• BitconnectCarlos
    560


    But naturally the rhetoric HAS TO BE that Iranians are crazy Mullahs hell bent on destroying Israel even if that means that Iran will be destroyed. Yet it doesn't make sense. Never has.

    It might not make sense to you. The Israelis still have reason to be worried because it threatens their entire existence. Israel has had several wars where, if it had lost, it would have been finished as a state and its people would have been at the mercy of its enemies. Yes, I've heard the term "second holocaust" tossed around more than a few times.

    Yes, maybe in a world where all of Israel's enemies have nukes everyone acts reasonable and rational and everyone understands mutually assured destruction. But the costs of being wrong on this one are extremely high. Even against the "rational" Soviets we came nail-bitingly close to nuclear war and in some cases the choice came down the actual button-pushers. And that was without religion.
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    Iran finally admits it shot down the jet. Incompetence.NOS4A2
    Sure, but it's an unintended consequence of the tense state of affairs Trump got us in. So although Iran is directly responsible, Trump bears indirect responsibility for heightening tensions.
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    Heightening tensions is one thing, shooting down civilian aircraft is quite another. Iranians have directly killed more Iranians during this period.
  • BitconnectCarlos
    560


    If your boss gives you a negative performance review at work and then you go home and beat your wife in a rage is your boss responsible for that?
  • Baden
    10.7k


    Your analogy is very wide of the mark. A better one would be your boss shoots your wife and you then shoot someone who calls at your door in the mistaken belief they are your boss.
  • BitconnectCarlos
    560


    Well, I was kind of drunk when I wrote it (I am more drunk now.)

    I take issue with the notion of indirect responsibility though because it seems to be essentially hollow: perhaps a village or a town bears some abstract "responsibility" for a school shooter.

    Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the perpetrator. And I'm not blaming iran for this one; I do believe it was an honest mistake.
  • frank
    5.1k
    The important thing is that the US, like you, is a drunken maniac who will bomb anything for any reason.

    As long as everybody remembers that, we're good.
  • ZhouBoTong
    837
    Reasserting one’s sovereignty is always the right thing to do.NOS4A2

    You may be exaggerating to make a point...but this makes very little sense? So every state in America should seek independence? What about each city within those states? If we continue to follow this logic, every human would end up being their own state (or dead)? "Always" is always problematic, hehe.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    3.9k
    Well, I was kind of drunk when I wrote it (I am more drunk now.)

    I take issue with the notion of indirect responsibility though because it seems to be essentially hollow: perhaps a village or a town bears some abstract "responsibility" for a school shooter.

    Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the perpetrator. And I'm not blaming iran for this one; I do believe it was an honest mistake.
    BitconnectCarlos

    Hiya BitconnectCarlos and welcome to The Philosophy Forum :flower: One of the rules is to refrain from posting while telling us you are inebriated. Such as others are at times posting under some influence but advertising it weakens your position and over time it starts to affect opinions.

    Having said that:
    My feeling is that the ultimate responsibility lays directly at the feet of the airline. Period. Full stop.
    If the Ukraine ATC said that the airline was clear to fly and planes were not grounded by the government than again, the direct responsibility is on the airline and the pilots. Yes, the Pilots have final say if it is safe to fly the plane in the present conditions. True as it may be that the pilot had the choice to fly the plane or die because there was a gun to his head and they would have brought on another pilot until they found a willing pilot but...
    Ultimately that pilot payed the price with his life and those he CHOSE to fly safely to their destination.
    It's utterly heartbreaking and I suggest it was an accident with the caveat that it was as a result of the fog of war
    Yeah it's a platitude and one that affects me through one degree of separation. I know war from a distance from my Uncle serving 33 years from Vietnam to Desert Storm. And with a son surrounded by AFROTC classmates at one of the top Aeronautical Universities in the USA that is not a military institution, my fear level rises accordingly.
    Please leave it as an accident and acknowledge the Iranian families that know their government is responsible for the death of their loved ones lost. We are grieving with them and hope the anger that comes with grieving is channeled into am internal rise up. My Iranian friend who escaped an arranged marriage after 7 years in the USA expressed to me that she wishes President Trump keeps the pressure on, even light of this accident.
    It has the markings of an unintended consequence and I hope our President keeps that at the forefront of his mind.
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    3.9k
    eh. There's a crowd I won't bother with anymore. There's no profit in it.frank
    Mind if I am part of the crowd? I promise I won't start a food fight :wink:
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    take issue with the notion of indirect responsibility though because it seems to be essentially hollow: perhaps a village or a town bears some abstract "responsibility" for a school shooter.

    Ultimately, the responsibility falls on the perpetrator. And I'm not blaming iran for this one; I do believe it was an honest mistake.
    BitconnectCarlos
    Your point about indirect responsibility has some general merit, but not necessarily with Presidential actions that can have wide ranging consequences. History will judge his decisions based on the totality of consequences, whether they are intended or not - and that's how it should be. We don't yet know what will be the longer term total consequences, but this data point is clearly not in his favor.
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    I agree its a different thing, but Trump still owns all the unintended consequences of what follows. It is part of the ledger upon which his actions will be judged by history.

    But it is possible that this aircraft downing will actually have positive consequences - since Iranians are pretty pissed off that their government did this.
  • Punshhh
    2k
    Reasserting one’s sovereignty is always the right thing to do. The EU is more a centralized technocracy which itself deals only with political elites. There is no popular vote, no democracy. I think the instinct for democratic choice and the entrenched reliance on common law procedures has led to a deep suspicion of the European ideal.

    I agree with ZhouBoTong, that is a universal nationalism, the sort of idealism which has resulted in Brexit. If one looks at the realities on the ground, there is a large price to pay for such ideals. For starters it is probably going to lead to the break up of the UK. Why on earth would one want to do that.

    Now we have Johnson imposing a kind of exit from the EU which will be decided by a handful of partisan people who are demonstrably putting party before country. While arrogantly telling Scotland that they can't leave the UK for similar reasons. The hipocricy is breathtaking, but that along with the duplicity, deceit and lies is the day to day reality of our government. They are far worse than the worst excesses of Trump, who is trying to do the right thing, which is not easy for someone who is not a politician. There are large numbers of people in the UK who are disgusted with our sham of a government and who realise that we are going to be worse off not only economically, but our integrity and reputation on the world stage is in tatters. And that being a member of the EU is far better than this farce.

    What a great idea, I can't believe no one thought of doing something like that before.

    I would point out though, that we have seeded very little sovereignty to the EU. But rather agree to work to the same rules on many things. Rather like in a trade agreement, but more integrated than that.
  • frank
    5.1k
    Mind if I am part of the crowd? I promise I won't start a food fight :wink:ArguingWAristotleTiff

    Absolutely!
  • Professor Death
    468
    I do believe it was an honest mistake.BitconnectCarlos

  • Brett
    2.3k


    Of course we all have a worldview, but we're also fallible and I think we should value truth. You won't get to truth simply by seeking out reinforcement for what you already believe. One should challenge his own beliefs, and this is best done by seeking alternative perspectives and trying to understand them.Relativist

    Of course. But does that mean you never reach a point where you think the conclusions you’ve made are correct and you’ll act on them. Or do we sit around all day over a cup of tea agreeing to disagree.

    What’s the point of challenging our beliefs if it’s not to find a truth? Of course you challenge your beliefs, that’s how you reach a truth.
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    You may be exaggerating to make a point...but this makes very little sense? So every state in America should seek independence? What about each city within those states? If we continue to follow this logic, every human would end up being their own state (or dead)? "Always" is always problematic, hehe.

    I was speaking more in terms of national sovereignty, not so much state or municipal sovereignty. But I think some of the same principles might apply to those kinds of territories and polities. I fully believe in individual sovereignty insofar as one should have sovereignty over his own body.
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    Of course. But does that mean you never reach a point where you think the conclusions you’ve made are correct and you’ll act on them. Or do we sit around all day over a cup of tea agreeing to disagree.Brett
    Here's the statement of yours that I disagreed with:
    The problem is that we have our own take on things and seek information that contributes to that view. There’s nothing wrong in that, unless you think that view is wrong, then the news source one has is either leftist or right wing.Brett
    I disagreed because it seems a wallowing in comfirmation bias. Now you suggest we might reach a point where one might think one's conclusions are correct. But that's the root of the problem.: we think we have correct conclusions, and we then only go to news sources that confirm them. A person who challenges his beliefs by seeking contrary views has a stronger epistemic basis for his opinions than someone who only seeks confirmation.
  • Brett
    2.3k


    That’s fine as long as you’re happy to always feel that you do not need to chose.
  • frank
    5.1k
    Iranians protest airplane disaster.

    Now what did some geniuses say about Iranian solidarity?
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k
    Trump stands with the Iranian people as they protest their government at great risk to their own lives.



    The world ignored the murder of 1500 Iranian protesters back in late 2019, many of them becoming de facto supporters of the murderous regime during the recent conflict, because to do otherwise would be to stand with their mortal enemy.
  • Baden
    10.7k


    Couldn't be happier that Trump has decided to "stand with" the Iranian people rather than kill them in large numbers. Let's hope it stays that way.
  • BitconnectCarlos
    560


    The important thing is that the US, like you, is a drunken maniac who will bomb anything for any reason.

    As long as everybody remembers that, we're good.

    Not a bad strategy from a game theory perspective.
  • creativesoul
    8.4k
    Wouldn't it be cool if Trump also stood and knelt with American protesters?

    Bullshit. Political posturing.

    Shows more solidarity with foreign citizens than Americans.
  • frank
    5.1k
    The important thing is that the US, like you, is a drunken maniac who will bomb anything for any reason.

    As long as everybody remembers that, we're good.

    Not a bad strategy from a game theory perspective.
    BitconnectCarlos

    Exactly. If everybody already knows you're in imperial overstretch and all you have left is nuclear weapons, it's best if everybody thinks you're fucking crazy.
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    It makes much more sense to stand with those protesting injustice and tyranny, and to let those privileged westerners protesting their feelings echo away in silence.
  • frank
    5.1k
    It makes much more sense to stand with those protesting injustice and tyrannyNOS4A2

    It doesn't make sense unless you're planning to colonize the area. Just let their protests echo away in silence too (unless you're an American politician and you can get away with a condescending sound bite.
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    It doesn't make sense unless you're planning to colonize the area. Just let their protests echo away in silence too (unless you're an American politician and you can get away with a condescending sound bite.

    There is no point in protesting an unjust government, then, if no one is watching.
  • Brett
    2.3k
    This was moved from “Why do you think the US is going into war with Iran.” in regard to it being necessary for a President to come up through the ranks of politicians, that he must have political experience in Washington.

    Is this part of the problem people have with Trump, that he doesn’t behave like a politician? And does that matter?
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.