On one side it is clear that no country should give up their WMD projects. You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked.
> What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives.
That's speculation. Since you name NK that's a clear example of a country having nuclear deterrent actually saving the region from a conflict.
> 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.
> 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.
- 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.
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.
> 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).
> You're saying not all countries should be able to have powerful weapons just because there might be a coup.
Of course. How is that controversial?
> Who decides that? You?
Of course. I decide what I believe to be right. And in practice the countries that get to have nuclear weapons are the countries that got nuclear weapons. Not because they deserve it or should have it. Just because they got it. Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes.
> There are very few people who think they can win a nuclear exchange.
You mistake humans for rational actors. Have you heard what the stance of russia is for example? "What's the use for the world if there's no russia in it." Basically if they can't do what they want, they think world deserves to get nuked into oblivion.
Take the US for example: if the president, secretary of defense and probably the head of the joint chiefs decide it is OK to nuke half the planet because "reasons" - how is that different from a traditional coup?
> Which makes France, USA and Israel some of the countries that get to have nukes and Iran one of the countries that don't get to have nukes.
Power is always taken, never given. Following your rationale, Iran should do whatever to get its hands on some nukes real fast.
> Have you heard what the stance of Russia is for example?
Have you heard of peacocking? If it were actually true, they would have nuked the world way before probably me and you were born.
> Take the US for example: if the president, secretary of defense and probably the head of the joint chiefs decide it is OK to nuke half the planet because "reasons" - how is that different from a traditional coup?
Democracies tend to be more resilient against rule by aggressive idiots. So being a democracy should be lowest common denominator.
> Power is always taken, never given. Following your rationale, Iran should do whatever to get its hands on some nukes real fast.
I have no idea why are you talking about it like it's hypothetical. Iran did whatever it could to get its hands on nukes as fast as it could since Trump destroyed the agreement that Obama signed with Iran.
And it resulted with their top leaders getting assassinated and their nuclear attempts destroyed. So was that really something they should have been doing?
Well, if every of your neighbors would have a big bad bomb, you will more inclined to mind your business. But if only you have a big bad bomb, then most likely you will have opinions about what your neighbors should do.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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)
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)
> Can you explain to us what the genocide in Gaza is?
A population caught up in a horrible conflict. In part due to the choices of the leaders they've supported for decades now.
> I need a thorough explanation of the images I see out of there. What the hell is 50k dead and ghetto camp conditions?
They're the same tragedies as those from most of the other war torn areas in the region. I hate to say it, but Gaza is at the "risk of famine" while the Sudan and Yemen are in full on famine. There's also two orders of magnitude more civilians suffering in Sudan currently as well. Similarly in Yemen, which is being bombed routinely by Saudis and Americans which include innocent civilian deaths. I've not heard of one anti-Saudi protest by Muslims in the west in recent years.
Where's the constant Wester or Muslim outrage for the 100,000s or millions of civilian deaths directly caused by Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah or more throughout the region by extremist Islamists?
You can also find the recent videos of interviews with Palestinians where they praise and thank Trump for giving the food (GHF) while they curse Hamas for hoarding the food and using their children as war fodder.
Did the media also show you the videos of the Palestinians in Northern Gaza protesting Hamas for being terrorists and killing their children in March? Many of them understand who started and wanted the war. They call it war and blame Hamas.
Does that justify all the actions of Israel? No, but I also believe Israel also acts to prevent the worse from coming around. They supply water, food, and aid while the other military forces like Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, etc do not do that for their enemies civilians. They regularly provide bombing warnings and evacuation notices to civilians, unlike pretty much any other force in the region.
Does the IDF also have bad actors and commit war crimes as well? Yes, but most Israeli's don't want or support that.
> But here is the true mind fuck, 1200 != even one innocent.
Tell that to almost any nations at war. There's always civilian casualties. For the Israelis it's 1200 today, and in their experience it'll be another 1200 tomorrow, and 1200 the day after and so on if they did not attack back and remove Hamas. 50,000+ dead is terrible but the statistics of civilians to combatant casualties are similar to other conflicts in the region, despite Hamas being internationally known for using civilians as shields.
Where's the constant outrage for the 150,000 dead in Yemen due to the fighting there and the 227,000 dying of famine and the ghetto conditions there? The conflict in Palestine isn't that unique in the region except that the media covers Palestine far more. The double standards on display in the west are absurd and masterfully exploited by the Islamist extremists spearheaded by Iran.
> 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.
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:
> 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.
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.
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.
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..."
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").
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
"The PA was founded following years of hostility. Secret meetings held in Norway in 1993 between the PLO and Israel led to the signing of the historic Declaration of Principles (the Oslo Accords), in which the two sides agreed to mutual recognition and terms whereby governing functions in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip—occupied by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967—would be progressively handed over to a Palestinian council."
> 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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Third, you preemptively accuse me of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but you're the one committing it. You claim "perpetrators of Islamic violence" cite these doctrines, but when pressed for specifics, you can't name them. That's you implying that a Muslim who doesn't commit violence isn't following the "real" Islam, which is literally the No True Scotsman fallacy you're projecting onto me.
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.
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.
You just proved my entire point while thinking you were making yours.
First, you affirmed there are Islamic doctrines calling for violence against Jews. When I asked for citations, you suddenly can't provide any because "any Islamic scholar would already know." This is the intellectual equivalent of "my girlfriend goes to another school." If these doctrines are so obvious and pervasive, citing them should take you thirty seconds, not paragraphs of deflection.
Second, you accuse me of limiting the discussion when the exact opposite happened. You affirmed a specific claim about anti-Jewish doctrines, I challenged it, and when you couldn't defend it, YOU tried to escape by broadening it to "Islamic violence globally." I actually expanded my challenge by saying I haven't found doctrines calling for unrestricted violence against Jewish people "or any people, for that matter." You're now misrepresenting the exchange because you can't handle either version of the challenge.
Third, you preemptively accuse me of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, but you're the one committing it. You claim "perpetrators of Islamic violence" cite these doctrines, but when pressed for specifics, you can't name them. That's you implying that a Muslim who doesn't commit violence isn't following the "real" Islam, which is literally the No True Scotsman fallacy you're projecting onto me.
Fourth, you brought up dhimmis thinking it was devastating, but you just wrecked your own position. The dhimmi system was a legal framework for protection and coexistence, revolutionary for its time when other civilizations were practicing actual genocide. If Islam mandated killing Jews, why would it simultaneously create detailed legal protections for them? You literally cited evidence that contradicts your entire premise.
Fifth, your appeal to personal geography is irrelevant. Living in three countries doesn't make you knowledgable in Islam any more than living near hospitals makes you qualified to comment on surgery. You're using personal experience to avoid rigor, the exact opposite of truthful discourse.
Sixth, you claim I have "no right to demand" citations from you. In discussions in pursuit of truth, when you make factual claims, providing evidence isn't a courtesy, it's basic intellectual honesty. You don't get to make assertions about Islamic doctrine then hide behind wounded feelings when asked to support them.
Finally, you still haven't addressed Umar ibn al-Khattab. This isn't some minor historical figure, he's the second Caliph, Muhammad's direct companion, who conquered Jerusalem and immediately invited Jews back after 500 years of Christian expulsion. If Islamic doctrine mandates violence against Jews, then either:
a) these doctrines don't exist or don't mean what you claim, OR b) Muhammad's own companion fundamentally misunderstood basic Islamic teaching (which you seem to be more privvy to, despite your lack of citation)
You cannot escape this logical knot you've tied around yourself. Every byte of text you write avoiding this question proves you know your position is indefensible.
This isn't about silencing you, it's about holding you accountable for claims you cannot substantiate.
I read your first sentence, even though I feel I’ve pretty thoroughly demolished your argument if you actually want hadith it’s behind every rock etc except the blah blah tree. But again, you know that, which is why you also know you’re wrong. I stopped reading there and will no longer communicate with you.
Edit: actually wait, I’m gonna come back for five seconds to voice dictate that I previously discussed calls for violence from Islam against everyone, rather than specifically Jews, in the first sentence of the reply that you didn’t seem to have read, but there’s your example for Jews, and your moment of shame on either being not an Islamic scholar or having been exposed to have lied. Which again we both know is permissible under Islam for the purposes of furthering Islam. Goodbye to you and your terrible beliefs.
Edit 2: I made no reference to my own personal geography rather than lived experience of Islamic violence. That you would miss characterise one for the other reveals the same thing about you and your terrible beliefs as your mischaracterisation of a system that treated Jews second class citizens. Now begone with your nonsense.
You think I'm communicating with you, but I'm communicating with the audience, so your disengagement with me is of no concern. You really have nothing to say, and no one is going to take seriously someone whose level of intellectual discourse is to cite support for his claims by writing this string of babbledegook: "hadith it’s behind every rock etc except the blah blah tree."
I wouldn't even dare to say this is the writing level of a kindergartner, because that would be an insult to kindergartners. So flee you fool, Adieu.
P.S.: The multiple desperate edits after saying 'goodbye' twice really sell the whole 'I've demolished your argument' claim. Classic.
P.P.S.: Funny how someone who 'stopped reading at the first sentence' managed to respond to points from my fifth paragraph. Even your lies are lazy.
Translation: "I can't actually defend my interpretation, so I'm desperately hoping random people will Google a mangled hadith and get ensnared by the same unscholarly, inflammatory, cheap websites I read to form my understanding; all while pretending I'm not still here obsessively responding after saying goodbye three times."
A mangled citation is not a defense of an interpretation. You still have not demonstrated how Islam calls for unrestricted violence against Jews (or any people).
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).
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".
so nothing changed then, hasn't it? except for the addition of some cruel medieval islamic punishments and the occasional intentional blinding of protestors
> 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.
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.)
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.
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.
Yep. The western liberal is well-intended and can’t get behind the idea that anyone should ever kill anyone. But Hamas’s order of preference is:
1. They kill you (because God will give them the eternal hookup)
2. You kill them (same as #1)
3. Nobody kills anyone
Suicide bombing seems crazy and far from rational to those of us who aren’t in the death cult. But if you look at the actions of radical Islamists from that perspective, it is entirely rational and in line with both their stated beliefs and their actions.
israel could also end it at any point, by not shooting, or by dissolving the whole state.
why do they not do this? israel has had the ability to end the war since before its inception.
the answer to why is no surprise, the same as hamas' reason to not surrender. the israeli goal is the disappearance of all palestinians, and hamas so happens to be made up of palestinians.
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".
> Hamas is a death cult. They will fight to the last Gazan child.
This is just... utterly absurd. The entity killing children (literally on a daily basis!), bombing hopsitals, schools, water treatment facilities etc, and carrying out campaigns of terrorism across the Middle East, is the rogue nuclear state of Israel.
'Propaganda' doesn't quite cover it; I think we need a new word for propaganda that is so delusional and verifyiably false, that it has no basis in any reality.
> 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.
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.
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.
They’re not stupid, the believe in an ideology that glorifies martyrs. If you actually believe in martyrdom nuking Israel is the sensible thing to do even knowing you’ll get it right back.
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.
> 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.
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.
>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.
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.
We did this after 9/11 and people generally understand both the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to be huge mistakes that achieved little other than create a lot of corpses and spend a lot of money.
"Well, obviously they are blinded by rage" is not exactly my favorite argument.
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.
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.
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."
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
>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.
hamas came to power in 2006 after usa forced election (against will of PA that was afraid that hamas will win). after this usa was horrified by outcome and trained/sponsored PA to take over gaza and depose hamas. PA failed and it forces were shot/thrown from roofs/dragged behind bikes and supporters tortured into obedience.
as outcome PA ceased paying salaries to it employees in gaza and foot the bill for infrastructure/etc.
there was massive outrage in media that "hundreds of thousands of people in gaza will starve now because they have no money to buy food" that forced Israel to allow money transfers from Qatar
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Nothing in their comment was aggressive, nor was it partisan. I think what's happening is you didn't like what they said, and you didn't really know how to approach that so you just decided to resort to ad hominem, much like a small child would.
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?
> 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.
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.
Maybe we're missing one another here but it appears you're arguing for me. Khomeini is in place _because_ of western influence/involvement, if it weren't for operation Ajax/Boot (depending on whether we're talking CIA or MI-6 naming) and the various aspects of the associated propaganda then Mosaddegh may have remained in power (I say maybe because it was quite unstable times in the early 50s Iran) and Khomeini may never have gained power.
I think the point of this bombing is to change the calculus you just mentioned. Now there’s an actual reason to not try for nukes, you may get bombed.
NK’s conventional weapons (and SK’s pointed right back at them) saved them from conflict, that’s how they got to nukes without us doing something like this. They already had mutually assured destruction from conventional weapons and proximity to an ally.
Iran’s problem is we don’t care much about anyone around them except Israel, and they already would destroy Israel if they could, so they had nobody’s head at which to aim their bullet.
NK’s government is an evil one but the Kims really like being alive and that keeps them somewhat rational. They are quite obviously not religious since they claim to be God (and surely are aware they are not), so they don’t believe in benefits to martyrdom.
Islamism is a death cult (and I mean that literally) so their actions aren’t rational as we would define the word. We can’t rely on their self-preservation instinct the way we can with the Kims.
Ukraine never had "control" of nukes. Russia was the sole producer/controller of nukes within the USSR. Those nukes were then deployed throughout the USSR, but the individual regions within the USSR never had any capability to independently launch or control those nukes. It would be akin to what will happen when the US eventually collapses and we have military bases and nukes scattered throughout the world.
Germany in that case will then briefly technically have nukes, but no ability to knowledge of how to launch or control them. Had Ukraine tried to hold onto those nukes and/or figure out how to launch them they would likely have been invaded by just about every country in the world, including the US, so they gave them up for a few bucks and some kind words.
And I strongly disagree about Iran. Pakistan is also an Islamic country (with its proper name being the Islamic Republic of Pakistan) and a nuclear power, and they haven't just decided to go nuke India who they have abysmal relations with. Religion does provide a different level of comfort with death (and Iran has a longgggggg history of enduring pain to expel invaders on top), but it does not just turn people into death cult members.
There's some irony in that if Iran had nuclear weapons their relations with Israel would likely have been much better. Because Israel wouldn't have been constantly attacking, assassinating, and otherwise doing everything they could to undermine the country. It's similar to how if North Korea didn't have nukes then South Korea, largely as a proxy of the US, would likely have been actively attacking them.
Islamism != Islam. Plenty of Muslims (most, thankfully) are not Islamists, including Pakistan. Pakistan also does not fund terror globally (though India says they do it locally) because they do not believe they go to heaven for killing Israelis. There are a number of Muslims, including the Supreme Leader, who do. My contention was not that any muslims would nuke Israel if they had a chance, most surely would not, but it's reasonable to believe Iran would. Hamas and Hezbollah would, and Iran would love to give them the opportunity.
South Korea was never going to attack North Korea because, as I mentioned, they had plenty of conventional weapons they could easily deliver to South Korea. They had mutually assured destruction before they even tried to get nukes, that's why they succeeded. Iran does not have that yet, and must be stopped before they do.
I do now know whether this was the right way to do it by any means, and I think it's a shame that the Obama-era deal was abandoned. I think we could possibly have gotten here through peaceful measures. But we did need to get to here.
Pakistan was historically one of the most active sponsors of terrorism worldwide. [1] Their activities over time have moderated, but again exactly as I was suggesting would happen with Iran - this is likely in large part because they're not a target of various offensive activities, precisely because they have nukes. Each time you attack a country and kill people, those friends, relatives, and parts of the unconnected population do not forget nor forgive. You create the radicalism you claim to fight against.
Historically yes. They’ve since renounced it and seem to keep it confined to their region.
I don’t think there’s any evidence at all that fighting terrorism creates more terrorists than it kills, that’s just a thing people say and reality seems to show the opposite. We haven’t had waves of terror since gutting Al Queda, ISIS, etc. There’s neither research nor data to support it, people just like the way it sounds so they repeat it.
And Pakistan has also historically had nukes - they were first obtained in 1998. This [1] page offers a variety of data on terrorism. I recommend selecting the "terrorist attacks by region" graph as it illustrates it most clearly. At the time of 9/11, global terrorism was in its death throes. 9/11 was a Hail Mary by Bin Laden and it's been a resounding success. Global terrorism has exponentially skyrocketed since the war on terror.
And on top of this terror groups are now growing powerful enough to fully control their own countries. The Taliban now has rock solid control of Afghanistan (before the war on terror they had majority control, but were struggling against a powerful insurgency), Abu Mohammad al-Julani controls Syria and US propaganda is framing him as a moderate or reformer, but he's not. He had a $10 million bounty on his head as one of the most dangerous terrorists in the world, even as we started running propaganda for him, exactly as we did for [de facto] Al Qaeda(from which he came) before they came back to bite us later, exactly as he will. Then there's the Houthis who went from a political movement to an insurgency to now having near complete control of Yemen in spite of ongoing conflicts with Saudi Arabia and the US.
> "You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked."
It's not that simple. Those countries were destined towards collapse with or without nuclear weapons. Iraq, Libya, Syria—those are three countries that fell into catastrophic civil wars, along internal conflict lines, in power vacuums succeeding an unpopular dictator. None of those autocracies were stable in the long-term. (But a nuclear weapon is quite stable; it succeeds the falls of governments and passes on to whoever replaces them).
Deplore US' strategic stupidities all you want; but it's not the only actor with agency in the world.
Would anyone have been better off with Assad fighting a version of the 2010's civil war with nuclear weapons in his arsenal? Or Hussein, that sectarian war? Those are two men who gassed thousands of innocents with nerve agents; they wouldn't surely wouldn't hesitate long about dropping nukes.
(Can you deter a civil war with nuclear weapons?)
We could also ask who would have inherited a hypothetical Qaddafi nuke, after his fall: which Libya? There were at least three Libyas one point. ISIL governed one!
(One semantic nitpick: I don't think it's fair to say those dictators "gave up" their WMD's. With all three, their WMD programs were forcibly taken from them. In Iraq, 1981, the bombing of the Osirak reactor; and again in the 1991 Gulf War the bombing of Tuwaitha (which permanently ended Iraq's uranium enrichment). Qaddafi turned over all his nuclear materials to the USA, after being directly threatened, in the months following US' 2003 invasion of Iraq. And Assad lost his North Korean-built plutonium reactor in 2007, to an airstrike. Did anyone of these dictators have agency in those "give up WMD" choices? I think not).
>Those countries were destined towards collapse with or without nuclear weapons. Iraq, Libya, Syria—those are three countries that fell into catastrophic civil wars, along internal conflict lines,
For Libya and Syria, sure, but what are you talking about for Iraq? Saddam was unambiguously ousted from an internally secure position of power by a foreign invasion that followed in the wake of over a decade of heavy sanctions and no-fly zone imposure. By many accounts, Saddam had a strong base of support within his population and his rule was stable (backed by a blend of patronage and severe terror obviously) right up until the day he was ousted by vastly superior military might from outside.
While it's extremely hard to know what would have happened to his regime had he still been in power by the time of the Arab Spring and the events that caused the ouster of Gaddafi and eventually Assad, Saddam would surely have been able to stay in power at least up to then. I certainly don't imagine him having more difficulty handling an internal strife of the kind that ruined Assad's dictatorship. Except for his catastrophic miscalculation of making a long-term enemy of the US during the first, utterly pointless Gulf War, he at least showed himself to be the far more experienced and careful dictator during his rule.
Indeed, nuclear weapons are a tricky thing. On one hand, there are nuclear non-proliferation treaties, on the other, peaceful nuclear power plants. To obtain nukes, you have to have good relationships with the current big powers, build peaceful nuclear installations, and very covertly produce the weapons based on it, while the big boys look the other way, or maybe even secretly help. That's approximately how China, India, Pakistan, and Israel obtained their nukes. (North Korea is a special case.)
Once you've obtained some nukes, complete with decent rockets to liv them, nobody is going to mess with you too badly, or try to take the nukes back; you're now a member if the club.
Japan or South Korea would likely be able to produce nuclear weapons in a few months if they needed to. I bet even Ukraine could, with its remaining nuclear plants and relatively advanced industry, and are on friendly terms with the US.
But if you made enemies with the big members of the nuclear club, and with the US in particular, they will do everything to stop you, and your situation would become much harder; that's the case with Iran.
This is a minor distinction. In they end they all set off by pyrotechnic charges. Authorization sequence is nothing an industrial power can't get around.
You seem to completely misunderstand why the entire world wanted Ukraine to get rid of their ICBMs.
1) They could not operate them. It isn't just about authorization sequence, it's about having all of the required electronics. You need satellites that point and guide the ICBMs. All of those were in Moscow hands. Even if Ukraine could ignite them, it could not launch them or set their paths, etc.
2) They did not have the budget to guard them, let alone maintain them, even less reverse engineer. The biggest risk was that rough states with deep pockets would buy those rockets on the black market (and Ukraine notably sold out most of their soviet arsenal).
3) Thus, the only real asset was the nuclear material itself. An asset that was more likely going to end up on the black market than do anything useful for Ukraine's defense.
There's so much wrong you crammed into just three points am at loss to even where should I start.
The value of nuclear weapons is in the warheads not delivery vehicles. Even then Ukraine absolutely could maintain a trimmed down nuclear arsenal with the missiles/engines serviced by Yuzhmash. After all bare ass Russia did it in the 1990s somehow. All the American financing of nuclear security to Russia would have been proportionally redirected to Ukraine.
Then, Ukraine possessed a stockpile of highly enriched uranium all way until 2011. It was indeed sold off under Yanukovich to a rogue state though: Russia.
There is one huge drawback to not signing the memorandum: Lukashenka's Belarus (another signatory) would have also kept the nukes. This is however never brought up by the memorandum fans and non-proliferation enjoyers on the Internet precisely because it's not something they would have minded.
> There's so much wrong you crammed into just three points am at loss to even where should I start.
There's nothing wrong, what I wrote literally comes from official declassified documents and reports, you can read what insiders had to say.
Ukrainians didn't want them, feared their meltdown and their inability to even just maintain them. The rest of the world knew they were bound to end up in a rogue's actor hands very soon.
Ukraine was presented a carrot large enough to go along with it. This has nothing to do with its technical ability, as it remained a spacefaring nation throughout the recession years.
Either way you seem to contradict yourself. On one hand Ukraine, then a major owner of former Soviet military industrial complex could not maintain or use the weapons. On the other you insist unspecified rogue actors would be skilled enough to maintain and use them. Make up your mind.
So the rest of the world did not know anything, as the perfect safety record of enriched nuclear fuel in Ukraine illustrates. They did want for the nukes to end up in Russia for the proliferation fears and convenience of negotiating with one power. The decision turned out ultimately misguided, contributing to the unraveling of the postwar world order we see today (ironically including the proliferation of nuclear technology to the rogue states). Bill Clinton, about as insider as it gets have expressed his regrets about it last year.
Could they have jerryrigged them?
For example load one into a truck (similar to the recent drone incident), drive it to the Kremlim, and then force a detonation?
It wasn't really particularly material whether Russia had 30,000 nukes or 32,000 nukes in 1994. It was material if other states got the components that were in those 2,000 nukes.
It was indeed because there was no legal foundation for Russian ownership of all Soviet nuclear assets, no matter how every other nuclear power wanted it at the time.
Is this real? Why would Ukraine be such a concentration of brain power compared to other regions? I'm not super skeptical given the few Ukrainians I've met but still humans are generally equal...
That's a recurring Russian propaganda point, which is easily verifiable as a lie.
Even basic logic - Ukraine had the technical know-how to do whatever they wanted with the nukes. Moscow didn't have control, at best on paper - if they had control, there was no need for the Budapest Memorandum.
I keep debunking this propaganda point over and over again lol
What do you mean it was not theirs? The Soviet Union was dissolved and split into multiple states. Russia is not the Soviet Union, just another part of the former Soviet Union like Ukraine.
Russia is not the Soviet Union, except when we need to talk things like the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia or all the other horror stories about the USSR. Then it was indeed Russia, and Ukraine was just a kidnapped state.
Now every country that has the capacity to get a strategic deterrent will race to get one. So much for Biden's escalation management. Too bad Trump likes Russia so much he does everything not to step on their toes. With a heftier backing from the US the Russo-Ukrainian war would be over by now.
My counter-argument to norms being the main deterrent is simple. It’s never going to get easier to hide an Oak Ridge in your rogue state. The industrial scale of uranium enrichment has a fundamental limit, no matter how you do it.
You have to process massive piles of mass into a very small fraction. And you have to collect all those rocks. And that’s just for fission.
As long as any country with preemptive strike capability exists, and satellites exist… I just don’t see how anyone could do it.
Biden took the approach of keeping 10 pairs of gloves on when dealing with Russia. Don't help too little not to make it too easy for the russians, don't help to much to avoid escalation.
>"With a heftier backing from the US the Russo-Ukrainian war would be over by now."
And you know this how? Accordingly to all those initial predictions Russia should be already disintegrated and fallen under heavy sanctions, Putin's regime replaced etc. etc. I suspect all these analytics and think tanks should be cleaning toilets instead.
Also there is a line in that backing crossing which may lead to an all out nuclear war. Rational countries that matter understandably do not want to test it unless their existence is really threatened.
North Korea had enough conventional artillery to level Seoul with an estimated 1M casualties. That was why Clinton decided against attacking North Korea as they moved towards building the bomb:
Iran’s deterrent was/is through its proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis) along with its sizable missile inventory, anti-air capabilities and strategic threats to oil and gas exports.
Israel’s investment in missile defense and the outcome of the Oct 7th attacks severely weakened Iran’s deterrence to a conventional attack.
I think the lesson should be that any nation that has enough conventional leverage to deter an attack could choose to build nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons may complement, but can’t displace other capabilities.
The US has nuclear weapons but that didn’t deter Iran from launching direct attacks on US troops in the Middle East or sponsoring insurgents in Iraq.
Nuclear weapons are also essential worthless against non nation-state actors such as Al-Qaeda.
I have become much more skeptical about DNK’s artillery after seeing the results of a frontline air-superiority stalemate in Ukraine and the Israeli campaign against Iran.
If South Korea’s coalition could establish air superiority over the DMZ and artillery range in the first moves, I think it takes you from “Seoul destroyed” to a “pretty average modern conflict.”
> On one side it is clear that no country should give up their WMD projects.
That sounds insane. I don't think world would be more peaceful if every country under every government had WMDs. We'd be in the middle of nuclear winter now if that was the case. You could draw analogies to everyone owning a gun. We know it just ends up with many more dead and nothing being more peaceful.
> Since you name NK that's a clear example of a country having nuclear deterrent actually saving the region from a conflict.
He's wrong. What protects North Korea is that it's poor, has no natural resources and devastated human capital and neither attacks anyone with terrorist attacks nor credibly prophesies their intent to kill any nation or ethnicity.
If they did that, they'd be steamrolled already. WMDs or not.
> That's speculation. Since you name NK that's a clear example of a country having nuclear deterrent actually saving the region from a conflict.
So, I have an honest (non rhetorical) question: Was NK saved more by having their own nukes, or by sharing a land border with China who has nukes and doesn't want the US getting involved in the area?
> Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked
That's ahistorical in the case of Syria and Iraq. Israel destroyed the nascent nuclear weapons programmes of Syria and Iraq, just as it has done to Iran's. Syria and Iraq did not give up those programmes willingly.
South Africa gave up actual nuclear weapons and didn't get attacked. I think tying the "got attacked" back to "gave up their nuclear program" bit requires justification.
All those countries would have plunged into internal turmoil after arab spring - us involvement or not - so Isis, hezbullah or al quaida with nukes would be the news now.
I never understood the logic.. (or maybe it's the theatric element?) There are other WMD that seem much simpler. If they hypothetically release some horrible biological agent in Israel - it could incapacitate the country overnight
Or set off a dirty bomb to make huge regions unlivable (just the perception of radiation risk would preclude many from living there.. see Fukushima)
Ukraine was not in the examples given and you read both the original post and my response wrong. The post did not say „if you have nuclear weapons you don‘t get attacked“. It said „if you don‘t have nuclear weapons you get attacked“. Of course you get attacked by Russia either way, but that‘s not the point.
The point is that you don‘t get attacked by anyone else unless you‘re a dictatorship.
I feel very conflicted about what's happening.
On one side it is clear that no country should give up their WMD projects. You lack that deterrent you get attacked, as simple as that. Libya, Syria, Iraq gave up their WMD projects eventually got bombed/attacked.
> What happened today likely saved millions of Iranian lives.
That's speculation. Since you name NK that's a clear example of a country having nuclear deterrent actually saving the region from a conflict.