C6JEsQeQa5fCjE

Given the context of the thread, what you have done here fits so perfectly.

> Does getting there 6 months sooner actually mean anything in terms of say, the 5, 20, 50, 100 year view?

You then use the power of AGI to keep everyone else down, economically and militarily. Billions of AGI-controlled drones patrolling the Earth and enforcing your supremacy. Yes, the future is grim and dystopian.

If one thinks this is farfetched, they aren't paying attention to geopolitics.

> HN sometimes poses really difficult questions.

The person who posted that question is Israeli.

> I'd argue that Israel is, in fact, behaving worse than South Africa ever did.

Nelson Mandela's grandson agrees.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/mandelas-grandson-...

If that's true, then great! Then we can do mass ancestry tests to establish the subpopulation that is indigenous to the region of historic Palestine. Let's do it.

Yes, for the sole reason that it's just a label assigned by an invading enemy government.

The problem is that the label is used in media to assign moral judgement, when it's just a political proscription that is typically assigned for entirely geopolitical reasons. Almost every country occupying a foreign territory, or is engaged in war with a group, or even another country, calls military action of the other side terrorism.

It doesn't mean anything. If it is to carry a moral judgement, it needs to be based on universally applied principles. It takes 5 seconds of thinking to see that it's absolutely not based on universally applied principles.

Let's confirm your claim through DNA tests to establish ancestry of Israelis and Palestinians.

Oh, they're banned in Israel?! Why would they possibly be banned?? Could it be that...

Actions, not words. Otherwise we'd be believing that a certain political party in the 40s Germany was simply all about work setting you free.

Zionists have showed what they are about through their actions ever since establishing their ethnosupremacist state. And they showed that genocide is not a red line to them over the past 2 and a half years. What they say they are about on paper is no longer relevant.

> when will we put somebody in congress with a CS background who can literally just chime in and say "use Zero Knowledge Proofs for this, people might actually buy that you're not just building a surveillance state."

Well that would be counter-productive to actually building a surveillance state.

> Politicians will do any draconian measure to help kids except [...]

They are covering for and not prosecuting perpetrators in the biggest child trafficking and abuse scandal in recent memory -- the Epstein case. Let us do away with even a surface-level pretense that they care about kids at all.

1) In Germany, a man was arrested recently over a suspicion of belonging to Hamas and planning attacks. A suspicion. Belonging to Hamas.

2) Alleged by the authorities to have been done by Hezbollah.

3) Not Europe.

4) Not Europe, and it's been merely alleged by PM Albanese that the incident had anything to do with Iran.

> I can add more if that’s not “terroristy” enough for you.

Please do, as the ones above are really not meeting the bar.

> Iran funding terrorism across Europe

Provide strong evidence or retract your statement.

> Without Israel, all Western civilisation is toast

Before Israel was established in 1948, was Western civilization toast? Or was it the power of the "western civilization" that conquered and ruled the world for centuries beforehand that allowed the creation of Israel?

More playing to vibes. For the passive reader, given that no evidence whatsoever was provided (let alone of the extraordinary kind) despite having been given ample opportunity to do so, please consider the extraordinary claims to be effectively retracted.

Have a good night.

No need for any benefits of the doubt, let me make myself perfectly clear. I think that you're throwing wild claims, relying on the general ignorance and media conditioning of the average American (largely the audience on this forum) in order to provide "familiar vibes" as the foundations of your claims in the minds of that audience.

Now, specifically, you said that: "Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them". Are "they" Iranians? Shia? Muslims in general? People of the middle east in general? After having settled the question of who "they" are, you are then claiming that if they kill those who merely disagree with them, they consider those doing the killing to be martyrs? That would disagree with the common understanding of what a martyr is worldwide, and hence my comment about your claim being quite extraordinary.

I challenge you to not try to steer the topic away from my questions, or make additional claims without being specific and providing evidence for those either. I am not interested in widening the scope of the conversation into endless arguing.

I don't mind the name change because it more correctly signals what the position has always been -- a secretary of war with a "secretary of defense" mask on.

> Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them. Not, "it can be ok to kill people who disagree with you once it reaches the point of war," but, "these people's forebears didn't listen to our god, so we must always hunt them, and also the jews."

You know the one about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?

> You think enemy soldiers are all evil?

If they are invading your country when you haven't invaded theirs, absolutely. An illegal war of aggression makes all the participants on the attacking side morally bad, yes.

Those pilots are dealing death and destruction to people and the infrastructure of the attacked country on a daily basis, which they sneak-attacked in the middle of what the victim country thought were diplomatic negotiations, for the second time. Do those pilots not deserve a lot of bad things happening to them in return?

Yes, the US.

If you are stabbing someone on the ground and I am standing next to you, pointing a gun at anyone who comes close and tries to help, and when your current knife breaks I hand you another one to use, I am an active participant in your crime. If it weren't for me, someone would have got you, or you wouldn't have done it in the first place due to caution since no one is there to protect you.

US took that role with Israel, and was an activate participant in Israel's genocide of the indigenous people of Palestine.

> Not sure if I understand it correctly, are you saying: 1. western countries bomb civilians, kill them, put them in jail without court, have ethnonationalistic racist state where some races has more rights and others have less, steal land from others, bomb neighbours because someone is hiding there, ignite wars, lobby/bribe powerful country politicians to reach their own goals

Sir, have you read about Western countries' imperial and colonial past, even over the last century alone? What about just the last 2 years, as they stood by Israel in every meaningful way while from time to time 'expressing concern' and issuing statements that 'international law must be respected' as the hypocrites that they are? The original commenter was correct: Israel fits right in.

I understand that appealing to myths of noble intentions of western populations is ultimately a good thing if it gets them to act more like it, but a part of me can't resist pointing out that it's just a myth and it's never been anything other than 'might makes right'. I agree with your goal, just please don't frame it as if western countries are these beacons of morality when they're anything but.

Selective enforcement of rules absolutely does discredit the enforcer and nullifies their "enforcement license".

Let's look at a scenario. I'm a local policeman who jails everyone in my neighborhood who steals from others, except one person that I allow to steal anything they want, whenever they want. When a victim of their theft tries to take their property back from the thief, I stop the victim and jail them for theft, because they tried to take what is now the property of the original thief. Some people say that I had no right to jail the victim for trying to take back what was originally theirs from the thief. Other people cite that it is technically theft and that someone else constantly getting away with theft does not mean that the policeman shouldn't stop this current case of "theft". Whenever the victims tried to do it the proper way and report the thefts to me, I did nothing.

Should the society trust me to continue doing law enforcement? Of course not. They should immediately replace me, and if that's not possible, they should exile me and organize themselves into a militia and enforce the rule of law on their own.

Going back to the real topic, USA has no moral right to intervene on the basis of punishing "slaughter" when they themselves are in the business of slaughtering people worldwide if it's in the business interest of its elite, and supports other countries slaughtering if it's somehow to the perceived benefit of the USA's leaders. The rest of the world should never allow it given USA's historical record, even a recent one.

Alright, multiple things.

First of all, Israel DOES conduct rape of Palestinians [1] [2], so that's not some hypothetical revenge scenario, but rather an everyday reality for Palestinians living under a brutal occupation. Randomly scoop up a few Palestinians every now and then, put them in prisons often at no charge at all ("administrative detention"), and then do anything you want to them behind the prison walls.

Second of all, I actually have principles, and I am against rape ALWAYS. If the victim testimonies that you referenced are actually true, then the perpetrators of those crimes deserve appropriate punishment. So do the Israelis who rape Palestinians.

> > Anyway, you dodged nearly the entirety of my comment

> Yes because it was disgusting.

No I won't let you keep dodging. What I wrote was that if you think that what happened on Oct 7 justified the response that Israel enacted by demolishing basically the entirety of Gaza, then you should shudder at the thought of what is justified in a merely proportional response to Israel's response. Proportionality being the foundation of justice and all that. For example, given that we know that Israel regularly kills and rapes Palestinians, would it be justified to do to Israel what Israel has done to Gaza? No? Then why do you people keep justifying what you have done to Gaza? When will you accept how disproportionally savage that was? Do you not see how disgusted by it the rest of the world is?

If you think that proportionality is disgusting, well, no need to engage any further.

[1] https://thecradle.co/articles-id/36452

[2] https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-war-chief-offers-apolo...

Those are some serious claims there. It's been 2 years and all the captured people have been returned to Israel. Still no actual proof of such claims that are casually repeated by pro-Israeli media. Not even mere supporting testimonies by those who were held captive.

Anyway, you dodged nearly the entirety of my comment. You know very well what a proportional response to what Israel has done would be.

> It’s very natural to want to return the same in kind

They didn't return the same in kind. Compare the "stats" of Oct 7 vs what Israel did over the next 2 years.

If you think that what happened on Oct 7 justified such a response, then you should shudder at the thought of what is justified in a merely proportional response to Israel's response. Proportionality being the foundation of justice and all that.

> I wouldn't be surprised if IDF forces deployed to the West Bank are trained much like American police officers are

IDF trains them.

https://www.amnestyusa.org/blog/with-whom-are-many-u-s-polic...

No, you're still missing your own arguments, based on which this discussion thread has been based. Citing your exact words:

> Furthermore, if Iran declared that it did possess working nuclear weapons that wouldn't be a deterrent: it would trigger an immediate and massive preemptive attack by the USA and Israel.

I've been discussing this under the assumption from your own words that "it did possess working nuclear weapons" ('it' being Iran). If you are now changing this to a massive escalation before they even get it, then that is out of scope for this discussion. I would argue they are already doing that to the extent that they can, as they have to tread carefully since Iran can also destroy all key infrastructure in Israel as well.

A massive conventional attack against a nuclear power is historically not a thing. That's the whole point of a nuclear deterrent. No one is attacking Russia or North Korea under pretenses of humanitarian interventions. A massive conventional attack that would tear Iran apart would be a sufficient reason to initiate nuclear armageddon between Israel and Iran, as it would be a doomsday event for Iran either way; might as well go down swinging. Again, that's the whole point of a nuclear deterrent. It's what Israel's Samson option is, even though none of their enemies ever possessed nuclear weapons.

No ethnic cleansing will be required, and the dissolution of apartheid South Africa tells us how things will play out. Once the state is degraded enough, they will largely all emigrate on their own since the jewish supremacy that is currently in full swing will be no longer. They will not want to live in a state where others have equal rights. The few who don't mind it will remain and live on with the majority that currently enjoys little to no rights.

The point was addressed in the first sentence of my previous reply.

As for a preemptive attack, which I imagine you meant would be nuclear since they're already giving it all they've got with their non-nuclear attacks, it is already clear that Israel and USA don't have a way to stop Iran's faster missiles, and they would have no way to prevent Iran nuking Tel-Aviv and Haifa in return. At that point Israel would cease to exist as a state and as a society. They would never risk that. The entire decades-long war against the middle east by USA and Israel is fought for the benefit of Israel, not for its destruction.

There is no reason to believe that they haven't already developed and worked out the details of all that, in case they'd ever need it. Now the US and Israel have killed the only man who was preventing it from being done, the late supreme leader. I cannot imagine the next supreme leader (that is about to be announced) not immediately cancelling the prohibition on building nuclear weapons (to be made public only after they've been built, ofc), and giving the order to build ~10 nuclear warheads (the amount that they can build based on the amount of 60% enriched fissile material they currently possess). With two nuclear powers relentlessly attacking them, it would be suicidal of them to not order the immediate building of nuclear weapons ASAP.