3 ms·
The GP explicitly suggested visiting. Once the issue was mentioned, it was fair and useful to remind people of the risks of being held hostage. I wouldn't have
by yyyk 6y ago
The GP explicitly suggested visiting. Once the issue was mentioned, it was fair and useful to remind people of the risks of being held hostage. I wouldn't have piped in if it wasn't mentioned.
I assume good faith and hope others return the favour, so I won't be backhandedly blaming people for running a campaign. It's an open forum, not a social bubble, we should expect to find people with different opinions here. Some of them are even wrong on the internet!
- EB-Barrington 6y agoJust trying to spread the word that whenever Iran is mentioned positively, people will always, without fail, mention blown out of proportion things like the "risk" of visiting Iran (when the risk of visiting, say, Tehran as a tourist is measurably and quantifiably lower than say, visiting Chicago). Cheers, all in good faith here.
- yyyk 6y ago>quantifiably lower than say, visiting Chicago I remember these arguments from the Iraq War, and there was the same flaw: They ignore how one avoids risk. You avoid risk in Chicago by trying not to visit crime-ridden areas, rather than treating them as a tourist attraction. You avoid risk of being taken hostage by the Iranian regime by trying to avoid areas it controls.
- EB-Barrington 6y agoYou're now using a war from many decades ago to try and make a non-sensical point about being tourist in modern day Iran? 100%, you're Israeli, and not commenting with the good faith you previously claimed. Incredibly predictable.
- yyyk 6y agoIrrelevant? You're the guy which suddenly popped up Chicago, as if that makes any sense. And for such a world-weary traveller, you should know that Iraq war wasn't that long ago; And your only reply to any arguments is to deflect. Readers can deduce for themselves what that means.