Bushra Shaikh on X - "Many diaspora Iranians living in the West are suffering with a deep rooted self hate. It's so severe that they're prepared to see their homeland destroyed in order to gain validation. Unbelievably sad."
If you don't support a brutal dictatorship which massacres its own people, you're self hating
Meme - ho_grammer: "Historically, when Americans suddenly care about women's rights in a Middle Eastern country, those women are about to get bombed."
Jon Burrows: "Do you condemn Iran's treatment of women ?"
So many possible takeaways here. Empathy is bad, empathy can only be insincere when it threatens the left wing agenda, there was no real empathy for European Jews in World War II...
Meme - "IRANIAN DIASPORA IN VANCOUVER"
smohyeddin: "A Nuremberg rally held in Vancouver today. Iran's diaspora community is going through a level of psychotic fascism and dangerous nationalism. They are engaging in full on group speak and group think. It's scary to behold. As their country is being scorched, they are thanking the people killing Iranians and destroying their country."
Terrorism supporters are really deranged. Presumably anti-Hitler and/or anti-genocide Germans during World War II who wanted their country invaded were evil
Meme - Samira Mohyeddin @SMohyeddin: "Vancouver's Iranian diaspora community. Seig Heil."
@13virginiawoolf: "That one doesn't resemble the Nazi salute. But if you're looking for something like it, yesterday it was spotted at the anti-war rally by supporters of the Islamic Republic."
Meme - Howard Baskerville @howardbaskerv: "They're putting their cell phones in the air (notice everyone has one in the raised hand, notice the flashlights) This is symbolic berate protestors did it in Iran when the power was cut and streetlights were off. You're being dishonest on purpose. Shame on you."
Eli Kowaz - איליי קואז on X - "You know that's not what they’re saying but interesting way to cope with the loss of your beloved Ayatollah."
Thanking Trump and Netanyahu makes you a "Nazi"
Meme - "A poster from yesterday's Nuremberg rally in Toronto"
"*white garland* President Trump, you are the best President of the United States- NOT Biden, NOT Obama
*white garland* Senator Lindsey Graham. Uncle, you are an honorary Iranian"
smohyeddin: "📍 The political illiterate. They will tell you this is the will of the majority. Does it make it right if a majority want it? The majority of Germans loved H8tler. Believed in the rise of the Third Reich and making Germany great again. H8tler too harkened back to an imagined time of history where the fatherland was prosperous.
📍 What is happening in our diaspora is directly impacting what is happening TO people on the ground in Iran."
Thanking Trump and Graham makes it a Nuremberg rally. Left wingers love comparing everything to the Nazis
Woman killed in Bahrain as Gulf states intercept more Iranian missiles - "A 29-year-old woman was killed and eight people injured when a residential building in Bahrain’s capital Manama was hit... Iran has been attacking energy infrastructure, which, combined with its stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz, has sent oil prices soaring."
A US hater was claiming that Iran didn't attack oil refineries and was attacking hotels because US soldiers were staying there and Iran had excellent intelligence because the Gulf states were full of people who hated Israel and wanted to help Iran. Another claimed Iran was attacking US military targets and that was justified and others claimed it was self defence.
Meme - Ailin O'Cochlain @Ailinocochlain: "It's not a war crime when its carried out on people you don't like apparently. Not only that, but its cheered on with glee and enthusiasm."
Ed Fidgeon-Kavanagh @Clearpreso: "You know, I'm starting to think these people who previously told us the very concept of urban bombing being a war crime, might not have actually believed that?"
Tehran Tadhg @TadhgHickey: "I want this video playing at my wedding"
Al Jazeera English: "Footage showed cluster munitions crossing the skies over West Jerusalem during a new wave of Iranian strikes on Israel."
Kamala Harris Says U.S. Must Bear Higher Gas Prices to Punish Russia - The New York Times
As Iran War Spikes Gas Prices, Americans Struggle With the Rising Cost of Living - The New York Times
War with Iran: Lebanon calls for direct talks with Israel, accuses Hezbollah of betraying country - "In a remarkable statement Monday afternoon, Lebanon called for direct talks with Israel on “permanent arrangements for security and stability on our borders,” while accusing the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah of betraying the country... Calling the Shiite Muslim group “an armed faction … that places no value on Lebanon’s interest nor on the life of its people,” Aoun said Hezbollah “wanted to achieve the fall of the State of Lebanon, under aggression and chaos.” He accused the group of working “for the sake of the calculations of the Iranian regime.” “After Hezbollah’s decision to enter the regional fight around Iran — a decision that put the Lebanese government in deep embarrassment — the main worry of Beirut’s authorities has become to clearly delink themselves from Hezbollah’s actions, mainly in order to spare the entire country the deadly costs of an all-out Israeli reprisal,” said Joseph Bahout, director of the Issam Fares Institute for Public Policy and International Affairs at the American University of Beirut... Last week, Lebanon’s government declared Hezbollah’s military activities illegal, but it does not have the force required to effectively disarm Hezbollah on its own"
Clearly, they're controlled by "Zionists"
Meme - "Unprovoked aggression?
1979: Death to America!
1980: Death to America!
1981: Death to America!
1982: Death to America!
1983: Death to America!
1984: Death to America!
1985: Death to America!
1986: Death to America!
1987: Death to America!
1988: Death to America!
1989: Death to America!
1990: Death to America!
1991: Death to America!
1992: Death to America!
1993: Death to America!
1994: Death to America!
1995: Death to America!
1996: Death to America!
1997: Death to America!
1998: Death to America!
1999: Death to America!
2000: Death to America!
2001: Death to America!
2002: Death to America!
2003: Death to America!
2004: Death to America!
2005: Death to America!
2006: Death to America!
2007: Death to America!
2008: Death to America!
2009: Death to America!
2010: Death to America!
2011: Death to America!
2012: Death to America!
2013: Death to America!
2014: Death to America!
2015: Death to America!
2016: Death to America!
2017: Death to America!
2018: Death to America!
2019: Death to America!
2020: Death to America!
2021: Death to America!
2022: Death to America!
2023: Death to America!
2024: Death to America!
2025: Death to America!
2026: Help! This is an unprovoked attack by the USA!"
Of course, George W Bush uses the word "crusade" once and it's proof that he's a Christian fundamentalist who invaded Iraq because he had religious delusions. But if you think Muslims talking about "jihad" are a cause for concern, you're Islamophobic and ignorant because you don't know that "jihad" doesn't mean holy war, unlike crusade which can only mean a Christian Holy War
Met Police 'has not ruled out' asking Home Secretary for ban on Al Quds Day march - "The annual “Al Quds Day” march is set to take place this weekend in central London. It is organised by the ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission’, a group described in the 2023 Shawcross Review of Prevent as “an Islamist group ideologically aligned with the Iranian regime”... Al-Quds day was an initiative created by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, shortly after the Iranian revolution. Fixed towards the end of the month of Ramadan, it was intended to be a day when Muslims worldwide would unite against Israel. Since the proscription of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation in the UK, Al Quds Day marchers have generally preferred to hold pictures of the now-deceased Iranian regime supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, sometimes with the wording: “be on the right side of history”. In the past, speakers at the Al Quds Day Parade have made highly inflammatory statements. Perhaps the most notorious was in 2017, when the Al Quds Day March took place a week after the Grenfell Tower fire. Nazim Ali, then the director of the ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission’, gave a speech in which he railed against “Zionists who give money to the Tory Party, to kill people in high rise blocks”. A policewoman observing the speech at the time and asked about the lack of action in response to the comment said “it’s just an opinion.” Ali also told the crowd: “We are fed up of the Zionists. We are fed up of their rabbis. We are fed up of their synagogues. We are fed up of their supporters.” In December 2017, the CPS said that it was not ready to prosecute Mr Ali for offences of inciting racial or religious hatred, or a public order offence. Campaign Against Antisemitism subsequently brought a private prosecution against Ali. However, in July 2018, a week before the court case was due to begin, the CPS announced that it was taking over the prosecution – which it had a legal right to do – before promptly announcing that it was dropping the case entirely. In a recent statement, Campaign Against Antisemitism described the annual Al Quds Day march as “notoriously sympathetic to the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies. “The Al Quds Day marches have been banned in some European countries”, a spokesperson for CAA said. “There is no excuse for them still being permitted in the UK. Enough of being a soft touch on extremism.”"
Andy Lee on X - "“The head of Canada’s refugee tribunal told committee that she does not know the name of a suspected senior Iranian regime official whose identity her own board concealed from the public in a deportation hearing - and that the concealment was granted at the man’s own request.”"
'That's Crazy': Conservative MPs Confront Canada's Refugee Chief Over Iranian Regime Suspect Shielded From Public View - "Menegakis demanded to know why the board was “prioritizing the privacy of an alleged member of a terrorist organization over the safety of Iranian Canadians.” Asked whether the IRB grants the same anonymity to suspects linked to other terrorist organizations — naming the Islamic State and al-Qaeda — Brassard said the board applies the law as written. Menegakis then asked how many of the hundreds of thousands of pending asylum claims belong to individuals with alleged ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Brassard said she had no number to provide. Asked how many are in the queue for deportation, she referred him to the Canada Border Services Agency. A CBSA official at the hearing said he also lacked the specific data. “Could one of you answer why there’s only been one deportation in almost four years?” Menegakis asked. Neither witness answered directly... Menegakis raised the case of Afshin Pirnoon, a civil engineer who served as director general of Iran’s Road Maintenance and Transportation Organization for 22 years before arriving in Canada on a tourist visa in 2022 and working as an Uber driver. The CBSA alleged he was a longtime senior functionary and political asset of the Islamic Republic and sought his removal. The IRB declined, ruling in August 2025 that despite two decades of service Pirnoon did not qualify as a “senior official” and had not exerted significant influence over government policy. The board member found that “meeting with representatives of the Supreme Leader does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Mr. Pirnoon influenced government policies and decisions.” The minister of roads under whom Pirnoon served was Mohammad Eslami — now on sanctions lists in Canada, the European Union, and the United Kingdom for his alleged role in the development of nuclear weapons, and currently the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization... Canada’s asylum acceptance rate reached 79.8 percent in 2024 — among the highest in the world. Ireland accepted 30 percent of claims that year, Sweden 40 percent, Germany 59 percent. The claims backlog, which stood at 17,000 in 2016, has grown to nearly 300,000."
Mustapha Ezzarghani | Facebook - "For days now, I have been watching a strange narrative spreading across Western media and social networks: the claim that the confrontation with the Iranian regime is somehow “Israel’s war” and that the United States was dragged into it. As a Moroccan Muslim and an Arab who has spent years studying the politics of our region, I can say clearly: this argument is not only false—it is intellectually dishonest. Let us start with a simple fact. The Islamic Republic of Iran has not spent the last four decades declaring war only on Israel. Its leaders openly speak of fighting the “Great Satan” — the United States — and the “Little Satan” — Israel. For 47 years, their ideology has been built around exporting revolution, destabilizing the Middle East, and spreading militant networks across the region. This is not an Israeli fantasy. It is Iran’s own declared doctrine. Iran finances militias, trains terrorist organizations, and builds missile and nuclear capabilities while threatening not only Israel but also Arab countries, American forces, and global stability. From Lebanon to Iraq, from Yemen to Syria, the fingerprints of Tehran are everywhere. So when the United States acts against that regime, it is not acting on behalf of Israel. It is acting to defend its own strategic interests and the stability of the international system. The idea that Washington needs to be “manipulated” by Jerusalem into recognizing this threat is absurd. Every American administration of the 21st century—Republican or Democrat—has stated clearly that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is a fundamental national security priority. The debate in Washington has never been about whether Iran is dangerous. The debate has only been about how to stop it. Some believed diplomacy and concessions would change the behavior of the clerical regime. Others believe that a regime driven by revolutionary ideology and apocalyptic theology will never voluntarily abandon its ambitions. But pretending that the Iranian threat exists only in Israel’s imagination is a dangerous illusion. There is also another uncomfortable truth: Iran today is not an isolated regional actor. It is deeply connected to the broader geopolitical challenge facing the West. Tehran has become a strategic partner of Russia and an economic partner of China. Chinese purchases of Iranian oil have helped keep the regime alive despite international sanctions, while Iranian drones have played a central role in Russia’s war in Ukraine. This is not a local Israeli issue. It is part of a global strategic confrontation. Those who repeat the slogan “this is Israel’s war” are ignoring the obvious: a nuclear-armed Iran would not threaten only Tel Aviv. It would threaten the entire Middle East, including Arab countries, and it would destabilize global security for decades. And yet, instead of confronting this reality, many prefer to blame Israel. They claim that the Jewish state somehow controls American policy, pushes Washington into wars, or manipulates global politics behind the scenes. These accusations are not serious geopolitical analysis. They are recycled conspiracy theories that have circulated for generations. Criticizing governments is legitimate. Debating military decisions is legitimate. But reducing complex strategic decisions to the idea that “Israel controls America” is not criticism—it is propaganda. Israel does not need to invent the Iranian threat. Iranian leaders themselves have repeatedly called for the destruction of the Jewish state. They openly describe Israel as a country that could be erased with a single nuclear weapon. No responsible nation would ignore such threats. Standing against the Iranian regime is not about serving Israel. It is about preventing a radical theocracy from acquiring the most dangerous weapons on earth and using them to reshape the Middle East through intimidation, violence, and nuclear blackmail. If that threat disappears, Israel will be safer. But so will Arab nations, Europe, and the United States. Recognizing that reality does not require being Jewish or Israeli. Sometimes it simply requires honesty. And as an Arab Muslim who believes in stability, sovereignty, and the future of our region, I refuse to repeat narratives that protect the most dangerous regime in the Middle East while blaming the only democracy in the region for defending itself."
Dr. Brian L. Cox on X - "Just when you think media coverage of int'l law in armed conflict couldn't possibly get any more misleading, this story @huffpost by @svdate comes along and...well, blows all expectations right out of the water. Let's not focus on the fact that GC II requires vessels to take all POSSIBLE measures to search for/collect shipwrecked after each engagement (art. 18, pic 1) - yet it is typically not possible due to REASONS COVERED IN THE STORY for a submarine to take such measures. Or that the article reads much more like an oped than news coverage. Or that Daté's current pinned tweet is about a book he wrote that reveals he suffers from a chronic case of #TDS. All of those issues, and more, could & definitely should be addressed by an in-depth critical analysis of this prime specimen of misleading "journalism" covering int'l law involving armed conflict in the applied context. But for present purposes, let's focus on just one point: the delta between the headline designed to catch your attention (so you stop scrolling & click on the story) and what the article actually says. Ok. Here's the headline:
U.S. May Have Committed War Crime In Sinking Of Iranian Ship
Now here's the only relevant use of the term "war crime" in the entire story: “The basic idea is that any ship, including a submarine, should do its best to rescue shipwrecked enemy sailors. Attacking them would be a war crime,” said Marko Milanovic, a professor of international law at the University of Reading in England. Pay close attention to what Marko's quote tells us since it's divided into 2 parts. First is his view of the "basic idea" behind the requirement to take all possible measures. THEN we get a completely separate, and accurate, observation: ATTACKING shipwrecked personnel "would be a war crime." Ok, now go back & read the headline. Supposedly 🇺🇸 may have committed a war crime in SINKING the Iranian frigate. See the disconnect yet? That's right! "Sinking" an enemy vessel under these circumstances isn't a war crime, regardless of one's own personal views about the advisability of doing so (and the "journalist's" personal views are quite clear in how he structures the story). Failing to take all POSSIBLE measures to search/collect also is NOT a war crime. As Marko said, attacking shipwrecked personnel WOULD be a war crime. Specifically, it would violate GC II, art. 12 (pic 2) & would qualify as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (pic 3). (Notice this war crime involves attacking personnel who are ACTUALLY shipwrecked, as here. You may recall a similar discussion after similarly misleading media coverage of the initial suspected narcotrafficker boat strike by 🇺🇸. The reason for that "double tap" strike was to destroy the military objective - cocaine assessed to be keeping the damaged hull afloat - and not the shipwrecked personnel. Regardless of one's personal opinions regarding that justification, attacking a military objective on the high seas is distinguishable from attacking shipwrecked personnel.) So we know the potential WAR CRIME is attacking shipwrecked personnel. That's what Marko told us in the story. Yet there is absolutely no indication whatsoever in the story that the 🇺🇸 submarine did so. And yet this is the sensational claim designed to get a potential reader to click on the story: U.S. May Have Committed War Crime In Sinking Of Iranian Ship
Of course, most folks are aware that the journalist suggests a headline but doesn't necessarily choose it. And the headline is a fundamentally misleading part of the article. Don't get me wrong. The rest of the story is a steaming pile of 🐕💩 that fully crosses the line into #journalisticmalpractice. But picking a headline with a defamatory claim that isn't actually supported by the article is next level unethical. Just when you think you can't trust media coverage of int'l law involving armed conflict, remember this: you actually can't distrust us enough when covering this subject."
Time to ban Fox News and the Daily Mail for misinformation
Duopoly Destroyer on X - "Never forget that the US wants democracy in Iran so badly that they overthrew Iran’s first democratically elected president and helped install a dictator after."
Pouria Hadjibagheri MBE on X - "This is an incredibly important and troublesome myth, often blindly referenced by Western analysts in error. So here's what actually happened: The "first democratically elected leader overthrown by the US" line about Mossadegh collapses the actual constitutional reality of Iran in the 1950s. Iran did not elect prime ministers. Under the 1906 constitution, the Shah appointed and dismissed the prime minister from among members of the elected Parliament (Majlis). Mossadegh was appointed under that system. In August 1953 the Shah issued a royal decree dismissing him, an authority explicitly granted to the monarch. Mossadegh refused to comply, barricaded himself in office, and attempted to dissolve the Majles through a referendum that bypassed the constitutional order entirely. By that point the country was already in a constitutional crisis. Just as important is why the Shah moved against him. The dispute was not simply "Britain vs. Iranian nationalism." Iran at the time had no independent infrastructure to produce, refine, transport, insure, or sell its oil internationally. Full and immediate nationalisation without an operational framework effectively shut down the industry overnight. Mossadegh was sympathetic to the Soviet, and would likely have granted them the privilege to handle things. The Shah couldn't allow that. His strategy was to increase Iran's share of oil revenues while maintaining production and access to global markets, using that income to gradually build the domestic infrastructure Iran lacked. The plan was long-term: secure a larger revenue share now, develop capacity over time, and transition to full control once Iran could actually operate the industry. In other words, the dispute was partly about timing and state capacity, not simply sovereignty. Though the latter was important if the keys were to be given to the Soviets. And if you're wondering when that long-term horizon would have matured, well, it was a 25-year plan. That brings us to 1979."
Eyal Yakoby on X - "The grandson of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, Ali Ahmad Khomeini, last month: “The Israelis know damn well: The day the Islamic nation gets the chance, we’ll erase Israel – just like Hamas tried!” You can’t make a deal with these people."
Damn unprovoked Israeli aggression!
