No one loves both unless they are useful idiots for Moscow. Israel is incompetent, and stealing land they can't keep in the long run.
To spread Shia Islam.
Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
the answer in at least two important cases is to resist 'israeli' aggression.
I think this might be the most abjectly pathetic rejoinder so far. Playground argument, do better.
You've claimed you can't think of a single good reason to attack the Iranian regime, what serious answer were you hoping for?
You can equally bludgeon to death the thirty-second person you come across today and argue "nobody can say yet whether this will ultimately worth the pain caused". If you are reduced to saying that, you should recognise the weakness of your appeal that violence is justified.
I think from my moral stance, "if in doubt, take the course of action that involves not killing people". I think there merits being a high bar for justification and likelihood of positive outcome before starting a war of aggression.
I would hope, as a Christian and considering the teachings of Jesus, you would comprehend the value of this. Or your own church's leader on the desirability of nonviolent solutions. But instead, again, all you appear to think about is apologising for Trump. I would like to think that if God exists, on your day of judgement he weighs negatively your ready countenancing of other people being killed in your name.
Once again, deliberate obtuseness is not a clever or insightful approach.
I dislike the American government. Does this constitute a good reason to bomb America? No, obviously not. A good reason to launch a war needs rather more than, "i don't like the gov".
Seriously, be better, because this is pitiable.
That is 100% what you are doing. You know a thousand justifications for this war and are just playing dumb.
I think if you consider the long-standing circumstances for justification and the immediate circumstances for likelihood of positive outcome, you are completely capable of finding arguments to meet that high bar. A nation whose leaders chant death to America and whose foreign policy is "we're gonna make nukes" justifies actions. A moment where the people of the country are showing signs of rebellion and the leadership is meeting in one place make an opportunity for success. The seeming success of the operation in Venezuela likely bolstered the confidence in achieving those outcomes. You are perfectly justified to disagree with the decision, but you are not incapable of understanding the reasoning.
And then the internet ignores all of that and insists that it's random death and destruction to make people forget about Epstein....
The only non-violent solution is the Iranian leadership surrendering. America can lay down arms, retreat from the region, abandon Israel, convert to Islam (one specific sect of Islam), and be allies with Iran forever, and they would still be an oppressive regime willing to slaughter dissidents and terrorize their neighbors while developing nukes to kill all the infidels. I would not have made the decision to fight this war, I don't think I could have, but that would be accepting a continued non-solution to a real problem. Sometimes accepting the lack of solution for something is wisdom. However, speaking of "nonviolent solutions" is naive when the problem is a regime whose goal is violence.
American leaders chant "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"
Iran has a lot better reasons to say such things.
That is literally the opposite of their policy. Astoundingly, given the circumstances.
I can cook up a few hypothetical reasons to go to war (whether they would justify it or not would be another question, but I could). Much like i could cook up hypothetical reasons to invade America.
But that would be a completely irrelevant exercise. Those hypothetical reasons have not motivated the action, and those hypothetical goals are not being pursued. We are judging the action on the motives and goals that drove it here in the real world. For those we look to the actions and behaviour of the decision-makers. And they're rancid.
Your own President gloats and jokes about war, likening it to a video game, and constantly calls for the destruction or defeat of other countries. If we take "aggressive, warmongering statements" as a justification for war, then it would equally justify aggression against the US.
Last edited:
No, they don't.
Your claim is that Iran's policy is to not make nukes?
You are rejecting the explicitly stated goals.
You are rejecting the most obvious possible goals.
You are accepting as absolute fact that the reasons are only those things which would be evil, ulterior motives.
How is that the real world?
It's like when the argument is abortion, some people think the lives of the unborn are more important, some think it should be the bodily autonomy of women, something that nothing is ever more important than the lives of the unborn, some think nothing is ever more important than the bodily autonomy of women, and all those points can exist and disagree with each other. The people who instead argue that pro-life is just hatred of women and a desire to control them, or conversely the people arguing that pro-choice people just actively want to kill babies, those people are not making serious argument, they are justify their hatred by convincing themselves that any oposition is motivated by evil. Your arguments here similarly have been entirely unserious, it's not enough to disagree with the justifications for the war, you feel compelled to reject those justifications and replace them with something you can categorize as evil.
If you can't disagree with people without pretending that all their reasons and goals are lies to cover up their unstated evil, then the implication here is that you're afraid you might agree with their stated purposes.
No: i have stated that the explicitly stated goal-- to destroy a conventional military that has existed for decades and posed no new or imminent threat-- is plainly insufficient.
Oh, spare me this tripe. You have argued at great length that preservation of human life should be an overriding concern, in discussions on that. Then you come in here to breathlessly defend the military force that murdered 180 schoolgirls on day 1. See, i acknowledge when you say you are motivated by something. Then you show how utterly hollow that motivation is, and how little care you actually have for life.
No, you're just blindly accepting the justifications trotted out for war, regardless of how little credibility they have.
Bush claimed it was about WMDs. Putin claimed it was about de-Nazification and de-Satanisation. We do not just credulously accept whatever stated reason is given for slaughtering thousands.
Any condemnation of Iran's violence should include self-knowledge of our countries role in it, and acknowledgement of how often ours have chosen violence.
The UK exploited Iran for its oil for decades from the early 1900s. In WW2, the UK and USSR invaded and partitioned Iran to make sure it couldn't sell oil to Germany. In the early 50s, at the behest of the UK, the CIA removed the democratically-elected president of Iran in a coup and installed the shah. The USA and UK then backed the shah, who tyrannically brutalised his people for decades before that abuse incited the Iranian revolution and so birthed this new, oppressive regime. In the 1980s, the West then backed Iraq's bloody invasion of Iran: up to 500,000 Iranians may have been killed in that war. We are still overtly backing Arab regimes that are hostile to Iran for political and religious sectarian reasons.
So Iran resents our countries because our countries have exploited, attacked, and supported third party attacks against it for over a century. Irrespective of whether I agree with its hatred, I have absolutely no difficulty understanding why it hates. By analogy, we are better viewed as bullies outraged that our victim is taking a swing back at us. The hatred Iran has for us? Our countries started it, our countries perpetuated it, and now Trump has guaranteed it will burn another generation or two. He did not have to choose violence.
So it is that you are really offering is the moral abscess of "might makes right". And whatever weak-ass shit you say about not making the decision for war yourself, you are an apologist for ongoing slaughter.
Edit: Actually, you also need to consider that you and Seanchaidh finally have some common ground. Your argument on Iran is essentially the same as Seanchaidh's on Ukraine. Evil Islamic oppressors in Iran, Western-backed Nazis in Ukraine, and if only the immoral regime would lie down and take what's coming to it from its rightful master, the world would be a better place. So, nice job with that.
Last edited:
John McCain and Lindsey Graham both did so.
And then there's this (reported in other places as well).
That has been their policy for as long as they have had a policy about such a thing. They have a lot of compelling reasons to change that policy, for sure, but their policy it remains.
One is based in truth and the other in lies though. The lies they tell to justify Russia's actions are problems not because they are wrong at face value, but because they aren't true. The point of telling those lies is that if they were true, they would justify action. Are you just denying Iran's behavior like Seanchaidh is?
Then why make up fake excuses? They think it's sufficient cause, you don't, why does it have to be more than that?
Apply this question to the Russian "de-Nazification" line.
The contention is not that Putin and I disagree over whether it constitutes sufficient reason to invade Ukraine. The contention is that his actions and behaviour indicate that that's not his actual reason.
Warmongers cook up justifications for going to war, designed to protect their reputations and manufacture consent. This is not conspiracy theory, so much as it is a well-documented tactic dating back millenia.
These reasons do not add up. It is not credible that someone who took active part in the killing of 60,000 middle eastern civilians was spurred to action by concern for a few thousand middle eastern protesters' safety. And then bombed a school.
Last edited:
That's reductive. No one just plays defense as a geopolitical power. they want to protect the Palestinian to curry favor in the middle east, and the world to spread their sect of their religion, and thus their influence. It's logical they used to be an empire, and want to do so again.
Apart from the differences (see below), I can actually point to Operation Red Sox.
No, my argument on Ukraine is that the United States should be condemned for its part in causing the situation and stop exacerbating it and negotiate a peace in which the interests of the United States in destabilizing the region are what are sacrificed rather than the territory of Ukraine (that actually wants to remain part of Ukraine, which should be measured more carefully than the referenda which have occurred so far). The longer this doesn't happen, the less likely it is going to happen and the smaller in population and territory the Ukrainian rump state will be. But damage will have been done to Russia, so the United States and United Kingdom think that's great. Oh, maybe history will repeat itself and we'll have some New York skyscrapers knocked down by Ukrainians a decade or so from now after they figure out that they've essentially been sacrificed by the US for natural gas profits. That should be great to deal with. They won't be wrong exactly. But suddenly the Nazism will be a matter of public concern for the West again.
Now confine this defamation to the Ukraine thread, if you please.