:lol:

As a regime, Iran is more depraved than Russia, and I'm no fan of Russia. It would be like, take the repression of Russia, and combine it with the fact that the government will throw girls in jail for removing their hijabs and often rape them before executing them (to ensure they don't get into heaven.)

Iran would hit more hospitals if it could; it's just a matter of the Iron Dome stopping them. This now raises the question of whether one's ineffectiveness makes one good/morally better: Is an assassin who is thwarted ethically superior to one who's not?

Yes, the nice thing about Iran is that they don't launch their missiles from apartment complexes and hospitals, so we can expect casualty counts not to be too high. :sweat:

Boring troll. :yawn:

When will the UN condemn the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians? The intentional targeting of civilians has always been wrong.

My position regarding the morality of strikes on civilians can be summarized in the doctrine of double effect. This has been my long-standing position.

It must be nice to have nothing to stand for; no nation or power you stand by.

It's a simple formula, I see:

1) Have no allegiance to any nation or power. To do so, one becomes tainted with their sins.
2) Be hypercritical of the West. This demonstrates your superior virtue. In judging them you place yourself above them.
3) Be silent on the most degenerate elements.

Easy.

You seem to be under the impression that the people of Iran are insane fundamentalist muslims. I don't think that's right. I think they're only being ruled by insane fundamentalist muslims.

Because his regime murders women for not wearing hijabs.

Yes, but Israel is the land where Jesus walked. And John the Baptist.

I'm pretty sure the people of Iran hate Khameini and would celebrate if he died.

It is the history of their own religion.

I don't know if we'll see a regime change, but I would love to see Iran liberated.

It's nice to have other people who value the history of ancient Israel.

Israel doesn't outlive its usefulness to the US because Israel/the Jews bring about the messianic age according to the evangelicals, who make up a significant share of the republican party. Christians will always be fascinated with that land where Jesus walked. Changes in the political situation in Israel directly affect Christians' abilities to access specific sites, so the interest in Israel will remain. Expansions of Israeli territory often allow new archaeological digs, which add to our knowledge of ancient Judaism, the religion of Jesus.

No. As I said, if you shoot a man that didn't shoot you, you simply need a lot explaining to do to the judge, because you will be the one that shot. And at some times, it will, even under law, be legitimate. But naturally there are quite a high bar for this.

When Israel has a nuclear deterrent, those countries who see Israel as a threat to themselves will try to get a nuclear deterrent. But you simply assume that they aren't seeking a balance, their own deterrence, but their motive is simply to destroy Israel, even if this put their own people and country to the peril of the many nukes that Israel has. — ssu

In my example, I was thinking of a scenario in which you are unarmed and face an enemy in the process of arming himself. Nobody is talking about Israel destroying Iran entirely.

It's impossible to know the Khameini regime's true motive. I note their policies and rhetoric. The world, ideally, would have stopped Iran from going nuclear years ago. It shouldn't be left up to Israel, ideally, but here we are.

Khameini's words: "It doesn't matter if we die. Iran is not important, Islam is important."

We never can know how many Americans (and Japanese) would have died if Operation Downfall would have been initiated. And naturally we forget the huge importance of the Soviet attack in Manchuria for the Japanese to admit to surrender. — ssu

Operation Downfall would have likely been extremely devastating. The typical American (Western?) position is to justify the atomic bombings as a necessary evil to avoid a land invasion. This was my position for most of my life. GEM Anscombe's essay "Mr. Truman's Degree" and her essay "War and Murder" caused me to rethink my perspective on this. You can find the first one online; it's not too long.

How about the Arabs? It would be interesting how Israel would react if the Saudi's would get a nuclear deterrent. What if the Egypt would also get a nuclear deterrent? Israel does have a peace agreement with Egypt (which it doesn't have with the Saudis). — ssu

The world should judge these countries on a case-by-case basis. Nuclear proliferation is a complex issue; I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs.

Yeah — and it would be they ignore the abuse of women. At least in your world. — Mikie

To which the MRA would likely say, e.g., "It's not that we ignore the abuse of women, it's that we focus on the abuse of men."

They hold the abuse of a certain group to be salient.

the Hebrew Bible which is sought to be brought to life by many Israeli extremists (in the 21st century) does encourage genocide and mass destruction. — Eros1982

It often describes events ~3000 years ago in the kill-or-be-killed world of the ancient Near East. No one is perfect in the Hebrew Bible, and commandments such as "kill the Amalekites" don't have relevance today. But yes, King David in ~1000 BC engaged in some very questionable but historically normal deeds. The Hebrew Bible is still a brilliant work of literature and deserves to be "brought to life."

What concerns me about modern Islam is its desire to spread to the entire world and its apparent hatred of non-believers. Its treatment of women is also concerning. Chieftains under Muhammad slaughtered the civilians of defeated villages, including Jews.

Above all, Islam seems to be an all-encompassing political system. I don't know whether this is compatible with the West.

It's not hard. If one were to focus on, let's say, abuse towards men, one would likely become a men's rights activist. OTOH, if one were to focus on abuse towards women, one likely ends up a feminist.

It's all about the lens we choose.

Nope. — Mikie

How else am I supposed to interpret I focus on the violence that my country has a direct hand in.

No matter how much you say about the logic and soundness of a pre-emptive attack, it still is an attack and there's no question about who is the attacker. Besides, some say an attack is the best defense. Just take it as a fact, admit it to yourself and don't be such a hypocrite. — ssu

Ok, just as the man who attacks a man reaching for his gun is also the attacker. Technically right.

If a man comes at you with a gun, is the only justified time to respond after the bullet has been fired? Even while the bullet is in the air, there's technically no damage done. Guess we need to wait until after it strikes.

A policeman with a knife is an entirely different matter from Jack the Ripper with a knife.

So you accuse president Truman to be a fanatic leader with zero humanitarian concern? That's a new one from you, BitconnectCarlos. — ssu

We can talk about Truman, but I'm not entirely sure how it's relevant to the current discussion about whether Iran should be nuclear. I'll say for the record, though: What Truman did was very questionable, and if there is a God, he will likely need to answer for what transpired.

Regardless of Truman's actions 80 years ago, I still don't want a nuclear Iran. I don't think anyone wants a nuclear Iran. The question is how far we're willing to go to stop it. Maybe if it were 5 years ago, we could have approached things in a more measured manner, but intel showed that Iran was very close to going nuclear.

The only downside of this is that it leads to quite similar thinking that the German high command had prior to World War 1 about the Russian Empire: better have the war now before Russia becomes too strong. This thinking means that you simply won't have peace. — ssu

The problem isn't that another nation is stronger than Israel. The problem is that the nation expresses genocidal intentions towards Israel and was on the verge of going nuclear. Israel is okay with other countries being stronger than it.

Your writing about the Cuban missile crisis is engaging, but it's a different scenario than what Israel ought to do now. The actors are different, the tech is different, and the time is different. But yes, history proved Kennedy right in his decision to "quarantine"/blockade Cuba and negotiate with the USSR. IIRC the US surrounded that island with ships. Not an easy task with Iran.

I focus on the violence that my country has a direct hand in. — Mikie

I'm not interested in an approach/worldview that hyperfixates on the violence of one group and ignores that of another.

:yawn:

All you do is focus on the violence of some and ignore it from others. :yawn:

As a leftist, your ideology has more blood on its hands than Israel could ever dream of. So it's not about bloodshed for you, but about who sheds it.

Israel started this war, not Iran. — ssu

Imagine you have a homicidal and fanatical enemy in your region that is building a mighty weapon. The world has tried to persuade your enemy to stop, but to no avail. As a last resort, if you were to attack your enemy's designs, would it truly be you starting the war? Or was it your fanatical enemy who ceaselessly worked towards designing a devastating weapon?

If an enemy is amassing troops on your border and surrounding your camp, must you sit there like sitting ducks?

Yet you might ask yourself: are you already in WW3?

No, but the situation could escalate.

To take the step and use nuclear weapons, even small tactical ones, is huge. — ssu

Do you have any doubt that we've had national leaders in the past 100 years who would have used a nuclear warhead had they had one at their disposal? Hitler, for one. We've had fanatical world leaders with zero humanitarian concern. Has humanity fundamentally changed since then? We're talking about our fathers and grandfathers here.

You can call human history many things, but "rational" is not one.

You live in a white supremacist state, and the entire world is also supremacist/racist/sexist. Nothing will ever be good enough for you, Mikie.

Funny how I don't remember the last time you called Gaza a supremacist society.

The fact is that we have this false idea repeatedly given to us that a war with two nuclear armed powers will lead to a nuclear war, and in the case of the US and Russia (and China), to an all out nuclear holocaust. And that to assume something else is wrong, and only increases the possibility of a nuclear war. That we simply cannot say that anything else would happen than an all out nuclear exchange.

But the truth is that this isn't the likely outcome. — ssu

I was often taught the contrary: That two nuclear powers would never go to war because it would be irrational and mutually assured destruction.

Nuclear war isn't the likely outcome, but it doesn't need to be the likely outcome for it to be terrifying.

Even if it's 1%, do you want to keep running those odds year after year? Humans are mostly rational, but I would never declare human rationality an iron law of human nature. Cultures think in various ways and have different attitudes towards death. Belief in a resurrection is common for the Abrahamics.

Even if we knew there would be no nuclear war: Who loves death more? The secular or the Islamic fundamentalists? Fundamentalist religious countries (like Iran) that are nuclear do not bode well for a West that wants to live and let live. A nuclear Iran has much more bargaining power/influence, plus the possibility of proliferation, where they had their dirty work off to others to maintain plausible deniability.

You should be thanking Israel.

Cool, so you support Iran’s actions. I applaud your consistency. — Mikie

I don't even think Iran is claiming this. Nor does Israel, as a matter of policy, do such things. Unlike another group.

No. — Mikie

Do the Jews have a right to self-determination? Does any group have a right to self-determination?

Neither is really okay, but since Israel started it — Mikie

This current war was initiated on October 7, 2023. There was a ceasefire prior.

I’d say it’s kind of a laugh to hear Israeli’s complaining about war crimes or international law. — Mikie

Should we laugh off German women when they mentioned being raped by Red Army soldiers?

So I’m glad you can now be consistent and say that it’s acceptable when Iran does it. — Mikie

If Israel were launching operations from those homes and apt buildings, they're legitimate targets.

If it is acceptable to bomb "militarized" Israeli homes, then it's acceptable to bomb militarized Palestinian ones.

The only possible solution is to let women run the world. This I endorse wholeheartedly. — RogueAI

Now this would be interesting to see. How do you figure Israel-Iran works out with women in charge? Hopefully, Iran would have backed down with its nuclear program. Khamenei must go.

It's crystal clear that Palestinians store weapons in non-military facilities. It's been documented countless times.

Israel, OTOH, does have dedicated military facilities.

I can sympathize with using gas on Nazi invaders on the shores, but do you honestly believe everything from the Allies is justified? This view turns soldiers into murderers and rapists if nothing else. Sometimes warfare did involve going into a town and massacring everyone, but I would like to think that we could do away with that.

Oops I mean Iran. Either way, let’s all be sure to believe them. — Mikie

Good thing that there are facts in these matters. Were rockets being fired from them? Were explosives and weaponry stockpiled there?

And you can reply with your sophistry: "An IDF soldier set foot in the place," but you do nothing with this but pave the way for total war, which will backfire.

We don't say that day and night don't exist because of the existence of twilight. Border cases exist, but they don't abrogate right and wrong.

I don't make rules. See the Geneva Convention. If, e.g., a school building or a hospital is being used as a base for military operations, it becomes a valid target.

If this weren't the case and civilian targets were always off limits, then the rules of war would be absurd. The enemy could fire from schools, and no one could respond without committing a "war crime."

Once those civilian areas are militarized, they lose that privilege and become legitimate targets.

they can't really target anything specifically in Israel and are hitting back the way the Brits did in WW2, by hitting cities. I don't fault Iran for that. — RogueAI

Well, it is a war crime to target civilian areas. If Israel were firing rockets from these apartment complexes, that's one thing, but it's a war crime to engage in that type of indiscriminate bombing as Iran has been doing.

Standards of warfare change.

The Allies did some very questionable things in WWII. We also didn't have precision targeting capabilities back then. Israel has kept its strikes in Iran to regime figures.

Iran has been deliberately targeting civilian areas, and I'm wondering whether international organizations will say anything. Seems like a war crime.

Good thing you don’t support something like an entire region being turned to rubble. Otherwise people may think you’re beyond a hypocrite. — Mikie

You mean Gaza? So, since I support fighting Hamas but don't support, e.g., violence against police officers and ICE agents, this makes me a hypocrite? :chin:

Makes sense. Wait for the facts to come out. It's not looking promising; he was a Walz appointee.

We've got the killing of the CEO of United Healthcare, the shooting of two Israeli ambassadors, doxing and attempted murder of ICE agents and police, and now the MN state rep and her husband + injuring another Senator and his wife.

This is partly why I rarely engage the hard left anymore. What do you say to people who want to burn everything down?

A man disguised as a police officer shot and killed Minnesota Rep. Melissa Hortman & her husband this morning. Police found his manifesto and "no kings" fliers in his car. This happened after Hortman broke from her party and voted to defund healthcare for adult illegal aliens.

We need to have a conversation about far-left terrorism in this country.

IMHO, the mistake would be for Israel to launch a ground invasion and maintain an occupation in Iran. Israel's objectives here are more limited.

Are you sad that Israel is ethnically cleansing Iran's nuclear capabilities from the planet? :fear:

Well, it's on.

Israel uses precision strikes to target senior military officials, while Iran indiscriminately bombs Tel Aviv. Rockets are heading towards Jerusalem, and I wonder what would happen if Iran were to hit the Dome of the Rock. In any case, the Iranian regime must be toppled now. No other way forward.