| |
| ▲ | 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 44 minutes 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... | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | scotty79 5 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] | | | |
| ▲ | 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. | | | |
| ▲ | 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 5 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. | | |
| |
| ▲ | 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.) | | | |
| ▲ | 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 5 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 6 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 5 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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
