Buy Redotpay Account If you need this Redotpay account contact us. Email: sellsvcc@gmail.com Whatsapp: +1 6627405607 Telegram: @sellsvcc https://sellsvcc.com/product/buy-redotpay-account/ #israel #iran #gaza #google #donaldtrump #USAaccounts #russia #bitcoin #nepal #socialmedia #Twitter #facebook #bigtits #teen18+ #ass #milf #bbw #babe #latina #ebony #toys

Trump says he's 'not looking for a fight' with Iran but stands ready to act if necessary. President Donald Trump said Wednesday he doesn't want to carry out a U.S. strike on Iran but suggested he stands ready to act if it's necessary to extinguish Iran's nuclear program. Trump continued his increasingly pointed warnings about the U.S. joining Israel in striking at Tehran's nuclear program as Iran's leader warned anew that the United States would be greeted with stiff retaliation if it attacks. The stakes are high for Trump — and the world — as he engages in a push-pull debate between his goals of avoiding dragging the U.S. into another war and preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. “I’m not looking to fight," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "But if it’s a choice between fighting and having a nuclear weapon, you have to do what you have to do.” Trump pondered his next steps as the U.S. embassy in Israel began evacuating a number of diplomats and family members who had asked to leave Israel. Meanwhile, senior European diplomats are set to hold talks with Iran in Geneva on Friday, according to a European official familiar with the matter. The official, who was not authorized to comment publicly and requested anonymity, said the high-ranking diplomats from Germany, France and the United Kingdom as well as the European Union’s top diplomat will take part in the talks. Trump, who met with his national security aides for a second straight day in the White House Situation Room, also told reporters it’s not “too late” for Iran to give up its nuclear program. “I may do it, I may not do it,” Trump said of a potential U.S. strike. “I mean, nobody knows what I’m going to do.” “Nothing is finished until it is finished,” he added, signaling a decision could soon. “The next week is going to be very big — maybe less than a week." No surrender from Iran- Trump also offered a terse response to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's refusal to heed to his call for Iran to submit to an unconditional surrender. “I say good luck,” Trump said. Khamenei earlier in the day warned that any U.S. strikes targeting the Islamic Republic will “result in irreparable damage for them” and that his country would not bow to Trump’s call for surrender. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told lawmakers that the Pentagon was providing possible options to Trump as he decides next steps on Iran. Trump had said Tuesday the U.S. knows where Khamenei is hiding but doesn’t want him killed — “for now.” “He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now," Trump said. Trump’s increasingly muscular comments toward the Iranian government follow him urging Tehran’s 9.5 million residents to flee for their lives as he cut short his participation in an international summit earlier this week to return to Washington for urgent talks with his national security team. Trump said that the Iranian officials continue to reach out to the White House as they’re “getting the hell beaten out of them” by Israel. But he added there's a “big difference between now and a week ago" in Tehran's negotiating position. “They’ve suggested that they come to the White House — that’s, you know, courageous,” Trump said. Iran's mission to the United Nations rejected Trump's claim in a statement on social media. “No Iranian official has ever asked to grovel at the gates of the White House. The only thing more despicable than his lies is his cowardly threat to ‘take out’ Iran’s Supreme Leader. ” Enter Putin- The U.S. president said earlier this week Russian President Vladimir Putin offered to serve as a mediator with Iran. But Trump said he told Putin to keep focused on finding an endgame to his own conflict with Ukraine. “I said, ‘Do me a favor, mediate your own,’” Trump said he told Putin. “I said, ‘Vladimir, let’s mediate Russia first. You can worry about this later.’” The comments represented a shift for Trump, who earlier this week said he was “open” to Putin's offer to mediate. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said earlier Wednesday that Moscow has cautioned Washington against offering direct military assistance to Israel. “We are warning Washington against even speculative, hypothetical considerations of the sort,” Ryabkov said, according to the Interfax news agency. “That would be a step drastically destabilizing the situation as a whole.” The Russia-Iran relationship has deepened since Putin launched a war on Ukraine in February 2022, with Tehran providing Moscow with drones, ballistic missiles, and other support, according to U.S. intelligence findings. MAGA allies raise questions- Trump is also facing growing skepticism about deepening U.S. involvement in the Mideast crisis from some of his most ardent supporters. Trump during his 2024 run for the White House promised voters he would quickly end the wars in Ukraine and Gaza and keep the U.S. out of costly conflicts. Steve Bannon, who served as a senior adviser to Trump during his first administration, said the administration should tread carefully. “This is one of the most ancient civilizations in the world, ok?" Bannon told reporters at an event sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. "With 92 million people. This is not something you play around with. You have to think this through. And the American people have to be on board. You can’t just dump it on them.” Bannon and other Trump allies, including Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk and conservative pundit Tucker Carlson, have raised concerns that direct U.S. involvement in the conflict could be seen as a betrayal to some members of Trump's coalition and cause a schism in MAGA world. To be certain, some Trump backers are supportive of the president taking military action against Iran and play down the risk of the U.S. getting mired in a conflict. “In terms of U.S. involvement in military action, there is zero possibility of American boots on the ground in Iran,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said. Trump pushed back at the notion that deepening U.S. involvement could impact his standing with his base. “My supporters are more in love with me today, and I’m in love with them more than they were even at election time when we had a total landslide,” Trump said.

No protest against Hamas is unfair because they caused the situation in Gaza. It's understandable why people feel that a lack of protest specifically targeting Hamas is unfair, given their role in initiating the October 7th attacks, which were a direct catalyst for the current devastating situation in Gaza. Many international observers and governments hold Hamas responsible for these actions and their consequences. The perspective that Hamas's tactics, including the killing and kidnapping of civilians, are acts of terrorism that provoked the Israeli invasion is a significant part of the discourse surrounding the conflict. From this viewpoint, accountability for the ensuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza should heavily focus on the group that triggered the immediate escalation. When considering why some protest movements focus more on Israel's actions, it's important to recall the multifaceted reasons discussed earlier: Focus on State Accountability: International law and activism often differentiate between state and non-state actors, with a particular emphasis on the responsibilities of recognized states in armed conflict, especially those with significantly greater military power and which receive support from the protestors' own governments. Scale and Nature of Response: Many protests are driven by the sheer scale of Palestinian casualties and the humanitarian catastrophe resulting from Israel's military operations. Protestors often focus on the party whose actions are currently causing widespread civilian suffering and destruction, irrespective of the initial provocation. Pre-existing Conditions: Some activists and observers point to the long-standing blockade of Gaza, the ongoing occupation, and the broader history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as crucial context. They argue that these conditions contributed to the desperation and radicalization that fueled Hamas's actions and that addressing the root causes is paramount. Influence and Complicity: Protestors in Western countries often feel a particular responsibility to scrutinize and challenge the actions of Israel because their own governments are often close allies of Israel, providing military aid and political support. They may believe they have more leverage to influence their own government's policies towards Israel than towards Hamas. Ultimately, the targets of protests often reflect a group's specific analysis of where the primary responsibility lies for the issues they are most concerned about, or where they believe their advocacy can be most effective. While you see the lack of focus on Hamas as unfair due to their direct role in instigating the current crisis, others may prioritize challenging the response to that instigation, particularly when it comes from a recognized state actor and results in widespread civilian impact. Both perspectives highlight different facets of a deeply complex and tragic conflict where accountability and the path to a just resolution are subjects of intense debate. By Jo Ikeji-Uju https://afriprime.net/pages/Anything

Hamas led group killed and kidnapped many that resulted in the Israeli invasion of Gaza. Why are radicals in and around European elite countries and mainly radical students in America protesting against Israel and not against Hamas a terrorist organisation? The protests observed in and around European countries and among students in America, which are predominantly critical of Israel's actions in Gaza, stem from a complex interplay of factors. While the October 7th attack by Hamas, which involved the killing and kidnapping of Israelis, is acknowledged as the immediate trigger for the Israeli invasion, protestors often highlight a broader context and a different set of concerns that lead them to focus their criticism on Israel. Here are some of the key reasons cited by analysts and the protestors themselves: Scale of Response and Civilian Casualties: A primary driver of the protests is the sheer scale of Palestinian casualties, including a high number of women and children, and the widespread destruction of infrastructure in Gaza resulting from Israel's military operations. Many protestors view Israel's response as disproportionate to the initial Hamas attack and a form of collective punishment against the entire Gazan population. The dire humanitarian crisis, including lack of food, water, and medical supplies, further fuels this outrage. Historical Context and Occupation: Protestors often frame the current conflict within the decades-long history of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. They point to the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, the blockade of Gaza (in place since Hamas took control in 2007), settlement expansion, and the displacement of Palestinians as root causes of the conflict. From this perspective, Hamas's actions, while condemned by many, are sometimes seen as a violent manifestation of resistance against a prolonged occupation. Perceived Power Imbalance: There's a strong perception among protestors of a significant power imbalance between Israel, a state with a sophisticated military and strong international allies (particularly the United States), and the Palestinians, who lack a state and comparable military or economic power. This leads many to sympathize with the Palestinians as the weaker party and to scrutinize the actions of the more powerful entity more intensely. Accountability of State Actors: Protestors often argue that states, like Israel, should be held to a higher standard of accountability under international law and human rights conventions than non-state actors like Hamas. They focus on the actions of the Israeli government and military, demanding adherence to international humanitarian law and investigations into alleged war crimes. Criticism of Western Foreign Policy: In many Western countries, especially the United States, protests against Israeli actions are also implicitly or explicitly a critique of their own government's foreign policy. This includes long-standing military aid to Israel, diplomatic support, and perceived unwillingness to hold Israel accountable for actions that draw international criticism. Protestors often demand that their governments take a stronger stance against Israeli policies and advocate for a ceasefire and Palestinian rights. Distinction Between Hamas and the Palestinian People: Many protestors emphasize that their criticism of Israeli policy is not an endorsement of Hamas. They state they are advocating for the human rights and self-determination of the Palestinian people, who are seen as victims of both Hamas's rule in Gaza and Israeli military actions. However, critics of the protests often argue that there isn't sufficient condemnation of Hamas's ideology and tactics by these groups. Concerns over "Genocide" or "Ethnic Cleansing": Some protestors and activist groups have adopted strong language, accusing Israel of committing acts tantamount to genocide or ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Such severe accusations galvanize intense opposition to Israeli policies and actions. It's important to note that the motivations and views within these protest movements are diverse. While the predominant focus has been on criticizing Israel's conduct, this does not universally mean an absence of condemnation for Hamas's October 7th attack. However, the emphasis of the protests has largely been on the devastating humanitarian impact of the subsequent Israeli military campaign in Gaza and the broader historical context of the conflict. The protests observed in some European countries and among students in America following the Hamas-led attacks on October 7th and the subsequent Israeli military operations in Gaza are driven by a complex set of factors. While these protests are often characterized by their strong criticism of Israel, the reasons for not focusing equally or primarily on Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, are multifaceted. Here are some of the key perspectives and motivations often cited by or attributed to these protestors: Focus on State Actions and Asymmetry of Power: Many protestors view Israel as a powerful state actor with a sophisticated military, often supported by Western governments (including their own). They focus their criticism on what they perceive as a disproportionate response by the Israeli military, leading to a high number of civilian casualties and a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The significant power imbalance between Israel and the Palestinians, particularly Hamas in Gaza, leads many protestors to hold the more powerful entity to a higher standard of accountability for its actions and their impact on civilians. Humanitarian Concerns and Civilian Casualties: The sheer scale of death and destruction in Gaza, including the deaths of thousands of children and women, and the dire humanitarian situation (lack of food, water, medical supplies, and shelter) are primary drivers for many protestors. Their focus is often on stopping the immediate suffering and calling for a ceasefire. Historical Context and Occupation: Protestors frequently frame the current conflict within the broader historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, the blockade of Gaza, the expansion of Israeli settlements, and the displacement of Palestinians. From this perspective, Hamas's actions, while not necessarily condoned, are sometimes seen as a consequence of or resistance to this long-standing situation. Criticism of Own Government's Policies: In the U.S. and some European countries, protestors often criticize their own governments' foreign policies, including military aid to Israel, arms sales, and diplomatic support, which they see as enabling Israeli actions. Their protests are, in part, a demand for their own governments to exert pressure on Israel or change their supportive stance. Calls for Divestment and Boycott (BDS Movement): Many student protests, in particular, are linked to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which calls for broad-based economic, academic, and cultural boycotts of Israel until it complies with international law and Palestinian rights. These campaigns inherently focus on Israeli institutions and policies. Perception of War Crimes and International Law: Protestors often accuse Israel of committing war crimes and violating international humanitarian law in its military operations in Gaza. They call for investigations and accountability through international bodies. Differing Views on Hamas: While Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S., EU, and other countries, and its targeting of civilians on October 7th was widely condemned, some protestors may have a more nuanced or critical view of this designation in the context of what they see as an anti-colonial or resistance struggle. It's also important to note that some protestors or groups do condemn Hamas's actions but choose to focus their activism on the actions of Israel, which they see as a state with greater power and responsibility, and potentially more susceptible to international pressure or pressure from their own governments. For some, the demand to explicitly condemn Hamas before criticizing Israel is viewed as a tactic to deflect attention from Israeli actions. Free Speech and Anti-War Stance: Many protestors are driven by a broader anti-war sentiment and a commitment to free speech, advocating for the rights of Palestinians and criticizing what they see as oppression. It's crucial to understand that these protest movements are not monolithic. Participants come from diverse backgrounds, including Jewish students and groups who are critical of Israeli government policies. Their motivations can vary, but a common thread is often a focus on the severe humanitarian impact of the conflict on Palestinians in Gaza and a critique of Israeli state policies, viewed through lenses of human rights, international law, and social justice. The charge that these protests are antisemitic is a contentious issue. While protest organizers often explicitly state their opposition to antisemitism, some incidents of antisemitic rhetoric or actions have been reported at or around these protests, leading to concerns for the safety and well-being of Jewish communities. Conversely, many protestors, including Jewish participants, argue that criticism of Israeli government policies should not be conflated with antisemitism. By Jo Ikeji-Uju https://afriprime.net/pages/Anything

Iranian and U.S. delegations wrapped up a fifth round of talks in Rome on Friday and signs of some limited progress emerged in the negotiations aimed at resolving a decades-long dispute over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Despite both Washington and Tehran taking a tough stance in public ahead of the talks on Iran's uranium enrichment, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said there was potential for progress after Oman made several proposals during the talks. "We have just completed one of the most professional rounds of talks ... We firmly stated Iran's position ... The fact that we are now on a reasonable path, in my view, is itself a sign of progress," Araqchi told state TV. "The proposals and solutions will be reviewed in respective capitals ... and the next round of talks will be scheduled accordingly." A senior U.S. official said the talks lasted more than two hours and were both direct and indirect with Omani mediators. "The talks continue to be constructive – we made further progress, but there is still work to be done. Both sides agreed to meet again in the near future. We are grateful to our Omani partners for their continued facilitation," the official said. The stakes are high for both sides. President Donald Trump wants to curtail Tehran's potential to produce a nuclear weapon that could trigger a regional nuclear arms race and perhaps threaten Israel. The Islamic Republic, for its part, wants to be rid of devastating sanctions on its oil-based economy. Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said on X the talks between Araqchi and Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had ended "with some but not conclusive progress". Ahead of the talks, Araqchi wrote on X: "Zero nuclear weapons = we Do have a deal. Zero enrichment = we do NOT have a deal. Time to decide." Among remaining stumbling blocks are Tehran's refusal to ship abroad its entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium - possible raw material for nuclear bombs - or engage in discussions over its ballistic missile programme. Diplomats have said reaching a concrete deal before the summer would technically be impossible given the complexities of an accord. In the meantime, a senior Iranian official involved in nuclear talks with the U.S. said "if Washington drops its 'zero enrichment' demand, a political agreement is feasible." STUMBLING BLOCKS U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Tuesday that Washington was working to reach an accord that would allow Iran to have a civil nuclear energy programme but not enrich uranium, while acknowledging that this "will not be easy". Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last say on matters of state, rejected demands to stop refining uranium as "excessive and outrageous", warning that such talks were unlikely to yield results. Iran says it is ready to accept some limits on enrichment, but needs watertight guarantees that Washington would not renege on a future nuclear accord. Trump in his first term in 2018 ditched a 2015 nuclear pact between major powers and Iran. Since returning to office this year, he has restored a "maximum pressure" campaign on Tehran and reimposed sweeping U.S. sanctions that continue to hobble the Iranian economy. Iran responded by escalating enrichment far beyond the 2015 pact's limits. Wendy Sherman, a former U.S. undersecretary who led the U.S. negotiating team that reached the 2015 agreement, earlier said that Tehran presents enrichment as a matter of sovereignty. "I don't think it is possible to get a deal with Iran where they literally dismantle their programme, give up their enrichment, even though that would be ideal," she told Reuters. The cost of failure of the talks could be high. Iran's arch-foe Israel sees Iran's nuclear programme as an existential threat and says it would never allow the clerical establishment to obtain nuclear weapons. Tehran says it has no such ambitions and the purposes are purely civilian. Israel's strategic affairs minister and the head of its foreign intelligence service, Mossad, were also due to be in Rome for talks with the U.S. negotiators. Araqchi said on Thursday that Washington would bear legal responsibility if Israel attacked Iranian nuclear installations, following a CNN report that Israel might be preparing strikes. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Iranian foreign minister said..... The United States would be held responsible in the event of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites, Iran’s foreign minister has warned, after CNN reported that Israel could be preparing strikes. Iran and the US, Israel’s closest ally, will hold a fifth round of nuclear talks on Friday amid deep disagreement over uranium enrichment in Iran, which Washington says could lead to developing nuclear bombs. Tehran has consistently denied seeking a bomb and insisted its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes. “Iran strongly warns against any adventurism by the Zionist regime of Israel and will decisively respond to any threat or unlawful act by this regime,” Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in a letter addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. “I have called on the international community to take effective preventive measures against the continuation of Israeli threats, which if unchecked, will compel Iran to take special measures in defence of our nuclear facilities and materials,” Araghchi said. The minister said Tehran would view Washington as a “participant” in any such attack. “The nature, content, and extent of our actions will correspond and be proportionate to preventive measures taken by these international bodies in accordance with their statutory duties and obligations,” he added. Araghchi’s remarks follow a CNN report on Tuesday that described the US as having “new intelligence suggesting that Israel is making preparations to strike Iranian nuclear facilities”. Israel has not acknowledged any preparations, though officials up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have repeatedly threatened to strike Iran’s nuclear sites to prevent it from being able to obtain a nuclear weapon, should it choose to pursue one. The US and Iran are due to hold indirect talks on Friday in Rome in what would be their fifth round of negotiations over a possible deal that could see Tehran limit or end its enrichment of uranium, in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. Israel has repeatedly opposed such an agreement between the US and Iran. Later on Thursday, Araghchi said in an interview carried by Iranian state TV that if the US aims to end uranium enrichment then there will be no nuclear deal. US officials have said “that they do not believe in enrichment in Iran … and it has to stop completely; if this is their goal there will be no deal”, Araqchi said. The foreign minister said the idea of a uranium enrichment consortium with the participation of other nations is not bad, but will not replace enrichment on Iranian soil. Earlier this week, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said US demands that Tehran stop enriching uranium were “excessive and outrageous”. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which reports directly to Khamenei, also warned on Thursday that Israel would receive a “devastating and decisive response” if it attacks Iran. “They are trying to frighten us with war, but are miscalculating as they are unaware of the powerful popular and military support the Islamic Republic can muster in war conditions,” IRGC spokesperson Alimohammad Naini was quoted by state media as saying. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Iran’s top diplomat insisted that Tehran will never stop enriching uranium, reinforcing the Islamic Republic’s hard line ahead of a new round of indirect talks with the United States over its fast-advancing nuclear program. Iran's foreign ministry later confirmed it has agreed to take part in the next round of talks Friday in Rome. The comments by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi come after multiple rounds of talks between the two nations, including at an expert level over the details of a possible deal. American officials including President Donald Trump, Mideast envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio maintain that Iran must give up enrichment — something it didn’t do in its 2015 nuclear deal with world powers. “I have said it before, and I repeat it again: uranium enrichment in Iran will continue — with or without an agreement,” Araghchi said, according to state television. Araghchi added that Iran was “currently reviewing whether to participate in the next round and when to take part” in talks with the U.S. Negotiators previously met in Muscat, Oman, and Rome but Trump’s trip to the Mideast last week delayed any new meeting. Later Wednesday, Oman’s foreign minister announced that the fifth round of indirect talks will be Friday in Rome. The minister made the comment on social media. Oman has long served as a mediator, facilitating quiet diplomacy amid tensions over Iran’s nuclear program and regional security. Iran's foreign ministry spokesman, Esmail Baghaei, in a post on X later confirmed that Tehran has agreed to take part in the new round of talks. Washington has not confirmed the meeting or announced whether it will attend. “We have never abandoned diplomacy. We will always be present at the negotiating table, and the main reason for our presence is to defend the rights of the Iranian people,” Araghchi said. “We stand against excessive demands and rhetoric at the table.” Araghchi’s remarks came a day after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said he didn’t expect the negotiations to produce a deal. “I don’t think nuclear talks with the U.S. will bring results. I don’t know,” Khamenei said. The talks seek to limit Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of some of the crushing economic sanctions the U.S. has imposed on the Islamic Republic, closing in on half a century of enmity. Trump has repeatedly threatened to unleash airstrikes targeting Iran’s program if a deal isn’t reached. Iranian officials increasingly warn that they could pursue a nuclear weapon with their stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels. Meanwhile, Israel has threatened to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities on its own if it feels threatened, further worsening tensions in the Mideast already spiked by the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip. Iran’s 2015 nuclear deal with world powers capped Tehran’s enrichment level at 3.67% and reduced its uranium stockpile to 300 kilograms (661 pounds). That level is enough for nuclear power plants, but far below weapons-grade levels of 90%. Since the nuclear deal collapsed in 2018 with Trump’s unilateral withdrawal of the U.S. from the accord, Iran has abandoned all limits on its program and enriched uranium to up to 60% purity — a short, technical step from weapons-grade levels. There have also been a series of attacks at sea and on land in recent years, stemming from the tensions even before the Israel-Hamas war began. By Jo Ikeji-Uju https://afriprime.net/pages/Anything

After watching this you will be begging Israel to kill more Gazans https://t.co/vVdeSvIVQD

Israel fights Hamas deep in Gaza City. The Israeli army says its forces are battling Hamas fighters inside Gaza’s largest city, signaling a major new stage a month into a war that has claimed thousands of lives and leveled swaths of the territory. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says Israel is likely to maintain control of security in Gaza once Hamas is defeated. The move into Gaza City risks a further escalation in casualties one month into the war.