Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Apr 12, 2026 04:48 AM)Yazata Wrote: [ -> ]Vance's plane (AF2) has departed Islamabad Pakistan headed back to Washington.

And the Iranian state news agency says...

(They spin so hard it makes me dizzy)

Yep, negotiations useless and the regime immediately proving why.

---

Pakistan's foreign minister urges sides to continue ceasefire
https://www.nbcnews.com/world/iran/live-...rcna285140

Pakistan Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar urged the U.S. and Iran to continue their ceasefire despite peace talks in Islamabad concluding with no agreement to end the war.

In a post on X, Dar characterized the 21-hour negotiation session as both intense and constructive, saying the nations should maintain the talks' "positive spirit," move forward with the goal of region-wide "peace and prosperity" and vow to continue to withhold attacks against each other.

"It is imperative that the parties continue to uphold their commitment to ceasefire," he said.

As that takes place, he said, Pakistan will stand by.

"Pakistan has been and will continue to play its role to facilitate engagement and dialogue between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America in the days to come," Dar said

Oliver Kornetzke Facebook
·
"I have an idea:

If the United States and Israel want Iran to give up nuclear weapons research and development so damn bad, then in the obvious it seems pretty fair and reasonable that they should just relinquish their own nuclear weapons and shut down their own programs too. Same rules, same expectations. It would be unilaterally fair, and hell, actually a net positive for humanity.

Wait, what is that I hear? The United States and Israel have a problem with that? Oh? Why so? Are they worried some other nuclear-capable military run by a deranged psychopath might act recklessly? Might target civilians? Blow up a girls’ school? Threaten entire populations? Weird! Why would they think that?"

(Apr 12, 2026 05:50 AM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Pakistan Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar urged the U.S. and Iran to continue their ceasefire despite peace talks in Islamabad concluding with no agreement to end the war.

Of course, the cutout for China is pushing to restore oil shipments to China. 9_9

---

(Apr 12, 2026 06:24 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Oliver Kornetzke Facebook
·
"I have an idea:

If the United States and Israel want Iran to give up nuclear weapons research and development so damn bad, then in the obvious it seems pretty fair and reasonable that they should just relinquish their own nuclear weapons and shut down their own programs too. Same rules, same expectations. It would be unilaterally fair, and hell, actually a net positive for humanity.

Wait, what is that I hear? The United States and Israel have a problem with that? Oh? Why so? Are they worried some other nuclear-capable military run by a deranged psychopath might act recklessly? Might target civilians? Blow up a girls’ school? Threaten entire populations? Weird! Why would they think that?"

That's the stupidest, most immoral equivalence. Not surprised who's posting it.

So you'd prefer a world run by the authoritarians in Russia and China, or you'd rather Iran get and keep nuclear weapons. Talk about suicidal empathy. 9_9

(Apr 12, 2026 06:24 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Oliver Kornetzke Facebook
·
"I have an idea:

If the United States and Israel want Iran to give up nuclear weapons research and development so damn bad, then in the obvious it seems pretty fair and reasonable that they should just relinquish their own nuclear weapons and shut down their own programs too. Same rules, same expectations. It would be unilaterally fair, and hell, actually a net positive for humanity.

Wait, what is that I hear? The United States and Israel have a problem with that? Oh? Why so? Are they worried some other nuclear-capable military run by a deranged psychopath might act recklessly? Might target civilians? Blow up a girls’ school? Threaten entire populations? Weird! Why would they think that?"

If US was to force Russia to leave Ukraine by honouring its Nato commitments ,then  there could be a period where nuclear non proliferation   and global  nuclear disarmament(ie reduction and stabilisation) talks  could resume.

In that scenario  there could be global pressure put on Iran to allow for something along the lines of the Obama agreement they were following.

Israel would have to agree to abandon its Greater Israel project and America would have to stop supporting it.

There would have to be a path to reintegration of Israel into its neighbourhood .

If it is going to become an apartheid state then  maybe it should no longer be recognised as a full  UN member but more like some kind of an international protectorate ... like  the Vatican.

(Apr 12, 2026 06:24 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Oliver Kornetzke Facebook
·
"I have an idea:

If the United States and Israel want Iran to give up nuclear weapons research and development so damn bad, then in the obvious it seems pretty fair and reasonable that they should just relinquish their own nuclear weapons and shut down their own programs too. Same rules, same expectations. It would be unilaterally fair, and hell, actually a net positive for humanity.

Wait, what is that I hear? The United States and Israel have a problem with that? Oh? Why so? Are they worried some other nuclear-capable military run by a deranged psychopath might act recklessly? Might target civilians? Blow up a girls’ school? Threaten entire populations? Weird! Why would they think that?"

MR, the strategic function of nukes is such that only the option of OMNIlateral disarmament would ever work, and only in a parallel world very different from our own.  While I'd love to live in Oliver's lovely universe, where unicorns fart rainbows of flower petals, I think that's not accessible even to the man in the high castle.  

That said, with a neighbor like Israel, I believe the Iranians are rational actors when they strive to build themselves a little insurance in the form of a nuke.

---

(Apr 12, 2026 01:21 PM)geordief Wrote: [ -> ]

(Apr 12, 2026 06:24 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Oliver Kornetzke Facebook
·
"I have an idea:

If the United States and Israel want Iran to give up nuclear weapons research and development so damn bad, then in the obvious it seems pretty fair and reasonable that they should just relinquish their own nuclear weapons and shut down their own programs too. Same rules, same expectations. It would be unilaterally fair, and hell, actually a net positive for humanity.

Wait, what is that I hear? The United States and Israel have a problem with that? Oh? Why so? Are they worried some other nuclear-capable military run by a deranged psychopath might act recklessly? Might target civilians? Blow up a girls’ school? Threaten entire populations? Weird! Why would they think that?"

If US was to force Russia to leave Ukraine by honouring its Nato commitments ,then  there could be a period where nuclear non proliferation   and global  nuclear disarmament(ie reduction and stabilisation) talks  could resume.

In that scenario  there could be global pressure put on Iran to allow for something along the lines of the Obama agreement they were following.

Israel would have to agree to abandon its Greater Israel project and America would have to stop supporting it.

There would have to be a path to reintegration of Israel into its neighbourhood .

If it is going to become an apartheid state then  maybe it should no longer be recognised as a full  UN member but more like some kind of an international protectorate ... like  the Vatican.

RW ultra orthodox Jews are having huge families and rapidly increasing their demographic slice of Israel.  Combine their ideological bent and population pressures in a small nation and it's hard to see the PTB giving up a Greater Israel.  And the US supports Israel so long as we have our real estate Caligula who wants resorts and casinos on the Mediterranean.  I try to always lower my expectations when it comes to peace, justice, or any humanitarian initiatives in that area of the world.

---

Holy crap, I didn't mean to merge two replies and with so many up-thread quote boxes.  I need to look in here more.

(Apr 12, 2026 02:35 PM)TheVat Wrote: [ -> ][...] Holy crap, I didn't mean to merge two replies and with so many up-thread quote boxes.  I need to look in here more.

It's the system. If more than one post is submitted -- or replies are made to two or more different posts -- within a one-hour time period, then they join together. But if a new post made by somebody else occurs in between or within that interval, it may disrupt that outcome. I sometimes go back and edit in extra horizontal line tags (to the one the forum adds as a divider) to create more space between the responses. Though it hardly matters, the boundary set by the single {hr} is obvious.

(Apr 12, 2026 01:21 PM)geordief Wrote: [ -> ]If US was to force Russia to leave Ukraine by honouring its Nato commitments...

Ukraine is not a NATO nation. No one has NATO commitments to it.

Quote: ,then  there could be a period where nuclear non proliferation   and global  nuclear disarmament(ie reduction and stabilisation) talks  could resume.

No, Russia, China, North Korea, etc. would never disarm, and there's no concession, short of letting these authoritarians rule the world, that would entice them to cooperate.

Quote:In that scenario  there could be global pressure put on Iran to allow for something along the lines of the Obama agreement they were following.

Naively ignorant, as Iran never abided by the inspection requirements of Obama/Biden's JCPOA deal. IOW, they were never following the agreement, just like they're currently lying about any good faith negotiations.

Quote:Israel would have to agree to abandon its Greater Israel project and America would have to stop supporting it.

There's no such thing on any governmental level. Israel has only ever taken territory after being attacked, as a buffer to future unprovoked attacks, and they usually eventually and voluntarily gave the territory back.

Quote:There would have to be a path to reintegration of Israel into its neighbourhood .

Do you mean get rid of a Jewish state? Integrate with what? All the neighboring Muslims would want them all dead?

Quote:If it is going to become an apartheid state then  maybe it should no longer be recognised as a full  UN member but more like some kind of an international protectorate ... like  the Vatican.

It's not and never was. Plenty of other countries actually have more ethnic homogeneity.

The countries with the highest ethnic homogeneity are primarily found in Northeast Asia and parts of Europe and Africa, often with a single ethnic group comprising over 95–99% of the population. Top examples include North Korea, South Korea, Japan, Lesotho, and Bangladesh. These nations frequently maintain high homogeneity through strict immigration policies or isolationism.
...
Israel is not ethnically homogeneous. In fact, it is considered one of the most diverse nations in the Middle East due to its history of immigration from over 100 countries.
While roughly 73-77% of the population is identified as Jewish, this majority is itself a "mosaic" of different ethnic subgroups with distinct cultural, linguistic, and geographic origins.
- Google AI

---

(Apr 12, 2026 02:35 PM)TheVat Wrote: [ -> ]MR, the strategic function of nukes is such that only the option of OMNIlateral disarmament would ever work, and only in a parallel world very different from our own.  While I'd love to live in Oliver's lovely universe, where unicorns fart rainbows of flower petals, I think that's not accessible even to the man in the high castle.  

That said, with a neighbor like Israel, I believe the Iranians are rational actors when they strive to build themselves a little insurance in the form of a nuke.

Even though Israel has never attacked anyone unprovoked. While the Iranian people may be rational actors, if you think the theocratic authoritarian regime, that believes it's eventually going to defeat the US, is, I have doubts about your own rationality.

Quote:RW ultra orthodox Jews are having huge families and rapidly increasing their demographic slice of Israel. 

Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) Jewish families in places like Israel, the UK, and the US generally have very large families, often averaging 6–7+ children. This high fertility rate is driven by religious imperatives to "be fruitful and multiply". Globally, Muslim households tend to be the largest, averaging 6.4 people.
- Google AI

And while Jews are not welcome in any majority Muslim states, Muslims live and even serve in Israeli government.

Quote:Combine their ideological bent and population pressures in a small nation and it's hard to see the PTB giving up a Greater Israel. 

You seem to be conflating Greater Israel expansionism conspiracy theory with legitimate security concerns.

Quote:And the US supports Israel so long as we have our real estate Caligula who wants resorts and casinos on the Mediterranean.  I try to always lower my expectations when it comes to peace, justice, or any humanitarian initiatives in that area of the world.

The US has supported Israel, as the only democracy in the region, for many decades. Trying to tie that support to one man is historically illiterate, at best.

Quote:Even though Israel has never attacked anyone unprovoked.

Liar...

"On February 28, 2026, Israel, with US support, launched a "pre-emptive strike" on Iran, attacking nuclear and military infrastructure to disrupt its atomic program. The action led to significant escalation, including the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and retaliation via missile strikes on U.S./Israeli sites."

"As of early April 2026, Israel has launched intense,, coordinated strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon, targeting hundreds of sites across the country. These actions are described by the IDF as preemptive measures to destroy rocket launchers and command centers, with some strikes reaching central Beirut."

"Israel has historically utilized preemptive strikes to neutralize existential threats, notably in 1967 against Egypt and Syria, and in 1981 and 2007 against nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, respectively. These actions often target perceived imminent threats, ranging from air force preemptions to specialized cyber operations against nuclear programs."

Typically Israel justifies its unprovoked attacks by calling them preemptive strikes against existential threats. Which sounds like bullshit to me. Seems like they are more of an existential threat to Palestinians if history is any good indication.

As regarding using human shields:

"It is documented by human rights organizations (including B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch) that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have used Palestinian civilians as human shields.

The "neighbor procedure," where Palestinians were forced to approach homes of suspected militants to urge them to surrender, was used frequently until banned by the Israeli Supreme Court in 2005.

Reports from human rights organizations and investigation teams, including from 2024–2025, indicate that Israeli forces have continued to use Palestinian detainees as human shields in Gaza (referred to by some soldiers as "mosquito protocol"), forcing them to enter potentially booby-trapped tunnels or buildings before soldiers enter."

---

I'm really starting to like this Oliver guy!

(Apr 12, 2026 09:10 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Even though Israel has never attacked anyone unprovoked.

Liar...

"On February 28, 2026, Israel, with US support, launched a "pre-emptive strike" on Iran, attacking nuclear and military infrastructure to disrupt its atomic program. The action led to significant escalation, including the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and retaliation via missile strikes on U.S./Israeli sites."

"As of early April 2026, Israel has launched intense,, coordinated strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon, targeting hundreds of sites across the country. These actions are described by the IDF as preemptive measures to destroy rocket launchers and command centers, with some strikes reaching central Beirut."

"Israel has historically utilized preemptive strikes to neutralize existential threats, notably in 1967 against Egypt and Syria, and in 1981 and 2007 against nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria, respectively. These actions often target perceived imminent threats, ranging from air force preemptions to specialized cyber operations against nuclear programs."

Historical illiterate.
All preceded by threats of complete annihilation, with the imminent attainment of the means to do so, or actual attacks (often over decades).
Iran, by demanding Lebanon be included in a ceasefire deal, has admitted Hezbollah is considered an Iranian force. Hezbollah has been a threat to Israel for decades. Iran has repeatedly touted their genocidal intent toward all Jews, and they were about to attain weapons grade uranium.

Hezbollah has frequently launched attacks that endanger civilians, including the use of rockets in populated areas and the failure to distinguish between military and civilian targets, which has led to casualties and displacement in northern Israel. While Hezbollah often states its attacks are in response to Israeli actions, international human rights organizations have documented these actions as violations of international humanitarian law.
...
The "Reactive" Argument: For years leading up to the war, Israel faced persistent Fedayeen (guerrilla) attacks launched from the Gaza Strip and Sinai, often sponsored by Egypt. Border skirmishes with Syria were also frequent.
The "Preemptive" Argument: In the weeks immediately preceding the war, Egypt took three specific "acts of war" (casus belli):

    Expelling UN Peacekeepers: Removing the buffer force between the armies.
    Blockading the Straits of Tiran: Closing Israel's primary oil supply route—an act recognized as a declaration of war under international law.
    Massive Troop Build-up: Egypt moved 100,000 troops and hundreds of tanks to the border, while Arab leaders used rhetoric calling for Israel’s "annihilation.
...
Guerrilla Attacks: Syria actively supported Palestinian Fatah militants who launched sabotage missions and mine attacks into Israel from Syrian territory.
Artillery Bombardment: Syrian forces frequently shelled Israeli farming communities (Kibbutzim) in the Galilee from their fortified positions on the Golan Heights.
Aerial Battle (April 7, 1967): Tensions boiled over two months before the war when a minor border skirmish escalated into a massive dogfight. Israel shot down six Syrian MiG-21s, even flying low over Damascus as a show of force.
...
The Context of Hostility: Iraq had been a participant in every major war against Israel (1948, 1967, 1973) and remained technically at war with the Jewish state. Saddam Hussein had also made repeated public threats regarding the destruction of Israel.
The Israeli Logic: Israel argued they had to strike before the reactor became "hot" (loaded with fuel) to avoid radioactive fallout over Baghdad. While no specific Iraqi attack was imminent, Israel viewed a nuclear-armed Saddam as an unacceptable existential risk based on his long-standing hostility.
...
Israel discovered Syria was building a North Korean-designed plutonium reactor in secret. The strike was intended to uphold the Begin Doctrine (no enemy state can have WMDs) before the world—or even most of the Israeli cabinet—knew the facility existed.
- Google AI

Learn some history for once in your life.

Quote:Typically Israel justifies its unprovoked attacks by calling them preemptive strikes against existential threats. Which sounds like bullshit to me. Seems like they are more of an existential threat to Palestinians if history is any good indication.

Considering your don't recognize the bullshit that falls out of your broken brain (hearing voices) daily... 9_9
When you're enemy tells you openly that they seek your genocide and then start to attain the means to do so, you believe them... or you're suicidal and you die.

Quote:As regarding using human shields:

"It is documented by human rights organizations (including B'Tselem and Human Rights Watch) that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have used Palestinian civilians as human shields.

The "neighbor procedure," where Palestinians were forced to approach homes of suspected militants to urge them to surrender, was used frequently until banned by the Israeli Supreme Court in 2005.

Militants hiding in civilian residences are already using the surrounding neighbors as human shields.
So Israel couldn't employ such a strategy in the first place without prior war crimes by Palestinians.

In international law, human shielding is the practice of using the presence of civilians or other protected persons (like prisoners of war) to make a military target immune from attack.
- Google AI

Israel never used civilians "to make a military target immune from attack." Although that tactic is ethically questionable, at best.

Quote:Reports from human rights organizations and investigation teams, including from 2024–2025, indicate that Israeli forces have continued to use Palestinian detainees as human shields in Gaza (referred to by some soldiers as "mosquito protocol"), forcing them to enter potentially booby-trapped tunnels or buildings before soldiers enter."

If civilians harbor militants, they are accomplices.
Or are we to assume all the terror tunnels and weapons movements were made without any locals awareness? @_@

You sound like you also don't know that booby-trapping is also a war crime.

Yes, the use of booby traps can constitute a war crime under international humanitarian law when they violate principles of distinction or cause unnecessary suffering. Specific regulations, such as Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, strictly prohibit booby-trapping civilian objects, dead bodies, or medical supplies.
- Google AI

Quote:

---

I'm really starting to like this Oliver guy!

Of course you do. It's TDS on crack.