|
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 March 20 2026 04:46 dyhb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 19 2026 22:34 Jankisa wrote:Israel has became a militaristic nation, similar to Russia, most people who disagreed with the ways things are going left the country, the extreme settlers have more children then secular folks and especially since October 7th people are extremely propagandized. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israelis-unite-political-divides-support-justified-war-iranSomething like 80 % of Israeli Jews support the attacks. 50 % of them said they would have supported them even if Americans successfully negotiated with Iran. While the world scoffed at the "we launched a per-emptive strike on Iran" bullshit it's something that is widely accepted in Israel. They, to me, from outside looking in became a nation that thinks that all political problems around them can and should be solved by violence, and they are acting according to that. That is of course enabled by "unlimited partnership" with USA, after October 7th Biden showed them that there is no step too far that they can do that will stop Americans from having their backs. Trump came in and put that into overdrive. This is incredibly dangerous, and in that context, yeah, Nethyanahu dying doesn't do much, as the next person will also be very pro war and anti any sort of Palestinian solution. Iran did in fact train and arm multiple terrorist organizations that committed violence against Jews inside and outside of Israel for decades. They've been chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel," longer than most of this forum has been alive. So you have to be a great idiot to look at 80% support or 50% support 3 weeks in and think that's proof of militarism. The enemy that has declared itself your enemy and has done so for generations is going to, surprise surprise, reap some populist fervor when it gets the first sustained airstrikes of a war. If or when the participating armies don't announce and achieve objectives, lead to sustained economic harms, and everyone goes home with nothing lasting achieved, then you look for the percentage who respond passionately that the war should continue. That's your proof, debatably. Not when the enemy that loudly announces every week for your entire life that it wants you dead gets airstrikes for ~3 weeks. You'd have to think Israelis are particularly subhuman to truly believe that.
I’m confused. Are you trying to argue against Jankisa’s premise here? Because, to clarify, his argument is basically “Israel is a militaristic country, and as evidence here’s a poll showing 80% of the country approves of this recent act of pre-emptive military aggression into foreign territory”. And your response is “Israel’s been attacked for generations so of course they approve when their ‘enemy’ is the recipient of militaristic aggression, that doesn’t mean they’re militaristic (nor subhuman?)”.
I had to double check, but the definition of militaristic is “supporting the idea of having powerful armed forces in a country, typically for the purpose of aggression or expansion”. Like, that’s not even a controversial assertion. Israel absolutely supports the idea of having powerful armed forces, and they’ve absolutely expanded their borders on the back of military support.
It seems like you’re baking in an assumption that Jankisa’s also implying Israelis are subhuman for being militaristic. Not only did he not say that, bringing that up comes off as defensive; like something someone being accused of being militaristic would say if they felt underlying guilt or shame about their belief.
IMO, given what it seems your priorities are, you’re better off conceding Israel is a militaristic country and focusing your argument on why that’s justified. Because if you’re able to successfully argue that, the label “militaristic” loses its negative/pejorative connotation anyway.
|
@ryzel thank you, did not get to reply back to this one before you got to and I couldn't have done it better myself.
I can only add, in order to try to explain why dyhb poster was so aggressive at me is most likely due to me calling him out for his appalling posting in this thread when it came to IDF killing of 2 Palestinian boys, 11 and 8 a few pages back where even the posters who are usually very understanding of Israels posture and actions came away from it shocked at the absolute lack of empathy and humanity form the poster.
I'm guessing that he didn't like to be called out for that so he's trying to do a gotcha back and put words in my mouth.
|
On March 20 2026 04:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 03:39 Jankisa wrote:
A rational country led by rational people would understand that reaching a negotiated stalemate and having controls over a nuclear program with live camera feeds and regular inspections is a much more realistic way to keep a country from nuking you then trying to bomb a country of 90 million people into submission. You're missing a thing here that makes it even more absurd. The nuke was never for Israel. The Iranian regime has never needed a nuke to be safe against the Israeli armed forces. They don't share a border and they have a credible deterrent against Israeli airstrikes in the form of rocket spam from proxies. The Iranian regime has never shown any interest in mutual annihilation with Israel. It is hostile to Israel as part of the Islamic religious purity competition in which hostility to Israel gives them street cred vs Saudi Arabia but not only have they not shown any intention of wiping Israel out with a preemptive nuclear strike, the former Ayatollah Ali Khamenei even publicly declared that nuclear weapons are haram under Islamic law. The Iranian nuclear project started serious work when Bush branded them as part of his Axis of Evil and declared that the Bush doctrine would be regime change in those countries. It is the US, not Israel, that Iran felt that they needed a deterrent against. Israel can't invade and destroy the Iranian regime, the United States can, and said it would, and was already invading and occupying Iraq on their west, and was already invading and occupying Afghanistan on their east. They started work on a nuclear weapon because Bush told them that if they didn't get a nuclear weapon he was going to invade them. Saddam complied with disarmament and inspections and Saddam was hanged. North Korea refused to comply and pursued a nuke above all else, and they survived. That's why the deal made so much sense as a policy. Iran really didn't want to actually get a nuke, getting a nuke meant going full pariah state like NK, it meant economic ruin. China, Russia, the EU, and the US were all on board with hitting Iran with devastating sanctions if it kept going towards a nuke. Sanctions get more powerful as the network effect increases, the fewer marketplaces you have left to you the more they hurt, and Obama got everyone in on the deal. The world didn't want Iran to get a nuke and so the enforcement regime was rigorous and the participants agreed to immediate reinstatement of sanctions if there was a breach. America's rivals and enemies were still invested in the idea of a maintaining their nuclear privilege and wanted to work with America on this. This creates a far greater threat to Iran than US sanctions alone would. And when the US agreed not to invade Iran if Iran complied then the entire need for a nuke evaporated. They only ever wanted one so that they could use it in self defence against an overwhelming American invasion. It was a pure win win win where there was never actually any underlying conflict of interests. Iran didn't want a nuke, America didn't want Iran to have a nuke, America's enemies also didn't want to Iran to have a nuke. Iran only tried to get one because America told it that they'd invade it unless it did. Anyway, you have an escalatory deterrence triangle. Iran feels it needs a nuke to defend against America. Israel says that it Iran getting a nuke would be a breach of non proliferation and destabilize the region (without even a hint of shame) and if it does that then they'll set America on it, America says that Israel told them to attack Iran, Iran says that if America is going to attack it then they need a nuke. Nobody actually wants the damn nuke.
Iran's covert nuclear weapon program started in the 90s. It mostly, but never completely, stopped after it was discovered in 2003. That timeline makes no sense if the primary reason for a nuclear weapon is Iran's fear of a US invasion.
|
On March 20 2026 23:47 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2026 04:46 dyhb wrote:On March 19 2026 22:34 Jankisa wrote:Israel has became a militaristic nation, similar to Russia, most people who disagreed with the ways things are going left the country, the extreme settlers have more children then secular folks and especially since October 7th people are extremely propagandized. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israelis-unite-political-divides-support-justified-war-iranSomething like 80 % of Israeli Jews support the attacks. 50 % of them said they would have supported them even if Americans successfully negotiated with Iran. While the world scoffed at the "we launched a per-emptive strike on Iran" bullshit it's something that is widely accepted in Israel. They, to me, from outside looking in became a nation that thinks that all political problems around them can and should be solved by violence, and they are acting according to that. That is of course enabled by "unlimited partnership" with USA, after October 7th Biden showed them that there is no step too far that they can do that will stop Americans from having their backs. Trump came in and put that into overdrive. This is incredibly dangerous, and in that context, yeah, Nethyanahu dying doesn't do much, as the next person will also be very pro war and anti any sort of Palestinian solution. Iran did in fact train and arm multiple terrorist organizations that committed violence against Jews inside and outside of Israel for decades. They've been chanting "Death to America, Death to Israel," longer than most of this forum has been alive. So you have to be a great idiot to look at 80% support or 50% support 3 weeks in and think that's proof of militarism. The enemy that has declared itself your enemy and has done so for generations is going to, surprise surprise, reap some populist fervor when it gets the first sustained airstrikes of a war. If or when the participating armies don't announce and achieve objectives, lead to sustained economic harms, and everyone goes home with nothing lasting achieved, then you look for the percentage who respond passionately that the war should continue. That's your proof, debatably. Not when the enemy that loudly announces every week for your entire life that it wants you dead gets airstrikes for ~3 weeks. You'd have to think Israelis are particularly subhuman to truly believe that. I’m confused. Are you trying to argue against Jankisa’s premise here? Because, to clarify, his argument is basically “Israel is a militaristic country, and as evidence here’s a poll showing 80% of the country approves of this recent act of pre-emptive military aggression into foreign territory”. And your response is “Israel’s been attacked for generations so of course they approve when their ‘enemy’ is the recipient of militaristic aggression, that doesn’t mean they’re militaristic (nor subhuman?)”. I had to double check, but the definition of militaristic is “supporting the idea of having powerful armed forces in a country, typically for the purpose of aggression or expansion”. Like, that’s not even a controversial assertion. Israel absolutely supports the idea of having powerful armed forces, and they’ve absolutely expanded their borders on the back of military support. It seems like you’re baking in an assumption that Jankisa’s also implying Israelis are subhuman for being militaristic. Not only did he not say that, bringing that up comes off as defensive; like something someone being accused of being militaristic would say if they felt underlying guilt or shame about their belief. IMO, given what it seems your priorities are, you’re better off conceding Israel is a militaristic country and focusing your argument on why that’s justified. Because if you’re able to successfully argue that, the label “militaristic” loses its negative/pejorative connotation anyway. I gave my reasons for why you can't look at such a poll result in isolation, but I really can't help you if you never contend with the argument and skip to the conclusion. You're better off disagreeing with the evidence and argument forthrightly.
On March 21 2026 02:36 Jankisa wrote:
@ryzel thank you, did not get to reply back to this one before you got to and I couldn't have done it better myself.
I can only add, in order to try to explain why dyhb poster was so aggressive at me is most likely due to me calling him out for his appalling posting in this thread when it came to IDF killing of 2 Palestinian boys, 11 and 8 a few pages back where even the posters who are usually very understanding of Israels posture and actions came away from it shocked at the absolute lack of empathy and humanity form the poster.
I'm guessing that he didn't like to be called out for that so he's trying to do a gotcha back and put words in my mouth.
I'm sorry that you felt so singled out, but I'd say the same to any poster that wrote an identical post to yours. I stand by my prior post, and no accusations of lack of empathy will change the fact of Hamas's use of child soldiers.
|
I just feel sorry for people like you mate, you seem to be very triggered and humiliated from the previous exchange, I noticed a few times how quality of your posts fluctuates, some of the "wordier" ones in the US politics thread are clearly copy pasted from an AI, this one (both the first one and this reply to me specifically) was straight form your hurt, little black heart.
I particularity liked you calling me a "great idiot" and tried to insert things into my post that were absolutely not there, just goes to show how "skilled at debating" you are.
It's also very fun that you obviously don't have any retort to criticisms of your incredibly faulty reasoning and generally illogical post, and you, once again pasted Ryzel's reply into an AI chat-bot and when it told you that you are wrong you just told it "find me a way to weasel out of this but make me sound smart with big boy words".
Inspiring stuff!
|
I wouldn’t suggest lashing out to accuse people of using AI, especially if you want to accuse somebody else of being triggered. Calm down, nobody’s using AI here.
I’m right here if you want to say anything topical about the Iran conflict. I have trouble believing that after all the Death to Israel chants and training and funding proxy terrorist armies to kill Israeli citizens for decades, anybody really fails to understand 80% happy that Iran received three weeks of air war. Thats the most obvious thing in my mind, but I’m happy to hear evidence and argument to the contrary. Oblique comments about my posts aren’t a substitute.
|
Northern Ireland26410 Posts
On March 20 2026 03:39 Jankisa wrote:
I, on the other hand, find it very easy to object to it because their plan for Iran is the same as their plan for Palestine. Make it a failed state, make sure the people there are poor, disorganized and destitute because that's the only way that Israel can "feel safe".
That is fucking insane. In that context, Americans who under Trump treat almost every previous ally as hostile would be justified in nuking the whole Europe because "EU is a project to undermine USA" , so, in order for them not to feel threatened the most logical solution is to attack first, right?
I might be completely off here, I'm in no way shape or form an expert, but from everything I read Iran was on a path to become a "normal" regional power, of course, there is rhetoric for the hardliner base at home, but if you look at actions, they seemingly wanted to normalize relations with the west and become a more normal regional power.
During the same period, Nethyanahu did everything in his power to undermine this, going behind Obama's back to do a speech in Congress shitting all over him, being extremely critical at all attempts to actually achieve normalization between the west and Iran.
A rational country led by rational people would understand that reaching a negotiated stalemate and having controls over a nuclear program with live camera feeds and regular inspections is a much more realistic way to keep a country from nuking you then trying to bomb a country of 90 million people into submission.
Oh yeah I mean I’d agree with that assessment 100%
I just think there’s frequently some conflation between Iran and Palestine and they’re perhaps different beasts is all
|
It's all pretty crazy.
Most Islamophobes who have no problem justifying not only this current insane war but also the Gaza genocide and mostly base it on conflating all Muslims together.
Palestinians are mostly Sunni, Iranians are mostly Shia, there is a lot of differences and very important distinctions, unfortunately most people who justify all of this just see all Muslims as violent extremists and this allows them to dehumanize and justify all kinds of crazy shit.
Speaking of Israel's covert nuclear program, it seems like Iranians targeted Dimona heavily today, a lot of missiles landing, if this is happening 3 + weeks into the war after "Iran's offensive capability is completely destroyed" it's a very bad sign for the state of interceptor reserves left.
Unless somehow things de-escalate, this could start getting very ugly very soon.
|
As far as I know there is no perfect interception system available. Even if you have all the missiles you want and are willing to burn money it is still a probability game. The only reason worth bothering with defenses is to make it more costly to attack. If you have a 25% chance to hit you are likely to increase the amount of things launched to hit the target and can thus hit fewer targets. If the wave is large enough then not launching any defensive fire becomes optimal, thus launching too much just adds cost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
