181–190 of 220 posts
Personally I do have serious concerns about the direction 'the west' is going with the current issues of immigration, violence, and general migration to a lower trust environment...however trying to burn a capital to the ground definitely seems like the wrong approach making it any better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This right here is the bigotry/double standard I'm talking about that is accepted here. 'Muslims are a death cult and you know it' is not acceptable speech, but you proudly just made the same claim, only towards Christians. The majority of Christians are not in an end times death cult, and the size of a religious voting block in the USA doesn't change that fact. Again, we use language to separate moderate Muslims fro…
I think you are misunderstanding the situation "The majority of Christians are not in an end times death cult" sure maybe, but the majority of people in the "end times death cult" would loudly and proudly proclaim they are christians and represent christians. It is a failing of "real christians" to not reject and excise this.
isn't really the 'I'm not bigoted on this' reply you might think it is. It's more just the bog standard 'this is why I am bigoted against X group' justification of bigotry.
Regardless of what you feel about the government of Iran, it is not inaccurate to say that country is in a fight for survival against a cabal of child molestors working to bring about the apocalypse. Anything they do in this conflict is justified, anything less than their total victory is a disaster for the world.
The more I see the intellectual level of the political discussions here, the more I understand why dang and moderators discourage political discourse.
List of terrorist groups sponsored by Iran Government 1. Hezbollah (Lebanon) 2. Hamas (Gaza Strip) 3. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Gaza Strip/West Bank) 4. The Houthis / Ansar Allah (Yemen) 5. Kata'ib Hezbollah (Iraq) 6. Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq (Iraq) 7. Harakat al-Nujaba (Iraq) 8. Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (Iraq) 9. Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya (Iraq) 10. Kata'ib al-Imam Ali (Iraq) 11. Badr Organization (Iraq) 12. Liwa Fat…
Personally I do have serious concerns about the direction 'the west' is going with the current issues of immigration, violence, and general migration to a lower trust environment...however trying to burn a capital to the ground definitely seems like the wrong approach making it any better.
List of terrorist groups sponsored by Iran Government 1. Hezbollah (Lebanon) 2. Hamas (Gaza Strip) 3. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Gaza Strip/West Bank) 4. The Houthis / Ansar Allah (Yemen) 5. Kata'ib Hezbollah (Iraq) 6. Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq (Iraq) 7. Harakat al-Nujaba (Iraq) 8. Kata'ib Sayyid al-Shuhada (Iraq) 9. Harakat Ansar Allah al-Awfiya (Iraq) 10. Kata'ib al-Imam Ali (Iraq) 11. Badr Organization (Iraq) 12. Liwa Fat…
This is downvoted, but comments mentioning pedophilia, Israel controlling the US, and other conspiratorial tropes are getting upvoted. And the folks will leave here believing still that a pro-Israel bias exists here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to mention that a good proportion of those 44% are Christians who dgaf about Iranians; in fact they're probably "heathen" being visited by "God's judgements".
The religious bigotry on this site is out of control. Christians are labeled/talked about as a block. But Muslims are treated differently, and when it's Muslim thought that is interpreted as bad, we refer to Islamists not Muslims to avoid blanket labeling. You should edit your post because it represents Christians in a way that is not true the majority are not aligned with a weird minority subset nor the views you ar…
I was referring to the "44%" which the previous post was making a case for represent MAGA people who support Trump no matter what he does -- not Christians in general.
MAGA has a very strong Evangelical block who are rabid "Christians" (though frankly they more closely resemble the Catholic Inquisition and have very little to do with the teachings of Jesus Christ)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that's correct according to the newly published video. Correct me if wrong, but I think it shows a Tomahawk hitting nearby the school, and based on the amount of dust it seems that the school was already hit moments earlier. So it still isn't 100% clear if the school was also hit by a Tomahawk or by something else.
Yeah, an iranian missile must have hit that school minutes before an american Tomahawk landed near that school
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The USSR acquiring nuclear weapons was the closest humanity has come to complete annihilation. We were one bad day away from extinction during the Cold War. I'm not sure I would point to that as something we should do more of. Not to mention the potential for accidents and mistakes. I don't think bombing a country should be the first course of action. Diplomatic action should leave no stone unturned. But if all of th…
One of things the US could have done to stop proliferation was to actually honor its commitments it gave to Ukraine in the 1994 agreement in return to Ukraine agreeing to abandon their nukes. It didn't. Now a country sees that US is happy to bomb other non-nuclear countries, but not nuclear countries, and they doen't help even when they agreed to. There is exactly one lesson a country will learn from that.
Ukraine wants nukes to defend itself from Russia (a nuclear power). Taiwan wants nukes to defend itself from China (a nuclear power). Iran wants nukes to defend itself from the US and Israel (both nuclear powers). India and Pakistan both want nukes to defend themselves from each other (both nuclear powers).
Now I don't want to get into a debate that it is really the benevolent Pakistanis fighting off aggressive Indians or vice-versa or that really Taiwan is the aggressor and that China is a benevolent neighbor, or that poor little Israel is just trying to defend itself from Iran, etc. Those regional squabbles mean nothing to me as I don't even care who is the "real" aggressor, all that matters is that you have two nations in conflict, and when there are two nations in conflict, it is not a stable situation to pretend that just one of them will have nukes but the other will not.
The moment one side gets nukes, the surrounding nations they are in conflict with will also want to get nukes. So as soon as the US got nukes, it's rival, the USSR, also got nukes. And as soon as Israel got nukes, it made it inevitable that at least a few regional rivals in the middle east will get nukes.
Trying to prevent this is guaranteed to fail. It does not matter what the government in Iran happens to be, as long as they care about their own survival, they know they need nukes as long as Israel has them. More importantly, attacking the nation before it gets nukes speeds the process of nuclearization along. Dramatically so. For instance, when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear power plant, Iraq, which at that time did not have a nuclear weapons program, went full speed ahead trying to develop one. Because it highlighted that they were at risk of being destroyed as nation from a violent neighbor, and so the urgency of developing their own nukes increased. As soon as India got nukes, it became a top priority for Pakistan to get them. If you don't believe that, then you don't understand the world. It does not matter who you think is the bad guy in a conflict, what matters is the asymmetry.
Whatever will be the outcome of this war with Iran, the Iranians now know that getting nukes is priority one. It will happen within a decade, most likely within a few years. The only way to stop this would be boots on the ground and a long term occupation of Iran, which of course no one, not even the US, is capable of doing.
And then Saudi Arabia will want nukes to defend itself from Iran. That's just how this works. KSA will be the next nation to get nuclear weapons after Iran.
Trying to pretend that you can maintain a long running conflict in which only one side has nuclear weapons is incredibly foolish. Obviously this is not going to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well now they have to, given that a single nuke ownership (and its never a single one, is it) would prevent any such actions. I don't think anybody sane at this point thinks any sort of regime change is going to happen in this century. The bigger problem is - current war won't prevent them from obtaining it. It may delay the date, but also will make them work smarter, hide things better and give them much more resolv…
We can agree that starting a war with Iran is sort of the magnum opus of the worst administration in American history. But I do feel obligated to interrogate the idea that the US is responsible for this escalation. Iran is seeking to expand its power and influence in the region, and employs violent means upon people - even its own people - to achieve these goals. The regime is, fundamentally, amoral. The US gets to d…
Generally US tries to represent freedom and democracy and be the force of good, but they often ending up representing it in pretty horrible and messed up ways which end very far from these ideals. Road to hell is often paved with good intentions, isn't it. So no, too strong US ain't very good for rest of the world, quadruple that with current leadership. I am not saying China or russia are better, or even equal, far from it, its rather loss in each direction.
Iran is a bit special in its absolute hate for Israel and a bit whole west, but thats purely wet dream of ayatollahs that came to power after 1978, till then they were regional friends and one of best western partners. That revolution weas triggered purely by utter incompetence of CIA and british MI6, so thanx guys for fucking up entire region for everybody.
I don't think there is a single country in this world who would welcome them becoming nuclear power - not russians, not chinese, and definitely nobody around them. But maybe its too much to expect from reality - it would require such a massive ground invasion that US is not willing to wage (and pay for) and it would take a nuke to NY or similar level to trigger it.