Repeating your prejudices doesn't make them any more true: obstinacy is not the same as accuracy.
Conflict between Palestine and Israel escalates
- Thread starter dreng3
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is a perpetual problem with Trump. It has similarities to a long-running tactic of (often far right) shitposters: say outrageous Nazi shit, and then if opposition pipes up claim it's a joke and they have no sense of humour. But we have to take the shit seriously, if left to slide it becomes normalised and society becomes a little bit more Nazi-tolerant. In the same way, Trump needs to be taken seriously every time he utters an outrage, because if no-one speaks up... the risk is that he'll decide he can get away with it.
I suspect the last outburst promising major war crimes was not intended to scare Iran into compliance. I think Trump needed a ceasefire at least as much as Iran and potentially more. After all, as a democratically-elected leader, Trump does have someone to answer to, and the war he started is wildly unpopular with his electorate and going downhill by the day. It was showmanship.
Showmanship because if Trump issues a grandiose threat before he issues a ceasefire, he can pretend to all his minions that he's the strong leader and great negotiator who threatened Iran into submission. However, I'm not sure the evidence supports this idea that Iran buckled: after all, Iran appears to have made no meaningful concessions and appears very unintimidated.
Maybe.
But i am happy that we didn't get another escalation.
And i would not mind a peace close to the Iranian 10 points either.
But i am happy that we didn't get another escalation.
And i would not mind a peace close to the Iranian 10 points either.
"Websites use clickbait" is not categorized as "my prejudices"... you can't be serious.
There are allegedly 2 different version of that going around, one that specifically retains nuclear enrichment and another that doesn't mention it at all. Without that point, the big issue with their list is the part where they demand an end to all conflict with their allies in the region, their allies being Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. That's a bold request that the US wouldn't promise even if we could, the IRGC enabling militias in other nations to attack Israel is among the top reasons this all happened, Israel is not going to agree to just not fight back, and Iran creating these problems does not mean they have full control over them either. It's like demanding nobody touch your dog that you trained to fight and let off the leash.
It's also a bit of comedy that a common defense of Iran online is the claim that they didn't do anything against the US or Israel, they were the victims, and now their demands to negotiate peace include protections for the groups that the internet says don't count as actions of Iran.
Outside of that, I'd agree most of those points are doable if not outright desirable. If Iran could in return a) drop their support for their terrorist groups in the Middle East and Africa and b) give up on the nuclear option, it seems completely reasonable to end the hostilities, lift sanctions, and let them manage the straight (with Oman) to help recuperate from the damage. I'd even say the part about ceasing hostilities with Hezbollah could be managed if Hezbollah signs on and Iran agrees not to arm them anymore.
Edit: Before anyone says Obama or JCPOA, the issue there is not that lifting sanctions on them for stopping their nuclear program is bad, the problem with that deal is that it only lasted for 10 years under the delusion that having more money for 10 years would magically democratize Iran and then they would just not bother with nukes after, but instead of improving their country with lifted sanctions, they funneled money into Hamas and Hezbollah. The same sort of deal but indefinite and taking arms away from these groups would be very, very different.
Last edited:
You are prejudiced in your attitude to the media: that's exactly what you revealed when you described all editors as being like a comic book character. What do you think prejudice is, if not judging people and things without knowledge of them? It's things like the absurdly disproportionate description of that article's headline as "clickbait". There's nothing about the headline you're criticising that's significantly sensationalised, exaggerated, deceptive, or curiosity-provoking to merit the term "clickbait".
This seems to be little more than your own self-deception: a fabricated excuse to roll out every time you want to deflect any criticism of the party you support in the media.
No, this is the critical thinking that allows me to understand correctly all the things that you get embarrassingly wrong.
Prejudice is not critical thinking. It's just a lazy way you've developed to pretend information that you don't like doesn't count.
This is true, but you can't distinguish between them, which is why you see everything that doesn't confirm your prejudices as the problem.
Enjoy being wrong, you may as well cause you're not convincing yourself to even attempt to be right.
Edit: A comparable thing finally presented itself to me:
Iran threatens to ‘destroy’ ships that pass through Strait of Hormuz — despite cease-fire pact
Iran’s battered navy has reportedly warned foreign ships on Wednesday that they will be “destroyed” if they attempt to cross the Strait of Hormuz without permission from Tehran.
nypost.com
Hey look, it's a deceptive headline, suggesting they are violating the ceasefire when the terms of the ceasefire were that they supervise shipping traffic, which is what the communications ultimately says, to ask permission before passage. "But it has 'destroy' in the message, so that title isn't at all misleading", you might say, except you won't say that because it doesn't suit your prejudices.
Last edited:
I remind you, post #4195, you literally explained your prejudice without realising it was a prejudice. You are talking about yourself.
Your entire argument at this point is that I used a pop culture reference and am therefore wrong.
Last edited:
They are known to sell weapons to anyone.
Because he's incompetent and aggressive with escalation and that's coming from me. This is why you vote for the lesser evil (Harris). I am starting to tell people I know to avoid calling themselves American overseas to avoid getting beaten up.
But because Harris had a Jewish husband, we have to suffer four more years of Trump. Even if she was better on Israel than Biden.
Not more than the US.
-------------------------------------
So Trump seems to consider a joint venture between US and Iran to control the strait. Seems like he toys with getting part of the toll money for the US.
Last edited:
Trump Tolls in the Strait of Trump. Shipping companies would be honored to pay, with tears in their eyes. Especially the Israelis.
I'm pretty sure under basic international law that half of the Straits of Hormuz belong to... I'm not entirely sure what country is on the other side (Oman, UAE?). But anyway, as half of the channel is owned by a country other than Iran, it's a flagrant abuse of their sovereignty for Iran (with or without the USA) to set a toll over that other country's territorial waters.
I did read that (at some point) that the toll would be divided between Iran and Oman.
No, you are wrong because the logic you have employed is: "All news editors create deceptively sensationalised headlines therefore this headline is deceptively sensationalised".
This is the well-known fallacy of circular reasoning.
Not at all. The headline is deceptively sensationalized because it is. It was misleading in a way that drew in attention. Talking about news editors using such headlines was an explanation of how that would come to be, not the reason to think the headline was misleading in the first place, the misleading it actually did is the reason to think that.