Live Thread: War With Iran Continues #5

[BobfromWB]

The overwhelming majority of Iranians are muslims.  You aren't going to get them to overthrow their government by saying all muslims should be killed.  Just sayin'.

They were never given a choice. Many muslims convert once they are given a choice. 

[BobfromWB]

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/2068391585872502804

That's enough for the insurance companies to keep their clients away. So its closed. Unless the US provides cover and escorts for the mos of the ships.

[Hoodat]

Contrasting with the official numbers, new anonymous online and academic surveys suggest far fewer Iranians currently self-identify as Muslim in practice or belief; a large 2020–2025 study reported only about 40% identified as Muslim, with many Iranians identifying as nonreligious, spiritual, or affiliating with pre-Islamic traditions—findings emphasized in academic coverage such as The Conversation [4]. Scholars and commentators point to generational change, urbanization and political backlash against clerical rule as drivers of private disaffiliation, arguing that official affiliation statistics often reflect legal identity and inherited status rather than lived belief [4][7].

https://factually.co/fact-checks/society/are-most-iranians-muslim-932dd4

Good luck getting 60% of the people to kill the other 40%.  Personally, I don't think that is a winnable strategy.

[240B]

They tried but failed.

We cannot afford to fail.

I am a Jew
I cannot afford to fail. Because that is how it is

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I am a Jew
I cannot afford to fail. Because that is how it is

[bigheadfred]

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=584220.msg3322991#msg3322991

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/2068441329747521686

[mystery-ak]

Trump threatens to charge US tolls in Hormuz if final deal not reached in 60 days, says Iran will charge ‘NO TOLLS’

Saturday, June 20, 2026
Trump threatens to charge US tolls in Hormuz if final deal not reached in 60 days, says Iran will charge ‘NO TOLLS’
By AP Today, 10:37 pm

2

US President Donald Trump threatens to impose US tolls in the Strait of Hormuz if a final deal with Iran isn’t reached in 60 days.

Trump, spending the weekend at Camp David, underscores that the initial agreement to end the war with Iran calls for toll-free travel through the vital waterway for 60 days.

He adds: “there will be NO TOLLS after the 60 day period has expired, unless they are imposed by and for the United States of America, should the deal not be completed.”

Trump says the money would be for “services rendered as the Guardian Angel to the countries of the Middle East for purposes of both past, present, and future reimbursement of costs.”

The US president has faced a lot of blowback domestically for how the memorandum of understanding with Iran addresses the issue of tolls in the Strait of Hormuz. The deal only secures toll-free passage for 60 days and doesn’t preclude future fees.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/trump-threatens-to-charge-us-tolls-in-hormuz-if-final-deal-not-reached-in-60-days-says-iran-will-charge-no-tolls/

[Bigun]

What happens in Iran over the next several months will tell you where the conflict between Christianity and Islam is heading over the next century or more. Many millions are watching and you had better hope it goes our way!

[Idiot]

I am a Jew
I cannot afford to fail. Because that is how it is

My Savior is a Jew. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

The same way you eat an elephant! One bite at a time.

I consider myself very well versed on the Crusades thank you. And yes, we do have different views on the matter. That is very clear.

I don’t think “kill all the Mullahs” holds up as a serious solution.

First, it conflates a religious class with a political regime. A mullah is a Shi’a cleric. Some are part of Iran’s ruling structure, but many are not involved in government at all. So the idea already runs into the problem of collective guilt rather than targeting actual decision-makers.

Second, even inside Iran’s system, power isn’t held only by clerics. The state includes the military, the Revolutionary Guard, intelligence services, bureaucracies, and elected officials. Removing one category of people doesn’t dismantle the system.

Third, practically speaking, a plan like that would require a massive ground occupation to even attempt anything resembling it. It’s not a targeted operation; it’s a large-scale campaign against a social and religious class spread across an entire country.

Fourth, it would almost certainly backfire strategically. Historically, removing leadership figures doesn’t end a system, it often produces harder, more radical successors and increases instability.

Fifth, internationally, it crosses into the territory of religious persecution. Even states hostile to Iran’s government would struggle to justify a policy framed around eliminating an entire religious group.

And finally, it doesn’t define an end state. What does success look like… no clerics at all, or just some of them? Without a clear objective, it’s not really a strategy. It’s just escalation language.

You can absolutely argue about Trump, Iran policy, or military options. But “kill all the Mullahs” isn’t a workable strategy. It’s a slogan that collapses under its own assumptions.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And if the next Presidents in succession are Kamala, Newson, AOC & Platner?

Thats on us, and proves me right.

[bigheadfred]

https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/2068441329747521686

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Neither side can kill their way out of this.

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

We don't need to exterminate all of them. Just enough of them to convince them they cannot win and Allah has failed them.

I understand the intent behind what you’re saying, but it still doesn’t hold up as a workable or logical strategy.

First, the idea of “just enough of them to convince them” assumes a level of control over human psychology and political behavior that doesn’t exist in real-world conflict. Violence doesn’t reliably produce submission. In many cases, it produces the opposite: hardening resistance, retaliation, and long-term escalation.

Second, this still runs into the same core issue: you’re talking about targeting people based on their identity as religious clerics rather than their individual actions or specific roles in government or military decision-making. That crosses into collective punishment and religious targeting, which is both ethically and legally indefensible under modern rules of war.

Third, the assumption that this would demonstrate “Allah has failed them” misunderstands how belief systems work under pressure. History shows that when religious or ideological groups are attacked, it rarely produces loss of faith. More often, it produces martyr narratives, deeper conviction, and recruitment gains. External force does not typically “disprove” belief—it usually reinforces it for those already committed.

Fourth, even if you set morality aside and look purely at outcomes, the strategy still doesn’t solve the underlying problem. Iran’s governance structure, military command, intelligence services, and political institutions don’t disappear because a subset of clerics is intimidated or removed. You’re still left with a functioning state apparatus and likely a more radicalized environment.

Fifth, there’s no measurable stopping point. “Just enough” is not a strategy variable—it’s an open-ended escalation. How is “enough” defined, and who decides when that threshold is reached?

If the goal is to change Iran’s behavior or reduce conflict, then the debate has to stay in the realm of achievable political and military objectives. Once it moves into “break their belief system through selective killing,” it stops being strategy and becomes something that is neither controllable nor likely to produce the outcome you’re describing.

You can argue hard against the Iranian regime without turning the discussion into a theory of coercion through religious intimidation. Those are very different things.

[240B]

I AMA JEW!

tee shirts are off the charts

[Luis Gonzalez]

That's horrific!!!

That 250,000,000 figure isn’t just unverified—it’s not even remotely plausible when you look at basic historical scale.

For most of the last 1400 years, total world population was nowhere near today’s levels. In 500 AD the entire planet had roughly 200–300 million people total. In 1000 AD maybe 250–300 million. Even by 1500 AD you’re still only around ~450 million globally. So the idea that a single broad religious category accounts for 250 million deaths over that span doesn’t survive basic population math.

It also assumes a unified actor called “Muslims” operating consistently across 14 centuries, which isn’t how history works. You’re talking about dozens of empires, hundreds of states, and constant wars between Muslim and Muslim powers as often as anything else.

And importantly, there is no historical dataset, war archive, or academic estimate that even approaches that number. It doesn’t come from scholarship—it comes from internet chain claims that stack speculation on top of speculation until the number becomes meaningless.

So the issue isn’t just that it’s unproven. It’s that it fails every basic check: population reality, historical structure, and methodology.

[240B]

I do not care
I do not care
I do not care

Islam is a Satanic belief that is a curse on the entire world.
Islam will kill itself. When your entire 'belief' is about killing people. Go ahead home Muhammed

[Bigun]

That 250,000,000 figure isn’t just unverified—it’s not even remotely plausible when you look at basic historical scale.

For most of the last 1400 years, total world population was nowhere near today’s levels. In 500 AD the entire planet had roughly 200–300 million people total. In 1000 AD maybe 250–300 million. Even by 1500 AD you’re still only around ~450 million globally. So the idea that a single broad religious category accounts for 250 million deaths over that span doesn’t survive basic population math.

It also assumes a unified actor called “Muslims” operating consistently across 14 centuries, which isn’t how history works. You’re talking about dozens of empires, hundreds of states, and constant wars between Muslim and Muslim powers as often as anything else.

And importantly, there is no historical dataset, war archive, or academic estimate that even approaches that number. It doesn’t come from scholarship—it comes from internet chain claims that stack speculation on top of speculation until the number becomes meaningless.

So the issue isn’t just that it’s unproven. It’s that it fails every basic check: population reality, historical structure, and methodology.

 Dr. Bill Warner’s estimates that 200–300 million lives have been lost in the Islamic expansion over ~1,400 years, including conquests, jihads, slave trades, and related conflicts.

A Self-Study Course on Political Islam-Level 1

A Self-Study Course on Political Islam-Level 2

A Self-Study Course on Political Islam-Level 3

[Luis Gonzalez]

Dr. Bill Warner’s estimates that 200–300 million lives have been lost in the Islamic expansion over ~1,400 years, including conquests, jihads, slave trades, and related conflicts.

A Self-Study Course on Political Islam-Level 1

A Self-Study Course on Political Islam-Level 2

A Self-Study Course on Political Islam-Level 3

My problem with Warner’s methodology isn’t that he criticizes Islamic history. My problem is that his framework can be applied to any major civilization and produce absurd numbers.

If I used the same method on Christianity, I could lump together 2,000 years of wars, conquests, colonialism, religious conflicts, and state violence and claim Christianity killed hundreds of millions of people.

Most historians would immediately object because they understand that England, Spain, France, Germany, Russia, Byzantium, and the United States are not a single actor simply because most of their populations were Christian.

Yet that’s essentially what Warner does with Islam. He treats fourteen centuries of different empires, dynasties, states, and peoples as one continuous entity and then aggregates the body count.

If your methodology can prove that both Christianity and Islam killed “hundreds of millions,” the methodology may be the problem

[bigheadfred]

Do you people know why My Lai was justified?

[Bigun]

My problem with Warner’s methodology isn’t that he criticizes Islamic history. My problem is that his framework can be applied to any major civilization and produce absurd numbers.

If I used the same method on Christianity, I could lump together 2,000 years of wars, conquests, colonialism, religious conflicts, and state violence and claim Christianity killed hundreds of millions of people.

Most historians would immediately object because they understand that England, Spain, France, Germany, Russia, Byzantium, and the United States are not a single actor simply because most of their populations were Christian.

Yet that’s essentially what Warner does with Islam. He treats fourteen centuries of different empires, dynasties, states, and peoples as one continuous entity and then aggregates the body count.

If your methodology can prove that both Christianity and Islam killed “hundreds of millions,” the methodology may be the problem

Find me someone more knowledgeable on the subject of Political Islam than Bill Warner and I'm all ears.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Find me someone more knowledgeable on the subject of Political Islam than Bill Warner and I'm all ears.

He’s a mathematician who thinks like you do and writes books about it.

His 250,000,000 is either an absurdity, or an equal condemnation of Christianity. His methods and his numbers have been completely debunked by people who really do that for a living.

[Bigun]

He’s a mathematician who thinks like you do and writes books about it.

His 250,000,000 is either an absurdity, or an equal condemnation of Christianity. His methods and his numbers have been completely debunked by people who really do that for a living.

Love thy neighbor as thy self vs kill the Kafir wherever you find him.

Doesn't sound the same to me but I'm just an ignorant ole East Texas boy.

[corbe]

[Luis Gonzalez]

Love thy neighbor as thy self vs kill the Kafir wherever you find him.

Doesn't sound the same to me but I'm just an ignorant ole East Texas boy.

Thanks @Bigun . You just made my point.

His methodology would paint Christianity the same violent killers as Islam.

[Cyber Liberty]

Do you people know why My Lai was justified?

I was about 10 at that time....why was it justified? @bigheadfred

[240B]

Thanks @Bigun . You just made my point.

His methodology would paint Christianity the same violent killers as Islam.

This is true
except Christians wear their own weakness and repent
Muslims kill and kill and keep on killing
even their very own family
even their very own self

[Luis Gonzalez]

This is true
except Christians wear their own weakness and repent

If a Christian commits an atrocity believing he can repent afterward and be forgiven, and a Muslim commits an atrocity believing he is justified by God, both are using religion to rationalize violence.

The justification comes before the act in one case and after the act in the other, but in both cases, religion is being invoked to ease a moral burden that would otherwise exist.

The question isn't whether people can misuse religion. History shows they can. The question is whether it's intellectually honest to attribute every act committed by a believer to the religion itself... which is Warner's methodology.

[Luis Gonzalez]

They were never given a choice. Many muslims convert once they are given a choice.

The same things happened to the Juus in Spain in the late 1300's, and you're right... once given the choice, they all chose conversion over death.

See Juus in Spain

Those wascally Catholic Majesties!

[bigheadfred]

I was about 10 at that time....why was it justified? @bigheadfred

They were all VC.

[bigheadfred]

There is a guy named Jay Smith that does a great refutation of islam on youtube. @Luis Gonzalez

You should look him up.

[BobfromWB]

I don’t think “kill all the Mullahs” holds up as a serious solution.

The IRGC is run by the Mullahs. Like Hitler ran the SS, or Stalin the NKVD.

The Persians want a democracy or at least a Kingdom, not a theocracy. The ruling Arabs hold all the power.

So over throwing that atrocious form of government [ theocracy ] is the aim. Short of that, Iran will continue to work towards nuclear weapons one way or another, until they can start WWIII which is their goal.

[BobfromWB]

For a few minutes I watched the AM cable news, and there was Ollie North's butt boy, Jenkins, spouting about JDV telling him that if all goes well in the negotiations today, then "Iran has a chance of becoming a normal country" ... whereupon the TV went off.

What "normal country" slaughters 40,000 of its own citizens? What "normal country" cuts off and sells their dead women's hair"?
  

[BobfromWB]

That 250,000,000 figure isn’t just unverified—it’s not even remotely plausible when you look at basic historical scale.

For most of the last 1400 years, total world population was nowhere near today’s levels. In 500 AD the entire planet had roughly 200–300 million people total. In 1000 AD maybe 250–300 million. Even by 1500 AD you’re still only around ~450 million globally. So the idea that a single broad religious category accounts for 250 million deaths over that span doesn’t survive basic population math.

It also assumes a unified actor called “Muslims” operating consistently across 14 centuries, which isn’t how history works. You’re talking about dozens of empires, hundreds of states, and constant wars between Muslim and Muslim powers as often as anything else.

And importantly, there is no historical dataset, war archive, or academic estimate that even approaches that number. It doesn’t come from scholarship—it comes from internet chain claims that stack speculation on top of speculation until the number becomes meaningless.

So the issue isn’t just that it’s unproven. It’s that it fails every basic check: population reality, historical structure, and methodology.

Quite the contrary, the number is verified and documented - but does not include the countless millions murdered in the name of the rock god because there were no survivors.

The rest of your argument rests on statistics, not known history.

[BobfromWB]

My problem with Warner’s methodology isn’t that he criticizes Islamic history. My problem is that his framework can be applied to any major civilization and produce absurd numbers.

If I used the same method on Christianity, I could lump together 2,000 years of wars, conquests, colonialism, religious conflicts, and state violence and claim Christianity killed hundreds of millions of people.

Most historians would immediately object because they understand that England, Spain, France, Germany, Russia, Byzantium, and the United States are not a single actor simply because most of their populations were Christian.

Yet that’s essentially what Warner does with Islam. He treats fourteen centuries of different empires, dynasties, states, and peoples as one continuous entity and then aggregates the body count.

If your methodology can prove that both Christianity and Islam killed “hundreds of millions,” the methodology may be the problem

You certainly come across as an apologist for Islam - always minimizing anything that does not shine a favorable light on it.

Now as to your Christian deliberate murder theory - prove it.

[BobfromWB]

Do you people know why My Lai was justified?

Some of us do

[Right_in_Virginia]

They were all VC.

Weren't they unarmed women and children?

[mystery-ak]

Vance Lands in Switzerland for Iran Talks as Strait of Hormuz Tensions Boil

Vice President JD Vance arrived in Switzerland on Sunday morning for the first direct U.S.-Iran talks since the signing of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding.

The negotiations will play out against a backdrop of rising tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and renewed fighting between the Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorist group and Israel threatened to upend the fragile diplomatic process.

Speaking before departing, Vance said the talks would focus on advancing negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and shoring up the fragile ceasefire in Lebanon, where escalating violence forced the postponement of the discussions from Friday.

“I think we’re going to hopefully make progress on the nuclear issue, make progress on the Lebanon ceasefire issue,” Vance told reporters. “Those are the two big things that I think we’re going to be focused on.”

more
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2026/06/21/vance-lands-in-switzerland-for-iran-talks-as-strait-of-hormuz-tensions-boil/

[bigheadfred]

Weren't they unarmed women and children?

You do remember the heart warming story of the Iraqi family - man, woman and two kids planting an IED in a road under the observation of a U.S. sniper team? And how all they could do was watch because of brain dead hearts and minds effed up ROE?

Your thinking, along with most others, is WHY *we* are losing to islam.

They don't act like you. They don't live like you. They don't believe what you do. THEY DON'T THINK LIKE YOU DO.

Applying your morals, your values, your way of life, your *thinking* doesn't work here.

I get it. I really do. The majority can't wrap their minds around what needs to be done.

I won't keep talking about Fight Club because we don't talk about Fight Club.

But you need to STFU and get the F out of the way. From that stupid sonofabitch POTUS down the line.

[bigheadfred]

As a descendant of Lebanese Christian immigrants who came here from the same conflict 125 years ago, I agree. However, allow me to say that if you become entangled with high religiosity Muslims, you have but two choices: pay them or kill them. The Christians in Lebanon have done the former; whereas the Israelis have done the latter. Trump is now trying both approaches, having failed at killing. Neither approach works.

The best approach is to avoid them, and resist being provoked into engagement, which is what I was led to believe was Trump's position before he was elected to his second term.

Hmmm....you seem to be saying there is a third option, the one your family took, and ran away. *We*  don't have anywhere else to run. I sure as hell ain't paying them.

[Bigun]

You do remember the heart warming story of the Iraqi family - man, woman and two kids planting an IED in a road under the observation of a U.S. sniper team? And how all they could do was watch because of brain dead hearts and minds effed up ROE?

Your thinking, along with most others, is WHY *we* are losing to islam.

They don't act like you. They don't live like you. They don't believe what you do. THEY DON'T THINK LIKE YOU DO.

Applying your morals, your values, your way of life, your *thinking* doesn't work here.

I get it. I really do. The majority can't wrap their minds around what needs to be done.

I won't keep talking about Fight Club because we don't talk about Fight Club.

But you need to STFU and get the F out of the way. From that stupid sonofabitch POTUS down the line.

Well said @bigheadfred well said indeed! We are still a somewhat free people ONLY because rough men have been willing to do what was necessary to keep us that way until now but I doubt that will hold much longer.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Quite the contrary, the number is verified and documented - but does not include the countless millions murdered in the name of the rock god because there were no survivors.

The rest of your argument rests on statistics, not known history.

No, it isn’t.

The method used by the mathematician would then turn Christianity into a religion that’s killed billions of people.

I took the time to look this guy up. He’s refuted by every historian in the world.

If it is that easy to prove me wrong, then post it here.

I’ll wait.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You certainly come across as an apologist for Islam - always minimizing anything that does not shine a favorable light on it.

Now as to your Christian deliberate murder theory - prove it.

I’m not using my methodology. I’m using his.

I don’t believe Christianity is responsible for every death resulting from wars, conquests, political conflicts, colonial expansion, or atrocities committed by people who happened to be Christian. That would be an absurd standard.

The point is that Warner applies exactly that standard to Islam.

So when I use the same methodology to produce enormous death tolls for Christianity, I’m not endorsing the result. I’m demonstrating the flaw in the method.

A methodology that produces absurd conclusions when applied consistently is evidence against the methodology, not evidence for it.

If Warner’s approach is valid for Islam, then it must also be valid for Christianity, Judaism, communism, nationalism, and every other belief system. If that conclusion seems ridiculous, then perhaps the methodology is the problem.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/2068686365726839259

[BobfromWB]

Weren't they unarmed women and children?

VC women and children carrying knives and grenades - they were all VC.

[BobfromWB]

No, it isn’t.

The method used by the mathematician would then turn Christianity into a religion that’s killed billions of people.

I took the time to look this guy up. He’s refuted by every historian in the world.

If it is that easy to prove me wrong, then post it here.

I’ll wait.

Name all those historians or at least the first dozen. You keep making claims without evidence. You sound like you must be a muslim yourself.

[BobfromWB]

I’m not using my methodology. I’m using his.

I don’t believe Christianity is responsible for every death resulting from wars, conquests, political conflicts, colonial expansion, or atrocities committed by people who happened to be Christian. That would be an absurd standard.

The point is that Warner applies exactly that standard to Islam.

So when I use the same methodology to produce enormous death tolls for Christianity, I’m not endorsing the result. I’m demonstrating the flaw in the method.

A methodology that produces absurd conclusions when applied consistently is evidence against the methodology, not evidence for it.

If Warner’s approach is valid for Islam, then it must also be valid for Christianity, Judaism, communism, nationalism, and every other belief system. If that conclusion seems ridiculous, then perhaps the methodology is the problem.

This is a refutation by misdirection. The Christian strawman. It will not work.

[BobfromWB]

President Trump’s willingness to see a Middle East that is much different 10 years from now than it was 10 years ago.

That's nice.   

The rest of us would like to see a Middle East that has the Iran of 50 years ago.

[Bigun]

That's nice.   

The rest of us would like to see a Middle East that has the Iran of 50 years ago.