It seems to me that another war in that area of the world will be a great disaster.
ref: theintercept.com/2023/05/24/cia-israel-iran-strike-leaked-documents/
ref: theintercept.com/2023/05/24/cia-israel-iran-strike-leaked-documents/
This is one fundamentalist theocracy going after another. Both have gods which basically command their followers to kill all the non-believers - like every non-violent cult of love and peace does.
Israel if it deems necessary will do what it can to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons because they're insane enough to actually use them and have threatened to do so repeatedly.
But they can't even fight directly - its mostly just proxy through hezbollah and raids.
You can 'equate' the two - but I can source dozens of times the leaders of Iran have called for the destruction and killing of all Jews in Israel - can you quote a leader of Israel saying the same of Iran or muslims for the last 20 years?
But they can't even fight directly - its mostly just proxy through hezbollah and raids.
You can 'equate' the two - but I can source dozens of times the leaders of Iran have called for the destruction and killing of all Jews in Israel - can you quote a leader of Israel saying the same of Iran or muslims for the last 20 years?
@Gitananda said in #1:
> It seems to me that another war in that area of the world will be a great disaster.
>
> ref: theintercept.com/2023/05/24/cia-israel-iran-strike-leaked-documents/
If Israel bombs Irans nuclear facilities, it doesn't mean a war.
Israel wouldn't want it to become a war as they aready have what they want and Iran neither wants it to become a war as they'd loose. So it won't happen.
Israel actually did the same in 1981 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
Very typical of modern journalism that the writer of the article either isn't aware of that or is aware but doesn't mention it in order to make it sound unprecedented and more shocking.
> It seems to me that another war in that area of the world will be a great disaster.
>
> ref: theintercept.com/2023/05/24/cia-israel-iran-strike-leaked-documents/
If Israel bombs Irans nuclear facilities, it doesn't mean a war.
Israel wouldn't want it to become a war as they aready have what they want and Iran neither wants it to become a war as they'd loose. So it won't happen.
Israel actually did the same in 1981 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
Very typical of modern journalism that the writer of the article either isn't aware of that or is aware but doesn't mention it in order to make it sound unprecedented and more shocking.
@Gitananda any war is horrible but an all-out war between those two would be messy. Hopefully, it does not get to that point.
#4 Operation Opera
Imagine having to choose between sitting through an entire opera, or an Israeli surgical airstrike.
Speaking about a diabolical dilemma.
Imagine having to choose between sitting through an entire opera, or an Israeli surgical airstrike.
Speaking about a diabolical dilemma.
@salmon_rushdie said in #3:
> You can 'equate' the two
This is of course correct: should Iran attack Israel it would be an appalling act of aggression, whereas if Israel would attack Iran it would be just peaceful self-defence.
And, yes, Netanjahu could well exchange positions with Ali Khamenei without much noticeable difference. The rhetorics are strikingly similar.
> You can 'equate' the two
This is of course correct: should Iran attack Israel it would be an appalling act of aggression, whereas if Israel would attack Iran it would be just peaceful self-defence.
And, yes, Netanjahu could well exchange positions with Ali Khamenei without much noticeable difference. The rhetorics are strikingly similar.
@Nomen-Nonatur said in #7:
> This is of course correct: should Iran attack Israel it would be an appalling act of aggression, whereas if Israel would attack Iran it would be just peaceful self-defence.
>
> And, yes, Netanjahu could well exchange positions with Ali Khamenei without much noticeable difference. The rhetorics are strikingly similar.
They have been attacking eachother in proxy for 30-40 years lol
Israel sabotages their nuclear program
Iran funds terrorist attacks on civilians via Hezbollah
Not entirely similar actions are they?
> This is of course correct: should Iran attack Israel it would be an appalling act of aggression, whereas if Israel would attack Iran it would be just peaceful self-defence.
>
> And, yes, Netanjahu could well exchange positions with Ali Khamenei without much noticeable difference. The rhetorics are strikingly similar.
They have been attacking eachother in proxy for 30-40 years lol
Israel sabotages their nuclear program
Iran funds terrorist attacks on civilians via Hezbollah
Not entirely similar actions are they?
@Nomen-Nonatur said in #2:
> This is one fundamentalist theocracy going after another. Both have gods which basically command their followers to kill all the non-believers - like every non-violent cult of love and peace does.
So given you believe this.
Would it improve tis situation of both Iran and Israel have nukes?
By your own logic, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, a nuclear was should happen, in which maybe 50 million people in the Middle Eas get vaporized.
If Iran does not get nukes, this war is prevented and the 50 million do not get vaporized.
Your own beliefs lead to the conclusion that Iran should not get their hand on nukes.
> This is one fundamentalist theocracy going after another. Both have gods which basically command their followers to kill all the non-believers - like every non-violent cult of love and peace does.
So given you believe this.
Would it improve tis situation of both Iran and Israel have nukes?
By your own logic, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, a nuclear was should happen, in which maybe 50 million people in the Middle Eas get vaporized.
If Iran does not get nukes, this war is prevented and the 50 million do not get vaporized.
Your own beliefs lead to the conclusion that Iran should not get their hand on nukes.
@Raspberry_yoghurt said in #9:
> Would it improve tis situation of both Iran and Israel have nukes?
Israel already has nukes and that is a fact. I do not think it would be a good idea that Iran gets nukes, but i think it is an equally bad idea to give the Israelis nukes.
> By your own logic, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, a nuclear was should happen, in which maybe 50 million people in the Middle Eas get vaporized.
Obviously, as I said before: if Iran attacks Israel it is an attack. If Israel attacks Iran it is just a peaceful act of self-defense.
Does Iran have nukes? I don't know (and you don't either). Maybe they have the "weapons of mass destruction" some secret service claimed Saddam Hussein does possess. Historically the US started to condemn the iranian nuclear program when Iran refused to buy US nuclear fuel assemblies. Furthermore, the US didn't honour the contract they brokered with Iran and that Iran doesn't feel bound to a contract the other side doesn't honour anyway is at least understandable. Less understandable is the US outrage about the Iran (maybe) ignoring a contract they themselves cancelled.
But all that is secondary. Again, yes I fear nuclear weapons in the hands of fanatics. But - and that may be the difference between us - i fear all fanatics equally, not only the ones western propaganda condemns. The israelic government is no less a far-right and religiously fanatic bunch of crazies than the iranian government. (And, for that matter, the pakistanian government, the indian government and a few others.)
What do they all have in common? They all are religious fanatics of one or the other sort: Narendra Modi is quite the same as Ayatollah Kamenei or Benjamin Netanyahu. And every religion will tell you first that its is all about love and peace - but all non-believers are not counting anyway and can be tortured or killed. And torture and kill they all do: the israelis do it with the muslims, the muslims with the jews and other non-muslims, the hindus with the muslims and so on. And they all have nukes and are willing to use them for the greater glory of their respective invisible friend.
> If Iran does not get nukes, this war is prevented and the 50 million do not get vaporized.
This war will only be prevented when both sides are stripped from the means of mass destruction. That Israel is treating international law and conventions with contempt and disregard makes them equally dangerous.
> Your own beliefs lead to the conclusion that Iran should not get their hand on nukes.
And - i can write it for you, but i cannot understand it for you - i repeat: I am not for nukes in Irans hands, but I am equally against nukes in Israels hands. In the end I am interested in surviving, not in being vaporized for the greater glory of one particular invisible friend instead of the other.
> Would it improve tis situation of both Iran and Israel have nukes?
Israel already has nukes and that is a fact. I do not think it would be a good idea that Iran gets nukes, but i think it is an equally bad idea to give the Israelis nukes.
> By your own logic, if Iran gets nuclear weapons, a nuclear was should happen, in which maybe 50 million people in the Middle Eas get vaporized.
Obviously, as I said before: if Iran attacks Israel it is an attack. If Israel attacks Iran it is just a peaceful act of self-defense.
Does Iran have nukes? I don't know (and you don't either). Maybe they have the "weapons of mass destruction" some secret service claimed Saddam Hussein does possess. Historically the US started to condemn the iranian nuclear program when Iran refused to buy US nuclear fuel assemblies. Furthermore, the US didn't honour the contract they brokered with Iran and that Iran doesn't feel bound to a contract the other side doesn't honour anyway is at least understandable. Less understandable is the US outrage about the Iran (maybe) ignoring a contract they themselves cancelled.
But all that is secondary. Again, yes I fear nuclear weapons in the hands of fanatics. But - and that may be the difference between us - i fear all fanatics equally, not only the ones western propaganda condemns. The israelic government is no less a far-right and religiously fanatic bunch of crazies than the iranian government. (And, for that matter, the pakistanian government, the indian government and a few others.)
What do they all have in common? They all are religious fanatics of one or the other sort: Narendra Modi is quite the same as Ayatollah Kamenei or Benjamin Netanyahu. And every religion will tell you first that its is all about love and peace - but all non-believers are not counting anyway and can be tortured or killed. And torture and kill they all do: the israelis do it with the muslims, the muslims with the jews and other non-muslims, the hindus with the muslims and so on. And they all have nukes and are willing to use them for the greater glory of their respective invisible friend.
> If Iran does not get nukes, this war is prevented and the 50 million do not get vaporized.
This war will only be prevented when both sides are stripped from the means of mass destruction. That Israel is treating international law and conventions with contempt and disregard makes them equally dangerous.
> Your own beliefs lead to the conclusion that Iran should not get their hand on nukes.
And - i can write it for you, but i cannot understand it for you - i repeat: I am not for nukes in Irans hands, but I am equally against nukes in Israels hands. In the end I am interested in surviving, not in being vaporized for the greater glory of one particular invisible friend instead of the other.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.