6 ms·

If you're claiming that Iran's government is somehow morally equivalent to Italy's, you're massively wrong. It's not about "the white mans burden", whatever th

by edanm 1y ago

If you're claiming that Iran's government is somehow morally equivalent to Italy's, you're massively wrong. It's not about "the white mans burden", whatever that means. It's about Iran's government not being democratically elected, being massively unpopular with its own populace that can't do anything about it cause it's not a democracy, enforcing religious laws on people that often don't want them, not respecting minorities. And oh, btw, investing billions of dollars in promoting terror all across the Middle East, with the stated goal of eradicating Israel (and, eventually, the US). So, I don't really care how Iran's rulers feel about the US - they're evil. If you can't recognize that, you've lost the plot.

ipaddr 1y ago
You realize that US removed the democratically elected government in 1953 in CIA-led coup that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Then the US government kept the Shah in power. He repressed the population and led to the 1979 revolution. Who's the one evil again? Those countries in the middle east that US considers an ally are not democratically elected either and they enforce religious laws like not allowing woman to drive. They do not respect minorites and they invest in terror in the area too. Turn off the tv and learn about the history of topics you want to shoot your mouth off in public about before you make a fool of yourself.
- DSingularity 1y ago
  Unfortunately I don’t think he is capable of what you are asking him to do. Remember that the majority of the Israeli population think Israel hasnt gone far enough in Gaza. Yes that’s after starvation and murdering over 30k women and children. On top of that most Israelis see no problem with the Nakba which is the origin of the problem as it displaced the majority of Palestinians turning them into scattered refugees who were robbed of their land and property. Such mindsets would never allow for achieving peace with neighbors through any strategy that isn’t built around dominance through violence.
  - ty6853 1y ago
    Killing them all off would achieve peace, though, since their other neighbors (or at least the ones that could prolong a violent war) seem to have no problem with it. It might be the most peaceful solution, though by no means am I implying I agree with it.
    - NickC25 1y ago
      Who is "them"? You wish to kill off all of Palestine, all of Israel, or both?
      - ty6853 1y ago
        I don't wish to kill off anyone, because I think individual rights trump peace. Based on the population over/under killing off all of Gaza seems to be the most peaceful solution. Israel would work but it has a bigger population, and only one side or the other would have to be eliminated to achieve gaza-israel peace in that conflict. Of course we don't have any real say in the matter. They're being starved to death as we speak, and once they all perish I don't think they'll be able to defend themselves or engage in hostilities.
        kennywinker 1y ago
        JFC this is a really intensely bad line of thinking. This is literally the kind of zero-sum win or lose kill or be killed thinking that lead to the holocaust. There are so so so many other possible way to achieve peace that don’t involve the death of millions. You very well might have applied this same logic to ireland during the troubles, and advocated for the extermination of all irish-Catholics or all irish-Protestants. Yet we have had 2-3 decades of peace now, and a resuming of violence seems unlikely. It seems stuck and peace impossible because that serves to reinforce the goals of those with power in this situation. There are solutions, they just involve a small minority with a disproportionate amount of influence (e.g. US oil companies, ideological christian imperialists, zionist absolutists) not getting their way.
- edanm 1y ago
  I don't know why you think anything you said contradicts anything I said. I didn't say that allies of the US were morally superior. > Turn off the tv and learn about the history of topics you want to shoot your mouth off in public about before you make a fool of yourself. This kind of personal attack is beneath the level HN aspires to.
  - amrocha 1y ago
    You’re in a thread arguing that it’s ok for “western governments” to have cyber weapons but not Iran because Iran is morally inferior. If you don’t believe that then admit it and apologize for the confusion. Don’t try to move the goalposts. >This kind of personal attack is beneath the level HN aspires to Sophistry is also beneath that level.
    - edanm 1y ago
      > You’re in a thread arguing that it’s ok for “western governments” to have cyber weapons but not Iran because Iran is morally inferior. Yes, and the parent's answer to this was "allies of Western governments are also morally inferior". But I never said that allies of Western governments should have cyber weapons, nor did I make any claims on their moral status. Hence parent's comment not addressing anything I said. > Sophistry is also beneath that level. I think my argument was clear, but just to reiterate so you don't think I'm engaging in sophistry: I think Iran's government is morally inferior to Italy's government and to other Western governments, under my value system (a standard Western value system). I think this is blindingly obvious to everyone. Therefore I think it's worse for Iran to possess cyber weapons than for Western Governments to possess cyber weapons.
      - keybored 1y ago
        > Yes, and the parent's answer to this was "allies of Western governments are also morally inferior". But I never said that allies of Western governments should have cyber weapons, nor did I make any claims on their moral status. Hence parent's comment not addressing anything I said. First they said that the West did a coup against the Iranian government. Hence according to them they are not morally superior (or rather: “Who’s the evil one again”). That directly addresses your claim. Then they also went into the bonus topic of arguing that the US doesn’t even make their allies based on who is “moral”, further but more indirectly undermining the shining city on the hill argument.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
keybored 1y ago
The West supported or instigated (which was it?) a coup against the Iranian government in order to install the authoritarian Shah. When he was overthrown in a revolution in 1979 and replaced with a relatively authoritarian theocratic regime the West/US didn’t like it. It didn’t like it because the revolution was done on behalf of some subset of Iranians; it was no longer a Western puppet. That’s why the US is anti-Iran. End of.
NickC25 1y ago
> And oh, btw, investing billions of dollars in promoting terror all across the Middle East, Who are we talking about again? I think you could say that statement is true for the US, UK, Iran, Israel, Russia, the list goes on... Ain't no saints in the middle east.
heylook 1y ago
> It's not about "the white mans burden", whatever that means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden I'm not reading the arguments closely enough to make a judgement, but the reference is to an imagined moral imperative to spread "civilization" and whatnot to "lesser" cultures and peoples. We covered it in high school where I grew up.
the-mitr 1y ago
By the same logic it should be sold to Saudi Arabia as well, they are also not democratically elected and do enforce religious law on their people. But it's okay because they are in cahoots with the West. so dictatorship is only a problem for the west if it is not to their liking. And US and UK played a major role in destabilizing the Middle East in the last two and half decades, but that's okay because it's the West and all that West does must always be right. Even if it overthrows secular democratic governments which are not to their liking . So it's okay for the West to spend billions of dollars for waging wars on false pretenses (wmd) and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process.

by edanm 1y ago

ipaddr 1y ago

You realize that US removed the democratically elected government in 1953 in CIA-led coup that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Then the US government kept the Shah in power. He repressed the population and led to the 1979 revolution. Who's the one evil again? Those countries in the middle east that US considers an ally are not democratically elected either and they enforce religious laws like not allowing woman to drive. They do not respect minorites and they invest in terror in the area too. Turn off the tv and learn about the history of topics you want to shoot your mouth off in public about before you make a fool of yourself.

DSingularity 1y ago
Unfortunately I don’t think he is capable of what you are asking him to do. Remember that the majority of the Israeli population think Israel hasnt gone far enough in Gaza. Yes that’s after starvation and murdering over 30k women and children. On top of that most Israelis see no problem with the Nakba which is the origin of the problem as it displaced the majority of Palestinians turning them into scattered refugees who were robbed of their land and property. Such mindsets would never allow for achieving peace with neighbors through any strategy that isn’t built around dominance through violence.
- ty6853 1y ago
  Killing them all off would achieve peace, though, since their other neighbors (or at least the ones that could prolong a violent war) seem to have no problem with it. It might be the most peaceful solution, though by no means am I implying I agree with it.
  - NickC25 1y ago
    Who is "them"? You wish to kill off all of Palestine, all of Israel, or both?
    - ty6853 1y ago
      I don't wish to kill off anyone, because I think individual rights trump peace. Based on the population over/under killing off all of Gaza seems to be the most peaceful solution. Israel would work but it has a bigger population, and only one side or the other would have to be eliminated to achieve gaza-israel peace in that conflict. Of course we don't have any real say in the matter. They're being starved to death as we speak, and once they all perish I don't think they'll be able to defend themselves or engage in hostilities.
      - kennywinker 1y ago
        JFC this is a really intensely bad line of thinking. This is literally the kind of zero-sum win or lose kill or be killed thinking that lead to the holocaust. There are so so so many other possible way to achieve peace that don’t involve the death of millions. You very well might have applied this same logic to ireland during the troubles, and advocated for the extermination of all irish-Catholics or all irish-Protestants. Yet we have had 2-3 decades of peace now, and a resuming of violence seems unlikely. It seems stuck and peace impossible because that serves to reinforce the goals of those with power in this situation. There are solutions, they just involve a small minority with a disproportionate amount of influence (e.g. US oil companies, ideological christian imperialists, zionist absolutists) not getting their way.
edanm 1y ago
I don't know why you think anything you said contradicts anything I said. I didn't say that allies of the US were morally superior. > Turn off the tv and learn about the history of topics you want to shoot your mouth off in public about before you make a fool of yourself. This kind of personal attack is beneath the level HN aspires to.
- amrocha 1y ago
  You’re in a thread arguing that it’s ok for “western governments” to have cyber weapons but not Iran because Iran is morally inferior. If you don’t believe that then admit it and apologize for the confusion. Don’t try to move the goalposts. >This kind of personal attack is beneath the level HN aspires to Sophistry is also beneath that level.
  - edanm 1y ago
    > You’re in a thread arguing that it’s ok for “western governments” to have cyber weapons but not Iran because Iran is morally inferior. Yes, and the parent's answer to this was "allies of Western governments are also morally inferior". But I never said that allies of Western governments should have cyber weapons, nor did I make any claims on their moral status. Hence parent's comment not addressing anything I said. > Sophistry is also beneath that level. I think my argument was clear, but just to reiterate so you don't think I'm engaging in sophistry: I think Iran's government is morally inferior to Italy's government and to other Western governments, under my value system (a standard Western value system). I think this is blindingly obvious to everyone. Therefore I think it's worse for Iran to possess cyber weapons than for Western Governments to possess cyber weapons.
    - keybored 1y ago
      > Yes, and the parent's answer to this was "allies of Western governments are also morally inferior". But I never said that allies of Western governments should have cyber weapons, nor did I make any claims on their moral status. Hence parent's comment not addressing anything I said. First they said that the West did a coup against the Iranian government. Hence according to them they are not morally superior (or rather: “Who’s the evil one again”). That directly addresses your claim. Then they also went into the bonus topic of arguing that the US doesn’t even make their allies based on who is “moral”, further but more indirectly undermining the shining city on the hill argument.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

keybored 1y ago

The West supported or instigated (which was it?) a coup against the Iranian government in order to install the authoritarian Shah. When he was overthrown in a revolution in 1979 and replaced with a relatively authoritarian theocratic regime the West/US didn’t like it. It didn’t like it because the revolution was done on behalf of some subset of Iranians; it was no longer a Western puppet. That’s why the US is anti-Iran. End of.

NickC25 1y ago

> And oh, btw, investing billions of dollars in promoting terror all across the Middle East, Who are we talking about again? I think you could say that statement is true for the US, UK, Iran, Israel, Russia, the list goes on... Ain't no saints in the middle east.

heylook 1y ago

> It's not about "the white mans burden", whatever that means. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden I'm not reading the arguments closely enough to make a judgement, but the reference is to an imagined moral imperative to spread "civilization" and whatnot to "lesser" cultures and peoples. We covered it in high school where I grew up.

the-mitr 1y ago

By the same logic it should be sold to Saudi Arabia as well, they are also not democratically elected and do enforce religious law on their people. But it's okay because they are in cahoots with the West. so dictatorship is only a problem for the west if it is not to their liking. And US and UK played a major role in destabilizing the Middle East in the last two and half decades, but that's okay because it's the West and all that West does must always be right. Even if it overthrows secular democratic governments which are not to their liking . So it's okay for the West to spend billions of dollars for waging wars on false pretenses (wmd) and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in the process.