3 ms·

> theocracy whose religion considers non-muslims to go sub-humam to have nukes and would even feel safer? we already support and BACK a theocracy, that consid

> theocracy whose religion considers non-muslims to go sub-humam to have nukes and would even feel safer? we already support and BACK a theocracy, that considers (palestinian) non jews to be subhuman , to have nukes. You can argue all you want about Israel being a theocracy but their constitution mandates a jewish state. Your religion is on your passport and strongly impacts your quality of life when you're in the regime.

ffsm8 1y ago
You seem to be confused about the definition of the word theocracy if you unironically consider Israel one. No, you don't seem to be - you unquestionably are considering how you argued the point. theocracy /θɪˈɒkrəsi/ noun a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
- cultofmetatron 1y ago
  you're absolutely correct. it would be more accurate to call Israel an ethnosupremacist state. For all intents and purposes, I consider the alternative terminology a reasonable substitute when looking at outcomes.
weatherlite 1y ago
Even if what you're saying is true (theocracy, subhuman etc etc), the reality is we have almost 60 years of experience saying Israel isn't irresponsible with nukes. We can't say that about any of the other countries in the region like Iran, Turkey, Syria, Yemen etc etc. It would be one giant experiment to have everyone armed with nukes.
- cultofmetatron 1y ago
  > We can't say that about any of the other countries in the region like Iran, Turkey, Syria, Yemen etc etc. Can we for a second, step back and acknowledge who CAUSED the instability in those countries? Iran, off the top of my head, had a secular democratic government until the CIA orchestrated a coup. Meanwhile, I certainly don't trust a country with nukes that has single handedly spearheaded a genocide that has resulted in the death of over 20 thousand children. Its literally a magnitude order more deaths per year than any other armed conflict. If you want to argue that religious zelots should not be trusted with nukes, I fully agree with you. but lets apply that logic to all countries. not just the ones that "ally" with us.
  - yencabulator 1y ago
    Down that road is applying the logic to USA itself... so Americans fundamentally cannot peer into that abyss.
    - _zagj 1y ago
      The US and Russia up until recently were committed to nuclear disarmament. Reagan even pledged to work towards "a world free of nuclear weapons," a goal that many on both sides of the political spectrum shared. Bizarrely, now I see plenty of leftists (tankies specifically) not just resigned to a world beset by nuclear proliferation, but even enthusiastic about it.
  - weatherlite 1y ago
    > step back and acknowledge who CAUSED the instability in those countries Even if what you're saying is true, which is a reach imo, that's still not really a good justification to be pro nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

ffsm8 1y ago

You seem to be confused about the definition of the word theocracy if you unironically consider Israel one. No, you don't seem to be - you unquestionably are considering how you argued the point. theocracy /θɪˈɒkrəsi/ noun a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

cultofmetatron 1y ago
you're absolutely correct. it would be more accurate to call Israel an ethnosupremacist state. For all intents and purposes, I consider the alternative terminology a reasonable substitute when looking at outcomes.

weatherlite 1y ago

Even if what you're saying is true (theocracy, subhuman etc etc), the reality is we have almost 60 years of experience saying Israel isn't irresponsible with nukes. We can't say that about any of the other countries in the region like Iran, Turkey, Syria, Yemen etc etc. It would be one giant experiment to have everyone armed with nukes.

cultofmetatron 1y ago
> We can't say that about any of the other countries in the region like Iran, Turkey, Syria, Yemen etc etc. Can we for a second, step back and acknowledge who CAUSED the instability in those countries? Iran, off the top of my head, had a secular democratic government until the CIA orchestrated a coup. Meanwhile, I certainly don't trust a country with nukes that has single handedly spearheaded a genocide that has resulted in the death of over 20 thousand children. Its literally a magnitude order more deaths per year than any other armed conflict. If you want to argue that religious zelots should not be trusted with nukes, I fully agree with you. but lets apply that logic to all countries. not just the ones that "ally" with us.
- yencabulator 1y ago
  Down that road is applying the logic to USA itself... so Americans fundamentally cannot peer into that abyss.
  - _zagj 1y ago
    The US and Russia up until recently were committed to nuclear disarmament. Reagan even pledged to work towards "a world free of nuclear weapons," a goal that many on both sides of the political spectrum shared. Bizarrely, now I see plenty of leftists (tankies specifically) not just resigned to a world beset by nuclear proliferation, but even enthusiastic about it.
- weatherlite 1y ago
  > step back and acknowledge who CAUSED the instability in those countries Even if what you're saying is true, which is a reach imo, that's still not really a good justification to be pro nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.