4 ms·

The only one stirring up a regional war is Iran, arming terrorist groups around Israel as a proxy war. The fact they can act with impunity is a stain on the wes

The only one stirring up a regional war is Iran, arming terrorist groups around Israel as a proxy war. The fact they can act with impunity is a stain on the west just like the war in Ukraine that still rages on. This might not have been a bin laden level assassination but it was not that far and any other country that faces the same threat would do the same.

616c 2y ago
There is always someone on each of N sides of these longstanding conflicts in the region saying "Y is really the problem (because I support X; all who support X know Y is the real problem)." That foreign powers abuse that to their own advantage worse than even the local factions do is the true stain on humanity. Why support this?
mardifoufs 2y ago
Israel has literally targeted Iranian territory. How is that better than arming Israel's opponents? And Israel is the country with not only a nuclear capability but also invented the "samson option", which is basically threatening the region to nuke everyone if they have to. Israel and Iran really deserve each other.
- TheGuyWhoCodes 2y ago
  If you mean the "embassy" building it's not Iranian territory. They are not defined as such, it's false information from movies and did you forget the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina? They sure didn't have an issue then. If you mean assassinations of nuclear scientists in Iran then sure you are correct but then what do you expect when Iran's leaders again and again say they are going to wipe Israel off the map? "How is that better than arming Israel's opponents?" - Got me there buddy, how is it better than targeting military targets who fund and direct terror vs aiming blindly 100k rockets into population centers.. gee they are so equivalent When all your neighbors wants to murder you and throw you to the sea you tend to be a bit overly defensive, why is it any different than the US/Russia/China nuclear arsenal as a deterrent?
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    The difference is that China or Russia or the US have a mutual destruction doctrine. Russia or the US won't nuke every country on earth that they can reach if they get nuked by China for example. According to that logic since Israel clearly wants to destroy Iran, it should be able to nuke Israel as a last act even if Israel didn't initiate a nuclear attack. As to your first point, I'm talking about decades of Israeli operations, not just what happened recently. But I guess Israeli embassies are ok to attack now, since they aren't in Israeli territory. You keep saying that they are just trying to not get wiped out, but they are the only people that are actively and openly wiping out another group. Like, multiple Israeli officials have stated they want to level Gaza to the ground. Is the Westbank colonization also just a way for poor Israelis to not get wiped by neighbors or? They also killed more than 30 000 civilians in the past few months. So the narrative that they are just trying to not get pushed back to the sea doesn't work very well here. Especially coming from a colonizing state that is actively expanding in territory that isn't theirs the moment that said territory stopped armed combat against them.
    - TheGuyWhoCodes 2y ago
      Where did you come up with "Israel clearly wants to destroy Iran"? Did you forget that before the Iranian Islamic revolution they were best buddies? You might say that Israel wants to see the Iranian dictatorship fall (and that's only because of their action against Israel, Israel couldn't care less what they do in house to their own people) but it's a far cry from wiping Iran unlike Iran stance to kill all the jews in Israel (and beyond). Iran would have bombed Israeli embassies if they could (not like they don't try), they don't need an excuses because they already did that to Israel AND the USA (or did you forget about that too). "they are the only people that are actively and openly wiping out another group" - Sure, they cried genocide for 75 years about since then they more than doubled, worst genocide ever. Unlike the 500k dead Syrians or the 250k killed in Yemen and that's just in the last 10 years or all current African conflicts, but when its not Jews it's not interesting right? I'm not here to support or defend the occupation but from a security stand point yes it was/is necessary if you look at the region/border geographically from a military defensive stand point, you can just look at all the previous wars/clashes/terror attacks from that region pre 67. Reminder that the PLO (the good, "peaceful" terror group) was founded in 1964. 30k people, a number made up by and inflated by a terrorist run organization, very reliable[1] (they even admit its based on social media posts), in that case take into account the 10k dead combatants. 2:1 ration is one of the lowest if not the lowest in urban combat in recent memory just look what it took to wipe Isis in Mosul but I bet you didn't cry genocide then right? [1] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fat...

616c 2y ago

There is always someone on each of N sides of these longstanding conflicts in the region saying "Y is really the problem (because I support X; all who support X know Y is the real problem)." That foreign powers abuse that to their own advantage worse than even the local factions do is the true stain on humanity. Why support this?

mardifoufs 2y ago

Israel has literally targeted Iranian territory. How is that better than arming Israel's opponents? And Israel is the country with not only a nuclear capability but also invented the "samson option", which is basically threatening the region to nuke everyone if they have to. Israel and Iran really deserve each other.

TheGuyWhoCodes 2y ago
If you mean the "embassy" building it's not Iranian territory. They are not defined as such, it's false information from movies and did you forget the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Argentina? They sure didn't have an issue then. If you mean assassinations of nuclear scientists in Iran then sure you are correct but then what do you expect when Iran's leaders again and again say they are going to wipe Israel off the map? "How is that better than arming Israel's opponents?" - Got me there buddy, how is it better than targeting military targets who fund and direct terror vs aiming blindly 100k rockets into population centers.. gee they are so equivalent When all your neighbors wants to murder you and throw you to the sea you tend to be a bit overly defensive, why is it any different than the US/Russia/China nuclear arsenal as a deterrent?
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  The difference is that China or Russia or the US have a mutual destruction doctrine. Russia or the US won't nuke every country on earth that they can reach if they get nuked by China for example. According to that logic since Israel clearly wants to destroy Iran, it should be able to nuke Israel as a last act even if Israel didn't initiate a nuclear attack. As to your first point, I'm talking about decades of Israeli operations, not just what happened recently. But I guess Israeli embassies are ok to attack now, since they aren't in Israeli territory. You keep saying that they are just trying to not get wiped out, but they are the only people that are actively and openly wiping out another group. Like, multiple Israeli officials have stated they want to level Gaza to the ground. Is the Westbank colonization also just a way for poor Israelis to not get wiped by neighbors or? They also killed more than 30 000 civilians in the past few months. So the narrative that they are just trying to not get pushed back to the sea doesn't work very well here. Especially coming from a colonizing state that is actively expanding in territory that isn't theirs the moment that said territory stopped armed combat against them.
  - TheGuyWhoCodes 2y ago
    Where did you come up with "Israel clearly wants to destroy Iran"? Did you forget that before the Iranian Islamic revolution they were best buddies? You might say that Israel wants to see the Iranian dictatorship fall (and that's only because of their action against Israel, Israel couldn't care less what they do in house to their own people) but it's a far cry from wiping Iran unlike Iran stance to kill all the jews in Israel (and beyond). Iran would have bombed Israeli embassies if they could (not like they don't try), they don't need an excuses because they already did that to Israel AND the USA (or did you forget about that too). "they are the only people that are actively and openly wiping out another group" - Sure, they cried genocide for 75 years about since then they more than doubled, worst genocide ever. Unlike the 500k dead Syrians or the 250k killed in Yemen and that's just in the last 10 years or all current African conflicts, but when its not Jews it's not interesting right? I'm not here to support or defend the occupation but from a security stand point yes it was/is necessary if you look at the region/border geographically from a military defensive stand point, you can just look at all the previous wars/clashes/terror attacks from that region pre 67. Reminder that the PLO (the good, "peaceful" terror group) was founded in 1964. 30k people, a number made up by and inflated by a terrorist run organization, very reliable[1] (they even admit its based on social media posts), in that case take into account the 10k dead combatants. 2:1 ration is one of the lowest if not the lowest in urban combat in recent memory just look what it took to wipe Isis in Mosul but I bet you didn't cry genocide then right? [1] https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fatality-data-has-become-completely-unreliable https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/gaza-fat...