-10
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
-10 points (39.1% liked)
Fediverse
17795 readers
31 users here now
A community dedicated to fediverse news and discussion.
Fediverse is a portmanteau of "federation" and "universe".
Getting started on Fediverse;
- What is the fediverse?
- Fediverse Platforms
- How to run your own community
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
if everyone in a conversation takes your statement a certain way that you didn't mean then you need to accept that you did a shit job at communicating
Why are you incapable of actually arguing about these points? Can you do anything other than this metatextual shit about how people are misreading you? How about actually discuss Iran or geopolitics?
Because you started a discussion with other people and made unfounded claims, you should anticipate a response. You shouldn't just misapply made up debate rules to act smug without backing up anything you said. This is assuming you're interested in exchanging information with other people and learning. 🤠
Sorry am I making up that you compared the Iranian President to Bin Laden AND Hitler, and said his death should be celebrated? Was that a dream? Are we going into conniptions?
In what way? I am trying to start a discussion both about why you believe this man's death should be celebrated, the premises of what you think about the government in iran, and what the reality of a collapsing state looks like, what kind of world we would really live in if mccain's dream of nuking iran were realized, the intersection of the president's death with geopolitics, the western instrumentalization of orgs like HRW to go soft on israel and hard on targets we want to exploit & enclose or push out of competition, regional politics
you are free to step out and come back later but it's clear you don't want to talk about the differences between this guy, bin laden, and hitler. it's actually far more interesting than "bad man die is good. me very smart no explain"
Problem is they are not analogous.
Just admit you make awful comparisons and fail to make analogies work.
Hitler, for one, had a specific fascist ideology comparable to Mussolini. I'd feel comfortable comparing the two. Not only based on their alliance and ideology alone, but also their actions taken.
When we compare people to Hitler, we generally make the assumption that we are talking about genocide, fascism, and an extreme passion for exterminating and villifying the "other" (whether that be Jews or Muslims or Slavs or something else). I wouldn't even make a comparison between Hitler and Netanyahu if I had to be professional and make time for an appropriate comparison.
On to Bin Laden, now. Why isn't he similar to Hitler? Back in the day, the US had a strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia. Backing the dollar with gold wasn't the best plan for us, we didn't gain a strong advantage doing so. Saudi Arabia was happy to help us with new US policy abroad. We went above and beyond to treat Saudi monarchs to the best life available, all at our expense. We even ignored the Saudis backing of people like Bin Laden back when we first knew of his type, all the way in the 1970s. We even used his allies and people with the Mujahideen that fought against the Soviets in the 1980s. Long story short, we had a blowback incident. 9/11 came around to hit us, likely with Saudis allowing it to happen while US intelligence was too incompetent or bogged down to act effectively (or maybe we knew and couldn't or wouldn't do anything). We went to war with Iraq and Afghanistan - not Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan was a failure the US contributed to actively for about 20 years, not including the interference from years prior. The Taliban is still governing Afghanistan today in fact. It wasn't anything like Hitler, except for the brutal anti-Communism. It certainly wasn't like Raisi either, considering that Iran and Afghanistan's Taliban aren't on the best terms.
I would compare Raisi to General Torrijos. Why is that? Because they were both nationalists, both concerned with sovereignty and not bending the will of their country to the US, yet each of them were not inherently accepting of either far-right extemist ideology or Communism (or other explictly left-wing political movements or ideologies). In spite of ideological differences, they both had a desire to stay neutral, choose key allies, and were rather accepting of liberation movements. People didn't really celebrate the death of Torrijos, at least in Panama. I wouldn't say people were exceptionally happy in Iran about the death of Raisi either. They weren't good leaders per se, but they stood on principles. I don't care for either figure myself, but I recognize who they were and what they fought for as humans.