FirmWeird
Randomly Generated Reddit Username
No bio...
User ID: 757
I believe that was the original plan, but at the same time I think they underestimated just how effective Iran's missile campaign would be. The risk of Israel being completely destroyed or rendered effectively uninhabitable for civilian life is just too high - though maybe they consider that price worth paying in the long run.
I'm also going to put my money on TACO. The consequences for anything else are just way too dire, and even though I believe the Trump 2 administration is completely compromised by a foreign power I don't think even that foreign power is suicidal enough to take this next step up the escalation ladder - at least not before they've seen how US boots on the ground fare. Destroying all that energy infrastructure would make Iran substantially less attractive to rule over, and I think we'll need to see a lot more Americans coming home in boxes before blowing up all that infrastructure becomes a worthwhile option.
I don't think there would be much direct collusion between the Trump campaign (at least, not multiple high level staffers) to begin with just because there's not too much need for it.
The problem with this entire take is that Trump actually has colluded with a foreign power and he was extremely open about it, creating an undeniable trail of evidence accompanied by corrupt outcomes which simply do not exist for Russia and Putin. The Russian connection relies on incredibly dodgy IP address connections and other bullshit, along with one of 2016 Candidate Trump's policies (get the US out of foreign wars) coinciding with one of Putin's priorities (end the Ukraine war, which was rendered substantially harder by US assistance). There's mysterious backchannels, blackmail material with sources exactly as strong as someone on 4chan saying they made it up (not joking) etc - and to top it all off, there's no real evidence that Trump acted in a corrupt fashion and helped out Russia.
But if we switch focus for a second and look at Israeli compromise, there are mountains of evidence - we can see Trump talking about how Miriam Adelson purchased his foreign policy decisions for money, we can see the pipeline from donations to pardons, we can see foreign policy decisions completely outsourced to Israel no matter how much the US suffers. This is what corruption actually looks like, and it isn't hidden at all - there IS direct collusion, there IS evidence of quid pro quo, there IS evidence of bribery. What's the point of talking about the anemic and insubstantial accusations of pro-Russian collusion when Trump openly confesses in public to being purchased by Israeli money?
Actually Iran being able to lay waste in 1500 miles is the best argument for dealing with them once and for all.
So you're going to support military action to wipe out the rogue Israeli regime and their undeclared nuclear arsenal, right? Israel is capable of causing even more damage to the region and the world, so naturally you'd support dealing with them once and for all to an even stronger degree, no? They've even made explicit threats to do so (google the Samson option), which is actually more than Iran has done.
the destruction of Israel would invite a metric arse-load of bad karma
I think it is extremely telling that this is the level of argument you have to make to support this war or the pro-Zionist position. Israel and America's interests are deeply opposed here, and to pretend otherwise forces you to descend to this honestly laughable standard of argument.
What's the value in discussion with someone who is going to blame the Jews every time?
If someone was criticising the actions of the Nazi regime, would you discount their critiques on the basis that there is no value in discussion with someone who is going to blame the Germans every time? How many people in the upper echelons of the Israeli government, with the ability and authority to make serious decisions, are not Jewish?
However some of the posters here are clearly just angry, hateful, and blinded by some sort of intense and specific dislike that will never make sense to me and is clearly objectively irrational despite being historically common.
What, exactly, is irrational about Coffee Enjoyer's post? Are you going to deny that Israel has nuclear weapons? Are you going to deny that they have, in the past, engaged in both espionage and direct attacks on the US? The most significant intelligence theft in US history (at least to my knowledge) was committed by an Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard.
I've never had any significant interaction with anti-semites in person or in real life prior to this conflict and I now get while growing up the Jewish people I know just automatically assumed anyone who was anti-Israel was anti-semitic.
The kind of low-intelligence antisemitism that you're describing, the kind that belongs to people who just look for some kind of external force they can blame for the problems in their life so they don't have to do anything about, have always existed and will always exist. If it wasn't the Jews it would be the Feminists or the Man or the Illuminati etc. Those people aren't worth talking to, but I'd argue that it isn't the specific target of that kind of mental pathology that distinguishes them.
But you're doing your own thinking a great disservice by shoving every single person with an antipathy towards Israel into that rather cramped box. Have you paid any attention to the recent conflict or the actions Israel has actually taken in the Middle East? Do you think the family of Rachel Corrie are motivated by an "objectively irrational" dislike when they criticise the state of Israel? As someone on the left I can assure you that most people who criticise Israel in my circles have a gigantic list of incredibly specific grievances and problems they have with the state of Israel, and it is in fact the state of Israel which goes out of its way to conflate all criticism of it with criticism of Jews in general, and plenty of prominent organisations do the same (like the ADL).
What a coincidence! I too find people who post on the topic of Israel to be incapable of rational discussion because they fail to agree with me and my obviously correct points - just with the opposite political valence to you.
What does that have to do with the point I was making? I'm very confident that a Christian, Jewish or Taoist nation would engage in violent warfare in response to those provocations.
If Iran has the ability to "destroy the global economy" whenever they want then this conflict was coming sooner or later because the rest of the world actually can't afford to cede that power to a rogue state. It's actually the most rational war in the world.
Almost everyone has the ability to destroy the global economy. If you think that's the criteria required, you're saying that we have to go invade and destroy Israel, China, Russia, the US, etc. Iran is just the only state that has been sanctioned and removed from the global economy to the point that it won't actually have nasty consequences for them - the actual rational response is to not sanction them into oblivion so they have some skin in the game.
No no no you're not understanding how war works. War is not America plays pretend. If there's an oil pipeline somewhere that allows Iran to hold out forever -- America will bomb it!
America has not bombed that oil pipeline nor have they seized Iranian tankers - they can't afford to deprive the world of even more oil supplies.
The only reason America hasn't done that already is our charity.
Why isn't the Strait of Hormuz open? I thought America was done playing pretend, so why haven't they won yet? Hegseth is on TV talking about no quarter, no mercy and no more pesky rules against bombing schoolchildren, and yet Iran still controls the Strait.
If the only two alternatives are "Iran wrecks the Global Economy" or "The Global Economy wrecks Iran," which do we think Donald Trump is picking?
Those aren't the only two alternatives - though admittedly "The US empire's decline accelerates as they're forced out of the Middle East" isn't an option Trump is willing to pick either.
(3) Iran's leadership has prioritized building a nuclear bomb.
Israel has built a nuclear arsenal already, has been relentlessly attacking their neighbours and other countries in the area and openly proclaimed their desire to become a regional and/or global power (see Netanyahu's recent comments) - does this actually justify launching attacks against the Israeli regime?
Comparing gdp to Thailand seems a bit much, yea? Thailand isn’t run by religious nutters that fund terrorism. It’s not yelling death to America as a winning political strat. It’s just a lower middle class country.
I am extremely confident that if America had sanctioned Thailand off from the global economy, put out a document titled "Which path to Siam" which explained they needed to wipe out all of Thailand's neighbours before invading them, wiped out all of Thailand's neighbours as they explained in their openly published plan on how to invade Thailand and then blew up 150 Thai schoolgirls that Thailand would actually be yelling "Death to America" at the top of their lungs.
I think it is far more likely that this war is happening as a result of the espionage and blackmail system that Epstein ran rather than as a distraction from it myself.
That's how I refer to it whenever I'm not in a more formal forum like this one where you get banned for referring to it as such.
Then please don't make drive-by shitposts on the topic. If you don't want to have the conversation, don't bring it up.
Bombing an apartment in Bahrain is not proportional to bombing an American military base in Bahrain.
The Iranians have extremely good intelligence from Bahrain due to the high Shia population, and there were credible reports that American soldiers were being quartered in those apartments and hotels.
Iran has little ability to harm Americans.
I actually agree with you on this, which is one of the reasons why starting this conflict was an incredibly stupid idea. The problem, of course, is that Iran's strategy is to destroy the global economy by closing the Strait of Hormuz and depriving the world of fuel, a strategy which won't harm them terribly much due to their continued ability to sell oil to China and the fact that American sanctions kept them cut off from the global economy anyway, which means that the real test of their military effectiveness is simply "How much oil left the strait of Hormuz from non-Iranian sources since the conflict began?" Much like how the Viet Cong would have handily lost a fight with the American military if they all lined up in a field and marched to death, the Iranians understand that their conventional military disadvantage forces them to fight back with alternative means.
We killed the core of Iranian leadership in an afternoon and their only viable response is to attack unrelated countries and merchant fleets.
If you think the countries that Iran has attacked are unrelated to the conflict I don't believe you have a terribly useful understanding of the situation in the region - that's the kind of analysis that you get from talk shows. In reality, people understand that nations with US military bases that are being used to actively launch attacks are in no way unrelated to the conflict. Similarly, if you believe that their closing of the Strait and attacks on merchant ships are wild flailing as opposed to an extremely well documented and widely understood strategy of attacking the global economy then I just don't think you're providing any kind of serious analysis.
Not arrested him or put him in jail.
The child sex trafficking and blackmail operation targeting presidents, high-ranking members of government and multiple billionaires in important industries run by the intelligence service of a foreign country is not actually something that every single low level police officer or government attorney is kept informed on or told about for very obvious reasons. There's nobody putting out bulletins to every single police officer in the country about how Jeffrey Epstein's child trafficking operation is actually totally fine and allowed - rather, the corrupt members of the government in high places have to deal with this stuff themselves when they are made aware of it (see "belonged to intelligence").
The agency has been going out of their way to avoid capturing him and avoid prosecuting him. They have actively destroyed evidence and apparently haven't even investigated the Zorro ranch at all. It would be good for the public if they were to capture him, but when you think about the actual ramifications of this case being fully prosecuted it becomes extremely obvious why they wanted to let him continue sex-trafficking children and blackmailing politicians as much as they could.
Why would they do that? The intelligence agencies went out of their way and pulled their weight to make sure he wasn't prosecuted or spent any significant time in jail via Acosta - why would they make more work for themselves by actually finding and capturing him again?
The FBI cited posts by maxwellhill when they indicted Ghislaine Maxwell - though that said I'd actually agree with you when you say that the FBI are retarded and the smallest amount of skepticism derails them instantly.
Epstein did in fact source a large number of girls from Eastern Europe and Russia - this stuff is all over the emails.
Nobody is more consistently wrong than pro-Russian “realist” posters on The Motte. I know nothing about the situation but I know you’re wrong
Hey, if this is what you actually believe I have a proposal for you - I'm willing to bet a few hundred USD that Russia ultimately wins the war, the same wager that I offered back in the days when this forum was on reddit. If us pro-Russian "realist" posters are so consistently wrong, this is just going to be free money for you.
'During' implies that it had already started; they weren't taking any actions against Germany prior to the German government trying to kill them!
And the paramilitary organisations that ended up becoming Israel were trying to kill Palestinians before Israel even existed.
Furthermore, not defending Israel means placing the survival of the Jewish people dependent on the opinions of the Gentiles, unless a sovereign Jewish state exists elsewhere.
Who cares? There are plenty of ethnicities who do not have a sovereign state of their own, and the Jews lasted for quite a while without one. I don't think it'd be that bad if they went wandering for another thousand years, given what they've done with the state that they actually got.
however, my understanding of it is something along the lines of "Never again will the goyim be in a position to tell us 'You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it.'."
Most people in the world interpreted Never Again to mean that there would never be a targeted campaign of extermination on the basis of ethnicity ever again, not that the Jews would have a free pass to commit a holocaust themselves in order to secure more lebensraum.
In your 'Jewish state in America' proposal, would these conditions hold?
Ask the Americans - I only raised that proposal as an alternative to my actual position, so I don't have particularly strong feelings on this topic. But that said... given the actions of Israel itself, I don't think they can be trusted to have a sovereign state of their own (have fun defending the actions of Ehud Barak) - they'd need a caretaker government for quite some time until things settled down. Personally I don't think they should have any kind of nuclear power at all, but I don't think anyone should have nuclear power (see my comments in other threads - it isn't a viable energy source, and I don't believe they should become a nuclear power besides). No problems with them setting up a nice big solar/wind farm though!
And if Netanyahu's government were removed from power and a new Israeli government were established in the pre-1967 territory, or at least the areas allocated to Israel under the U. N. partition plan....
No, my actual proposal is that they simply become members of a restored Palestine with full franchise. I'm not an ethnic supremacist, and I don't support ethnic supremacism for jews either - they can live in a multicultural and multi-ethnic society like the rest of the world. Otherwise, they can get the same treatment that nazis and ethnic cleansers of any other ethnicity receive - and given that most of the jews I meet in person(at anti-zionist protests) don't fall into this category I'm not going to be persuaded that this is arguing for their ethnic cleansing.
I actually agree with you that a lot of people are concerned about the impacts of these apps and tech companies - I try to minimise their impact on my own life and my (as of yet hypothetical) children will never be given unsupervised access to this kind of tech. But the problem is that as someone who lives in one of those nations(Australia), I can see the actual impact and effects of the legislation - which is to do absolutely nothing to stop the pernicious effects of social media, while at the same time forcing anyone who wishes to comment or provide input to the online conversation to provide their face and/or government ID.
I do agree that there should be regulation targeting these apps and that ultimately it would be a good thing for that to happen - the problem is just that the implementation has consistently done nothing of the sort and only really makes sense if viewed from a conspiratorial lens. While it is possible that the government is just incompetent, I don't really trust that they would make mistakes that coincidentally give them the identity of anyone making comments that they don't like on social media, and especially after explicitly saying that they wanted to end anonymous online comments - which Anthony Albanese has actually done.
- Prev
- Next

My apologies for being ambiguous - I did not mean that Israel were in charge of all foreign policy decisions, but that certain decisions were made by them with zero regard for America's interests.
More options
Context Copy link