Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First they came for the Iranians

scottaaronson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 460 posts

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#141

Post by saiya-jin »

Melchizedek wrote: post #113
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit more interesting wrt. most 9/11 hijackers being Saudis: I think it's pretty much confirmed at this point that it was a deliberate choice by al Qaida, attempting to deteriorate US-Saudi relations. But as long as Saudis are omitted from this regulation, it's pretty ineffective. Then again, how much of "terrorism legislation" is actually preventing terrorism, as opposed to extending the powers of police and p…

Regardless of the hijackers motives, Saudi Arabia is by far the worst country when it comes to exporting and supporting terror. Iran is an island of sanity by comparison, and there are no Shia terrorist organizations nowadays (Hezbollah are not terrorists - they don't blow up random civilians).

this is so true. simple fact in face of all those years of propaganda against iran.

by no means are they some altruistic peace lovers, but considering other countries in the region, US could get much more if they would be allies since technically there are no obstacles (apart from 1979 US embassy issue, but nobody got killed, all released eventually... worse things happen, ie Behgazi and nobody cares if it serves some agenda).

If you go there nowadays, all the signs are in 2 languages - Farsi and English. Everybody speaks at least a bit English. Compared to say France :)

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#142

Post by guildwriter »

dmode wrote: post #135

It's amazing that some nations are deemed terrorist by American government, which itself is responsible for the deaths of most innocent civilians over the last century. Starting with dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, funding Mujhadeen on Afghanistan, installing Shah in Iran, toppling Saddam Hussein, Indirectly funding terrorism in Kashmir, and all the mess in South America. What's the best guess ? 10 million inn…

Still not as many as Russia did during the same time period. Stalin alone blows that total right out of the water. Mao and the Khmer Rouge are right behind him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_...

None of this takes away from the morally questionable actions of the US. But saying the US is responsible for the most innocent civilian casualties in the last half century is not true.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#143

Post by jacobush »

EGreg wrote: post #110
soheil wrote: post #99

This is part of the game that must be played to win against the government of Iran, people of that country have been treated like pawns in a chess game for long, certainly this is not something new. While the outrage is understandable, policy should not be made based on how it makes people feel. Iran is a country that deserves so much more, but it is seized by a ruling elite that does not share its values. I wish peo…

They used to have a democracy until they tried to nationalize their oil industry. Then the CIA and British intelligence engineered a coup and installed a Shah that gave good oil prices. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution

They did horrible things: "The new administration introduced a wide range of social reforms: unemployment compensation was introduced, factory owners were ordered to pay benefits to sick and injured workers, and peasants were freed from forced labor in their landlords' estates"

One shudders at the thought. Good thing UK and US could put an end to suchlike. A king is better.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#144

Post by selimthegrim »

steveax wrote: post #76
mistermann wrote: post #15

This is obviously extremely unfortunate for those involved, I predict it will be very short lived but we'll have to wait and see. One thing I like about this sort of controversy though is perhaps some day, some people might start wondering who these mullahs are and how they came to be. Now that type of conversation would be rather uncomfortable, and I suspect is somewhat of an underlying cause of a lot of the hand wr…

Conspiracy theory? No. Conspiracy? Yes. I often wonder what the Middle East and Iran would look like today if the CIA and the Brits had not overthrown the democratically elected Mosaddegh government.

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, Mosaddeq had scant respect for democratic norms - look into how he conducted his parliamentary votes.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#145

Post by sjy »

matthewbauer wrote: post #91
_m8fo wrote: post #12

I abhor Trump, but something about this statement irks me: > To the Trump regime, I make one request: if you ever decide that it’s the policy of the US government to deport my PhD students, then deport me first. I’m practically begging you: come to my house, arrest me, revoke my citizenship, and tear up the awards I’ve accepted at the White House and the State Department. I’d consider that to be the greatest honor of…

This is the executive's power. There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years besides try to change Trump's mind (or pray he does something impeachable).

According to the Brookings Institution memo on the Emoluments Clause[1]:

> if Mr. Trump enters office in what would obviously constitute a knowing and indeed intentional violation of the Emoluments Clause and then declines to cure that violation during his tenure, Congress would be well within its rights to impeach him for engaging in “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

So, it is conceivable that he could be removed within the next four years if he loses the support of Congress.

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_1216...

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#146

Post by otalp »

boona wrote: post #71
threeseed wrote: post #14

Such a cynical yet poorly thought out policy. Firstly, many people involved in terrorist incidents are natural born citizens of allied countries. So are we going to ban all French or Belgium citizens given they have been shown to harbor terrorists ? It's clear that Trump/Bannon desperately want a Muslim ban as opposed to a Iran/Iraq/etc ban. Secondly, this is going to alienate moderate Muslims who Western intelligenc…

> many terrorists involved in incidents are natural born citizens of allied countries. Stated differently, the majority are made up of muslims that have been in the western world for more than one generation and have still not assimilated. If feel that you're making a stronger case for limiting muslim immigration. > this is going to alienate moderate Muslims who Western intelligence agencies have unanimously and cate…

>What I think is even more stupid though is how the left is trying to compare Trump to Hitler

Right, you're going to get those comparisons if you praise China for the Tiananmen Square massacre, praise dictators like Kim Jong Un and Putin, suggest a national registry for everyone of a particular religion, suggest banning people from entering based on their religion(which is what he initially said, before tracking back after criticism), develop a culture of anti-intellectualism, frequently boast about IQ and genes, and deny statements you made when there is undeniable proof that you made them.

Let's not forget the only major politician to bring up Nazi comparisons- Trump, when he compared US intelligence to Nazi Germany.

>we wants to give greater access to the press of diverging viewpoints

The only new "news" outlet he wants to give access to is breitbart, a site which has had headlines like "Would you rather your daughter have Cancer or Feminism" and "Gay rights have made us dumber, it's time to get back in the close". These are not diverging viewpoints. These are the only piles of rubbish that actually support Trump, which is why he is more comfortable with them than the New York Times. What left leaning news outlet has he given more precedence to?

> He wants the average citizen to have greater access to firearms which is our final defense against a tyrannical government, while the left have been fighting to take away peoples 2nd amendments rights

I'm not sure how background checks take away the right to own guns, nobody on any side can take away the people's right to own guns without a judiciary decision. The only way a politician can take away the guns of citizens is by pushing forward something unconstitutional like Stop and Frisk, which Trump supports.

In the age of nuclear weapons, guns are not useful in overthrowing a tyrannical government. Nothing is, but what comes closest are modes of unsupervised communication to organise people. Of course, Trump is a supporter of mass surveillance.

>He wants to de-regulated the economy by quote "75%"

I'm not sure what you mean, but the biggest problem with the economy today is the unparalleled levels of inequality. Trump of course wants to drastically cut taxes for the rich.

It's understandable to dislike Obama or Clinton. I don't like a lot of their policies either. But Trump carries over everything that is bad about them and adds a whole lot more. He is not a reasonable alternative.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#147

Post by endisukaj »

cavisne wrote: post #63
helpfulanon wrote: post #35

What's more worrisome is how fervently anti-science the new administration is. Academics may eventually be persecuted in the US across the board - as they are already at the EPA, USDA etc - and regardless of citizenship. I firmly believe anyone with a brain should begin making contingency plans to regroup somewhere like Australia or Japan, outside of the reaches of far-right populism. An Erdogan-style academic purge…

when it comes to Islam Japan goes well past "far right populism". It's not a coincidence there's less than 70k Muslims in Japan.

Well, you can't say that Japan is anti-intellectualism at least.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#148

Post by adventured »

dmode wrote: post #135

It's amazing that some nations are deemed terrorist by American government, which itself is responsible for the deaths of most innocent civilians over the last century. Starting with dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima, funding Mujhadeen on Afghanistan, installing Shah in Iran, toppling Saddam Hussein, Indirectly funding terrorism in Kashmir, and all the mess in South America. What's the best guess ? 10 million inn…

> American government, which itself is responsible for the deaths of most innocent civilians over the last century

Oh geez. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini, Kim Il-sung, Kim Jong-il, broadly the Empire of Japan, among others would like a word with you.

> Starting with dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima

An entirely appropriate act to stop a rampaging war machine that had slaughtered millions in a war of conquest in east Asia, and joined with the Axis powers in declaring war on the United States etc. Dramatically more Japanese would have died, had the US simply invaded instead of using nuclear weapons. More importantly, far more Americans would have died in the process of trying to stop the aggressor: Japan.

> toppling Saddam Hussein

The US lost thousands of soldiers, and a trillion dollars, trying to keep the Iraqis from killing each other in a civil war after making the mistake of removing Saddam. You're obviously being intentionally disingenuous about what actually happened: the Iraqi factions declared war on each other, the extreme majority of all civilian deaths were Iraqis killing each other.

> funding Mujhadeen on Afghanistan

Something that didn't kill nearly as many civilians as the vast Soviet genocide / invasion it was meant to interrupt.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#149

Post by panic »

adventured wrote: post #133
tallanvor wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't say much more than I'm sorry. Remember: Donald Trump does not represent the will of the American people. He won the electoral college, but around 2.8 million more people voted for Clinton than voted for him. He does not represent our values, our morals, or our view of where the country should be going. He represents those straight white males who don't want to adapt to the future, who don't want to give up th…

Trump very clearly represents the will of an immense number of people and may represent the will of the majority of Americans in fact. For both Clinton and Trump that representation is far beyond those that actually voted. Clinton's camp will be the first to tell you that supposedly a lot of her supporters didn't vote in the election. You say Trump represents straight white males (you imply that's all he represents).…

The only relevant fact here is that millions more people voted against Trump than for him. The top reason people voted for Trump wasn't to support him or his policies, it was that he wasn't Clinton (http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/21/in-their-own-words-wh...). His approval rating is below 50% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-app...). Trump doesn't represent the majority in any sense of the word.

Re: First they came for the Iranians

#150

Post by guildwriter »

helpfulanon wrote: post #138
olalonde wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a naive view of Trump "supporters". For instance, it seems like Iranian-Americans were split on Clinton v. Trump [0][1]. I've also talked to quite a few people who voted for Trump but do not agree with his stance on borders or immigration. Finally, depicting all the people who voted for Trump as ignorant rednecks is probably not conductive to dialogue. [0] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/el…

I really truly do not care at all about the sensitivities of Trump supporters at this point.

Sentiments like yours do not help the current situation where everyone is talking past each other. Demonizing and labeling people like others is not the solution. Characterizing the motivations of 60+ million people as racist is the epitome of mental weakness. How do you expect to solve xenophobic behavior when you are employing the exact same mental processes? All you are doing is perpetuating the cycle of hatred.

Empathy takes time and effort, especially in an age where we don't have to exercise it at all. The easy path is to disregard those we disagree with in order to preserve our own sense of moral righteousness.

Post reply on HN