4 ms·

You realize that US removed the democratically elected government in 1953 in CIA-led coup that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosa

• 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.
          • ty6853 1y ago
            If the Arabs had just wiped out the settlers establishing Der Judenstaat near the turn of the 20th century, I have a real hard time coming to a calculus where it wouldn't have been more peaceful death tally than where we are at now.
            • kennywinker 1y ago
              This assumes wrongly that the problem in the region is multiple ethnic / religious groups. That is literal nazi ideology.
  • edanm 1y ago
    I would greatly appreciate if you didn't just assume things about me with absolutely no reason for it. Or do you also want people to assume everything about your views based on the average views of people in your country? > Such mindsets would never allow for achieving peace with neighbors through any strategy that isn’t built around dominance through violence. Just for the record, Israel has managed to achieve peace with many of its historic enemies like Jordan and Egypt, and more recently the UAE and is (was) on the way to achieving relations with Saudi Arabia. The peace in Egypt included giving back land that is 4x the size of all of Israel.
    • DSingularity 1y ago
      Israel has not achieved peaceful with its neighbors. Israel has achieved peace with the dictatorship governments that rule over their neighbors. The people of Jordan and Egypt resent the Israelis because of what the Israelis do to the Palestinians on a daily basis. You know settle their lands, destroy their houses, uproot their trees, murder their children, starve their civilians, etc etc.
      • edanm 1y ago
        So there is literally nothing you can credit Israel for? It hasn't even achieved peace in your eyes - despite signing at-the-time historic peace agreements that ended decades-long wars with its neighbors - because that's just with "the government" and not with the people. As if this is a standard applied to any other situation anywhere else in the world. If Israel ever signs a peace deal with Palestinians, but the Palestinian populace still hates Israel, that would also not count as peace? What would count as peace besides Israel not existing?
        • DSingularity 1y ago
          I think at this point we have reached Israel needs to stand down and take a long view of things. Is this working? Israel stole the land. Israel got away with the murder of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Israel has the upper hand but its policy of violent repression and aggressive expansion has created for itself millions of enemies. Will this stand the test of time? Logic says no. So abandon this course while you still have time.
  • whodidntante 1y ago
    "... 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." The origin of "the problem" is 1920/1924 when 1200 years of Islamic rule ended in that area, and non-muslims no longer lived under apartheid. With the old oppressive laws rescinded, and no able to enforce peace, a violent mess ensued, with both sides killing each other and the British, until some of the land was divided by the UN in 1947 into two nations, one Jewish and one Arab. Israel took that opportunity to declare their independence. It was only then that the entire Arab world waged war on on Israel, and the result of that war was the "Nabka", or in other words, the Arabs who declared the war lost. Keep in mind that far more Jews were "displaced" from the surrounding countries, and were robbed of their land and property. It is the mindset, created through 1200 years of history, that non-muslims are lesser people and do not deserve self-determination that does not allow peace in that area.
    • ty6853 1y ago
      >The origin of "the problem" is 1920/1924 when 1200 years of Islamic rule ended in that area, and non-muslims no longer lived under apartheid The missing piece here is that happened because of the European support and implementation of Jewish settlement. The zionists had actually initially considered Argentina, which had constitutional provisions that would have lended well to establishing a Jewish community there, peacefully. Instead they chose the more violent approach in the middle east. If the Arabs had pushed back harder initially, the Zionists would have quickly just went to their alternative. This accident of history ended up being the difference between the ongoing bloodfued we see now and the much happier alternative.
      • whodidntante 1y ago
        Interesting. I provided three facts and an opinion that 1200 years of rule created a mindset that would not allow for the independence of those considered "inferior". You also realize that this 1200 year rule was based on violent conquest, slavery, ethnic cleaning, genocide, and apartheid. Your response is all conjecture and assumptions. There is no reason that there could not have been peace with two states in 1947. Other homelands, such as as Argentina and Uganda, were considered backups, not as primaries, in case things did not go well and Jews needed a safe haven. This is because living in the mideast under Muslim rule for Jews is not safe. It has not been safe for 1200 years. And I agree, if the Arabs won, there would not be bloodshed in the mideast because there would be no Jews left, so I will give you that. I would not call it "happier". Tell me, if the United States falls apart (not so unlikely), and numerous states formed, would you think it is a good idea for the Native Americans to leave for another part of the world because a bunch of racists here in the US could not accept them having a state of their own and would declare war on them ? Of course not, Native Americans were here long before Europeans came and brutally ruled over them. The Jews were in the middle east before Islam came into being, and were brutally oppressed by those that follow Islam for 1200 years.
• 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.