50 years to the day

[summit]

Especially if we are talking about going to war with another country we need to hear their actual words and intentions.

You aren't even wrong. You are famliar with the basic principles of propoganda and information operations, right? Do you think totalitarian and theocractic bad actors are trying to sincerely communicate openly and honestly with the American public via their agents? Because that is exactly what you are implying with your comment.

I think it is because you have a good heart.

I think your brain actually understands that Iran is trying to achieve their geopolitical goals by not being forthright but instead saying what they think will maniupulate the American mindset into the course of action Iran would prefer.

[summit]

When we hear from hamas on NPR (through their mouthpieces and allies), they talk about the horrors of living through a war with israel. This would be somewhat akin to hearing from spokespeople for Al-Sadr back in Iraq about the horrors civilians were facing while living through a war with America. It is good perspective to have that WAR IS HELL

You think that the right thing to do is be influenced by known evil motherfuckers who are at war with us by allowing them to disingenously influence our hearts through information operations?

No, you weren't thinking that. I know that.

But that is what you are effectively implying unintentionally because you think it is worthy of considering the consequences of our actions, but there is a difference between consdieration and subjecting ourselves to literal enemy propoganda dressed up as a valid source. This isn't a scholarly emotionless debate 30 years after the fact. It is a public relations campaign meant to steer national action.

We didn't need Osama bin Laden's minion telling sob stories about how the US is offending his version of Islam by existing and allowing women to go to school.

We didn't need Hitler's minions telling sob stories about how our bombing campaign caused civilian collateral.

We didn't need Tojo's minions telling sob stories about how our submarine campaign was leading to starvation.

We don't need Khomemi's minions trying to convince the nation they call The Great Satan and have been at war with for 46 years that really we are just being so unfair.

A pretty decent point made by Titra in that NPR interview you posted a ways back, was that Israel had/has a vested interest in the US-Iran nuclear talks failing. They are tired of kicking the can down the road on that (20+ years now)

Most western leaders realize we shouldn't kick the can, but we are afraid of the consequences. Israel is most sensitive to Iran getting nuclear capability, as are our Arab partners. But, Israel actually would genuinely benefit from a genuine nuclear deal,

That is the key to Titra's deception when pandering Iranian theocracy. It is taqqiya. Iran has no intent of agreeing to anything reasonable, much less quickly, because they hope to get their capability first. And, if they agree, they intend to ensure the agreement either is unenforcable or easily violated. This is blatantly obvious to just about anyone who has studied the issue.

stop the proxy war funding.

Apart from the fact that there is no guarantee or even a likelihood that anything like regime change can be accomplished by a limited air campaign, which is the most Israel can ever hope for from the US. But stopping proxy war funding is literally in the interested of everyone on the fucking planet besides Iran and maybe Russia. Of course Titra isn't going to admit that point because he is sticking to the Iranian playbook of pushing for the least aggressive foreign policy that he can convince anyone to take in the name of being nice and friendly because that tweaks idealists heartstrings whether the self identify as utopian defenders of the downtrodden or dystopian isolationists.

because Iran was so close to nuclear breakout, or was it done because a nuclear deal was close to being done that would have kept the threat to Israel

There was no nuclear deal anywhere close to being done because Iran had blatantly refused to negotiate on anything reasonable. The US had said so. Iran had said so. Yet you literally have Titra implying Israel attacked Iran to stop an imminent deal in one interview and Negar Mortazavi saying the US was unreasonably to expect Iran to agree to anything without years of negotiations first. This is the mindfuck Iran is putting out there and the danger of allowing Iranian mouthpieces to be trotted around as reasonable and reputable experts on the topic instead of manipulators.

[highangle]

I have no concrete view as to what the US should do, allow, encourage. There is a chance to entirely re-make the ME and I want to be damn sure what we do is what we should do, for the long view. I don't trust Netenyahu or Trump when it comes to that. They only seek to consolidate power or score political points.

Netanyahu isn't Israel any more than Trump is America, even though both of them want you to think they are.

Iran has had this shit coming for a long time...

https://v.redd.it/6mv0gy2hai6f1

[summit]

Nuclear, this is the first and only time I've called you out for being antisemetic, and it was because you were: saying Zionists control the US is an antisemetic dog whistle. It is not really debatable and trying to escape with a half hearted "oh I didn't mean THE JEWS, I just meant MOSTLY THE JEWS" even if you were being sincere.

Saying that "the US is controlled by Zionists" is considered antisemitic because it echoes long-standing, harmful conspiracy theories about Jewish people exerting secret or undue control over governments and global affairs. It invokes longstanding antisemitic conspiracy tropes by just slightly reframing the longstanding BS claims that Jews secretly control governments, banks, or media. Such claims have been central to antisemitic propaganda for centuries (e.g., The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forged document that falsely claims a Jewish plot for world domination).

When someone says "Zionists control the US," it's often a coded way of saying “Jews control the US,” whether intentionally or not.

[The Nuclear Option]

And if you're entirely wrong and just using that as a BS high horse to sit on? Does it strengthen or weaken your arguments when you recklessly and erroneously accuse people of being antisemitic?
In your mind Israel = Judaism and any criticism if the impacts or actions of Israel are antisemitic.
So Summit, you want thought police. Who get’s to be the thought police?Me or you? RT

[californiagrown]

We didn't need Osama bin Laden's minion telling sob stories about how the US is offending his version of Islam by existing and allowing women to go to school.

Well, yeah, actually we kinda did. First to undestand how kooky he and his beliefs were. And second, to understand how our actions in the ME in the preceeding decades influence him and others like him to blame and attack america. So that we kept that in mind for americas actions going forward, and what the ripple effects could look like.

More information is better. May the best argument win. I dont want to live in an echo chamber where the only voices and viewpoints i hear are those that i already agree with, and i certainly dont want to live in a world where the only views i hear are ones that my government wants me to hear (such as diplomats from close allies).

[RTsucks]

I for one am deeply skeptical of evangelical zionists. Don't think I've ever might one who wasn't somewhat antisemitic at minimum. Haven't met them all. Trying to keep it that way.

[summit]

Poor Nuclear, so oppressed.

You weren't "just innocently criticizing Israel"

You decided to say that the US was controlled by Zionists and you were using Zionist as a slur. So whether you were intentional or were just being ignorantly bigoted, you need to be better.

[summit]

RT: in my limited experience with evangelical "zionists," they either want a place to put the Jews that isn't near them, or they need the Jews to be in Zion to trigger the second coming of Jesus. Either way, their motivations do not consider the Jews in any way kindlier than "shoving those nonbelievers into Israel is kinder than Hitler's solution."

[summit]

Well, yeah, actually we kinda did. First to undestand how kooky he and his beliefs were. And second, to understand how our actions in the ME in the preceeding decades influence him and others like him to blame and attack america. So that we kept that in mind for americas actions going forward, and what the ripple effects could look like. More information is better. May the best argument win.

I see your point and strenuously disagree because you are predicating it on the idealistic belief that if we just relate and better understand irreconciable mortal enemies, then things will be better, even if our understanding of them is to know they are, as you put it, "kooky" for wanting to say convert us all by the sword or otherwise enslave, torture or kill us by all means available.

You seemingly discount the reality that in diametrically opposed mortal struggles (and in much lesser struggles, but let's stick to the former), there simply is NOT a free exchange of genuine information in forthtright scholarly debate.

Instead, there is manipulation, propoganda, influence operations, incitement, and subversion... all of which can do real and lasting damage.

"Let the best argument win" should NOT mean "let the best manipulator win." Extreme caution should be given when dealing with agent provocateures from mortal enemies as opposed to platforming them as legitimate and genuine representitives.

[summit]

And just for clarity, when NPR interviews the Israeli ambassador, they are so clearly presenting "this interviewee works for a foreign government and as his title blatantly tells you, his job is to present their point of view."

When NPR interviews agents of Iran, but presents them as esteemed experts who work for pleasant sounding think tanks and podcasts, they are not presenting them as obviously biased sources under the direct or secret direction of a country that has declared us "The Great Satan" and acted accordingly.

This is an important distinction and hazard which my previous post drives at.

[californiagrown]

"Let the best argument win" should NOT mean "let the best manipulator win.

You dont think EVERY government in the world (and their proxies/mouthpieces) manipulate the message? Of course they do. SOP. Public relations 101. Everyone, everywhere manipulates the message. government or otherwise.
Free western societies are great because of the free exhange of ideas. When you shut that off (for yourself, or through policy) you stop being great.

[MultiVerse]

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said "Israel is doing the dirty work for all of us" at the G7 summit. Merz isn't alone in thinking this, but he's one of few actually saying it

[californiagrown]

And just for clarity, when NPR interviews the Israeli ambassador, they are so clearly presenting "this interviewee works for a foreign government and as his title blatantly tells you, his job is to present their point of view." When NPR interviews agents of Iran, but presents them as esteemed experts who work for pleasant sounding think tanks and podcasts, they are not presenting them as obviously biased sources under the direct or secret direction of a country that has declared us "The Great Satan" and acted accordingly. This is an important distinction and hazard which my previous post drives at.

Honestly, if you have trouble realizing the bias present in the interviewers argument, ya real dumb (general you, not you-you). And yes, i have an extremely dim view of americans intelligence so i know that can be a problem. To me, its just so freaking obvious when they interview an israeli ambassador, and then 10minutes later on the same program they interview some dude with a persian name and a persian accent who negatively portrays israeli actions. Like freaking duh! its the opposing view!

IDK, seems pretty elementary to me.

[summit]

CAgrown: if you think that it is critical for sworn mortal enemies to publicly tell their piece of the story, then do you also agree that they should be identified as such by news agencies who are doing the "both sides" presentation rather than allowing such agents to present themselves as experts who aren't representing a foreign government?

Personally, for getting more perspective, I prefer something like this Discussing the Iran–Israel War with an Iranian Dissident: https://quillette.com/2025/06/18/dis...-cetera-ep-48/

[The Nuclear Option]

Par for the course. Criticize Israel or them leading us into war?“you’re antisemetic!” LOLWell if by your definition criticism of Israel is antisemitism, then I guess I am.Asshole