Frank, I don't remember this conversation where you claimed I laughed. Could you give me a link?

No, I don't. I think you're misreading me. If you read anger into my posts, that's the reader's error.

I will keep my responses brief because you've clarified that you probably aren't responding. If you want to continue, I can go into more detail, but I'm not writing pages if you aren't continuing.

Of course there isn’t. Because your position is a closed loop. You demand agreement with your metaphysical assumptions before we can even begin to discuss facts or outcomes. You’re not interested in a debate. You’re interested in moral submission. — Benkei

It's hard to reason with those who don't share common values. I can reason with Christians and Muslims because I'm familiar with the contours of their belief systems. You, OTOH, seemingly take a "view from nowhere." Like you're a disembodied mind. Perhaps we can find some common ground, but it's harder because you don't situate yourself.

If we're talking diplomacy or negotiating within a society, that reasoning—that negotiation—takes place among situated individuals, not disembodied minds. Common values & frameworks must be found for constructive dialogue to occur. In the absence of that, there is force.

Any reasoning must proceed from a shared basis. You value the universal, I get it. There is a place for universalism within my tradition, but I certainly don't envision a mass homogenization where my tradition dissolves into others because we are all "enlightened by reason." My tradition values the universal and the particular, whereas you seemingly value only the universal. This is among our main differences and likely the root of our discord.

You call me tribal because I cling to my particular tradition. I suppose you consider yourself beyond such things. Well, good for you.

The Pre-WW1 jingoism and imperialism died especially after the Second World War. — ssu

It's interesting to me how different countries treat it. WWII is shifting from memory to history. In Russia, it's become a source of great patriotic pride; in Germany, it's a source of shame. In the US, in the past few decades, it was often treated as a fairly milquetoast yet media-worthy and exciting good versus evil conflict. Many great series have been made about it, and it's a safe conflict to portray.

But political landscapes shift, memories fade, and modern issues, like mass immigration, challenge old taboos and force us to rethink our past.

Unsurprisingly, you bring no knowledge to the table. We are once again back at the "they bad, us good" myopic view of the world that brings us nothing but idiocy.

You actually went out of your way to defend attacking Iran because "you hate the regime" not the Persians living there. Well, maybe we should introduce that kind of foreign policy more broadly. Trump, for instance, is hated throughout the world. He has access to nukes and has shown himself to be irrational. Let's attack US nuclear facilities! Because, well we don't hate Americans (or Mexicans or Canadians) but hey "fuck them" that's "double effect" when invariably at some point there's going to be a nuclear fallout because it's totally legit and fine to attack countries just because you don't like them. Idiot. — Benkei

The Iranian regime is wicked. This should be acknowledged, whether one chooses to strike or not. If one can't accept this fact, then it is not worth conversing with this person. Our worldviews would just not be remotely conciliable.

As for Trump, if the US were taken over by an Islamic theocracy that engages in mass repression and murder and threatens other groups with annihilation, then targeting our nuclear capabilities would be more reasonable. It's not simply hating them that justifies the strike.

As for why I'm not really interested in sharing knowledge/facts with you... what is needed is a paradigm shift, not more facts. If you don't believe in good and bad or righteousness/wickedness then we're just talking past each other.

Ah, but when the Jews do it...well, we can't have that. — RogueAI

This is the matter. No one cares about Muslim on Muslim violence. It's only if the Jews dare raise their hand against one of the regional players that all hell breaks loose. 500k killed in Syria by Assad and no one could care less. Iran arrests and beats women to death in their prisons, and you'll see no protests.

Once again: prove they are suicidal or irrational and you have a case. — Benkei

You're talking about a regime that rapes female prisoners before execution so that when they die they don't go to heaven.

Also, not surprising that one of TPF's most obsessive Israel haters views the Iranian regime as seemingly reasonable and moderate.

The Iranian regime is profoundly cruel and deserving of death and destruction. That is certain. The question is whether the West should actively bring about such a result. I can only hope that one day Iran is liberated and the bodies of the mullahs litter the streets. Persia will rise again.

We don't hate the Iranians, we hate the Iranian regime which unfortunately has suppressed that beautiful Persian civilization. There are streets in Israel named after great Persian rulers.

I can't blame everything on Likud. One event that sticks in my mind was the Olympic massacre of 1972. That wasn't under Likud. The violence has been there regardless of whether Israel has been liberal or conservative.

When ~1300 are murdered in a day, yes, the Holocaust will be mentioned. By and large, I don't think the Holocaust fuels violence. Any civilization would be devastated if that many of its own were murdered in a day. I think what fuels Israeli violence and paranoia is memories of Arab violence.

Regarding the Holocaust, yes, it bolstered Zionism, but Zionism doesn't delineate how large Israel ought to be. What the Holocaust did teach us is that no matter how advanced or civilized a nation is, anti-Semitism is here to stay. It shattered the Jews' belief that technological progress or social "advancement" is going to vanquish anti-Semitism somehow. Or that assimilation was the solution.

The reason there hasn't been peace in the region is very simple. It's Zionism. — frank

That's right, Frank. How dare the Jews want to have their own land in their ancestral homeland. I agree -- that's much of what it comes down to. Why can't they just happily subject themselves to Arab rule? The Arabs play nicely. They are merciful rulers with a record of fair treatment towards their minority populations.

How dare those Jews assert themselves? If only they knew they are less, there would be no problems. Their place is under the Muslims. Under the Arabs. And how dare those Nazi Zionists challenge this fact.

I agree with you. This is Likud party's main line: there doesn't have to be any peace with the Palestinians, there can be a perpetual war as far it is low intensity and doesn't cost too much. And that has worked for decades now, whereas trying to do a peace with the Palestinians has been represented as utterly impossible, because it failed. — ssu

Likud rose to power because of the intifadas and the failure of peace agreements. The nice, left-wing Israelis failed, thus you get Likud. Sort of like how on 10/7, the most left-leaning progressive Israelis were killed. Hypothetically, I believe if the Arabs living in Gaza or the West Bank truly wanted peace, we would see it, but this would not work the other way around. The Nakba always looms in the collective memory. I think the "Nakba" is how the "Palestinian" people came to be—both lies.

Here we go again...

I suspect Israel's response is proportionate because Hamas has militarized its entire society as well as built an extensive underground tunnel system. When you militarize civilian structures, they cease being civilian and become military structures. If we look at casualty numbers, it's around 1:1 or 2:1 - historically speaking, humane. As you know, the Gaza Health Ministry does not distinguish between civilians and combatants in its figures - a fundamental concept in war.

It's strange how people note the extensive destruction in Gaza and then demand that Gazans stay put. Their concerns aren't humanitarian, but political.

I sympathize with any ethnic group seeking to recover their ancestral homeland, as Judea and Samaria are to the Jews. Israel has much history in Gaza as well. I don't support forcible expulsion, but the Gazans should be given opportunities elsewhere since Gaza is a war zone.

As for genocide, let me know when Israel strips their Arab citizens of citizenship or expels them. There's no essential difference between Israeli Arabs and those living in Gaza. Israel is at war; there is no genocide. Israel has said it will not forcibly expel Gazans. I do not want to see forced expulsions, but even if forced expulsions occur it's an abuse of language to call that genocide and it's nothing near what Jews went through under Nazi Germany.

: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.