GreyEyedGhost comments on Reagan, a true conservative

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

America has been supporting terrorism for decades in various places around the world, including the Middle East. So has Israel. There are no clean hands in this conflict. I would be happier if they all stopped it, less happy if only some of them would. I'm not holding my breath.

If by "occasionally negotiating" you mean a politician asking for his own citizens to continue to be held hostage for his own personal gain, then yes, I guess that's correct. Likewise, if the obvious response to Hamas's attack is to start shooting children in the street, then I would say your integrity is as compromised as the leadership of Israel's is.

The regime I'm talking about was put in place in the 50s by Americans, and remained there until 1979. The people of Iran who are upset with America in large part had to live with the consequences of those actions which happened in their own lifetimes. Expecting them to just wave it off as a long time ago as you are is pretty disingenuous. As for the dodgy politician nationalizing things as an impetus to remove him, well, there have been far dodger politicians who haven't been removed, and over 50 nations have nationalized things in the last couple centuries, including both Canada and the US in that same time frame. Why is it not only bad when this guy did it, but bad enough to start toppling governments?

I also agree with dealing with authoritarian governments, but there are about 80 in the world right now, and the only two America has invaded happen to have a lot of oil. Why is that? Moreover, there are other ways to deal with authoritarian regimes, such as sanctions, non-proliferation agreements, and supporting enemy nations should those authoritarian regimes try to step out of their borders. Of course, those other things were being done before this war came along, but I guess since they weren't attacking their neighbors, things had to be stepped up. It's absolutely a problem that Iran is repressing their opposition and have drastically curtailed freedoms as compared to most western nations, but bombing people rarely fixes that. It certainly hasn't slowed the executions in this case.

Again, you're trying to imply tacit approval of terrorist acts, as opposed to an amount of expectation that some subset of the oppressed population will respond in inappropriate ways, whether they be Hamas, Sinn Fein, or whoever else. But when you start shooting kids in the street, targeting journalists and aid vehicles, and torturing prisoners and protesters, you aren't engaging in war, you're engaging in war crimes. That distinction might be too subtle for some. And as for who is ultimately responsible, I'm not sure any of them are still alive, but killing a few tens of thousands more just might fix it all, right?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The issue is that you denounce some terrorist actions while not denouncing others. There's inconsistencies in your denouncement of some acts while being unable to denounce others. There's a "both sides" style of hypocrisy going on there. On one hand what Iran and Hamas does is fine because "both sides" do these things. On the other hand you only denounce these actions when done by the US and Israel. You say you "understand" the actions of Hamas and Iran.

I think there's somewhat of a racist mentality happening where the actions of Iran and Hamas are excused because you don't consider them to be responsible for their actions. The IRGC, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc. are not children, they are adults making decisions and they are responsible for those decisions. When they commit terrorist acts, they are responsible for the consequences of those acts. It's very strange you thing the US is responsible for the consequences of something that happened 70 years ago, but Iran isn't responsible for the things it's doing today.

I also agree with dealing with authoritarian governments, but there are about 80 in the world right now, and the only two America has invaded happen to have a lot of oil. Why is that?

Because countries act in their interests. Again you're trying to characterize everything as if some countries are required to be ideologically pure. No country is. But if an authoritarian country's capability to promote terrorism regionally and globally is diminished, is it really important that for the decision making that led to that be ideologically pure? To me if there's less terrorism in the world, the world is a better place. This isn't a world police or global crusade kind of thing, it's realpolitik.

But when you start shooting kids in the street, targeting journalists and aid vehicles, and torturing prisoners and protesters, you aren’t engaging in war, you’re engaging in war crimes. That distinction might be too subtle for some. And as for who is ultimately responsible, I’m not sure any of them are still alive, but killing a few tens of thousands more just might fix it all, right?

I think you may be a little naive about what a war is. War crimes happen in every major war. Yes, even in WWII (the good war!) the western allies (the good guys!) committed many war crimes. Most of those war crimes were never prosecuted.

October 7 was a clear act of war by Hamas. It was a genocidal act. Hamas started a war of choice. By taking hostages they chose a ground war in an urban environment.l It's hard to process that if you felt like they were the freedom fighters that represent oppressed people (which you clearly do because you don't distinguish between Hamas and Palestinians), but these are the facts. Sure the settlements in the West Bank are terrible, war crimes are terrible (I wish they're all prosecuted, but realistically few will be), Netanyahu sucks, etc. But that doesn't mean you have to pretend that Hamas are the good guys, and Iran's support of Hamas is somehow helping Palestinians. Just look at Gaza right now, does it look like anything the IRGC and Hamas are doing is making anyone's lives better?

You should think of the results of people's actions a little more and worry about the bullshit ideological rationalizations for those actions a little less.

And as for who is ultimately responsible, I’m not sure any of them are still alive, but killing a few tens of thousands more just might fix it all, right?

Iran executes protesters by the tens of thousands. Hamas tortures people to death if they dare speak out against them. The Houthis literally crucify people for the crime of being gay. So I ask you, how many tens of thousands more people have to die by the hands of these psychopaths before you'll stop making up bullshit ideological arguments to excuse their actions?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

You seem to be under the impression that people living in brutal conditions have the same options as people living in good conditions, or will make the same choices as people living in good conditions. This has been shown to be false so many times there's no point in belaboring it. This is why we should expect better behavior from nations who can afford to make those better choices at some cost to themselves, such as the subject of the OP.

I will say in terms you might understand, because you really seem to be hung up on this. I don't approve of terrorist actions. Place the supporter of terrorist actions of your choice in that statement, I will agree. Iran, Palestine, Hamas, Sinn Fein, America, random homophobes in a city near you. I am aware that desperate people will engage in desperate measures - it's a good reason to not back people into corners. See Palestine.

I notice you haven't acknowledged America's hand in supporting terrorism. Now's your chance to make your feelings about that plain.

You've said it enough times now, it's pretty clear that you see authoritarianism as an acceptable fig leaf to engage in hostile actions against other nations, not to remove the authoritarians or to help the oppressed, but to advance your nation's interests. I don't expect motivations to be pure, but I certainly don't support aggression towards other nations where the primary factor is the benefit of the agreeing nation. See Russia in Ukraine, and America in Iran.

I understand terrible things happen in war, which is why little things like the financial improvement of your nation isnt a reasonable justification in my opinion. There is also another level in accepting that accidents will happen and civilians will get killed and actively targeting civilians, particularly known non-combatabts such as children, reporters, and aid workers. I'm a little surprised that you would just wave that away as things that happen.

It's hard to process that if you felt like they were the freedom fighters that represent oppressed people (which you clearly do because you don't distinguish between Hamas and Palestinians), but these are the facts.

No, in spite of your repeated statements saying I can't seem to tell the difference between Palestinians and Hamas, I do recognize the difference, just like I do between Irish ans Sinn Fein. Israel, on the other hand, seems to assume they're all exactly the same, right down to toddlers.

You should think of the results of people's actions a little more and worry about the bullshit ideological rationalizations for those actions a little less.

I'd say you're doing the same, just on a different side.

Iran executes protesters by the tens of thousands. Hamas tortures people to death if they dare speak out against them. The Houthis literally crucify people for the crime of being gay. So I ask you, how many tens of thousands more people have to die by the hands of these psychopaths before you'll stop making up bullshit ideological arguments to excuse their actions?

So, do you think America's actions in Iran are going to change that? I certainly don't. So rather than talking about my bullshit ideological arguments to kill less people, how about we talk about your bullshit ideological arguments to kill more?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago

You seem to be under the impression that people living in brutal conditions have the same options as people living in good conditions, or will make the same choices as people living in good conditions.

You're thinking of these people as animals incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

Not only is this a racist rationalization, it's a complete lie. Iran is a nation state with a lot of oil. The leadership of Iran are very wealthy people. The leadership of Hamas were also very wealthy. Whoever is willing to fire rockets at Israel will also become very wealthy because Iran will pay them a lot of money. That's how Iran's "Axis of Resistance" works. Terrorists get paid if they serve the interests of the IRGC by killing people. There can't be any real peace because even if a group did achieve their goals and made peace, Iran would divert the money to some other terrorist group.

Sure maybe the rank and file are poor and desperate, but they are manipulated by some very wealthy people. How is situation any different from some poor person in Kentucky signing up for the military because there's no other job available to them and having to follow the orders of a corrupt billionaire? Do you think that person isn't poor and desperate? What about someone doing compulsory service in the IDF? First they don't have much of a choice, and second there's people living a few miles away that will murder every person in their family if they have a chance. Are these people not desperate?

So, do you think America’s actions in Iran are going to change that?

There's a probability. Iran controls the media in their country so there's no way to assess how diminished they've become. The campaign against Iran has been sloppy as fuck because Trump and Netanyahu are incompetent. But there's no doubt that Iran's actions have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. The world would be a much better place if the IRGC were permanently removed from power. The goal is good, but the execution has been terrible.

So rather than talking about my bullshit ideological arguments to kill less people, how about we talk about your bullshit ideological arguments to kill more?

The IRGC is responsible for atrocities in the Syrian civil war, complicit in the October 7 attacks which resulted in the Gaza war and has executed tens of thousands of people in their own country (the full number is unknown).

I note that you still haven't answered my question, so I'll ask again:

So I ask you, how many tens of thousands more people have to die by the hands of these psychopaths before you’ll stop making up bullshit ideological arguments to excuse their actions?

It's actually probably hundreds of thousands of people if you consider what the IRGC / Hezbollah was complicit in doing in Syria. But maybe you just don't value the lives of the people Iran has killed in your "ideology"? It seems your "ideology" is all about being very selective in your empathy.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent