We should form a rainbow-color coalition, invade on your premise, wage an unwinnable war for 20 years, and then ditch everything when it's apparent Western values are not welcomed by the local guerrilla.
> Why is it okay to attack Iran? Unless in a state of war, it seems just as “not-evil” to do this to the US or UK, no?
Iran funds, plans and executes terrorist attacks around the world, including Europe and the United States (via proxy organizations, and it also mostly fails, which is nice).
Iran supplies Russia with drones for its war with Ukraine (obviously this is after Stuxnet, but just pointing out they are aligned with Russia/China against the West).
Iran openly calls for the destruction of the United States and Israel (can you guess where its future nuclear weapons will be pointed at?).
How is it not okay for the United States and Israel to sabotage their nuclear program? How is it equivalent to sabotaging the UK?
That's semantics. The US does much much worse things, but because the US or the EU brand something "terrorist" then those that support it in one way or another are evil?
How many have Iran killed? The war on terror alone have caused more than 500.000 deaths. Sure you can say Iran is evil, but nothing you said makes them an okay target more than the US, UK, EU, etc.
I've been struggling with this for a long time. Maybe it's also because when I talk about and try to encourage the conversation, I oversimplify the programming part. I always try to encourage others not to think of it as sorcery, even though sometimes it is. But all of this is just to give non-experts the idea that it's simple to understand broadly. Of course, I spare them the time and technical details that require deep knowledge, just to keep them afloat.
No matter what ideology one follows, the pervasive nature of platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and other interactive social media is inevitably problematic. This issue extends to platforms like X and Substack as well, which, despite their unique offerings, are not immune to the fundamental pitfalls of social media. They are breeding grounds for propaganda and contribute to a harmful addiction to endless, mindless scrolling. These platforms often become echo chambers, reinforcing misinformation and diminishing the quality of discourse. The risk is universal; irrespective of personal beliefs or ideologies, anyone can get infected by this detrimental cycle.
The contradiction arises because the user "flashback" depicts it as an either-or scenario. It shouldn't be interpreted as an exclusive OR statement; instead, there might be a nuanced interplay between thinking and feeling.
It's weird that we live in a time where my initial reaction upon reading your comment was "this guy is definitely an AI bot". "That" phrasal structure + freshly created account? I'm simultaneously thinking that maybe I'm being unfair to a real human being and that I'm not really sure if I should care at this point... maybe the new machine men with machine hearts will be more humane than the machine men with machine hearts we have today.
Too many policies are based on too little reason, with too much feeling, all while thinking they're scientific, but without taking human feelings into account, they fail harder each time they are tried. But who am I to know better; Surely with the right person in charge, this time it will work…
I think feel isn't precise enough, maybe compassion is better? In the speech, Chaplain opposes the Nazis, yet the main tool the Nazis used to gain and hold power in Germany was by emotion, distributed thru speeches on the radio especially. Hitler was a highly emotional speaker. WWII didn't occur due to a lack of feeling.
Was there more emotional rhetoric than is otherwise used in politics?
Personally the “hitler mind controlled everyone with his speach” theory that I was told in the 90s just isn’t convincing. Facism was in the zeitgeist around the world.
They believed the "stabbed in the back" narrative like the US establishment believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Irak.
It was a motivated belief, thoroughly uninformed by rational thought, and maintaining and spreading that belief took no small amount of blatant lies and cynicism.
It's interesting how statements can sometimes seem contradictory on their own. The first statement may highlight the importance of emotions, while the concluding one emphasizes reason and progress.
Together they might suggest a balance between thoughtful reflection and the hope of a rational and progressive world.
