ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
The US has just like every other country and organization in the history of the world done bad shit at times. In the US when this has been discovered it has usually resulted in scandal, firings, and at times jail.
First of all, who went to prison for sponsoring the FSA or Afghan kiddie-diddlers? Secondly, which part of "I don't care" don't you understand? I think various states, including the US , have done a lot worse things than sponsoring terrorism, so I don't fret over you doing it, and I won't over Iran doing it either.
Generally speaking the really bad stuff has been an accident or orthogonal to the goal.
Literally everybody says that.
Iran's explicit foreign policy is terrorism.
Do you happen to have a link the an official Iranian policy statement that explicitly promotes terrorism?
They do this to such an extent that it seems that stopping their terrorists was an existential threat, and is how we got the current awful situation.
To who does it seem this way? Iran didn't start bombing people until you attacked them, so I don't see how it would be existential to them. It's definitely not existential to the US, and even calling it this for Israel seems like a massive stretch.
Support of these things is....bad. It has eroded international norms, changed our relationship with unacceptable tactics like using hospitals as military bases.
Again, I see no reason to attribute it directly to Iran. The US or Israel do not answer for the crimes of every proxy they sponsor.
Somehow they've run a highly successful pro-terrorism PR campaign that has dramatically damaged the Western coalition.
Do you want to know what the PR campaign was? It was your little "global war on terror", that promised to bring peace and stability to the region if only you topple Saddam Hussein, and only brought death, misery, and more terrorism, immediately lined up Iran as the next "final boss" who's fall is supposed to bring peace, and is already prepping to set up the next one after that. All Iran had to do was sit back, and let you do you work.
Sort of... I guess this is where the "long" part of the long march comes in. Sure, you can still see conservative influence on these institutions, but it's still seems pretty obviously being chipped away at.
I don't quite see the point of the exclusivity, though, be it geographic or ethnic.
Some of the things he's done, notably on migration, necessarily involved picking fights with Brussels.
The EU institutions have never been committed to unlimited immigration
Hungary asylum policies 'failed' to fulfill EU obligations.
The claims from the pro-EU people here are bizarre, it's like we can't admit the EU made a mistake, let alone that they tried forcing it on others, so when the wind starts blowing in a different direction we have to do the "we have always been at war wit Eastasia" bit.
A deal where Hungary lets in a small number of vetted refugees (who are already settled in Italy) in exchange for a large amount of cash and promises not to close its intra-EU borders works for both sides.
Hungary has never closed it's borders to EU citizens, and as for the rest, what if they don't want large amounts of cash for a """small number""" of """vetted""" """refugees"""? Is it perhaps the case that "some of the things he's done, notably on migration, necessarily involved picking fights with Brussels"?
- i don't really care much for the "US has done bad things argument". "All is fair in love and war" (well, within reason), so supporting some shady guys doesn't really faze me. However, this is why I don't understand the moral outrage about Iran and it's proxies.
- You did a bit more then "send some guns" in Afghanistan, these guys were joined to you at the hip.
- I'll need more than your sayso to believe the "effectively the same as an additional military arm of the state" bit. Exaggerating the enemies' transgressions and downplaying your own is basic human nature, and something that every human collective has done since the dawn of time. The US military, intelligence, and foreign policy apparatus is also no different from that of other states, in that it lies all the time to promote it's goels. All in all you might sell me on the difference of scale (show me the numbers, though), but I don't know if I can buy the difference in kind, unless it's argued by a neutral observer (and I don't know if one even exists right now).
In Afghanistan you supported literal Bacha Bazi enjoyers. In Syria you supported the Free Syrian Army.
I find the question bizarre and naive in general. You think there are many militias in the Middle East that don't engage in rape, murder, and torture, that the US can pick and choose from? The only reason you haven't heard about this is that Israel can blast their own cries through a friendly megaphone, while everybody else gets a shrug.
That's a world apart from the US dropping off some RPGs and training to the Taliban against the USSR.
You were doing that crap up until a few years ago, and that's assuming you're not doing it still. It just comes off as "it's ok when we do it".
Nothing, why would it be otherwise? The US and Israel don't answer for every crime of every militant group they sponsor.
For the sake of US readers here I think it’s worth pointing out that what American right-wing political wonks think of as the long march through the institutions never really did happen in the Central European countries that integrated to the EU and NATO.
I mean... the integration into the EU was the long march. It had it's advantages, like gradually replacing the blatant communist "you better have an envelope with you, if you want to get anything done" corruption with "we follow the law, it just so happens that the law says we need to give money to a network of "N"GOs to tell us to do what we wanted to do anyway" corruption, but the establishment institutions are just as cooked as the American ones.
Please define "acting more rationally"
"Acting proportionally to an aggression" for a start.
What specifically is it about of the US, Israel, and the Gulf States recent dealings with the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IRGC that you view as "irrational"
The bombing campaign in itself far exceeds anything Iran has done against US or Israel, and threatening to bomb their civilian infrastructure was psychotic.
For the same reason it's happening to Spain or Greece? It doesn't matter what the immigrants themselves ideally would want.
- EU founding values: Commission starts legal action against Hungary and Poland for violations of fundamental rights of LGBTIQ people - July 15, 2021
- Commission refers HUNGARY to the Court of Justice of the EU over violation of LGBTIQ rights - July 15, 2022
- In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court: Declare that, by adopting (Law LXXIX of 2021 adopting stricter measures against persons convicted of paedophilia and amending certain laws for the protection of children), Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under EU law in the following ways... - June 5, 2025
Just off the top my head, and I think I recall a similar case about their immigration policy. This is without getting into how the EU pushes it's cultural agenda by attaching strings to investment/infrastructure funds (the Polish case got dropped because they were content to twist their arms that way), or how they blatantly manipulate member states' elections.
It's fine, I didn't bet for the money.
The "continuous fights it picks with the EU" are precisely about the EU decision makers not being happy with the type of people Hungary elects for itself, and the domestic/cultural policy it wants to set.
Even after you've decapitated half of their leadership, they're still acting more rationally than either the US or Israel, so quite a lot, actually.
I will again point out that this would still be true, if you reinstated African slavery today.
Hard to say without being able to read someone's mind, and you might as well ask the same question about mass migration supporters.
That's a rather lax definition, it lets off the hook every utopian mass-murdering sociopath.
Young productive men are functionally slaves in modern western societies. They work for a pittance while the vast majority of their economic output goes to their betters through many mechanisms of taxation and redistribution,
Young productive men are substantially better off now then they have been for practically all of history. Despite taxation, the amount of wealth even the poorer man in the first world can access is still greater than many kings of the past.
The same would be true, if you literally reintroduced African slavery in the US today, and It was probably even true back when slavery was still legal in the US, so I don't see how this argument is valid.
Yes, but how is that surprising? Look at the drama over trans issues, or mass migration, or MAID, or models of criminal justice... people end up with polar opposite values all the time, and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how smart, brave, or loyal they are.
I can see the outline for a counterargument that goes, "race is causative of ethnicity (meaning: race linked culture), which is causative of marital status of parents, immigrant status, etcetera, which are causative of violence." Again, though... You can just filter on the direct causes instead. Fatherless behavior looks similar regardless of race
Sure, I'm quite inclined to see fatherlessness as causative, but doesn't it give you pause that we were just talking about SES, sex, and age as causative, and we're moving on to fatherlessness without skipping a beat?
and regardless of race I would discriminate against young men engaged in it.
(...)
Your goal is to minimize the average likelyhood of the people returned by that query committing a crime against you. In which order would you prioritize removing adjectives from the following list?
[Black fatherless poor druggie young male]
I would go for either "druggie" or "male" first, then after those two are gone "poor", then either "young" or "fatherless".
Look at the numbers from zeke. I don't see how you can put either sex or age before race. You can find similar results for SES.
It literally isn't though. If you keep everything constant except sex, male vs female is still HUGELY predictive of criminality. If you keep everything constant except race, the relationship is much, much weaker.
Are you sure? I don't have a link, but I remember saying breakdowns by sex, age, and race, where the criminality statistics for blacks looked pretty dismal (black women coming out worse than white men).
but that's still not a convincing reason to look at mostly proxy factors for criminality (like race) rather than much more causitice factors like SES.
Again, I'm pretty sure SES is also just a proxy, and actually a poorer one than race.
Ok, in that case they're co-owning to strait being closed for two more years, but without Iran being bombed.
Looks like you are right. The US is truly the vampire of the world.
In the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, the U.S. Congress mandated the use of biometrics in U.S. visas
Shout out to the nice customs people who, the one and only time I went to the US, thought it would be fun to play ping-pong with me:
- [After waiting in line] you're at the wrong window, you have to go to that one over there
- [After waiting in another line] No, you have to go to that window over there
- [One more time..., and this may or may not have been the first window I came to...] Man..., you gotta speak up for yourself, you can't let people treat you like that....
I suppose I should be grateful for the free lesson.
- Prev
- Next

How did that turn out?
More options
Context Copy link