of Iran - Sunni and Shi'a - and the rest of the Middle East understanding that we are one Ummah against the enemies of Islam despite our disagreements. May Allah (swt) bring the hearts of all Muslims together united under a true Khilafah soon. Ameen."
Basically Muslims will almost always support other Muslims against non Muslims regardless of the cause and are prone to conspiracy theories
Majority of Iranians reject Islamic Republic, survey finds - "A survey conducted by a Netherlands-based institute found that the majority of Iranians would vote for either a regime change or a structural transition away from the Islamic Republic, highlighting growing demands for political change across Iran. The Group for Analyzing and Measuring Attitudes in Iran (GAMAAN), which conducted the survey in June 2024, said it polled more than 77,000 respondents inside Iran, weighting the results to represent the literate adult population. “A majority of the population opposes the Islamic Republic and supports changing or transforming the political system,” the report’s author Ammar Maleki said. Only around 20 percent of respondents want the Islamic Republic to remain in power, according to the survey. Support for the principles of the 1979 revolution and the Supreme Leader fell to 11 percent, down from 18 percent in 2022. By contrast, some 40 percent of participants said regime change was a precondition for reform, while another 24 percent favored a structural transition away from the current system... The survey found no single consensus on what system should replace the current order. A secular republic was backed by 26 percent of respondents, while 21 percent supported a monarchy. Another 22 percent said they lacked enough information to decide, and 11 percent said that the form of an alternative system was not important so long as change occurred... Asked about political parties, 37 percent of Iranians preferred platforms prioritizing individual freedoms and human rights. Social justice and workers’ rights drew 33 percent support, while 26 percent favored nationalist parties. Only 5 percent backed groups emphasizing traditional and religious values... Among Islamic Republic-affiliated figures, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad each polled at 9 percent. Among opposition figures, exiled prince Reza Pahlavi was the most popular with 31 percent, followed by rapper Toomaj Salehi at 6 percent and jailed Nobel laureate Narges Mohammadi at 5 percent... While most Iranians reject religious and military rule, no single movement or figure yet represents the country’s diversity, the survey concluded. “The demand for a democratic government is widespread among Iranians, though at the same time, a notable portion of society shows an inclination toward individual authoritarianism,” Maleki said."
From 2025
Michael Smith | Facebook - "It appears that in the time it took the WSJ to round up enough experts, writers and people to make a video for this article to explain how difficult it would be to secure the Hormuz Straight, including boots on the ground, titled: "Trump Wants to Secure Hormuz. Here’s What It Would Take. Securing the strait on Iran’s long flank would mean big commitments of warships or a sizable ground operation" Trump ordered the destruction of the military assets on Kharg Island from the air and Iran reopened the Straight."
Emerald Apple on X - "The reason the B52 is being used is because SEAD against Iranian regime mk military reached a metric where these slow defenseless bombers can unleash hell safely. Whatever that remains of the Iranian regime is going to face even more firepower than they ever faced, popping out guided bombs and missiles like a pez dispenser."
Ashley Rindsberg on X - "I think it’s safe to say that Qatar is an enemy of Israel—or at least was until about two minutes ago. Doha has played—and continues to play—host to the leaders of Hamas, a genocidal antisemitic death cult whose crowning “achievement” was the gravest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. It has financed anti-Israel AND (for all you “anti-Zionism is not antisemitism” folks) antisemitic propaganda. But what a difference a war makes. Here we have Al Jazeera—whose top executive is a member of the Qatari royal family—openly touting the “US-Israeli strategy” in the war. This is a more red-blooded take than most right-wing *American* outlets can muster at the moment. And yes, it’s an oped. But this is Al Jazeera. It’s controlled by an autocratic government with deep political prerogatives. It does not say anything the government does not want said; and it does not leave unsaid anything the Qatari government demands to be said. With Iranian missile strikes on Qatar, just like that, everything may have changed. This is not to say that Al Jazeera will necessarily stop spinning its anti-Israel narratives, or that it will immediately exile its genocidal jihadi guests, or that it will cease funding propaganda, or, for that matter, terrorism in the region. But it’s a crack in the edifice, the slow beginning of a re-alignment produced by a mutual threat that is no longer hypothetical but fully realized. Why? The one thing the Qataris cannot stand is a kinetic attack. It’s not because they can’t absorb these attacks, individually, or defend against them. It’s that such attacks pierce Qatar’s core geopolitical illusion, which is not that it’s invincible (that much is obvious). The illusion, rather, is that Qatar is not totally and completely naked on the strategic battlefield. This is a nation with infinite wealth but no significant means of defending itself, beyond its generously provided American security umbrella, which it has only on lease. Qatar has a few hundred thousand citizens, many of whom are fantastically wealthy, few of whom are ready to risk it all on the battlefield—or take any of the thousands of daily, grinding steps necessary to prepare yourself for such an eventuality. This is to say nothing of strategic depth, which, of course, is non-existent. There is no enterprising air force that can refit F-15s into medium-range bombers, or a submarine fleet prowling unknown seas. It does, however, have influence. Qatar’s influence extends in direct proportion to its wealth, stretching deep into America and Europe’s institutional psyches. The brand is everywhere. The light musk of Qatari cash wafts across our most important cultural venues, filling our best athletes and entertainers with vigor, spurring on the bright lights of academia with chrome-plated university chairs. But all that influence comes splashing down like the residue of a popped soap bubble once Doha’s enemies—and, just as critically, its friends—see visible proof that it is essentially, and fatally, helpless. In a flash, the enormous asset of its influence machine becomes a cratering liability. That’s why what we might be seeing below is not a one-off but the beginning of a massive recalibration. Qatar’s robe has fallen open. The world might start to gawk. Even a former enemy blocking your shame will do. What a difference a war makes."
Iranian counterprotesters confront NYC Khamenei vigil - "In New York City’s Washington Square Park, a crowd of dozens gathered for a vigil organized by several left-wing groups to mourn the death of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian supreme leader who was killed last week on the first day of the war between Iran, the U.S., and Israel."
This left winger claimed no one single person on the left mourned him. Naturally, the evidence made him double down
Legal and Operational Issues in the Strait of Hormuz: Transit Passage Under Fire - "Iran’s attacks on civilian merchant vessels are clear violations of the law of armed conflict — the principle of distinction between civilian and military objects is among the most foundational rules of IHL, and there is no plausible military justification for striking Thai, Japanese, or Marshallese-flagged commercial ships. If reports of mining are confirmed, that escalation compounds the violation: Hague VIII explicitly prohibits the use of mines to deny transit passage of international straits, and the obligation to protect neutral shipping from indiscriminate hazards is not suspended by armed conflict."
Too bad international law is only meant to be used to destroy the West, so the same people who keep talking about it also cheer on the closure
Bob Kostic on X - "The Iran war is costing a billion a day. Still cheaper than Somali learing centers."
Meme - "OUTRAGE: $22M SPENT ON CRAB AND LOBSTER FOR OUR TROOPS
SILENCE: $9B IN FRAUD IN MINNESOTA FOR ILLEGALS"
Surf And Turf Before The Storm | Military.com - "Across branches and generations, service members have circulated a widely recognized belief: when steak and lobster appear in the dining facility, something significant may be coming. Often described as a “surf and turf” meal, the combination has become embedded in military culture as a symbolic precursor to deployments, combat operations, or extended missions. While experiences vary by unit and theatre, anecdotal accounts from servicemembers consistently reinforce the association between morale-boosting meals and periods of heightened operational tempo. The belief has become part of military folklore, shared in barracks conversations, deployment stories, and online veteran communities... Deployed dining operations have long included occasional premium meals as a morale measure. Larger bases and ships may serve steak or seafood during holidays, commemorations, or after intensive mission cycles. These meals can carry emotional and symbolic weight because they contrast sharply with routine field rations or austere dining conditions... The topic has resurfaced in recent days following reports and social media posts claiming U.S. troops received surf-and-turf meals as force movements and tensions involving Iran increased. Images circulating online described menus including steak, lobster, crab legs, and dessert, which fueled speculation among military communities that the meals signaled impending operational activity."
Naturally, I saw left wingers deny that troops eat steak and lobster. But that's no surprise, because there're still left wingers who deny that there was fraud in Minnesota
Meme - "The mainstream media is melting down over the Pentagon providing our brave troops with steak and lobster-calling it an "outrageous" spending spree under Pete Hegseth. Meanwhile, they cheered when Michelle Obama served ribeyes to soldiers as part of a long-standing military tradition of surf and turf meals dating back to WWII."
"Here's a photo of Michelle Obama serving ribeyes to troops as part of a surf and turf meal that has been military tradition since WWII, but mainstream media has suddenly decided it's a "gotcha" and that our military has never been fed steak and lobster."
Meme - "Now wait a damn minute. You mean to tell me the people spending billions on feeding illegal immigrants are up in arms about spending millions to feed our troops steak and lobster! Your priorities are f'd!"
Meme - "Slam the military for lobster and steak while getting free food with your Government issued EBT CARD. HILARIOUS!"
Eric Matheny 🎙️ on X - "If you come here from Somalia and apply for a fraudulent $4 million grant for a daycare that doesn’t exist, that’s okay. If you are 22 years old, willing to die for your country, and you eat a ribeye, that’s outrageous. Did I get that right?"
Democrats Condemn Hegseth For Using Money To Feed Soldiers When It Could Have Gone To Somali Daycare | Babylon Bee
This is actually true. Left wingers demand unlimited social spending, preferably directed at "minorities"
