211–220 of 503 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> all my friends who posted non-stop about supporting Palestine > I'm saying if you were a very vocal pro-Hamas activist Palestine ≠ Hamas Pro-Palestinian ≠ Pro-Hamas If you genuinely don't believe a significant number of people support the former but not the latter, I... don't even know what to tell you. It certainly says a lot that you can neither distinguish these two nor believe anyone else sees a distinction. >…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We (the US) just bombed Iran last summer. We are moving the largest buildup in decades of armament and materiel to Iran's doorstep RIGHT NOW, and it seems extremely likely we are about to bomb them again. What exactly do you want to happen here? In your view, am I taking the side of the Ayatollahs because bombing isn't enough and we should be nuking Tehran instead? It's telling that perceived tacit support of an Iran…
[flagged]
You've let your true colors show through...
People were angry at the world allowing a genocide to occur and at their own countries actively supporting that genocide.
It was also a genocide going on for several years allowing momentum to build and anger to grow. The most recent Iranian uprising lasted a few weeks.
I would be more upset that Trump told the poor Iranians to protest and that he would support them if violence was used against them - and he let them die by the thousand. He told them "help is on the way". It wasn't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The economic suffering has largely been inflicted deliberately by US sanctions. This would seem to suggest that sinking an aircraft carrier and frigate or two would actually be justified according to your principles?
> The economic suffering has largely been inflicted deliberately by US sanctions. Which were imposed for work on atomic bomb. These sanctions didn’t come out of the blue.
Sanctions-wise... When you sanction a society to the degree that Iran has been sanctioned, you force that society to turn to smuggling, black markets, and forces operating outside of usual law and norms, in order for the society to prevent its collapse. That naturally causes corruption to spread because you are involving outlaws in fundamental processes of your economy. This is one of intended consequences of such harsh sanctions, in order to maximize the negative sentiment of the general populace of the targeted country towards their government. It impoverishes the country and makes the populace more likely to accept when approached by foreign agents offering monetary rewards for help in bringing the government down.
Obviously the commenter I responded to is not arguing in good faith so I don't expect anything but an NPC talking point response, so I wish to note that my answer is for a curious passerby.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems to only have a good track record in places with a democratic tradition. Some dictators have figured out you can just imprison and kill the opposition, and keep doing this until there is no more opposition. The Khomeini government is not going to just say "oh, you're right" and change. Neither will the Kim or Putin governments. Sometimes - sadly - violence is the least worst answer.
Don't say sadly. Don't further the indoctrination that violence is bad. It is a tool, it cannot be good or bad. States are the most prolific users of violence (even more when you also count potential/threatened, not yet materialized). Anyone who wants to claim that violence is bad has to oppose the existence of states. Violence is risky, dangerous, unpredictable, costly, etc. But those are practical and legal, not mo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That crowd only seems to care if they can actively oppose Israel or the current administration Can you think of any motivating reasons for the crowd to focus on Israel specifically? Last I checked, the American government isn't sending billions of dollars of weaponry and political cover to the Iranian government, so that is one massive reason why protesting Israel makes more sense. >have not made a peep about the th…
> ...disturbed that all my friends who posted non-stop about supporting Palestine... > I'm saying if you were a very vocal pro-Hamas... See how quickly things have turned from the first post manufactured to seem reasonable? No more "Curious" and "just asking questions". How many pro-Hamas friends can a person have?! I don't know a single pro-Hamas person myself. I believe you are being taken for a ride friend.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is some crossover otherwise agencies wouldn’t have killed Sabeen Mahmud.
There is a lot of crossover. Heck, one of our old neighbors growing up was a Iranian Baloch-Pakistani Baloch couple and according to them Baloch marriage across the border was extremely common. And Uzair Baloch had ties to both Iranian and Indian intelligence [0]. The Iran-Pakistan and the Iran-Afghanistan border is very porous because of how isolated Sistan-ve-Balochistan and much of Khorasan is from the rest of Ira…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> all my friends who posted non-stop about supporting Palestine > I'm saying if you were a very vocal pro-Hamas activist Palestine ≠ Hamas Pro-Palestinian ≠ Pro-Hamas If you genuinely don't believe a significant number of people support the former but not the latter, I... don't even know what to tell you. It certainly says a lot that you can neither distinguish these two nor believe anyone else sees a distinction. >…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think if Biden was taking a lot of the same actions the Trump admin is taking, people would support it a lot more (Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, maybe even Gaza). Of course then the right would be protesting foreign interventions.
> I think if Biden was taking a lot of the same actions the Trump admin is taking, people would support it a lot more (Venezuela, If Biden repeatedly shot boats that he alleged carried drugs without evidence and then shot survivors again for good measure until he eventually went and captured Venezuela's de facto head of state, people would support him a lot more? Really?
Same goes the other way of course. Republicans would be much more against it.
“To simplify greatly, the strategy of non-violence aims first to cause disruption (non-violently) in order both to draw attention but also in order to bait state overreaction. The state’s overreaction then becomes the ‘spectacular attack’ which broadcasts the movement’s message, while the group’s willingness to endure that overreaction without violence not only avoids alienating supporters, it heightens the contrast…
I thought the state’s supporters were actually very large in number and the dominant force in Iran. After all past protests, like about the woman who was disappeared and killed, were smaller and were suppressed quickly. What changed? Is it demographics - like are there larger numbers of young people who aren’t for a theocracy?
Some internal factor opaque to western media. Their economy's in the shitter, perhaps. Or the so-called water shortage. Though what it could be exactly, that western intelligence wouldn't be willing to trumpet from the mountaintops, I could not say.