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.

You probably still don't think so, but I think we have a debt to repay for those countries we fucked over and letting their people in is a small way to repay it, even if it means the occasional Laken Riley. — RogueAI

Could we compensate them in other ways besides letting unvetted masses breach our national borders and become our responsibility? Helping them stabilize their own countries sounds like a better solution.

As I see it, a government's responsibility is first and foremost to its citizens.

From a humanitarian/social perspective: — Benkei

No need to mention the Laken Rileys of the world.

The protestors themselves seemingly don't want deportations. It's naive at best. There's also something very questionable about participating in a movement with widespread criminality. I'm seeing a lot of keffiyehs in these crowds.

No, these riots are just extremely destructive. Maybe there's an argument for just letting California burn, though.

And of course, like everything, Trump is to blame. — NOS4A2

Orange man bad.

Never mind the stores being destroyed and looted, the cops being assaulted, the cars burning on the streets, the Molotov cocktails, the rocks, the fire crackers launched at law enforcement -- Orange man bad.

Never mind the Jewish shops and centers being destroyed and vandalized with hateful graffiti and broken windows -- orange man bad.

Never mind the billionaires behind these protests; they're a totally organic response to deportation efforts! Orange man bad.

Let's all just focus on Trump's impure motives. :roll:

What are you trying to argue here? Let's say we both agree sending in the national guard and marines are necessary. Let's also say that a leaked copy of a Trump meeting gets released where we hear the President say, "This is just what I need! Now I can get the media to ignore my failed Musk bromance. I hope there's a bloodbath so the story has legs. Muhahahaha!" — RogueAI

That would be much better than the opposite, i.e., Trump not acting due to some "pure" motive (whatever that means), and the LA faces destruction by criminal elements. I'll take good actions, iffy motives over the opposite, any day regarding policy.

If that happened, do you think we would be talking about the policy or the individual? I've seen you argue effectively in the Israel thread. You're a better thinker than this. — RogueAI

We can talk about either, but they're different topics. Sometimes discussions about Israel do get inundated by people obsessing over Benjamin Netanyahu or Arafat and ignoring the bigger picture.

I don't want to press on with my points until we've reached agreement on this central issue: President Trump's motives in sending the marines to L.A. is very important. Agreed? — RogueAI

Imagine if the topic were tax reform, and one of us kept bringing up the perceived impure motives of one of the parties.

We could do it. I'm not saying it's wrong in and of itself.

However, our discussion wouldn't touch on the bill's actual effects. The side with the impure motives could have had an excellent proposal, but we wouldn't know because we spent all our time impugning their motives.

Certain Congressmen are saying that billionaire Neville Singham is funding these riots. We could also examine his motives.

In criminal law, is the motive of the accused important?

Yes, but we're talking policy, not individual vs individual.

Oh, and you think the city of L.A. has descended into "absolute lawlessness"? — RogueAI

Parts of it.

Are you saying it's an ad hom to consider a president's motivation for a particular action??? — RogueAI

Yes. Ad homs aren't wrong per se, but you're engaging in classic ad hom:

Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Let me give you an example: say you have a corrupt cabinet member. A president firing him for corruption is good. A president firing him because he's a Jew is bad. Right? So, the action can be the same, but the motivation is HUGELY important. Yes?

Well, is the cabinet member corrupt or not? This is a one-to-one scenario rather than a mass event. I prefer a good action done with impure motives to a bad action with pure motives, especially on a mass scale.

Ad hom. Focus on the action, not the character of the person initiating it. I'm seeing streets full of burning cars and absolute lawlessness in LA, but if you'd rather focus on Trump's motivations, go right ahead.

"Protestors" are throwing molotov cocktails at law enforcement.

A government must be able to enforce something as basic as immigration policy.

Do note that Democrats are still viewed as "normal Americans". So just let the effects of the tariffs take their effect on the economy. Perhaps there's more "Liberation Days" still ahead. Who knows about all that winning... — ssu

Anyone who cheers on rioters flying foreign flags and burning the flags of their host country is not a "normal American." If they were, that's the end of our country. Past civil rights movements at least clothed themselves in the dress and mannerisms of America; this modern one doesn't even bother.

For normal Americans, rioters flying foreign flags and burning American ones is not a cause to rally around.

Or do you think that foreign students are a fifth colony of agents that steel the precious wisdom only held the genius Americans? Hence the US would be better of without foreigners participating in their universities? — ssu

It's not about wisdom. When these universities accept billions from Qatar, their Middle Eastern Studies departments naturally promote certain views. It's hard for a university to be unbiased when billions are funneled in from the Middle East. What nation can be unconcerned with what it's citizens are taught?

Hence if you assume the levels of Syrians coming to Sweden in 2016, then yes, then and ONLY then you will have dramatic changes in demographics of the country. — ssu

What are the fertility rates of the respective groups? And what rates are people converting to Islam? There can be tension when one group tries to convert while the other doesn't.

And just how is your President doing with those mass deportations? Last time he ended up deporting far less than other presidents, including his successor Joe Biden. — ssu

I agree; I would love to see him step it up - perhaps judges are blocking him. He did stem the flow of illegals crossing the border, though. Those numbers were insane under Biden.

Says the person living in a far more multicultural country than Sweden. But how do you get to 60%? — ssu

60% was just an example to convey a hypothetical question about whether such a thing would cause alarm. Yes, some immigrants integrate well while others do not.

My own country used to be a white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon country. I don't think anything in our founding documents says we must maintain such a status. The founders agreed on specific values that are important to protect. There was diversity there, though—some were strong Christians, others were highly irreligious deists. The Enlightenment influenced them.

Other states are different. China is Han, and that traces back to the Han dynasty. It's not the same thing. I'm not claiming one is better than the other, either; it's just different.

The first golden rule is that if it is commonly understood that the foreign people bring money into the society, foreigners will be accepted: nobody has a problem with tourists, with millionaires or needed talented professionals moving into your nation. If somebody is publicly against there being tourists, the person will be confronted by angry people who get their life earnings from the tourist trade. But if those tourists don't bring in money, just roam around and sleep in public parks, they will be immediately despised everywhere. Foreigners that just want to take your wealth and have no desire to appreciate anything else are usually in history called the invading enemy. What people feel about them is quite universal and these attitudes have a long history. — ssu

I think this needs to be challenged.

A rich foreigner with an agenda can be quite dangerous—probably more dangerous than a foreign mugger. The latter is an obvious threat, while the former has the potential to do quite a bit of harm with their great resources. We must look at the values and allegiances of those entering our countries. Our elite universities in the US are flooded with very wealthy foreign students who have zero allegiance to the US, and I think our country is finally waking up to the fact that we've been sold out.

But if the source is telling that there's a genocide when there isn't a genocide, it's wrong. That there are tensions and hostility against an ethnic group can be totally true. — ssu

There's a lot of complexity around this word. Appropriating land is closely associated with ethnic cleansing. Is ethnic cleansing the same as genocide? Should we call expulsion and murder the same thing - genocide? Should we call harsh repressive measures that forbid/restrict the practice of a group's traditions/culture genocide? The question is a reasonable one to ask.

Here in the US, we stripped the natives of their land and forbade the practice of their customs. It was extraordinarily effective in decimating the native american populations (along with disease and alcohol), and that group remains the poorest and least powerful group in the country.

the you have to favor some AfD in Germany to get change from Merkel's policies. Or that somehow Sweden is lost to multiculturalism when the US is far more multicultural than Sweden. And so on. — ssu

Maybe mass deportations are needed.

Sweden is responsible for managing Sweden. Currently, 80% of the population is native Swedes; would they be okay with this number going to 70%? 60%? What kinds of cultural changes would we see at those levels? Do Swedes value their culture, or is it more defined by its openness and receptivity? What cultures are they importing?

It's a difficult question that every country needs to address. I see value in preserving distinct cultures and think pride in one's group is fine as long as one is fair and hospitable to foreigners. One can hold pride in one's group while still looking outward and seeing value and brilliance in other groups. It follows, though, that if one values and has pride in one's culture, one should be prepared to defend it if necessary.

What basically Trump has done perhaps can simply just increase the brain drain and pensioners moving to the US, if they can opt for that automatic refugee status. — ssu

In a country where ~95% of murders are unresolved against a specific (minority) ethnic group, I wouldn't blame them for wanting to leave. Protection is the basic function of government, and if the government isn't upholding its end of the bargain, then those citizens don't owe them anything. It's a little odd that you give the SA authorities the benefit of the doubt as to race being a factor in the resolution rate, but whatever.

There's a difference between accepting immigrants who appreciate the country they're emigrating to & work legitimate professions versus those who come, e.g., due to a religious duty to spread their religion or to exploit resources. Every nation has the right to monitor its borders and set its immigration policies. Some immigrants easily assimilate, while others have no desire to.

Put them aside and there's still the ability to get an objective view about events, even if you need to find it out yourself with a little work.

It's the alt-right lie that "this is what you are not told about... by the lying fake media". It's their gimmick. — ssu

Just because a source is biased or has an agenda doesn't mean it's wrong. You should double-check the information, sure, but bias alone isn't a reason to dismiss it. Virtually everything is biased, including us. The media has not been even-handed either. The media is just one source of news/info among others and even the most even-handed of us are biased. We all choose our bias, ultimately.

I condemn anyone calling for the deaths of any ethnic group, whether Arabs or Boers. We all should. It's not acceptable in chants or songs.