Trump, Netanyahu and Khamenei – three angry old men who could get us all killed
-
You shouldn't, I'm just not used to people being consistent about this kind of thing.
Fair enough. I may be a jerk sometimes or have edgy takes, but I'm consistent in my contempt for repressive regimes and authorities.
-
Great man theory nonsense. Was Netanyahu in power during the Sabra and Shatila massacre? During the Nakba? During the June 1967 war? Was Trump president when the US invaded Iraq? Was he president when the US sent billions of dollars in military aid to Israel to commit their genocide with? It's the countries, not the leaders. They're just the personification of a system. You could shoot each of these men in the head today, and nothing would change.
There are actually some differences here. After the Cold War ended Israel was making some peace deals. The Oslo Accords(1993 and 1995) and a deal with Jordan 1994 were big parts of that. In 1996 Netanyahu came to power and basically all of that stopped. There was a bit with Ariel Sharon being in power, when Israel gave up its settlement in the Gaza strip. Netanyahu was not prime minister all the time, but he was in government and more often then not in position to sabotage that. The only time he failed was Ariel Sharon ordering to close the Jewish settlements in Gaza. He is really the main reason there is no somewhat working two state solution today.
Trump currently sents billions of aid to Israel to commit genocide AND fight a war within Iran. So yes he is that president. Biden at least used the US military to send some food to Gaza, Trump stopped that.
Khamenei is the leader of Iran since 1989. He is hardly innocent of supporting the Assad clan, destroying democracy in Lebanon by supporting Hezbollah, massive war crimes in Sudan happening right now, with the biggest starvation crisis in the world, although not as hard as Gaza, the huge civil war in Yemen and so forth. Keep in mind that before the Iranian revolution Israel and Iran were very close allies. They even developed fighter jets together. Point is that both countries are not natural enemies.
At least two of those men have formed their respective countries and systems for decades. If you killed Netanyahu today, then it would mean a new election and likely a win for the liberals, which is usually good news for Palastinians. If you killed Khamenei today, then there is a pretty good chance, that the infighting would end the Islamic Republic. Iran has had some massive protests in the last couple years. If you kill Trump, then the Vance ends up president and he lacks the charisma of Trump and is not even directly elected.
-
Khamenei maybe an angry old man considering his country is facing an existential threat but Netanyahu is a wanted war criminal and Trump is a rapist with nefarious ties to the notorious Epstein
In any other country, Khamenei would be considered a pedophile.
You know, the whole marrying children business.
-
I'm definitely not a victim. But pretending that Iran is somehow morally superior to Israel is fucking laughable.
The Iranian regime is also criminal. When it comes to civilians however, the Israelis are far more criminal. They are settlers who steal other peoples land, they participate and actively endorse genocide. 82% of them want to ethnically cleansed Gaza.
We need a de-zionisation like we had de-nazification.
-
The Iranian regime is also criminal. When it comes to civilians however, the Israelis are far more criminal. They are settlers who steal other peoples land, they participate and actively endorse genocide. 82% of them want to ethnically cleansed Gaza.
We need a de-zionisation like we had de-nazification.
Yeah, i wouldn't be happy if people came and took my land. The difference between them is that Iran has already done the deed and taken everything from those that aren't Muslims.
-
This was not inevitable. This is a war Israel chose. It could have been prevented. Diplomatic talks were ongoing when the bombers took off for Iran. Israel’s continuing, illegal, unjustified airstrikes are unlikely to achieve their stated aim – permanently ending Tehran’s presumed efforts to build nuclear weapons – and may accelerate it. They must stop now. Likewise, Iran must halt its retaliation immediately and drop its escalatory threats to attack US and UK bases.
This conflict is not limited, as was the case last year, to tit-for-tat exchanges and “precision strikes” on a narrow range of military targets. It’s reached a wholly different level. Potentially nothing is off the table. Civilians are being killed on both sides. Leaders are targets. The rhetoric is out of control. With Israel fighting on several fronts, and Iran’s battered regime backed against a wall, the Middle East is closer than ever to a disastrous conflagration.
Reasons can always be found to go to war. The roots of major conflicts often reach back decades – and this is true of the Israel-Iran vendetta, which dates to the 1979 Islamic revolution. The so-called “shadow war” between the two intensified in recent years. Yet all-out conflict had been avoided, until now. So who is principally to blame for this sudden, unprecedented explosion?
Answer: three angry old men whose behaviour raises serious doubts about their judgment, common sense, motives and even their sanity.
And Putin (72), and Xi Jing Ping (72)
-
Great man theory nonsense. Was Netanyahu in power during the Sabra and Shatila massacre? During the Nakba? During the June 1967 war? Was Trump president when the US invaded Iraq? Was he president when the US sent billions of dollars in military aid to Israel to commit their genocide with? It's the countries, not the leaders. They're just the personification of a system. You could shoot each of these men in the head today, and nothing would change.
Trump, definitely. He's at least too dumb to be evil effectively, I shudder to think where Vance would take things if he decides to keep the MAGA line going.
Netanyahu dying would lead to a collapse of his government and a more moderate faction coming to power and probably ending the wars... for now.
I know less about the internal politics of Iran, although this war they didn't start obviously wouldn't end.
-
There are actually some differences here. After the Cold War ended Israel was making some peace deals. The Oslo Accords(1993 and 1995) and a deal with Jordan 1994 were big parts of that. In 1996 Netanyahu came to power and basically all of that stopped. There was a bit with Ariel Sharon being in power, when Israel gave up its settlement in the Gaza strip. Netanyahu was not prime minister all the time, but he was in government and more often then not in position to sabotage that. The only time he failed was Ariel Sharon ordering to close the Jewish settlements in Gaza. He is really the main reason there is no somewhat working two state solution today.
Trump currently sents billions of aid to Israel to commit genocide AND fight a war within Iran. So yes he is that president. Biden at least used the US military to send some food to Gaza, Trump stopped that.
Khamenei is the leader of Iran since 1989. He is hardly innocent of supporting the Assad clan, destroying democracy in Lebanon by supporting Hezbollah, massive war crimes in Sudan happening right now, with the biggest starvation crisis in the world, although not as hard as Gaza, the huge civil war in Yemen and so forth. Keep in mind that before the Iranian revolution Israel and Iran were very close allies. They even developed fighter jets together. Point is that both countries are not natural enemies.
At least two of those men have formed their respective countries and systems for decades. If you killed Netanyahu today, then it would mean a new election and likely a win for the liberals, which is usually good news for Palastinians. If you killed Khamenei today, then there is a pretty good chance, that the infighting would end the Islamic Republic. Iran has had some massive protests in the last couple years. If you kill Trump, then the Vance ends up president and he lacks the charisma of Trump and is not even directly elected.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Do you really think Trump's supporters would suddenly support Democrats, and, do you really think a power vacuum in Iran would make the Middle East more peaceful?
Similarly, don't skip over the part where the Oslo process ended when Netanyahu's current cabinet had Rabin assassinated. Natanyahu is a linchpin, but the right exists independent of him, and the left is still pretty anti-Palestinian.
-
What an insanely stupid article. Israel bombs Iran completely unprovoked. Khamenei and Iran are incredibly responsible and measured in their response. Meanwhile Israel is flailing around like a wild bully with their American big brother behind its back, threatening Iran that they are not allowed to strike back
And the liberals from TheGuardian write a both sides article about it as if all parties share blame.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]If Israel has a right to defend itself, what does (still awful government of) Iran have?
I guess blaming Netanyahu and Trump only would have lead to too much blowback. The Guardian really doesn't seem like it's the same anymore.
-
The Ayatollah regime that has been building and funding terrorist proxies for years, that has a bloody countdown timer for the destruction of Israel in the middle it Tehran?
The same regime who is, pretty obviously, rushing toward military nuclear capabilities in order to fulfill said countdown?
You're saying that they haven't provoked Israel?And you really think that firing drones and ballistic missiles at civilian populations is a measured response?
Fuck off with that bullshit.
Cool whataboutisms. Yes, Iran is shitty. No, Israel didn't have to do this. Yes, it's a great strategy to regain support for the Likud coalition government and not go to prison for corruption.
And you really think that firing drones and ballistic missiles at civilian populations is a measured response?
Pardon, which county are we talking about here?
Iran at least has the excuse that their missiles can't aim that well.
-
I'm definitely not a victim. But pretending that Iran is somehow morally superior to Israel is fucking laughable.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Morally superior, probably not. Causing less geopolitical problems and starting less unprovoked wars, definitely. At least right now.
-
Do you really think Trump's supporters would suddenly support Democrats, and, do you really think a power vacuum in Iran would make the Middle East more peaceful?
Similarly, don't skip over the part where the Oslo process ended when Netanyahu's current cabinet had Rabin assassinated. Natanyahu is a linchpin, but the right exists independent of him, and the left is still pretty anti-Palestinian.
Never said that Trump supporters would switch sites. I said that Vance is less popular, which means less likely to get as many people to activly vote for him.
A power vacuum in Iran would have a good chance of ending the civil war in Sudan. So I believe the odds are pretty good,especially if it is a short one.
Every Iraeli and Palestinian has experienced violence from the other site. Clearly Israel is occupying the West Bank and not the other was around, but it would be foolish of me to presume that the Israeli left loves Palestinians. Thankfully they do not need to, but just need to make a deal. Without shooting at each other relations will improve. Obviously the right is independent of Natanyahu, but current polls still show them loosing power.
-
Never said that Trump supporters would switch sites. I said that Vance is less popular, which means less likely to get as many people to activly vote for him.
A power vacuum in Iran would have a good chance of ending the civil war in Sudan. So I believe the odds are pretty good,especially if it is a short one.
Every Iraeli and Palestinian has experienced violence from the other site. Clearly Israel is occupying the West Bank and not the other was around, but it would be foolish of me to presume that the Israeli left loves Palestinians. Thankfully they do not need to, but just need to make a deal. Without shooting at each other relations will improve. Obviously the right is independent of Natanyahu, but current polls still show them loosing power.
I'll admit my knowledge of Sudan is fuzzy. It's a huge catastrophe, but it just seems unlikely to spread the way the other crises can. Doesn't the UAE have a big hand in it too?
I'm skeptical inspiring middle-of-the-road voters is really that important anymore in the US. Most likely, future elections will not be fully free and fair.
-
Morally superior, probably not. Causing less geopolitical problems and starting less unprovoked wars, definitely. At least right now.
They learned from USA and the soviets how to invest in proxies that does the work.
-
Trump, definitely. He's at least too dumb to be evil effectively, I shudder to think where Vance would take things if he decides to keep the MAGA line going.
Netanyahu dying would lead to a collapse of his government and a more moderate faction coming to power and probably ending the wars... for now.
I know less about the internal politics of Iran, although this war they didn't start obviously wouldn't end.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]There is broad support in Israeli society for the ongoing genocide in Gaza. There are polls showing as much (I think one of them showed a rate of 82%). This is not one man's whim, this is not the will of some small shady elite, this is a consequence of material conditions in Israel. If you don't take those away, some other face will lead the charge.
Plus I'm not convinced that an assassination of Netanyahu would lead to a different party taking charge. I can't imagine their system of governance is set up this way. But this is entirely beside the point. The point is that one man's death doesn't change history. The allies didn't win WWII because Hitler killed himself, Hitler killed himself because the allies won WWII.
-
There is broad support in Israeli society for the ongoing genocide in Gaza. There are polls showing as much (I think one of them showed a rate of 82%). This is not one man's whim, this is not the will of some small shady elite, this is a consequence of material conditions in Israel. If you don't take those away, some other face will lead the charge.
Plus I'm not convinced that an assassination of Netanyahu would lead to a different party taking charge. I can't imagine their system of governance is set up this way. But this is entirely beside the point. The point is that one man's death doesn't change history. The allies didn't win WWII because Hitler killed himself, Hitler killed himself because the allies won WWII.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]There is broad support in Israeli society for the ongoing genocide in Gaza. There are polls showing as much (I think one of them showed a rate of 82%).
I did say "for now".
I'm guessing "genocide" wasn't in the wording of the poll question, but a two-state solution is just as fringe as a one state solution at this point. The vibe of the average Israeli is that they want Palestinians gone and don't want to talk or even think about how.
Plus I’m not convinced that an assassination of Netanyahu would lead to a different party taking charge. I can’t imagine their system of governance is set up this way.
How much do you know about the system?
It's a party list parliament with a pretty high degree of political fragmentation, comparable to the Netherlands. Netanyahu started with a slim majority propped up by the far-right parties, and his party has polled poorly since they let Oct 7 happen. Security was his main thing. He's globally famous for his skill holding together coalitions, which he couldn't do while dead, and it's pretty typical to hold snap elections after something like that anyway. His successor also wouldn't need to worry about being thrown in jail for corruption the moment they're out of office.
But this is entirely beside the point. The point is that one man’s death doesn’t change history. The allies didn’t win WWII because Hitler killed himself, Hitler killed himself because the allies won WWII.
Great man theory is indeed dumb, but "leaders don't change anything even in the short term" is too far in the other direction.
-
That's a fun song (but also obviously silly and wrong).
-
wrote on last edited by [email protected]
This is silly.
First, I don't know why you're using the past tense. I don't call water "wetted" I call it "wet". And while I wouldn't call fire "burned", I would call it "burning".
But here's the thing: you're welcome to have your idiosyncratic opinion on this. The fact that you seem to want me to argue my side when I feel perfectly comfortable letting you have a subjective opinion most people consider ridiculous says to me that (A) you know which one of us holds the broadly agreed upon position and (B) this isn't about resolving a dispute. It's just online debate for sport.
Enjoy believing a hotdog is a sandwich. Sleep well in your claims that cereal is a soup. I'm not going to explain to you why water is wet because it's a waste of my time.
