domain:inv.nadeko.net
2D3D
5hr ago
Quisling because they made the devils bargain with the clerics following the grand mosque seizure. The Hashemites should have won over the house of saud, but they overrepresented their position to the colonial powers and could not capitalize on the fall of the ottomans. There is ONE polity that functions exceptionally well in the region on its own merits, and literally everyone ignores them for reasons that baffle me.
All Arab leaders wish to vacation in the West and fund such travels with their receipts from home. Their domestic political situations make reconciliation with the hardliners impossible because islamists rush to fill any political void and their ability to destroy what little influence the Arab nations have is quite astonishing. Left to their own devices, eternal repression and poverty is the only way the leader can keep his neck off a noose, and so they must beg and abase themselves to anyone willing to lend them some technical experts to keep their rigs flowing and the secret police happy.
Southkraut
The rain fell gentlier.
5hr ago
Finished my reading sample of Ninti's Gate, and ended up not buying the book. Pierce seems to have attempted a show-don't-tell approach to worldbuilding and characterization, but ended up moving the plot along too fast. The characters' motivations were completely opaque and the action made no sense.
So I'm still re-reading The Worm Ourobouros. I dunno why. Maybe the pretentious language gets me. Maybe I'm just a sucker of chivalric romance. I don't regret it.
Also picked up the Cyropaedia, but taking it slow.
2D3D
5hr ago
In my ideal world, every state brazenly implementing such a value function in favour of its own citizens ought to be ganged up on by everyone else, until only countries that assign reasonable value even to foreigners remain
Is whats good for the goose good for the gander? The Arab states CONSISTENTLY display and act on their desire to destroy their proximate enemies, be it the neighbor or village or country or cousin. Israel isn't even the most devastating conflict each of their antagonists engaged in, with Egypt intervening in Yemen to lose more troops than the Yom Kippur War and Syria losing.... well, literally everything. Even their domestic conduct and respect for foreigners leaves much to be desired, as anyone who has ever set foot in any of those countries can attest. Try going for Haj if you're not of superior Arab or acceptable White blood, see how they treat you. If you put your value function as 'fuck these constantly defecting assholes', we have EXISTING proof of such actions being conducted ad nauseum. I maintain that the best path for the Israelis is to just buy out Carnival Cruises and go on a nationwide 4 year booze cruise, and let the region implode upon itself.
LazyLongposter
5hr ago
Two caveats. Firstly, my thesis was not "the US should strike NOW", but that Israel succeeding here is undoubtedly very very good for us, and if they needed help to succeed, I'd want to do so. I say that as someone with skin in the game.
It seems to me that obviously either nations with nuclear warheads can be threatened, in which case they can be deterred. Or they can't be, in which case the United States (and Israel) has nothing to worry about. But you seem to be trying to have it both ways!
Secondly, allow me to rephrase: Nuclear weapons make you functionally immune to a conventional invasion and will make anyone think twice about even striking within your borders. At any point during a real conventional invasion you can consider (or declare) your existence threatened and use them to great effect, either wiping out entire armies or the invaders' home front. They do not make you immune to internal rot, discord, economic decline, or anything else, as the USSR will gladly tell you. That this is your opening argument is disheartening, because I find it quite intellectually dishonest to feign ignorance of that distinction.
As such, I don't worry about someone invading the United States. If decades of discord and hostile messaging (bolstered by adversaries who are quite happy to watch us tear ourselves apart without firing a single shot) leads to the United States to cease to exist as a political entity, then we would be quite susceptible to invasion, be it by a hostile force or something more covert. A "North American" continent with dozens of individual nation states that are likely at each others' throats would present a foreign actor many potential inroads into allying with, occupying, subverting, or otherwise controlling part of the landmass. As I live on that landmass, I'd like the huge boon that "two massive oceans and only two continental neighbors" to stay that way. We already have Chinese and other agents coming through our weak border to the south. Imagine that ten or a hundred fold. That is why we can be both a nuclear power and vulnerable.
Nuclear powers can also be defeated abroad, as in within other people's borders, without really having the right (in international eyes) to use the nuclear option. We have failed to achieve many military objectives, as has Russia, and neither have deployed nuclear weapons. But it also means no one can ever go to the source. As for Iran, yes, they have weapons that can reach us, but they are not yet nuclear capable. Once they are, you essentially waive all your chances to military deterrence. And from there stems the problem. A nuclear Iran can proxy war to their hearts' content. A nuclear Iran can threaten to retaliate to conventional Israeli strikes with nuclear weapons (whereas now only Israel can), leading both to consider a nuclear first strike necessary to preserve their existence/secure their victory, depending on perspective. A nuclear Iran can lock up within its borders when its armaments are exhausted and refill its stockpiles and have a credible threat against anyone trying to stop them. They go from being a regional power to a fact of life unless some sort of unconventional method deters them or causes their regime to collapse. Once again, see America. I am reasonably hopeful that we won't collapse in the near future, and I am also reasonably sure that a nuclear Iran would also last quite a while. Even if they didn't, those nukes would have to go somewhere once they collapse, and that's a huge security risk. All you need is one powerful higher up or base deciding they wanted to get massively rich, or being insanely anti-Israeli/American/whatever to sell or use them.
These were all real arguments up to the end of the Cold War, and they ring true now. Every single nation that develops its own nuclear weapons increases the risk of some sort of horrible outcome, be it an entrenched regime, accident, or sale to/use by crazies within or without the government. I don't want it to happen.
FIRST, the United States does not have infinite capacity to do things. If we actually want to fight China, which we've said we want to be able to do publicly, that means very specifically that we cannot write blank checks where ballistic missile interceptors, smart munitions, etc. are involved. We are already arguably under-equipped to deal with the very real Chinese threat, which will likely be a more serious threat to American hegemony than anything that Iran can do. And part of the reason we are under-equipped to fight China is because we canceled procurement and research programs throughout the Global War on Terror to fund the Global War on Terror – effectively eating our own seed corn.
I agree with this. I admittedly did not make this clear enough in my post, but I must say I am aware of the looming threat of China to American interests and I don't want to be bogged down in this. I really hope that Israel succeeds or Iran comes back to the negotiating table, as you said. However, there are two issues here. Firstly, Iran has been "at the negotiating table" several times, including with previous administrations, leading to billions of funds going into their pockets in return for them only pursuing civil nuclear reactors... which they then proceeded to ignore completely. Secondly, the inverse of your statement is true as well: Iran does not have infinite capacity to do things either. They have already used a huge amount of missiles in the current exchange, and their IADS seems to be in shambles. They may already be close to their limit as far as projecting power is concerned, and dealing with them now is a lot more appealing than waiting for an armistice where they are able to refill their reserves. If they actually nuclearize, or perhaps state their intent to use those weapons against the US, and we suddenly have to divert resources back to them to stop an imminent threat, it will be a lot costlier, and likely bloodier.
And the only reliable way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is regime change.
I don't know that this is true. There was a lot of fear about Iraq getting one, and after we utterly demolished their ability to make war in the first Gulf War, they were never a credible threat. That's why the "they're making WMDs" justification for Gulf War 2 is a persistent joke.
Second (another commenter posted in response to this but I'm going to put my reply here, as it's relevant and I've received a number of replies) I think the biggest issue with Gulf War 2 (other than doing it) was that we picked the worst middle ground imaginable. We banned every single Ba'ath party member from ever being in government, which is not even a thing we did with the Nazis or Japanese. This essentially left a fledgling government in the middle of a war zone filled with the unqualified, malcontents, and sometimes literal terrorists in power. That Iraq even exists after ISIS is kind of a miracle to me, not that they're somehow doing great. I think we should have either:
- Completely obliterated their military again, ousted their leaders that time, and left.
- Actually worked with the remaining government to allow for some kind of legitimate regime change.
Both of these things are something I would accept, at least on the home front. "Don't fuck with the US or they'll show up, kill all your leaders, and break all your stuff" is at least something we can credibly do multiple countries. We cannot get continuously bogged down in a 20 year nation building/peacekeeping quagmire.
SECONDLY
I somewhat responded to these points above, but I agree partially. I'll explain below.
If Israel conducts the war successfully, they may reduce the cost of a limited US intervention (destroying the buried nuclear facilities with bunker busters – although it's possible that some of them are buried even too deeply for oversized US ordinance!) to near-zero.
As I said above, I want this to happen. As with Ukraine, I like the idea of adversaries blunting themselves against our allies at zero cost to American lives and (relatively) low cost with materiel. As it is, if we're going to have to strike, I want to strike while the iron is hot and their munitions and defenses are depleted. If we're not going to take our hands off the steering wheel of the entire region and withdraw entirely (which I think is a bad idea outside the scope of this already long-winded discussion), then I want it done now when it's going to be the easiest for us to do.
The Iranian regime may not last forever.
I hope it doesn't. The average Iranian is not a lover of their regime, which is why we see regular protests despite the authoritarian nature of their government. While I've mentioned I prioritize American interests over others, I don't want a single life to be lost. But I have to be realistic and consider the fact that their nation will be able to do damage as long as they're in power, even more if they nuclearize.
2D3D
5hr ago
Much of this comment smacks of US centrism rather than contempt of Israel, though Israel certainly is consistently sneered at by everyone. Theres this weird fiction that the USA is God, that the USA simply flexes and all submit before its might, and that flexing is the only reason Israel is able to exist. It ignores the USA flexing on behalf of Egypt and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and UAE and literally any asshole anywhere in the world that has positional relevance against US strategic threats.
Israel is, unfortunately, not merely a puppeteer that will be helpless once the glorious USA has cut off its strings and unshackled itself to this meddlesome burden of irrelevance. Sanctions don't work if someone has useful shit in the first place, as we see with Iran and USA still able to import all manner of European technologies never mind random Asian crap. Israel has a domestic tech base and production capacity that can be spun up irritatingly quickly, and the entirely of Gaza is within dumb artillery range, a capability that Israel can restart with little effort given that they actually manufacture their small arms themselves and are a net exporter of smart arms.
There is this worldview that the great act and the weak suffer as they must, and the defiance of the weak is merely due to the restraint of the great. Russia conducts itself in this way, as if their dominance is assured and their stumbling in Ukraine is an act of deliberately considered mercy on their part. And as Russia acts, so too does this current iteration of USA in its trade wars, where the first order logic is 'US trade is critical for all other economies, so they will all rush to surrender to our threats'. Its a nice comforting logic that means the weak inferiors are about to collapse immediately and all that must be done is to wake up and simply flick the switch to manifest reality. Flicking the switch to turn off Israel will see that country drowned in its own iniquities, but the bright light from Israel is less likely to be its burning and more the activation of its own backups.
sun_the_second
5hr ago
I have to appreciate just how well-handcrafted the brutal math of the setting is. Particularly the shift from Gu Masters to Gu Immortals. I'll spoiler it because the mechanics are not revealed immediately in the story.
Amazing Cultivation Simulator but for Reverend Insanity setting cannot come fast enough.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
6hr ago
Based on what you say, I'll probably get to Grave Peril sooner than I otherwise planned, thanks.
I agree with @Muninn that the first two books are just OK. Book 3, for me, is where the series really grabbed me as something special. And from there on out he keeps that high level of quality pretty consistently.
2D3D
6hr ago
If everything is Genocide, nothing is Genocide. The cooler heads currently in power in Egypt and Jordan are the ones imploring Israel to not go forth with the mass exodus, because Egypt and Jordan are even less ready to deal with an eternally hostile population than the Israelis are. Egypt just kicked out several hundred 'peace activists' that wanted to go show their support for Gaza by marching into Rafah, and the entire world was just reminded that Egypts border wall with Gaza is even more intense than Israels. The neat new trick is that these border walls are there for Palestines benefit because 'if they were allowed to leave then the Palestinian cause would be extinguished', and I for one REALLY hope this logic takes full root everywhere because then every single asylum seeker will be denied on compassionate grounds. No, little Aylan, you must stay in shitholestan to keep the dream of the PKK alive.
2D3D
6hr ago
Maybe we should just abandon Israel and let them sink or swim on their own. I'd actually be okay with that, as long as there are no crocodile tears when Israel says "Fine, we'll show you what a genocide actually looks like."
Foreign intervention on behalf of local proxies seems weighted towards Israel only because Israel seems to have the best ROI for stability generation. Supporting Iran lead to its revolution, supporting Iraq lead to the Gulf War, etc etc etc. Despite that, CENTCOM still has to swing its dick to shower 'regional support' jizz to thirsty Saudis and the Gulf States because without that the whole region goes even further to hell. Its a shit pot with shitty players that will blow up the casino if they aren't bankrolled by a big daddy somewhere, and US/West either plays big daddy or China gets more notches in its Belt (and road). Israel just happens to be the least shit player in a table full of self destructive retards (including Israel). Besides, foreign intervention restrains more than enables. Were it not for foreign intervention Israel would have had parades through Cairo and Damascus in 73, if not 67, and effective control of the Suez in 50whatever. Israel actually produces shit that makes sanctioning it ineffective, just like how Russia and even Iran sanctions don't even matter. If Israel truly had a free hand, they'd force all the Gazans to be Egyptian citizens and West Bank to be Jordanians, like the Palestinians Territories were before the Egyptians and Jordanians got sick of their shit. Forced displacement is nothing foreign to the middle east, and the last great Palestinian exodus was the Kuwaitis kicking out 400k Palestinians. Its well known that no one gives a single shit about 130k Jews expelled from Iraq back in the 1950s, and we can see no one gives a shit about Arabs kicking out other Arabs. Any foreign intervention on behalf of Jews is conducted out of necessity to keep a tenuous balance beyond the Middle East in place, not out of love for the Jews.
remzem
6hr ago
So do you think it was a mistake to make nice with Jolani? He's ex al-qaeda and had ties to ISIS. The majority of deadly attacks in the west, 9/11, charlie hebdo, bataclan, nice, etc. Were either ISIS or al-qaeda, either directly or inspired. Iran's / hezbollah / houthi attacks have been more military targets and less civilian. Yet the US had no problem making nice with him and removing the bounty from his head the second he happened to topple a country that was an impediment to the expansion of their empire, but no real threat to American lives.
The Iran thing really has nothing to do with keeping us safe, and everything to do with expanding our dear leaders' geopolitical power.
2D3D
6hr ago
I'm just waiting for random attacks on buildings to be justified as 'Theres a SCIF there!' and have a whole web of 3 letter national agencies try to figure out which dumbfuck might have put a SCIF in Office Tower 55.
Before I get accused of 'justifying attacks on civilians' (not that I particularly care about the moral valence of such a statement as much as I care about the trotting out of this thought-terminating cliche as some gotcha meant to end all subsequent conversation), the primary objection to mass ballistic strikes against theoretical civilian or decision making centers is that there often will be more immediate threats that actually further ones cause of shifting the balance of power. Hegseth can shitpost from the Pentagon Pizza Hut all he wants, but if the 5th Fleet is blocked off the Strait of Hormuz he's just being a little bitch. The Houthis arguably achieved more strategic impact by lobbing shitbottles at random vessels in the Red Sea than the Hamas rocket attacks ever did.
No_one
6hr ago
Well, exercise could always speed it up although that'd probably be incredibly unpleasant I guess.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
6hr ago
If they wanted to do this, why muck about for the last 30-40 years without getting nukes? It really doesn't take that long. They've got plenty of engineering expertise and oil money to spend on it.
Iran has demonstrated that it has the intent to strike the west and US if it can. They are working on the capability, and once that's done, an active nuclear arsenal presents them the opportunity at any time.
The West? What Western country has Iran struck? France? Germany? Japan? Canada? They could bring out a bunch of drones from a shipping container and cause mayhem in any major city if they wanted.
Iran only strikes Israel and US bases right on its borders, with the US launching strikes on Iran and generally acting in a hostile fashion (sanctions, cyberattacks, proxy wars, assassinations, open threats to invade). The Houthis attacked a bunch of shipping as part of a campaign against Israel.
Iran is an American foe. But it doesn't necessarily have to be this way. It could be less of a US foe, like Venezuela for instance. Or it could be a friend. The US's biggest victory in the Cold War was swaying Maoist China away from the Soviet Union. Maoist China had actively fought and killed thousands, maybe tens of thousands of US troops in a major war. Total ideological incompatibility. They hated America and were super, duper crazy. Iran is much less of a foe than China was in the 1960s. Yet the US was able to work constructively with China and shift 1/3 or so of the Red Army into the far east, facing their former ally. Suddenly the US stopped needing to fight wars in East Asia! Diplomacy is really powerful!
There were opportunities to reopen relations with Iran during the 1990s but the US pursued an unhelpful strategy of 'dual containment' of both Iran and Iraq since neither were friendly towards Israel. Obama tried to improve relations with Iran but Trump then nixed this initiative.
Now the US is involved in yet another Middle East conflict. This is strategically foolish - China and Iran were the biggest winner of the Iraq War. China got much of the liberated oilfields and the US navy defending their shipping lanes for free! Iran got most of the country of Iraq. Terraforming the Middle East to be friendly towards Israel is extremely costly and dangerous and doesn't work. It should be much less of a priority than the primary theatre of conflict, with the great powers.
Iranian militias in Iraq wouldn't exist if the Iraqi government hadn't been demolished by America. No US troops would die if they weren't there. There's no need for them to be present, the damage is already done. Iraq has been pushed into Iran's sphere of influence (about 40% of the way to puppet state), at US/Coalition expense. It's time to take the L and depart.
China will be a winner of this war too. There is little they want to see more than US air defence stockpiles depleted by Iranian missiles, carrier groups redeployed from the Pacific to the Middle East. Russia is another winner if oil prices rise, though it's bad for China, probably evens out. There is no reason to face Russia, China and Iran at the same time when Iran could've been turned. Too late now but don't double down further on an error!
A better strategy would be to tell Israel to shut up about Iran and move on. Iran hasn't nuclearized in the last 30 years when the Israelis continuously shrieked it was going to happen in a few months or so. Barring a major shock like this attempted disarming strike, they're unlikely to nuclearize, there's a fatwa against it. Iran didn't retaliate with chemical weapons after Iraq gassed 20,000 of them to death, a more than reasonable provocation! Putting more pressure on Iran is the exact way to get them to undo the fatwa and nuclearize.
More than that, North Korea is an extremely poor country which has continuously struggled to develop a missile program. I don't think that it's outside the realm of possibility that they do, but again, at least there's some reason as to why we all sat around on it.
They already have ICBMs that can hit the US. North Korea is another example of the danger of the 'I can't even spell diplomacy' trend in DC. Sanctions and threats don't result in compliant denuclearization (certainly not after going in on Iraq and Libya when they'd complied), they end up with tens of thousands of North Korean troops fighting on Russia's side in Ukraine.
GBRK
7hr ago
Not an argument, but I have a hard time accepting that the "bomb iran" people are working in good faith from solid natsec principles-- because the majority of rabidly pro-israel partisans I've met are republican and therefore at least defacto ukraine-skeptic. Like, I can intellectually understand that there are honest to god neocons out there voting for Holden Bloodfeast whenever possible, and in principle I sympathize quite a lot with them. But they seem to occupy very, very little of the media environment I'm exposed to. Pairing that with my supreme lack of faith in the current administration, I have this kneejerk response that any ammunition we're throwing into the middle east is probably being wasted compared to the alternative option of putting it into Ukrainian stockpiles.
GBRK
7hr ago
Naw, I just have the right combination of impatience, paranoia, and astigmatism.
Hoffmeister25
American Bukelismo Enthusiast
7hr ago
Right, I understand that much, I just don’t understand what their existence is supposed to imply about social relations on this continent. Are people able to suppress the appearance of spren related to an emotion they’re currently feeling but would like to conceal? Can actors cause spren to appear which outwardly indicate the appearance of a particular emotion, even when the actor is not authentically experiencing that emotion internally? Maybe some of these things get explored later in the series, but for right now they just seem like a weird decoration or curiosity.
The author flexes further by churning out an enormous number of memorable and likeable characters, the majority of them worthy of their own novels. Yet the world is cruel, and he's crueler, and few who go up against Fang Yuan come out of it the victor. I've wept at some of their fates, the sheer valiance, their raging against the dying of the light or their efforts to uphold their values till the end. They inhabit the world they're in, they think, reason and plot. Fang Yuan isn't the one character in the universe with the ability to plan ahead.
Indeed. I've always struggled to write solid characters, and I'd be loathe to throw them away unless absolutely necessary for the plot. Gu Zhen Ren doesn't give two fucks, he'll make you feel for people who have maybe 5 lines of dialogue.
Even Fang Yuan says that he's not the only main character, that's just the perspective of his story. There are plenty of other people fated and blessed with good fortune and talent, and they get plenty of limelight. I suppose that's a strong perk of writing in third person, the author can easily show off alternative perspectives, and much of the time, they're no dumber or less internally rich than the MC.
Said regime hates the US with a burning passion, both for backing the monarchy and for getting in the way of a regional Islamic revolution in the entire region.
I feel like this is so emblematic of the blinders people have. Really, you think Iran hates the US for the Islamic revolution and not the US-Israeli "alliance" and its belligerence towards all Iran's regional neighbors- Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, and so forth. Saying it's about the Islamic revolution just makes me wonder what planet you are living on. Israel has said it will only accept the "Libya model" of nuclear disarmament. The "Libya model" means: you give up your nuclear program, then we topple your regime. The notion Iran just has some irrational hatred towards the US is so ridiculous.
Personally, it makes me understand why some people think Israel is simply America's attack dog, doing the dirty work we don't want to be involved in directly.
Again- living in the land of pure fantasy. Israel got America to do the dirty work in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon and Syria. How many troops did Israel deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan? Zero, despite the loss of thousands of American lives. And now it is plainly obvious that Israel initiated war with Iran with the intent and plan to force the United States to enter the war. They have already requested US assistance to enter the war and admitted they can't achieve their war objectives without the United States.
I agree with the thrust of your post in that I am not isolationist, I understand America as an Empire with imperial interests and obligations. But doing so leads to the obvious conclusion that Zionism is and has been immensely harmful to the imperial interests of the United States, and that toppling the regime in Iran is foremost a play for the interests of International Zionism and not the United States or Europe.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
7hr ago
One thing I'd add is that it's not solely 'Fang Yuan mauling people', it explores the perspectives of other sides too. We see people who are sincerely righteous and good-hearted struggling to do justice in the world, or what they see as justice. I think Duke Long had a lot of good points, he's not a clear villain. In another story he'd be the paladin, the HFY hero, the Lan Mandragoran 'death is lighter than a feather, duty heavier than a mountain' type. In many respects he's more human than Fang Yuan, though less in others.
KMC
7hr ago
The spren are shinto spirits, or sentient ideas and thoughts. They're part faerie, part ghost, part imagination made manifest.
KMC
7hr ago
Books 1 and 2 are really two parts of what should have been one, big, book. Books 3, 4, and 5 are the remnants of what should have been a good trilogy, with some fantastic moments that just don't hold together well enough.
The one-backstory-character-per-book would have actually worked if it were a trilogy. It really let me down in books 4 and 5.
ABigGuy4U
8hr ago
This is a very good post. I would add another couple of points:
-
Actually invading Iran would be very difficult, much harder than Iraq, and would risk turning into America’s Ukraine War.
-
From the Israel perspective, a secular Iranian nationalist government isn’t necessarily going to to be a lot friendlier. There are many Iranian dissidents who think that the Islamic Republic government is cowardly and has been going much too easy on Israel over the last two decades. And that is somewhat true, the Ayatollahs are unpopular and any foreign adventure is risky because of their low support at home. There are very good non-religious, non-ethnic reasons for Iran and Israel to be at each other’s throats. Each stands to be the major regional power in the Middle East and the town isn’t big enough for the two of them. In the long-run, a secular Iranian government with high levels of popular support that is competent and actually has its shit together is probably a lot worse for Israel.
faceh
8hr ago
What's funny is that back when the chapters were being released live, people used to complain when it got far afield of "Harry Potter pokes holes in or abuses the laws of magic", as many seemed to genuinely expect that the series would end with Harry discovering the source of all magic and using that to become God or somesuch.
Also, the reveal of Quirrell's true identity caught a lot of people off guard.
There's maybe a fair critique there, the series starts to get REALLY BIG in the scope of its ideas when you're past the midpoint, and brings in a lot of characters and implies a LOT going on... then as it comes in for a landing the plot has a laser focus on the few main characters. And then the somewhat unfortunate message, which is all but outright stated in the last couple chapters is: "Only about a dozen people in the WHOLE WORLD are capable of making any real difference in the grand scheme of things."
So people who came in hoping for Harry to break everything were let down... and yet there's literally no doubt at the end of the book that Harry is the most important person in history™. Which isn't a knock against the plot, but looking back its pretty on-the-nose as to how EY and perhaps other rationalists view themselves.
I've not heard of Israel killing every Palestinian child who says "when I grow up, I will kill you", or anything to that effect.
Of course, it's "their child soldiers weaponized and brainwashed by propaganda - our lads providing assistance to our guerillas". It's hard to have read the accounts (even if fictional) of Soviet children helping resist the German occupation during WW2 and not have some respect for the child soldier. But the respect comes with tacit understanding that once you pick up the pistol or carry intelligence for the military, the German can kill you and be no more in the wrong than killing your soldiers in general.
More options
Context Copy link