|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On June 23 2025 00:00 Legan wrote:
If we consider Iran to be led by religious fanatics who do not care about dying, what kind of response will they make? Strikes on USA bases for sure. Marching through Iraq to liberate Muslims from Israel and the USA? Launching a dirty bomb on Israel? Surely, they will do the most insane thing and will not be rational about the consequences.
They’ve already showed considerable restraint after losing the golden dream of nukes. With sovereignty completely removed as a possibility, now they are shifting to survival by trying to convince the world they are better off leaving them alone. The Hormuz Straight is their best bang for buck option and it’s what they immediately did because now their focus is raw survival efficiency.
|
On June 23 2025 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2025 00:00 Legan wrote:
If we consider Iran to be led by religious fanatics who do not care about dying, what kind of response will they make? Strikes on USA bases for sure. Marching through Iraq to liberate Muslims from Israel and the USA? Launching a dirty bomb on Israel? Surely, they will do the most insane thing and will not be rational about the consequences. They’ve already showed considerable restraint after losing the golden dream of nukes. With sovereignty completely removed as a possibility, now they are shifting to survival by trying to convince the world they are better off leaving them alone. The Hormuz Straight is their best bang for buck option and it’s what they immediately did because now their focus is raw survival efficiency.
Focusing on survival does not sound like a religious fanatic who would willingly die to destroy their enemy if they just got their chance.
|
On June 23 2025 00:00 Legan wrote:
If we consider Iran to be led by religious fanatics who do not care about dying[...]
They aren't, or at least for now they are not.
What is happening is a classic 'negotiating with a gun', so it's working on assumption that Iran is a rational actor and will surrender.
|
The heads of religious fanatics are rarely completely fanatical themselves, they just play along for the power.
If they were fully committed to doing 'gods work' and not afraid of death they would have put on a bomb vest and walked into a checkpoint decades ago.
Iran's desire to get a nuke is completely rational when you consider the US has invaded countries in the region and repeatedly threatened to invade them next.
|
On June 23 2025 00:27 Legan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2025 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2025 00:00 Legan wrote:
If we consider Iran to be led by religious fanatics who do not care about dying, what kind of response will they make? Strikes on USA bases for sure. Marching through Iraq to liberate Muslims from Israel and the USA? Launching a dirty bomb on Israel? Surely, they will do the most insane thing and will not be rational about the consequences. They’ve already showed considerable restraint after losing the golden dream of nukes. With sovereignty completely removed as a possibility, now they are shifting to survival by trying to convince the world they are better off leaving them alone. The Hormuz Straight is their best bang for buck option and it’s what they immediately did because now their focus is raw survival efficiency. Focusing on survival does not sound like a religious fanatic who would willingly die to destroy their enemy if they just got their chance.
How is it not? That’s been Hamas’s focus for quite some time. No matter how unachievable the goal, so long as big dog allah has your back, it’ll all work out in the end. If you take a glance through history, you’ll notice quite a few instances where a government surrenders after losing control of their capital for an extended period of time. Or even before that.
For Iran, all that matters is continuing to fight on in whatever way they can. The only thing that can stop that is a coup from within or Iranians organizing against their government. Without either of those, jihad keeps on doing what jihad does
Jihad today still needs more martyrs tomorrow. Sustainable martyrdom is a key component of any jihad strategy. Hamas wasn’t hiding in tunnels because they were atheist. They hid in tunnels because it improved their total jihad output capability
|
The problem is that they can't be considered religious fanatics only when the question is whether they should be allowed to have nukes. If someone truly believes that they are religious fanatics, the belief should be applied in other cases. If they are not acting like religious fanatics in other cases, then maybe they are not after all, and other questions need to be re-evaluated. Describing the expectations beforehand using the assumption is better than fitting the act to your assumption later.
|
On June 23 2025 00:50 Legan wrote:
The problem is that they can't be considered religious fanatics only when the question is whether they should be allowed to have nukes. If someone truly believes that they are religious fanatics, the belief should be applied in other cases. If they are not acting like religious fanatics in other cases, then maybe they are not after all, and other questions need to be re-evaluated. Describing the expectations beforehand using the assumption is better than fitting the act to your assumption later.
I just explained why they are still religious fanatics. Survival is a key part of continued martyrdom. Imagine what a goof ball Hamas/Iran would be if they let everyone have 72 virgins at the same time. Then they’d be fresh out of jihad. I explained why that’s true above. It sounds like you are replying to your own previous message rather than mine
|
I take this with a pile of salt, but Iran openly developing nuclear weapons while being provided some directly in the meantime doesn't strike me as the desired outcome of Israel and the US's attacks.
|
On June 23 2025 00:38 Gorsameth wrote:
The heads of religious fanatics are rarely completely fanatical themselves, they just play along for the power.
If they were fully committed to doing 'gods work' and not afraid of death they would have put on a bomb vest and walked into a checkpoint decades ago.
Iran's desire to get a nuke is completely rational when you consider the US has invaded countries in the region and repeatedly threatened to invade them next.
It is a rational decision for every dictator everywhere, but that does not remotely good for the world, their neighbors, or their own people.
|
I for one am shocked that you are reading, trusting, repeating and spreading the alcoholic king of misinformation of Russia, who could have predicted this outcome....
|
yeah Medvedev has negative cred. If he says the sky is blue I am checking out the window to make sure its not turned purple.
There is no one, not even Russia, that is going to give Iran a nuke.
|
On June 23 2025 00:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2025 00:27 Legan wrote:On June 23 2025 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2025 00:00 Legan wrote:
If we consider Iran to be led by religious fanatics who do not care about dying, what kind of response will they make? Strikes on USA bases for sure. Marching through Iraq to liberate Muslims from Israel and the USA? Launching a dirty bomb on Israel? Surely, they will do the most insane thing and will not be rational about the consequences. They’ve already showed considerable restraint after losing the golden dream of nukes. With sovereignty completely removed as a possibility, now they are shifting to survival by trying to convince the world they are better off leaving them alone. The Hormuz Straight is their best bang for buck option and it’s what they immediately did because now their focus is raw survival efficiency. Focusing on survival does not sound like a religious fanatic who would willingly die to destroy their enemy if they just got their chance. How is it not? That’s been Hamas’s focus for quite some time. No matter how unachievable the goal, so long as big dog allah has your back, it’ll all work out in the end. If you take a glance through history, you’ll notice quite a few instances where a government surrenders after losing control of their capital for an extended period of time. Or even before that. For Iran, all that matters is continuing to fight on in whatever way they can. The only thing that can stop that is a coup from within or Iranians organizing against their government. Without either of those, jihad keeps on doing what jihad does Jihad today still needs more martyrs tomorrow. Sustainable martyrdom is a key component of any jihad strategy. Hamas wasn’t hiding in tunnels because they were atheist. They hid in tunnels because it improved their total jihad output capability
Why does not mutually assured destruction from a nuclear response also lead to the fight ending and the need to survive first? Fear of MAD should lead to the same consideration that is already happening. MAD would be a much worse outcome than the current attacks that are triggering this survival response.
|
On June 23 2025 01:55 Legan wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2025 00:44 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2025 00:27 Legan wrote:On June 23 2025 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2025 00:00 Legan wrote:
If we consider Iran to be led by religious fanatics who do not care about dying, what kind of response will they make? Strikes on USA bases for sure. Marching through Iraq to liberate Muslims from Israel and the USA? Launching a dirty bomb on Israel? Surely, they will do the most insane thing and will not be rational about the consequences. They’ve already showed considerable restraint after losing the golden dream of nukes. With sovereignty completely removed as a possibility, now they are shifting to survival by trying to convince the world they are better off leaving them alone. The Hormuz Straight is their best bang for buck option and it’s what they immediately did because now their focus is raw survival efficiency. Focusing on survival does not sound like a religious fanatic who would willingly die to destroy their enemy if they just got their chance. How is it not? That’s been Hamas’s focus for quite some time. No matter how unachievable the goal, so long as big dog allah has your back, it’ll all work out in the end. If you take a glance through history, you’ll notice quite a few instances where a government surrenders after losing control of their capital for an extended period of time. Or even before that. For Iran, all that matters is continuing to fight on in whatever way they can. The only thing that can stop that is a coup from within or Iranians organizing against their government. Without either of those, jihad keeps on doing what jihad does Jihad today still needs more martyrs tomorrow. Sustainable martyrdom is a key component of any jihad strategy. Hamas wasn’t hiding in tunnels because they were atheist. They hid in tunnels because it improved their total jihad output capability Why does not mutually assured destruction from a nuclear response also lead to the fight ending and the need to survive first? Fear of MAD should lead to the same consideration that is already happening. MAD would be a much worse outcome than the current attacks that are triggering this survival response.
Can you clarify what you mean in your first 2 sentences? I don’t understand.
|
United States43664 Posts
On June 23 2025 01:16 Billyboy wrote:I for one am shocked that you are reading, trusting, repeating and spreading the alcoholic king of misinformation of Russia, who could have predicted this outcome....
Tankies gon’ tank.
|
On June 23 2025 00:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2025 00:27 Legan wrote:On June 23 2025 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2025 00:00 Legan wrote:
If we consider Iran to be led by religious fanatics who do not care about dying, what kind of response will they make? Strikes on USA bases for sure. Marching through Iraq to liberate Muslims from Israel and the USA? Launching a dirty bomb on Israel? Surely, they will do the most insane thing and will not be rational about the consequences. They’ve already showed considerable restraint after losing the golden dream of nukes. With sovereignty completely removed as a possibility, now they are shifting to survival by trying to convince the world they are better off leaving them alone. The Hormuz Straight is their best bang for buck option and it’s what they immediately did because now their focus is raw survival efficiency. Focusing on survival does not sound like a religious fanatic who would willingly die to destroy their enemy if they just got their chance. How is it not? That’s been Hamas’s focus for quite some time. No matter how unachievable the goal, so long as big dog allah has your back, it’ll all work out in the end. If you take a glance through history, you’ll notice quite a few instances where a government surrenders after losing control of their capital for an extended period of time. Or even before that. For Iran, all that matters is continuing to fight on in whatever way they can. The only thing that can stop that is a coup from within or Iranians organizing against their government. Without either of those, jihad keeps on doing what jihad does Jihad today still needs more martyrs tomorrow. Sustainable martyrdom is a key component of any jihad strategy. Hamas wasn’t hiding in tunnels because they were atheist. They hid in tunnels because it improved their total jihad output capability
Look up the actual meaning of Jihad. Extremists don't use it the same way other Muslims do. Kinda how Hitler saw "struggle" differently from other people.
"Jihad output capability" is a meaningless term without context. Without the aspect of warfare, there's nothing about the tunnels in Gaza that makes sense. No moderate Muslim here in Austria would claim the Hamas tunnels are in service of Allah. They'd argue they're in service of warfare and only warfare. Some would go so far as to call them an affront to Allah.
Only from an extremist perspective do Hamas' actions make sense. Extremism is not inherent in Islam or in Jihad. But it doesn't surprise me that a Western audience doesn't have this kind of understanding.
Iran's leadership isn't religiously radical or extremist because of Islam. They're religiously radical or extremist because they're not secular. Otherwise they'd just... be radical or extremist. Without the religious aspect.
|
On June 23 2025 01:20 Gorsameth wrote:
yeah Medvedev has negative cred. If he says the sky is blue I am checking out the window to make sure its not turned purple.
There is no one, not even Russia, that is going to give Iran a nuke.
Like I said, "pile of salt". Just heard them mention it on Tankie TV MSNBC, so I figured I'd mention it.
Selling Iran a nuke sounds unbelievable to me too, we're just firmly in unbelievable times, so it's hard for me to share your certainty.
|
On June 23 2025 03:14 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2025 00:44 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2025 00:27 Legan wrote:On June 23 2025 00:15 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2025 00:00 Legan wrote:
If we consider Iran to be led by religious fanatics who do not care about dying, what kind of response will they make? Strikes on USA bases for sure. Marching through Iraq to liberate Muslims from Israel and the USA? Launching a dirty bomb on Israel? Surely, they will do the most insane thing and will not be rational about the consequences. They’ve already showed considerable restraint after losing the golden dream of nukes. With sovereignty completely removed as a possibility, now they are shifting to survival by trying to convince the world they are better off leaving them alone. The Hormuz Straight is their best bang for buck option and it’s what they immediately did because now their focus is raw survival efficiency. Focusing on survival does not sound like a religious fanatic who would willingly die to destroy their enemy if they just got their chance. How is it not? That’s been Hamas’s focus for quite some time. No matter how unachievable the goal, so long as big dog allah has your back, it’ll all work out in the end. If you take a glance through history, you’ll notice quite a few instances where a government surrenders after losing control of their capital for an extended period of time. Or even before that. For Iran, all that matters is continuing to fight on in whatever way they can. The only thing that can stop that is a coup from within or Iranians organizing against their government. Without either of those, jihad keeps on doing what jihad does Jihad today still needs more martyrs tomorrow. Sustainable martyrdom is a key component of any jihad strategy. Hamas wasn’t hiding in tunnels because they were atheist. They hid in tunnels because it improved their total jihad output capability Look up the actual meaning of Jihad. Extremists don't use it the same way other Muslims do. Kinda how Hitler saw "struggle" differently from other people. "Jihad output capability" is a meaningless term without context. Without the aspect of warfare, there's nothing about the tunnels in Gaza that makes sense. No moderate Muslim here in Austria would claim the Hamas tunnels are in service of Allah. They'd argue they're in service of warfare and only warfare. Some would go so far as to call them an affront to Allah. Only from an extremist perspective do Hamas' actions make sense. Extremism is not inherent in Islam or in Jihad. But it doesn't surprise me that a Western audience doesn't have this kind of understanding. Iran's leadership isn't religiously radical or extremist because of Islam. They're religiously radical or extremist because they're not secular. Otherwise they'd just... be radical or extremist. Without the religious aspect.
I understand the various ways the terms are used, but I do think its important to recognize language evolves and certain words can have entirely different meanings in many different contexts. I am sure moderate Muslims in Austria would disagree with a lot of things Khameini says. But I don't think it makes sense to deprive Khameini and his followers of their own words. They use those words to mean those things, so I use their words when describing their behaviors. It would be very complicated and difficult to communicate if we replaced terminology of certain people due to deciding only one interpretation of a word is valid. But your point is well taken and I do understand and appreciate the extremely diverse opinions that exist within Muslims as a whole across the world.
|
On June 23 2025 00:07 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2025 23:39 Broetchenholer wrote:On June 22 2025 22:41 Billyboy wrote:On June 22 2025 17:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2025 15:33 Broetchenholer wrote:On June 22 2025 04:18 Billyboy wrote:
I have been thinking a lot lately about the common argument about removing these awful leaders and government by force because of the chaos that will happen after. I do think that it is a concern, but it also feels pretty damn awful to be saying that we are going to leave you to be brutally repressed, killed and tortured to keep the problems of the area within the borders. This is a design by the dictators to make sure that there is no one ready to fill the vacuum and they are the only one that can hold it together by their awful means, which also regardless of political affiliation, involves them living in incredible wealth. In a way it is like the Nuke where it all just a means to keep them in power and keep oppressing their people and I do not know why anyone would argue it is a good thing.
Should we not be trying to find ways for the countries post dictatorship to become health democracies? Rather than just being like, well it is much easier if we just leave that horrible monster in charge because it is way easier for us.
I find the argument strange because it never seems to get any pushback and is often written as almost as if it is a kindness to the (in this case) the Iranian people. When it is really not, or at least it is far from altruistic. So, after you have stopped the terrible regime of Iran, where do you continue? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Israel? Russia? China? USA? The world would be a better place if we just bombed a multi party system into the States, a new constitution, laws to limit money in politics... You for that too? I have never seen someone being consistent about calling for the toppling of regimes "for freedom" Wish we could all be around to see people reading/reacting to our posting about this stuff as it was happening 100, 200, 300+ years from now. The fact that Saudi Arabia is an absolute theocratic monarchy that's still chopping people's heads off for being gay but also a steadfast ally of the West will be one of the things that future junior high/high school kids spend countless hours trying to understand stoned in their basements/bunkers/vaults. So you want the US and Israel to attack SA? Or is it your opinion that you have to attack all evil regimes or none? Does it matter if one is openly making war in other nations or not? Does it matter if one is openly trying to make a nuclear weapon while openly being genocidal? We are just interested in YOUR logic which countries need to be invaded and freedom brought. You believe Iran needed to be bombed. You did not call for the bombing of similar regimes or much worse regimes. How about South Susan? The powers there cannot even claim to at one point have any way of opposing the West, yet the us are not incentivized to bomb there despite actually mass murdering going on. Saudi Arabia by the way is openly making war in another country, it's called Yemen. So only countries making nuclear weapons are to be bombed in order to free their population, even if they are far from the worst at suppressing their population? Where did you get that I wanted it from? Feel free to find the post. I'm bringing up the idea behind this all. People are so damn sure about things that they think there way is crystal clear the right way. No one bothers to actually critically think that hmmm maybe leaving 100m under oppression so they do not migrate to our cities and make them less great is not the altruistic view they think it is. It is also pretty shitty, just like al the other options.
You are right, I probably saw the first post I quoted from you, conflated it with some of moohdoos and then replied to that. My apologies.
Your point, if I now got it right, was still strange. You attributed to the left the idea that toppling regimes is bad because then we need to take on their refugees. Which is super weird. It's never the toppling of brutal dictators that cause the refugee crisises because finally people can flee the country. It's the civil war that will do that. And the civil war is what "the West" (the us(not the left)) had always caused by toppling dictatorships without a clue how to actually achieve peace in the land. I would argue the left would love to help the people after the dictator was bombed with rebuilding the country. The issue is just, there is a reason why these countries dipped back to chaos after their dictators were gone, you cannot mandate democracy, you need to make everyone's life better and if you have first made it terrible because you had to sanction the regime and after it was gone you were too stingy to pump billions into the country, don't expect them to suddenly become democratic.
The left is against overthrowing regimes because the right that overthrows them is terrible at nation building and it results in civil war and more tragedy.
In the case of Iran, at least the country is as old a nation as we get them. No 10 different people in an arbitrary created pseudo nation by the Brits. It's also decently rich in resources and has a long history of being an efficient state. It is perfect for lifting sanctions on them so that the people can prosper and eventually remove their yoke themselves.
But even I see that completely normalizing relations with them for the sake of their people would be a bad move.
|
While we await Iranian response or US bombing damage assessments there is recent gem:
Hezbollah condemns US strikes.
Izrael will rue the day where they were made 'deeply concerned'.
|
No-ballah better mind their own "bussiness".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
