Remix.run Logo
margorczynski 10 hours ago

> Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked.

This is the key. People talk some crazy stories about Iran being a theocratic state whose life mission is destroying Israel but the fact is they don't want to end up like Libya, Syria or any other country Israel considers a threat.

And a reminder - Israel has illegals WMDs, using technology and nuclear material stolen from the US. So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction.

elcritch 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> end up like Libya, Syria or any other country Israel considers a threat.

You imply here that those countries woes are primarily due to Israel. They are not.

Syria was embroiled and toppled by Islamic Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham backed by Turkey. Libya was due to civil war. Several of these conflicts were funded by Iran as well.

You can go down the list. Please study at least some basics on the region.

> So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction.

One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation? Theocracies can be unpredictable. Also they could provide dirty bombs to their proxies in the region.

ExoticPearTree 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just to set the story straight:

- Libya was bombed primarily by France and then other NATO countries for no good reason. And from a functioning dictatorship it is a failed state.

- Syria was invaded by Turkey/US right after the civil war started.

In the world we all live in you need to have powerful deterrents so that the US/France/UK/NATO will not dare to bomb you for whatever reason they feel "justified" to do.

In an extreme, I think every country should have a lot of nukes so other countries can mind their own business.

BrandoElFollito 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> In an extreme, I think every country should have a lot of nukes so other countries can mind their own business.

The problem is that countries tend to assume that the neighbors are also their business.

_old_dude_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Libya was bombed primarily by France and then other NATO countries for no good reason

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Libyan_financing_in_th...

ExoticPearTree an hour ago | parent [-]

The old mantra of bombing for peace and having sex for virginity, no?

looofooo0 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Forget Ryssian involvment in Syria and Libiya!

ExoticPearTree 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I did not forget that. But the Russians banked on the opportunity after the fact. They did not bombed them because they did not like their leaders just because.

scotty79 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> other countries can mind their own business

Right. Because nothing says "I can mind my own business." like nuclear weapons being at most one coup from being launched at someone, possibly you.

People thought nuclear weapons are a defensive deterrent but what war in Ukraine showed us they are actually offensive weapons that deter anyone from defending to strongly when you attack them with your conventional forces.

Both russia and USA used their nuclear weapons in that manner for the last few decades. It's time to call the thing that quacks what it is, a duck.

ExoticPearTree 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Right. Because nothing says "I can mind my own business." like nuclear weapons being at most one coup from being launched at someone, possibly you.

You're saying not all countries should be able to have powerful weapons just because there might be a coup. Who decides that? You? Me? A random guy on the street? A random bureaucrat from a random country?

There are very few people who think they can win a nuclear exchange. And somehow I don't think a random guy in Africa or the Middle East is so sure about it that it risks launching nukes at its neighbor(s).

roenxi 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> You imply here that those countries woes are primarily due to Israel. They are not.

The comment didn't suggest that exactly.

> One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation?

Israel just launched a perfidious pre-emptive defence by assassinating a lot of their top military leadership. They've probably figured out retaliation is a possibility here - if this is Israel's defence when they aren't even being threatened, imagine what they will do in their defence when the Iranians actually do something directly! Even if the Iranians are legitimately stupid at some level the campaign of missile strikes must have registered that they are vulnerable to missiles.

elcritch 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That’s the point of my comment. Israel and several other nations like Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc have all been undergoing attacks by Iranian funded proxies for decades.

ivape 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Why do you think that’s true? You can take an average person globally and more or less realize it takes very little to make someone anti-Israeli foreign policy. It doesn’t take some large brainwashing operation. In fact, one could argue the propaganda is coming from a side that wants to paint a narrative that there is this huge operation against Israel when in reality an average 16 year old in America can spot the bad actor in a situation rather quickly (yes, that’s genz , the supposedly “brainwashed” dumbasses).

Jews are a traumatized people. They can never truly shed the insecurity that entire continents and countries can be hostile toward them (the entirety of Europe during ww2). They are making trauma informed decisions, and can never be trusted to do so alone because it’s actual trauma.

The biggest myth is that Israel is a first world country but there’s no evidence of it. Buildings and infrastructure do not make you a first world country (behold China). Any country that is that brutal will never meet the criteria, it’s a third world country that is new and learning just like every other third world country.

Blood-thirst (blood-rage? They see red.) is an understatement when it comes to this country as of 2025. We need things to change over the next 20 years. They do not know how to manage life due to just how intense their historical trauma was. There’s no one over there with a cool head and clinically there wouldn’t be (how do you just act normal after the holocaust? You can’t.)

The failure of the Trump admin is unique and unlike any other administration. It is was once accepted that Israel is not level headed (again, not an insult, one cannot be balanced if one emerges through hellfire) and cannot dictate foreign policy. Trump just said “fuck it, go ahead traumatized child, do as you please” - this was pure insanity.

Love is protecting your brothers and sisters from themselves (my brothers keeper). The world did not get safer, where are the cooler heads in the room?

5 hours ago | parent | next [-]
[deleted]
elcritch 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Why do you think that’s true? You can take an average person globally and more or less realize it takes very little to make someone anti-Israeli foreign policy. It doesn’t take some large brainwashing operation. In fact, one could argue the propaganda is coming from a side that wants to paint a narrative that there is this huge operation against Israel when in reality an average 16 year old in America can spot villainy rather quickly.

Because I lived there for 6 months during a study abroad I randomly ended up doing. I'd never had a Jewish or Muslim friend before going. Living there I had Palestinian and Jewish neighbors. I had to read lots of books on both sides of the topic and write papers on them. Along with deep conversations with both Israelis and Palestinians. Admittedly more with Israelis than Palestinians. Though I do have some fond memories of Palestinians.

The experience forced me out of my previously much more sheltered technology and American centric world view which is what I'd say was your somewhat average 16 year old American's viewpoint, if on the more liberal atheistic side at the time. I likely would've been convinced of the same things as yourself when I was younger and more naive and saw the headlines I do now.

That said, I'm not pro-Netanyahu or many of the things he does. He's a hardliner.

> Jews are a traumatized people. They can never truly shed the insecurity that entire continents and countries can be hostile toward them (the entirety of Europe during ww2).

You're not wrong. They're also a resilient people. Remember it's not just WWII, but most Israeli's, their parents and grand parents have also grown up with constant war or thread of war.

It does affect psychology when many neighboring groups like Iran and Hamas not only want to destroy your state but also want to kill all Jews. That's their public official positions. It's not just rhetoric either as they routinely attack. Ultimately Palestinian leaders and political groups have never wanted peace with Israel from everything I've studied, and neither does Iran.

Finally Israel was making progress towards peace with the Abraham accords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Accords) which Trump helped negotiate. Some scholars I've read believe this is part of what led to Hamas's October 7th attacks as they would loose influence if Arab nations started making peace with Israel.

> Bloodthirst is understatement when it comes to this country as of 2025.

It's easy to throw such statements around. However, look at the state of most of the region. What Israel is doing is tame compared to some of the atrocities occurring but which don't make regular news.

more-nitor 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> What Israel is doing is tame compared to

this.

even though some Israel's actions are spooky (targeted-exploding walkytalkies?), they're at least designed to minimize civilian deaths (or at least they're trying)

But... Iran and their ilks (eg. Hamas)? they not only don't give a shit, but actively seek to kill civilians with maximum brutality (baby beheadings, killing & parading even with non-israeli bodies)

ivape an hour ago | parent [-]

Can you explain to us what the genocide in Gaza is? I need a thorough explanation of the images I see out of there. What the hell is 50k dead and ghetto camp conditions?

“Tame”

Either you have no respect for my eyes or brain or I am truly an idiot. Write blog articles explaining how what we see and hear is bullshit and post it here please, we’ll assess.

1200 != 50,000

But here is the true mind fuck, 1200 != even one innocent.

Barbaric != Tame

So we march people down from the North to the South, level the area, and then logistically starve them? Tame. Do you know how the Americans marched the Native Americans to death? We’re all fucking idiots to you right?

HN is just subset of society. You’ve got everyone here, including Israeli apologists. Plenty of Jewish developers too. You don’t have to live or die by your “team” when they are literally fucking wrong about this.

Your typical educated American does not even attempt to defend most American policy since the end of WW2 (there’s literally not a single right thing America did). Maybe we’re lucky that we get to have such clear heads about it finally, and I hope the same for those on the wrong side of history on this one, however long it takes.

When one realizes they were barbarically wrong is a true moment of personal and spiritual growth.

The definition of modern national pragmatism appears to be the following based on what so many apologists say:

2 wrongs == 1 right

(The only way this can be correct in anyone’s heart is if emotions have fully overtaken the person)

Let me fix that for you:

2 wrongs != 1 right

5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
Ntrails 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Trump just said “do as you please” - this was pure insanity.

I'm all for attacking Trump when justified, but given how Biden managed Gaza it is spectacularly unclear that we would expect a different outcome from Dems.

ivape 6 hours ago | parent [-]

We can’t know for sure since we’re not God. If Biden did what Trump did, then all that would solidify is that the Israeli lobby in America is hierarchically above both parties.

I don’t think Biden would have done it. Take the moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem, which happened in Trump’s first term. What stable President agitates a situation like that? He was uniquely allied with Netanyahu for awhile, and Netanyahu has exclaimed that Trump is the best friend Israel ever had:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-calls...

4 hours ago | parent [-]
[deleted]
scotty79 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Israel just launched a perfidious pre-emptive defence by assassinating a lot of their top military leadership.

And Iran retaliated and actually some of it's missiles inflicted damage. We can only imagine what the damage would be if Isreal patiently waited for the Iran to feel read to attack Israel which it's always advertised as its goal. Also it already happened once. Nations of the region decided they are strong enough to attack Isreal and they did. It was bound to happen again and as the death toll in Isreal in the current conflict shows, despite pre-emptive strike damaging Iran's missile potential significantly, there's only so much you can do with defensive weapons.

In this specific context pre-emptive strike on leaders and long range attack capabilities is not perfidious, it's just about the only thing you can do that's not stupid.

Qwertious 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[flagged]

roenxi 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Is that Israel's justification for the strikes? My understanding [0] is that the rhetoric is pre-emptive defence.

[0] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-06-13/israel-strikes-on-ira... - "Why is this happening?"

spwa4 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"they [Israel] aren't even being threatened"

Are you even arguing in good faith? Over the years:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Op9EFTPQhw8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulXulltxXZg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V21yoWN_U3w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hLDjGdJC0Q

roenxi 8 hours ago | parent [-]

One of those videos is literally titled "Iran's Ahmadinejad Keeps Up Bluster Against Israel" and another is about treaty negotiations. If countries are going to launch a military response every time a leadership figure starts blustering or negotiations don't go well we're going to be in a lot of wars.

Bluster isn't a threat that the military are going to respond to. Imagine I used the word "credible" above if you want.

sfn42 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Iran and Israel were allies before Iran was taken over by religious leaders. Even after that, Israel tried to keep the peace hoping that reasonable people would take over again but they never did. Iran has been supplying and funding Hamas and other enemies of Israel for decades.

In my mind there is no doubt who the good guys are in that particular conflict. Iran started it decades ago for no reason other than religious hate, has kept it up until now and Iran is the one escalating.

mafuy 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe most of this is true, I don't know. I got the impression that both their governments are total shit. But you'll certainly have to agree that most of the escalation is due to Israel's action (not words) in attacking first and at a large scale.

breppp 5 hours ago | parent [-]

not really, the escalation started on October 7th 2023, which was financed and orchestrated by Iran.[1]

An ongoing war that includes all of Iran proxies.

[1] https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/activities-of-saeed-iza...

belter 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Iran has been supplying and funding Hamas

Qatar has probably funded Hamas more than Iran and now the future Air Force One is a Qatari plane...

“Qatar has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level”

   - Donald J. Trump - June 2017
"Qatar has been a key financial supporter of the Palestinian militant organization Hamas, transferring more than $1.8 billion to Hamas over the years..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatari_support_for_Hamas

ta1243 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The Don in charge of the USA isn't concerned about the money goes to Hamas, he just wants his slice. Qatar knows that and can respect that.

ben_w 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Unfortunately for basically everyone, this suggests a quick-win strategy for Iran: Bribe Trump, personally, with lots money or equivalent, to literally nuke Israel.

What's wrong with this picture? (And I don't mean in the sense of a Futurama meme of Farnsworth saying "I don't want to live on this planet any more").

matthewdgreen 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This would absolutely work if the other gulf states weren't prepared to bribe him much, much more to prevent it. And yes, it is dismal. We are essentially run by foreign countries until January 20, 2029.

TheOtherHobbes 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Israel has also been funding Hamas and other enemies of Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up...

Reality is Israel is run by psychopaths who would be in jail if it weren't for their their cynical use of constant war as a misdirection.

Much like the US. And Russia. And numerous other countries, some of which are still pretending to be democratic.

The entire world order is built on greed, lies, narcissistic grandiosity, and violent murder at industrial scales.

nl 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Israel has also been funding Hamas and other enemies of Israel.

That's not what this article says. To quote:

> Thus, amid this bid to impair Abbas, Hamas was upgraded from a mere terror group to an organization with which Israel held indirect negotiations via Egypt, and one that was allowed to receive infusions of cash from abroad.

> Hamas was also included in discussions about increasing the number of work permits Israel granted to Gazan laborers, which kept money flowing into Gaza, meaning food for families and the ability to purchase basic products.

> Israeli officials said these permits, which allow Gazan laborers to earn higher salaries than they would in the enclave, were a powerful tool to help preserve calm.

gitremote 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The Times of Israel article's title is "For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces". The article's lede is "For years, the various governments led by Benjamin Netanyahu took an approach that divided power between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank — bringing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to his knees while making moves that propped up the Hamas terror group."

You are not understanding what the article is saying, because you're mixing up different Palestinians. Palestine has a left wing party, the Palestine Authority, and a right wing party, Hamas. The Palestinian Authority, led by Abbas, recognizes the state of Israel and wants a two-state solution that also establishes a Palestinian state. Hamas does not recognize the state of Israel and wants to destroy it. Netanyahu is against the Palestinian Authority because he's more against giving legitimacy to Palestinian statehood than he's against war. He funded Hamas to delegitimize Abbas/Palestinian statehood/two-state solution/peace.

jraby3 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The PA still uses a pay to slay program encouraging the murder of Israeli civilians within the 67 borders.

President Abbas has a PhD in holocaust denial.

Calling the PA left wing isn't accurate. It's also bent on the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people.

gitremote 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Reality is Israel is run by psychopaths who would be in jail if it weren't for their their cynical use of constant war as a misdirection.

Israeli police began investigating Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for fraud in 2016. Israeli courts indicted him for multiple cases of fraud in 2019.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Benjamin_Netanyahu

rcpt 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You're absolutely correct on this but because of the point you're making they've downvoted you into the grey

globalnode 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

downvoted because truth hurts? lol, tough crowd here my friend.

handfuloflight 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Cain has truly killed Abel.

ivape 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You don’t need a lot of funding to convince 15 year olds in Palestine to go murder. Pay closer attention to the settlements, it did more for mobilizing Israel’s enemies than any amount of psyops or military funding could ever do.

It’s very clear to me Israel has had some of the most retarded foreign policy experts for decades now. The truth is the same truth we have in the U.S, 70+ million that voted for Trump harbor a higher degree of racism that is near impossible to stop (will take generations). Israelis HATE Palestinians, and therefore they cannot make even the most obvious game theory choices on building better safety environments (finance and launch a multi decade campaign to uplift Gaza from poverty of mind, heart, and material - unless you are fucking racist and would rather live in conflict than EVER give an inch.)

scotty79 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> It’s very clear to me Israel has had some of the most retarded foreign policy experts for decades now.

Well, it's outcome of how they were treated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War

If everybody hates you anyways you eventually morph into the thing that deserves that hatred.

rusk 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

inglor_cz 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The Islamic Republic is absolutely brutal as well.

The difference isn't in brutality. It is in the word "Islamic". That is the core of the ideological hostility of the current Iranian government towards Israel.

handfuloflight 6 hours ago | parent [-]

What specific "Islamic" doctrines do they cite?

spwa4 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That the islamic prophet was a slaver, slave trader, rapist, paedophile, warlord, warmonger (personally profited, in money, from the wars he caused), forced slaves to fight in wars, executed slaves for disobedience, liar (used peace treaties as weapons of war, against Jews), genocide, war criminal, ...

For example, these ayatollahs, who have forgotten more about islam than any muslim I've ever discussed with has ever known, claim that women who refuse to cover up (it was really more burning hijabs and demonstrating) can't be executed according to islamic doctrine for that, if they were young and virgins. Sounds great.

Except what they decided what this "islamic doctrine" meant was to have them raped repeatedly by soldiers ... and THEN execute them. Virgin problem solved.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/iran-security...

Oh here is the list of credentials of khamenei, the person in charge of that. But let me guess, you "know better" and "know" this somehow isn't islam. Of course, you aren't willing to do anything about it either ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei

Some highlights:

"Khamenei's education began at the age of four, by learning the Quran at Maktab;[7] he spent his basic and advanced levels of seminary studies at the hawza of Mashhad, under mentors such as Sheikh Hashem Qazvini and Ayatollah Milani. Then, he went to Najaf in 1957,[26] but soon returned to Mashhad due to his father's unwillingness to let him stay there. In 1958, he settled in Qom where he attended the classes of Seyyed Hossein Borujerdi and Ruhollah Khomeini.[7]"

handfuloflight 5 hours ago | parent [-]

This is pure gish galloping inflammatory rhetoric designed to provoke rather than inform. But for the benefit of anyone reading, let me show how to spot bad faith arguments by fact-checking just one claim.

You say that Muhammad 'used peace treaties as weapons of war, against Jews', but the historical record shows the complete opposite, and the full story makes your accusation look absurd.

The Banu Qurayza violated the Treaty of Medina during wartime, which was considered an act of treason in violation of the constitution agreed by all citizens of Medina, including the Banu Qurayza Jews.¹

They broke their treaty obligations by conspiring with attacking forces during the siege of Medina.

But here's the part that completely destroys your narrative: *The Banu Qurayza themselves appointed Sa'd ibn Mu'adh as their judge, and declared they would agree with whatever was his verdict.*²

They chose their own judge: Sa'd ibn Mu'adh, who was from the Aws tribe and had been their ally.

And the judgment? *The verdict for the Banu Qurayza was consistent with the Old Testament, specifically based on Deuteronomy 20:12-14.*³ Sa'd judged them to execution according to Jewish law, not Islamic law.

So let me get this straight: The Jews broke the treaty, they requested to be judged by their own ally, that ally judged them according to their own Torah, and somehow this becomes Muhammad "using peace treaties as weapons against Jews"?

This is the exact opposite of what you claimed. The Jews broke the treaty, chose their own judge, and were judged by their own law.

If someone gets such a well-documented historical event completely backwards while making inflammatory accusations, that tells you everything you need to know about the reliability of their other claims.

1. W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina (Oxford University Press, 1956). Fred Donner, Muhammad and the Believers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010)

2. William Muir, The Life of Mahomet (Smith, Elder & Co., 1861), Vol. 3, Alfred Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1955).

3. Deuteronomy 20:12-14 (Hebrew Bible); Barakat Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews (Vikas Publishing, 1979).

inglor_cz 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I certainly don't feel expert enough to discuss the entirety of Khomeini's work, upon which the Islamic Republic of Iran was founded, including its foreign policy. But he was a bona fide scholar of Islam.

handfuloflight 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn't ask you to discuss the entirety of it. I also have scholarship in Islamic Studies and am curious what doctrines.

Surely you can cite one? As I haven't come across any that call for unrestricted violence against Jewish people.

Or any people, for that matter.

nailer 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I imagine it’s the same ones perpetrators of Islamic violence everywhere else cite. I imagine you may also know.

handfuloflight 5 hours ago | parent [-]

You say you 'imagine' there are Islamic doctrines calling for violence against Jews that 'perpetrators cite.'

Stop imagining. Cite them.

What specific verses or doctrines are you referring to? Give us the exact citations.

Because once you do, I have a very simple question for you: If those verses mean what you think they mean, why didn't Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph of Islam and Muhammad's direct companion, know about them?

When Umar took Jerusalem from the Byzantines in 638 CE, instead of slaughtering Jews, he invited them back to a city they'd been banned from for 500 years under Christian rule. He protected their religious practices and established legal frameworks for their protection.

So either:

These verses don't exist or don't mean what you think, OR the second Caliph, who learned Islam directly from Muhammad, somehow didn't understand basic Islamic doctrine.

Which is it?

Put up or shut up. Cite the specific verses you're claiming exist, then explain why Muhammad's direct successor acted in the exact opposite way.

nailer 2 hours ago | parent [-]

No I am saying that Islamic doctrine is used to support Islamic violence against many people globally. I’m not sure why anyone would think that would be limited to Jewish people. I think the reason you limited the discussion in this way is because you are not arguing in good faith.

I have lived the last 44 years in Australia, the United Kingdom and now the United States, each of which have been victims of Islamic violence in different ways.

I understand you want me to cite specific hadiths, as I said earlier I think any Islamic scholar would already know which ones, so you’re not arguing in good faith. I want you to know I am familiar with the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy and feel you will employ it. You have no right to demand anything from me.

As an Islamic scholar you are also familiar with the concept of dhimmis. I think the reason you didn’t mention them here is because you know Islam creating laws to treat others as second class citizens is shameful, and you did now acknowledge these because you are not arguing in good faith.

I won’t stop talking about Islamic violence because you demand I do so, you have no right to demand this of anyone and your personal beliefs deserve no special respect.

inglor_cz 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I am not a scholar of Islam, but I am pretty sure that no core doctrine calls for the mere existence, much less outright political rule, of people called ayatollahs either. And yet here we are.

Regardless of the above, the Islamic Republic of Iran calls itself Islamic and takes the velayat-e-faqih system, developed by Khomeini, as divinely inspired.

handfuloflight 5 hours ago | parent [-]

You now've just demolished your original argument, and here's the proof using your own words:

You just admitted that the specific system of ayatollah rule has 'no core doctrine' supporting it. You acknowledged that this particular form of clerical authority is an innovation that doesn't exist in foundational Islamic teachings. Then you say Khomeini 'developed' velayat-e-faqih as a new system.

So by your own admission: core Islamic doctrine doesn't support this specific form of clerical rule by ayatollahs; and that Khomeini had to 'develop' (i.e., invent) the velayat-e-faqih framework. So, Iran's system is based on this modern Shia innovation, not established Islamic governance models.

But your original claim was that Iran's hostility toward Israel stems from 'Islamic' ideological doctrine. You can't have it both ways, either Iran's policies flow from broadly accepted Islamic teachings, or they flow from Khomeini's specific 20th-century innovation that most Muslims reject.

You've just proven that Iran's system represents one minority sect's modern political invention, not mainstream Islamic doctrine.

You don't need to be an Islamic scholar to know there are two major branches: Sunni and Shia. If you don't know this basic distinction, you shouldn't be making claims about 'Islam' generally. If you do know it, then you're being disingenuous trying to pass off one minority Shia innovation as representative of all Islam.

inglor_cz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I demolished nothing. The Islamic Republic of Iran

a) considers itself Islamic, b) it is indeed ruled by scholars of Islam, c) bases its policy and politics on Islam.

You say that they are basically heretics and that the majority of Muslims don't agree with them. So what. I haven't said that all Muslims want to destroy Israel for religious reasons.

If I want to be extra precise, the Islamic Republic of Iran is compelled by Islam as of its own understanding to destroy Israel.

And given that there is no central authority in Islam that would issue binding declarations on what is Islam and what is Heresy, this is basically the norm in the Islamic world. Every nation and community practices Islam as it understands it, which means quite a lot of internal diversity.

handfuloflight 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Your original claim: Iran's hostility stems from 'Islamic' ideological doctrine.

Your new claim: Iran follows 'Islam as of its own understanding' and there's no central authority to define what's Islamic.

So you've just admitted that Iran's version isn't representative of Islam generally and that there's no authoritative way to call their interpretation 'Islamic'. That every community 'practices Islam as it understands it'.

This demolishes your original point even further. If anyone can interpret Islam however they want with no central authority, then Iran's actions tell us nothing about 'Islamic' doctrine, they only tell us about Iran's political choices wrapped in religious language.

By your own logic, I could point to: Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, which is democratic and has peaceful relations with Israel. Or the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, who've normalized relations with Israel. Jordan, Egypt: these have peace treaties with Israel.

I could point to these and say they represent 'Islam as of their own understanding' just as validly as Iran does.

You've essentially argued that Iran's interpretation is just one of many possible interpretations with no special claim to authenticity. That's the opposite of your original claim that Iran's hostility flows from Islamic doctrine.

You started by claiming Iran represents Islamic teaching. Now you're saying every Muslim community makes up their own version. Pick one: you can't have both.

And you still haven't provided a single citation of actual Islamic doctrine supporting violence against Jews, which was the original challenge.

inglor_cz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

There is no version of Islam that would be "representative of Islam generally", this is a trivial observation that you are trying to use as a cudgel.

You are engaging in an elaborate No True Scotsman fallacy.

For me, if if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, and I will consider the Islamic Republic of Iran to be Islamic. I don't particularly care about sectarian squabbles what is geniunely Islamic or not.

handfuloflight 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Your arguments collapsed under scrutiny. You claimed Iran's hostility stems from "Islamic doctrine" but couldn't cite a single supporting text.

You've retreated to "if it calls itself Islamic, it's Islamic," like claiming North Korea represents democracy because "Democratic" is in its name.

When you stated "There is no version of Islam that would be representative of Islam generally," you contradict Islamic tradition itself. The Prophet Muhammad, the FOUNDER of the religion said: "My community will never agree upon error" and "Allah's hand is with the congregation" (Source: Tirmidhi). This hadith establishes that consensus (ijma) of the Muslim community is authoritative in Islam.

Look, these facts remain: you admitted Iran's system is Khomeini's modern innovation. Most Muslim nations have peaceful relations with Israel. And you've cited zero Islamic doctrines supporting your claim.

This isn't about religion: it's politics in religious clothing. If Iran's position were truly Islamic, 1.8 billion Muslims would share it. They don't.

Stop conflating one country's politics with an entire faith.

breppp 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

and? did he hang homosexuals on cranes? cut the hands of thieves or rape protestors?

I am pretty sure Iran's current regime wins the brutal dictatorship game

Fluorescence 6 hours ago | parent [-]

The Shar's CIA trained secret police, SAVAK, tortured and murdered thousands and yes, they raped prisoners.

The Federation of American Scientists reported their torture methods included:

"electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails".

breppp 6 hours ago | parent [-]

so nothing changed then, hasn't it? except for the addition of some cruel medieval islamic punishments and the occasional intentional blinding of protestors

krzyk 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> One would hope, but if Allah is protecting them why would they need to fear retaliation?

Allah or Jahwe, what's the difference. Both countries are some kind of theocracies, that see infidels as inferior. If Israel has nukes, so should Iran. At least Iran is Shia, so different from the most Muslims, which are Sunni.

handfuloflight 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Allah or Jahwe, what's the difference.

...there is no difference. Islam and Judaism trace to Abrahamic monotheism. One through the son Isaac, the other through Ishmael.

fortran77 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You’re not going to win an argument with someone who will always blame the Jews for all the world’s (and his personal) woes.

rajup 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> So thinking Iran will simply nuke Israel because it has that capability is silly - it would mean mutual destruction.

100%. The Iranian regime is not stupid. The "existential threat" bs being peddled by a certain government is simply to give cover to illegal attacks on a sovereign nation. This is "WMDs in Iraq" all over again.

dekelpilli 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This was Israel's thinking with Hamas - they're deterred, they're comfortable and in charge and they wouldn't do anything to jeopardise that, etc. Israel's thinking was wrong, and they've learned to believe their enemies when they say they want to destroy Israel. There isn't a country in the world that would allow their enemies, who have repeatedly stated that said country's demise is a key goal of theirs, to develop nukes if they have with the capability to stop it.

mu53 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think they are stupid for broadcasting the program and threatening Israel with it.

Believe people when they tell you what they are going to do. Even if Iran wouldn’t use it if they had it, threatening to use it shifts the probability for them using it.

Khomeini isn’t on Kim jong un’s level

scotty79 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> 100%. The Iranian regime is not stupid.

I'm not sure how can you say that, now that they are dead, completely due to how they positioned themselves on the regional and global landscape.

mattmaroon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It can be both. You're creating a false dichotomy.

https://www.bu.edu/history/files/2015/04/Khalaji-Apocalyptic...

Mutual destruction makes sense when you're a death cult and the enemy is evil. Iran nuking Israel knowing full well they will get nuked back IS rational if your belief is that Allah will reward you for it in the afterlife and they do sincerly believe that.

You should read books published by reformed Islamists. Radical by Maajid Nawaz is a good one.

They profess to believe (and they are sincere) that they will be rewarded for dying killing Israelis. There's a reason that if I tell you a story about a suicide bomber blowing up a public square in political protest you do not have to wonder what religion they are. It's not because all Muslims are insane, they aren't, it's because some of them have beliefs that make that action rational.

(For example, see how Hamas will not surrender even when offered free passage out of Gaza. They'd rather Israel grind their way through the Palestinian population bomb by bomb because they think every Palestinian killed goes to heaven. If they were rational as we understand the world, they'd realize their plight is hopeless and the only thing they ensure by staying is civillian deaths.)

samjones33 2 hours ago | parent [-]

>(For example, see how Hamas will not surrender

Yup.

Hamas will fight to the last Palestinian. They could have ended the Gaza war a year ago (or more). All they have to say is: "Here are the hostages. Here are our weapons. We are now shoemakers."

Why don't they do this?

Because they would rather fight to the last Palestinian child.

Hamas has agency. They could end war any time since October 8, 2023.

mattmaroon an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Because they are a death cult. They sincerely believe exactly what they profess, everyone who Israel kills is a martyr and goes to heaven with extra benefits.

From their perspective it’s all wins. Every bomb Israel drops sends their people to heaven and makes Israel look bad to the world.

The hardest part of conversing with a lot of people about this situation is getting them to understand the idea of a death cult. Once you accept that some people not only don’t fear death but actively seek it for themselves and their tribe, the Middle East makes a lot more sense. There’s so much evidence both in what they say (they do not hide it) and what they do but so much of the west refuses to accept it.

dreghgh an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

The PLO pulled out of Beirut in the early 1980s after being given guarantees from the international community that the remaining Palestinian population, unarmed civilians, would be protected both from Lebanese Christians and Israeli forces.

Then Israeli forces colluded with Christian militias to massacre Palestinians in their camps.

Hamas was never going to disarm and hand back the hostages based on "Trust me, bro".

epolanski 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

When I said I was conflicted I meant that on one side it seems like a bad idea to give up WMDs for these countries, but it's also a bad idea for them to have them.

In Iran's case this is further compounded by their consistent anti Israeli PR and anti-Israeli militias funding.

jeswin 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> illegal WMD

Who has "legal" WMDs - the P5? Israel is a non-signatory to NPT, meaning their WMDs are as legal as anyone else's.

echoangle 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> And a reminder - Israel has illegals WMDs, using technology and nuclear material stolen from the US.

By what means are the israeli nukes (I assume thats whats meant by WMDs?) illegal? They didn't sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty and I don't think spying and stealing is illegal between countries under international law.

handfuloflight 5 hours ago | parent [-]

By the moral law of not being a hypocrite, for one.

ashoeafoot 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They would use some proxxy and shroud the nuke in ambiguity . They have driven 45 years of proxxy war against israel and had it comingbso long its 1.5 generations family buisness now

solumunus 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Silly! Such flippant language. Yes, it would be silly. Jihadists do “silly” things all the time. Their goals are “silly”.

dlahoda 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

afaik as i recall gov of iran says israel is little satan and says it goal to kill it.

is it crazy, sure. is it crazy story to say,no. it seems real.

rusk 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> gov of iran says israel is little satan

A pretty popular opinion these days

GlacierFox 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah it's surreal. Imagine if a terrorist group hopped the border into the USA and gleefully massacred a couple thousand people and then took loads of hostages into one of the most densely packed, boobie trapped , fundamentalist hell holes on the planet while being protected by the death-cult populace.

That place would be leveled and you wouldn't hear a peep of opposition.

ben_w 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> That place would be leveled and you wouldn't hear a peep of opposition.

You wouldn't hear any opposition from inside the USA.

At the same time, the USA levelling the place would create a lot of opposition basically everywhere else.

The UK government trying to toe the line with the USA about invading Iraq in the name of the GWOT was met with 10-16% of the UK population marching in protest against UK involvement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_February_2003_anti-war_prot...

This is something I bring up whenever anyone can't understand why Israel's response to Hamas' attack nearly two years ago now is likely even stronger than the USA's to 9/11 — even at best it would take a decade for the rage to dissipate, and the Israeli people are unlikely to care about the opinions of people like me for the same reason the Americans didn't.

samjones33 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>Israel's response to Hamas' attack nearly two years ago now is likely even stronger than the USA's to 9/11

I dunno about that. Iraq suffered between a quarter million and a million dead (depending on how you count). The % of those who touched a gun is low, under %10. The vast majority are civilians.

There wasn't a focused effort to bring in food, water or electricity to Iraq. A key difference is that Iraqis could leave, and hundreds of thousands did (to Syria, Jordan and other countries).

Israel's war in Gaza, messy and horrible as it is, is far (very far) more focused on Hamas than America's wars were in Iraq and Afghanistan.

ben_w 39 minutes ago | parent [-]

I should have phrased it differently, I meant the psychological response, not the military response.

GlacierFox 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm British, you wouldn't hear a peep from me. I'm not Jewish either.

I think you're incorrect about the opposition. You get the loud mouth left that for some reason have aligned themselves to a terrorist organisation. But if you go down the pub and speak to real people here in the UK, it's the complete opposite. It's reflected in the most recent polling where the vast majority of the country voted for what could be described as the most right-wing party seriously operating in the UK today.

People are really getting fed up of Islamic nonsense leaking into our completely incompatible society.

matthewdgreen 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was alive during 9/11 and this is more or less what we did, albeit in a more distant set of countries. I don't think we came out of the experience better off.

GlacierFox 4 hours ago | parent [-]

"albeit in a more distant set of countries"

You've said that like it's of no significance.

bavell 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nope, we would have sent in strike teams, special ops, etc to get the hostages out BEFORE leveling the place. Anything different would face massive opposition and carry a political death sentence for whoever gave the order.

GlacierFox 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh strike teams? Like the ones they sent in to Palestine? The ones that found it impossible to get anyone back due to the density of depraved traps around every corner and every tunnel while dealing with a populace that literally wants to wipe you and cut your head off at the first chance?

"Anything different would face massive opposition and carry a political death sentence for whoever gave the order."

That's your personal opinion.

epolanski 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Few problems with your statement are:

1) Israeli government willingly favored Hamas governing the Gaza strip and completely cut off the Palestinian authority

2) Israeli government ignored their own intelligence and even allowed money and weapons transfer from Qatar to Hamas

3) Israeli intelligence knew October 7 was gonna happen and did little to prevent it

4) While October 7 is one of the most despicable acts of crime and terror ever happened, it has not happened in a vacuum. It has happened by people who are literally living in the hell and open prison the Israelis have created for them

samjones33 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>3) Israeli intelligence knew October 7 was gonna happen and did little to prevent it

This is not considered valid in Israel.

In Israel October 7 is considered a massive failure of intelligence. No one in the top 30 of any Israeli intelligence agency that Oct 7 was going to happen.

GlacierFox 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You have raised some interesting points that I will read about and try to make sense of.

breppp 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

only means that their long game plan of sacrificing the palestinians for a chance at some regional/international influence is working

ta1243 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

With Israel playing right into it

breppp 5 hours ago | parent [-]

probably the same could be said about iran now

7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
margorczynski 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The same shit NK says about SK and the USA but still I don't see nukes flying. You shouldn't mistake propaganda for the masses with the leadership being crazy fanatics.

AlecSchueler 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Indeed, the only place I see that line being blurred today is in the US.

FrozenSynapse 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> it would mean mutual destruction.

some religious lunatics would deem that worthy

m000 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> some religious lunatics would deem that worthy

That would be primarily Evangelical Zionists, seeking to hasten the end of days.

samjones33 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Evangelical Zionists who fund extremist Jews ...

Film, Til Kingdom Come -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Til_Kingdom_Come_(film)

dlahoda 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

it will not be mutual. look at map and size of countries.

so it even no need to be lunatic to act some nukes.

foolserrandboy 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

dlahoda 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

israel is way smaller and easier to bomb.

why would not iran gov sacrifice few million of its people to kill whole israel?

spwa4 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Because Iran is a developed country and the Iranian population actually has a future if they take their government back from the clerics?

Hell, in the next 30 or so years oil will disappear from the middle east, and Iran is just about the only country that has a realistic shot at still having an economy after that.

HPsquared 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Libya was pretty developed with an educated population, decent economy etc too, more developed then Iran I'd say.. look how that turned out. State collapse is no joke.

ALLTaken 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

there are private banks and operations similar to BlackWater, like Osherbrand and many others that steal, murder and take capital from the public by re-enforcing external threats and then providing "rescue" via their private fleet to extract the corrupt politicians for 30% to 70% commissions and murder away anyone hindering them. Collapse my ass, it's foreign influence and internal corruption. Like always.

Be neutral and objective, but America, Ukraine and Israel are currently the most agresively operating forces salivating over WW3. Yes, Russia is also quite brutal, but it's not going to profit from WW3 on the stock market!

Who are the PROFITEERS of this?

How can WE fight this war mongering?

Do we need to get active on the Battlefield? Do we need to sabotage Sattelite Networks, disarm financial incentives etc. etc. to combat those who want a WW3?

Only billionaires are going to become richer from a war. Everyone else will eat radioactive food and their DNA will be wiped out forever from the human gene pool. Seem like an Eugenic goal

libertine 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Ukraine is being invaded in a genocidal war to try to annex them and delete them from the map, by Russia. Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine for them to surrender their nukes.

All while Russia is threatning with nuclear destruction of Ukraine and Western countries.

So, how the hell is Ukraine salivating over WW3 and Russia isn't LMAO

ALLTaken 4 hours ago | parent [-]

aggressive and loaded comment you made here.

Actions provoking WW3 are as I commented. You've not made a valid counter argument and have only chose PARTISANSHIP. Which I have not.

I suggest etiquette and neutral speech before spitting hate in internet forums.

libertine an hour ago | parent [-]

> aggressive and loaded comment you made here.

I disagree, but in light of your previous comment, it doesn't shock me.

> Actions provoking WW3 are as I commented.

You're wrong, they're not. You have pretty clearly chosen PARTISANSHIP by stating a country being invaded and fighting for their lives and sovereignty as the ones salivating for WW3.

It's a remarkable backward-thinking exercise. Russia is clearly:

- violating International Law, the UN Charter, and many other agreements and memoranda;

- all while threatening nuclear annihilation of Ukraine, UK, USA and other European countries;

- Attacking and destroying third countries' civilian infrastructures;

Among other atrocities and crimes.

But somehow, through magical thinking, you deem them as the victims here who have nothing to gain from this.

You are not OK with stock market gains, but you're OK with Russia stealing Ukrainian natural resources, their population, including kidnapped children?

Let me ask you this: according to your logic, were Hitler and Stalin the victims, and was Poland salivating for starting WW2?

inglor_cz 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Libya was also tribal in its core. Nation building takes decades if not centuries and cannot be substituted by quick oil money.

Iran is not tribal, it is a fairly ancient empire with strong continuity over 2500 years. Approximately as old as Rome, but with no collapse.

Iran will almost certainly hold together if the current batch of rulers disappears. It survived even the Mongols.

rusk 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> if they take their government back from the clerics?

They took back their government and they “gave” it to the clerics back in C20

The Iranians by and large have the state they want. Strong parallel with Irish history where independence brought about a theocratic Junta. That only went away with deeper integration into the European economy.

tech2 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Are we forgetting the pushback against nationalisation of their oil industry, operations involving both CIA and MI6, the propaganda campaign to get rid of their elected president, and other such fun? It's not like the west didn't have some rather significant involvement and incentive here. They have what they have because the west (as is common) messed with another nation.

spwa4 an hour ago | parent [-]

No, nobody is ever forgetting that. It gets shoved into everyone's faces at EVERY opportunity. This is strange, because when it comes to moral failings, oil profits and corruption aren't on any serious person's radar.

Because what does get forgotten is that socialists worldwide strongly supported the revolution, from Moscow to Brazil, Berlin to New York, including supporting khomeini. With the UK's campaign "khomeini doesn't seek power, just wants to free Iran" message (spread by the BBC), and France's asylum and help. Protest marches in support of what turned out to be murderous islamists in every capital.

As for tactics: Khomeini (let's be honest here: it was Khomeini) organized snipers to shoot into the security services during a protest, provoking a battle where 89 people died ... at which point Khomeini declared that "4,000 innocent protesters were massacred by Zionists".

The protestors, whipped up by leftists did not take khomeini at his word, organized a general country-wide strike ... Khomeini organized further attacks on both his allies and the government, each time blaming zionists, never losing socialist support ... and 2 years later, now in power, Khomeini organized a massacre to "purify" Iranian society of his socialist allies, at least 3800 brutally executed, including high school students, one at most 7 years old. He has kept killing, and khamenei has continued the killings, some years 300, in the last decade more like 1000 every year.

Famously khamenei declared that "executing minors is illegal, if they're virgins". By which he meant that female prisoners are to be raped multiple times before execution. [1]

But I guess that's better than vague oil corruption and evil western influence, isn't it? Never mind that of course the revolution has totally failed Iran. They did not bring jobs, did not bring housing, did not ... in the 50 years they have in power.

Needless to say, more people died in Khomeini's purification than in every other part of the revolution combined. Hell, more people died in the last 5 years of "islamic" peace, than died in the 5 years of the revolution.

[1] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/12/iran-security...

anonnon 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Because Iran is a developed country and the Iranian population actually has a future if they take their government back from the clerics

They're talking about the current regime, from which it isn't clear the population will ever successfully take back their country.