arandomusername

> First, Hamas are openly genocidal terrorists

Israel is the one actually committing a genocide though.

> the claim that Mossad funded ISIS is antisemitic propaganda, on the face of it.

Is that why ISIS apologised after accidentally attacking IDF? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is...

And how is America benefiting from "projecting power" throughout the middle east?

> "Imperialismo Americano".

And how did America benefit? They didnt. But you know who did? Israel.

Israel can't execute regime change by themselves, so US will definitely get involved.

Israel has been oppressing Palestinians long before Oct 7th.

Israel was involved in supporting ISIS. That's why ISIS never attacked Israel (except that one time accidentally which they apologized for! How crazy is that?)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-is...

Israel also supported rebel groups in Syria https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-acknowledges-long-cl...

> Israel has really no history of any hostility towards Iran that predates their proxy wars on Israel. There is absolutely no rational reason or excuse for Iran to be attacking Israel.

Israel has a history of hostility towards multiple neighbouring states. US has invaded Iraq for Israel. Iran does not want to be next.

> Exactly.

So you agree Israel should not be allowed nuclear weapons

Netanyahu has consistently said he wanted a regime change in Iran, alongside Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan. Iran does not want to end up like the other countries.

> Iran wants to have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel

That's often spread by Jewish media, but I see no evidance for this. Iran's supreme leader has issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

> Israel has nothing against Iran

Just like Israel has nothing against Palestinians?

> Israel, at least to date, has shown that it can be trusted to use nuclear weapons as a pure deterrent.

A genocidal state cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.

True, Trump's words are worthless. I'm hearing that the Iranian state media is claiming no irreversible damage at Fordow / only entry points were targeted - but ofcourse that doesn't carry much weight either.

Iran is prone to earthquakes, would an earthquake bomb do more damage than that?

Even if it just damages the centrifuges, as far as I see it, it would just delay their enrichment process, severely less than total destruction of their underground base.

Iran will definitely continue pursuing uranium enrichment. IRIB claims that the enriched uranium stockpile was moved away from those locations - which makes sense, so they probably didn't lose their stockpile. They will build new enrichment sites, which means bombing again.

Because Israel is the only nation in that region that has nuclear weapons, and the main reason why Iran wants to have nuclear weapons.

Replace Israel with Iran and your question remains the same.

Iran doesn't want to end up like Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya.

The GBU-57 was most likely used, which is non nuclear

Should US start bombing North Korea too? And Russia too? Can't let them have nukes either.

The initial nuclear agreement that Trump tore up was a good starting point

What does "unauthorized" mean here? Who needs to authorize weapons-grade uranium enrichment?

The GBU-57 is dope. Really curious to see how well it worked here

True - agreed. Now we need to get rid of Israel's nuclear weapons.

> I wonder if the bunker buster was used

Most certainly was. It's underground (Fordow is ~60m?) so it's either that or nukes.

It doesn't. It's all because Israel has extreme influence over US politicians.

> Israel is the wedge and leverage to eliminating governments of Iran, Pakistan, China and then India and weakening Russia further.

China and India? and Russia? Israel doesn't care about them.

Israel is using America and Europe to gain control of the middle east, so they want to eliminate Iran (and just like with Iraq, they want the US to do it for them).

Pakistan is somewhat friendly so not really a threat to Israel's control over the middle east.

US and Europe do not benefit from this. Europe actually suffers as instability in middle east causes a refugee crisis in Europe.

Then don't use it? It's completely optional and works perfectly fine without AI

the only reason Iran wants nuclear weapons is because Israel has them.

It's very common, ever since twitter added monetization. It makes the site a lot more unbearable.

That's a fair point. USSR soldiers did mass rape women in conquered territories (and even their own). And the Brits did have that famine in India that killed a lot as well.

Maybe the Nazis were worse, but wasn't really a good vs evil war.

[flagged]

By siding with the USSR, and letting them take control over eastern Europe? The USSR was just as bad as Nazi Germany.

That's not racism. That's being factual. Nations are bound together by common traits, including ethnicity. Italian, is an ethnicity. Chinese, is an ethnicity.

Racism is denying the European indigineous people the right to their own nation. Why do Europeans have to accept importing immigrants, who, statistically, commit more violent crimes?

> Haven't been to Tokyo so I can't comment, but honestly Warsaw and Prague over Paris? Prague is cute, but it's not much of a real live city, with a bustling cultural scene. It feels a lot more like a museum for tourists. Warsaw, meh.

Way safer and way nicer cities to live in than Paris, but the latter is a personal preference I guess.

> I'll take NYC, Chicago or LA

I remember visiting Google LA's office. There were junkies shooting up at the garage entrance.

What culture is being produced? The culture of gangbangers? Culture of homeless junkies harassing people on the subway?

> The Roman Empire still stood for far longer than any modern nation state.

And they were quite heavily xenophobic too. They did start giving our citizenship more broadly - preceding it's death.

Have you been to any of those cities in the last 5-10 years?

Paris and London used to be great cities. Not anymore, they are just living off their formal glory.

It feels like your image of London/Paris is based of movies and tv shows.

I will yield that culture is nurture, but others are not. If my twin was adopted and raised in China, they will not be Chinese. They will still be European.

> Oh, like Paris?

Yeah, a complete shadow of it's former self. It is completely unrecognizable compared to even 15 years ago. Thieves everywhere.

> Honestly I'm trying to come up with a large city that didn't experience mass immigration

Tokyo? Warsaw (Before Ukrainian refugees)? Prague? All beautiful cities, safe and culturally rich. They have immigration, which is fine, but not mass immigration. Most of the people you will see are natives with some tourists.

> but mass immigration is something that pretty much defines being a large, culturally vibrant city

Completely false. Mass immigration is what kills cities. It's also illogical. Culture is built upon generations of people. When you mass import foreigners, you are diluting that culture, killing it. It's partially why US cities are less culturally rich compared to EU cities.

The Roman Empire fell, so not a great example.

just an additional note, the instant transfer is only up to 15k euro

> We have a wildly inexpensive and rich resource in the form of our fellow humans

Advocating for immigration just so you have cheap labour sounds cruel.

> Mixing of cultures and ethnicities is good

No it's not.

> It makes us stronger and our system has always been made more resilient by absorbing the most adventurous, those who are willing to risk it all

Yeah, like higher rates of homicide?