466 karma · joined March 25, 2024
What argument? Saudi Arabia and IR are fundamentally different countries and cultures. Do you see the same dissatisfaction of saudis with the ruling family?
Saudis are not interested in getting nukes unless Iran gets nukes.
Saudis are not revolutionaries and don’t care about the spread of revolution.
Except they don’t.
North Korea minds their own business.
Of course not, and the report is made up.
IR is not deprived of essential goods. They are trading with all the neighbors and many international partners.
> Cultural practices that we disagree with can be remediated through peaceful means or at least settled by Iranians. It's not like women aren't capable of resistance or their own political voice.
Do you mean cultural practice of beating women to death for refusal to wear hijab? What is exactly the voice these women have?
> I presume you also wish to invade U.S. ally Saudi Arabia.
No, I am not. FWIW saudis seem to be totally fine with their ruling family. Iranians, on the other hand, are not. There is a huge difference between what we see in Iran, and what we see in SA. Moreover, saudis do no chant “death to america”, do not believe in the spread of Islamic revolution, and are not working on nuclear weapons.
> I also presume you also spend all day thinking about how you wish to destroy random African countries you barely know the name of.
Can you explain to me how did you get from me pointing out that IR is a regime governed by the idea of spreading Islamic revolution and random African countries?
> You believe in spreading "democracy" like a French revolutionary from the early 1800s.
lol no. You can’t spread democracy if locals don’t believe in democracy. Iranians believe in democracy, and they do have a chance once the regime is gone, or, at least they give up their nukes, and stop enrichment.
If Iran has nukes, Saudis and others in the region would want nukes. I think we need to have fewer nukes in the world and not more.
Why? There are plenty of other wars where previous ceasefires were violated. Hamas themselves refuse to put down their arms, which is also a violation of ceasefire.
> The evidence is clear.
The evidence is not clear.
> The political rhetoric from Israel is clear.
Rhetoric of some people in the government doesn’t mean much. Like any democratic country, you can have elected people who have extreme views.
> People who actually study genocide are very clear.
What are you talking about? The organization of international scholar of genocide where anyone can pay a small fee and be a scholar in the organization? Yeah, this is evidence!!!
> Israel will "cleanse" Gaza of the "animals" and the West bank and idiots in America will lap up the propaganda and argue about whether its actually a genocide or not.
So, it didn’t happen yet, but you already know it will happen?
Given Irans track record wrt women rights, and inability of Iranians to accept violence toward their women, IR doesn’t need the US or anyone else to destroy their society.
> Stop attacking a country half-way around the world, they will stop even thinking about us.
Why would they? IR is ruled by radical Muslims who believe in spreading the rule of Islamic Revolution. Why should we not believe them?
So, they still choose to do it, right?
> As for Hamas
How Israelis refusal to admit these officials to meet Hamas’s leadership makes the crimes committed by Hamas not true?
(1) war
(2) ceasefire that doesn’t hold
For example, there was a ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia, and then it was violated.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/23/palestine-authorities-cr...
Does Israel also force Hamas and PA to violently suppress dissent too?
All the typical “proves” of a genocide based on arguments that make any other war genocide as well, which in turn completely devalues actual genocides that did happen, and desensitizes the public so that when an actual genocide will happen no one will react.
So, when Bernie in 2016 said that illegal immigration is bad thing he was racist?
Of course you are not going to do it. Because it would require you to get factual, and provide some evidence to corroborate your points, which would be hard.
> You can at the least state it's plausible, and I'd take you seriously.
Are you saying it is possible that the war in Gaza is not genocide?
> The rest of your drivel is a deliberate misreading of my post.
Sure. Better to dismiss the person, than engage in factual discussion.
What is funny to me is that as long as some group is anti-west, they can commit any atrocity, and get a blank check for it. Like, they had to do it, there was not other choice. Completely stripped of any agency not to commit atrocities.
This is categorically false. Iraq is a shiite country.
That is why when they chant "Death to America" they mean that they love us?
I think if you ignore all the videos where you clearly see police and other regime forces gunning down people on the streets, then yes. Otherwise, I would say that Iranian people are tired of Islamic colonization project.
> You are completely delusional if you believe that number. Just the logistics of killing so many people would be insane. You are falling hard for Western propaganda.
Here are the logistics: https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/1qknmkn/a_father_s...
you can find plenty of videos like this. Of course you would prefer a 4k live stream of the crackdown on the protesters but its kind of hard to make given that the internet was shut down during that time, and only some videos made it out.
> for the end of the Israeli regime that is committing the best documented genocide in history.
War is war, and is completely different from genocide.
> How you are not criticizing Western allies like the UAE for fueling the bloody civil war in Sudan.
Are you saying that Saudis are not western allies that fueling the civil war in Sudan? I'll remind you that the war in Sudan has backers from many gulf nations, which back opposing forces.
Israel does not commit genocide by any objective metric.
> the fact that it is an apartheid state
And it is not an apartheid state as can be evidenced by the fact that Arabs and other cnthincal minorities, e.g., Druze or Cherkessians, reach highest positions in politics, academic, and private enterprises. You can simply google things like "notable israeli arab judges" and get results that disprove this whole idea of "apartheid".
> and the fact that the US has killed more innocent civilians in recent history (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) than Iran has...
This is strange argument. So, if US did bad things, others should do them to?
> And before I get accused of being a Khamenei supporter (Westerners tend to not like nuance on these topics) - I hate the Iranian regime. I agree there needs to be a regime change. At the same time, I also think there needs to be a regime change in Israel, as no government since it's inception has been for peace - the only PM they had that was doing the bare minimum towards it was killed by an Israeli.
You do not have to be Khamenei supports, it is enough to have double standards. From your own comment it is clear that you see the whole IP conflict without any nuance. For example, you ignore all the injustices jews suffered from the hands of Palestinians even before 1948. So, I will ask the same question you asked:
Why the double standard?
In war, when civilian infrastructure is used for military purposes, it will get destroyed. Look at all the cities in Ukraine where combat did happen, like Bahmut, or Mariupol. They got absolutely decimated.
Any country on earth engaging in ground combat would do exactly the same tactics as Israel did, and we have plenty of evidence of that from the past 20 years.
Edit: a modern example of it is the introduction of arabic language in Iranian schools after the revolution because arabic is the language of the Quran. A similar thing is done by China w.r.t. uighurs, which are not allowed to teach their language, and culture in schools, it has to be only Mandarin. Or, in Turkey, where by constitution it is prohibited to use any non-Turkish language as a language of instruction in schools.
So yeah.
If we stick to this colonial term we will never find an end. Arabs colonized the whole Middle East and subjugated all natives: Jews, Kurds, ezidis, Assyrians, etc. Moreover, Iran itself was colonized and Arabized by force. So, I would say any anti-Muslim anti-Arab movement in Iran is anticolonial by nature.
Where does it lead us? Nowhere. This is why this whole “colonial” vs. native etc is pointless — there was always some group of people living on a piece of land before some other group came.
Edit:
Also, I find it pretty hilarious that Shah was a colonial regime but Islamic Republic is not: France literally harbored Khomeini and the moment Shah fell they flew him back to lead the revolution. But since IRs rhetoric is anti west and anti Israel, the modern left completely forgives all the atrocities committed by IR: abuse of women, violent suppression of dissent, execution of rappers for a song, etc.
If Iran gets nuclear weapons, all big Sunni countries will get them too: Saudis, Qatar, etc. we do not want it to happen, as the next Arab spring can collapse those governments, and you can count on any Muslim radical group getting hands on one of those.
Anyway, there are countries that have nuclear weapons, and this Jinny is out of the bottle. But, it doesn’t mean we want to have more of this crap lying around. We need less.
This was true in the beginning. Now every protest chants “Javid Shah”, “death to Khamenei”, etc, which are political chants.
> And they have an Apartheid system.
The only apartheid system that allows the minority they discriminate against to achieve highest positions as judges, academics, celebrities, etc.
> And they are actively depopulating the original population.
This is not true. You can simply check how number of Arabs grew, and in many cases, outpaced in their growth the Jewish population.
There is no reason whatsoever to enrich uranium beyond like 20% if its not for military purposes in such quantities.
Saying that others are NPCs is interesting. How do you know that you are not an NPC?
Which were imposed for work on atomic bomb. These sanctions didn’t come out of the blue.
No, I understood you quite well. You said that I am just argumentative for the sake of it, and that we can use deduction based on the incomplete evidence because it makes sense.
> Yes? It's not a difficult concept that you can use pattern recognition to predict how someone, or something will behave. It works especially well the more moving parts there are. The more moving parts, the more likely you are to find conflicting bits. So in that case, if you want to predict or explain the root cause of the behavior, you're going to need to use heuristics.
What does it even mean? How can you explain root cause of something with heuristics?
> The point is, your demand for magical proof is a red herring, you can predict correctly without it. Thus it's useful to describe them by the way they behave.
Sure, lol. So, what do you do with other "evidence" that does not fit the prediction you are trying to make? You just discard it as "error"?
> Technically, I guess you don't need to, you're arguments are a perfect counter example, about how you can just ignore the parts that make you feel icky, or conflict with what you assume you understand. Most people you talk to will not be able to perfectly explain the ideas they hold so if you want to learn what they might have to teach, you need to make some kind of attempt to engage with them, even if in the end you find you still disagree, you're very likely to learn something. But given how transparently you don't want to, I thought it might be nice to point out how obvious it is to anyone who might have something useful to explain, that you're just looking to get off on the one sided argument.
So, it's on me then that when people are making outlandish claims without evidence that they fail to produce such evidence?
> I personally don't care what you accept. My reply wasn't attempting to convince you of anything. Just wanted to point out how obvious it is you're not even trying, just for the slim chance that you actually might want to.
I do. I am open minded. Show me the evidence of your claim, and let's discuss it on its merits. Not "heuristics" and "predictions".
I did not move goal posts at all. In my first reply to your comment I asked for evidence. Even if I use your current parsing (and yes, English is not my first language), I am sorry, but using a Supreme Court decision that is related to domestic matter as evidence of sowing discord and weakening of Europe is ridiculous.
Even if I focus on the "promotion of the racist and fringe-right views", this court decision does not prove it at all. The court is independent, and rules based on their interpretation of the law and the constitution. It has no goal to promote anything.
> Are you OK with him doing so? Why continue supporting it?
No, I am not. But politics today are like this, and you won't find a politician who does not do it.
This whole discussion stemmed from your wild claim, and I did not believe your claim, and I was interested to know how you would prove it.
Yes??
Read point 4 of NSDAP's 1920 platform: https://www.vaholocaust.org/25-points-of-nsdap/
Only German by blood can be citizen.
> Anything else would be ridiculously stupid.
This is funny. Are you saying that germans of the early 20th century had the same perspective as you?
> It’s not as racist as the other example you gave but it’s very nationalistic - and from that it’s just a small step to go “if my culture is better, why shouldn’t we rule the world?” - “if my culture is better why should we allow other (worse!) cultures to exist”? If you arrived at that point you almost have to exterminate other cultures - how could you allow something bad to poison and destroy the people? They could be saved by your obviously better culture! You would almost be a monster not “liberating” them!
Maybe, maybe not. The same thing can be said about left as well, and we have a lot of examples in history how left ideologies were taken too far and millions of people had perished in the process: industrialization of USSR by Stalin, Mao's great leap, etc.
So, the bottom line is that extremes are bad.
> Then just listen to the speeches and proclamations of your heads of state. If you are as antiracist as you claim it should be easy to reveal the agenda they never quite state openly but that is always present between the lines
Which ones? Why is it always a referral to something abstract that I have to go an look up in order to prove your point? Do you have a particular speech in mind that you've listened to, where on minute XYZ JD Vance stated something that made you believe that he pushes racist or what not agenda? Please share.
Or, perhaps, you've read about the fact that JD Vance made the speech (and you never listened to it in its entirety), and you've read an article where the journalist attributed some things to JD Vance and his speech?
I am open to change my mind. Please show me.