Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Mohamed1993

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    2,201
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from notme in Economic schools of thought.   
    Corporate tax-rates are lower than in many US states I believe. The problem is corporations find many loopholes to hide their profits.
    Yeah theoretically it sounds like the best model I can think of, however I just don't know if human nature will ever make this possible in reality. Granting power to the working-class is awesome, but you can't guarantee that the working class will not just start to exploit and take advantage of other members of the working-class then. 
  2. Like
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from notme in Economic schools of thought.   
    So I work in economic research and I've often found that the things you hear about in the news, such as most Americans being unable to fund a sudden expense of $1000, and over half of Americans being unable to afford the cheapest car in the market gets ignored by economists. You look at real GDP rising, unemployment falling and stock markets booming and people interpret that as the economy being well on its way to recovery. However, if you look at why unemployment rates fall, it's because a lot of people have taken up multiple part time jobs, and many people now take on contract jobs where they are overworked, underpaid and receive hardly any benefits. This squares up with the fact that real wage growth in the US has been abysmal since the 1970's. In fact even though unemployment rate is falling, the amount of people that are now outside of the labour force is quite high, and you're not considered unemployed if you're too discouraged to look for a job because of meager prospects of getting one or the lack of benefits in many jobs. 
    When you look at the reasons for this, many economists will argue it is because productivity growth isn't high among workers. This is a predominant view in the US and I would probably say in most of the West, where the predominant economic school of thought that prevails is the neoclassical one, where wages are a product of market forces, exploitation of labour is ignored, it is just assumed that firms that overexploit workers will not attract as much demand. However, we know that's not true and if productivity determined real wages then are CEOs 50 times more productive than employees? That's absurd.
    I think the Marxian school of thought is the only one that can explain this trend in inequality and wages. However, that often is completely ignored in universities in the West. But a huge problem with Marx in my view is that he often ignored human nature, so while he talked about the working class getting fed up of the greedy capitalists and overthrowing them, he also left-out the fact that many of the working class would try to oppress their fellow working class members. I think this is a fundamental flaw in the way he thought about how people organize themselves economically. And in places like Venezuela, we see immense levels of poverty and people would rightfully argue that this is because of lack of diversification, and too much reliance on oil. This is partly true, however if you look at the Maduro government and its supporters, many of them are not suffering like much of the working class is, and there is a great deal of corruption among Venezuelan officials. I would bet they have large sums of money saved in some offshore accounts. Often socialist governments or governments that claimed to be socialist, ended up producing state tyrannies that massacred millions of people.
    So then the question is if Marx got it wrong and if Friedman got it wrong, what is the right approach to economics? Is the best we can achieve given human nature the Scandinavian model, which in some cases is more capitalist than even the US but has a very well broad-based welfare state which at least tries to level the playing field for people to succeed. But in that case which economic school of thought would you think would have more merit? Should economics the way it is taught in the West be reformed? 
    @hasanhh, @King you guys might be interested in discussing this. 
  3. Like
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Biden bombs Syria.   
    People's rationality goes out the window when discussing these issues, and they resort to all kinds of nonsensical claims. I will say there are a few problems with these strikes;
    (1) The US has authorizations that allow it to go after the perpetrators of 9/11, the 2001 AUMF and 2002 AUMF, but while lawmakers have stressed this includes ISIS now since it is linked to Al Qaeda, I think it is stretched. Nonetheless there's little legitimacy in these authorizations for targeting Shia militias.
    (2) The other case when you can use force is to fight off an imminent attack or to stop an ongoing attack. This is what qualifies as defense. The administration has tried to paint these attacks as defensive. But these attacks are reprisal attacks, which aren't technically legal. Under international law, article 51 legitimizes the right to self-defense, but that's if the homeland is attacked and an effort is made to seek a UNSC resolution. None of those apply here. Then there's article 2 of the constitution, but again the word defense is grossly stretched to mean reprisals whenever US troops or contractors are killed. 
    (3) The final point is the strategic value of these attacks. The administration said it was trying to deter Iran from future attacks and prevent them acting with impunity, but we've seen that hasn't worked given the rocket attacks yesterday again. 
    I think we have to go back to how these attacks started, and there is debate over the direct involvement of Iran in these attacks, but Iran however much influence it holds over these groups to be able to stop these attacks has no incentive to do so at this point. Trump's decision to pull out of the JCPOA in 2018, and impose crushing economic sanctions are seen as an economic war against Iran by the Iranians so they have no incentives to use whatever influence they hold to stop these attacks and in fact they are likely to encourage more and more of them. We've seen with the surging attacks on Saudi Arabia, the attacks on Israeli shipping Iran is upping the ante to gain leverage for future talks. Biden acknowledged this much in the wake of the Soleimani strike last year, but for some reason Biden's policy on Iran is going haywire. He says he wants to go back to the deal but only if Iran rejoins this. Iran thinks rightly in my view since the US pulled out the onus is on the US to come back into compliance before Iran reverses its violations, which were a response to the US pulling out. Today, the IAEA was supposed to pass a resolution to censure Iran over its violations of the nuclear safeguards agreement, which Iran saw as very provocative since it is void of context with regards to how we got here. Luckily, the IAEA did not pass anything, the resolution was tabled, and hopefully that can give us the space to return to the table and talk about sequencing of Iran returning to its commitments and the US lifting the sanctions. The current impasse between the US and Iran is not sustainable without massive escalation in the region. Cooler heads that champion diplomacy need to prevail. The Republicans are promising to be as difficult as possible though, so Biden will need to risk some political capital if he wants to return to the deal. But the price of not doing so could land us into a hot war that no one wants.
  4. Like
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Northwest in JCPOA [Official Thread]   
    (1) the Europeans proved themselves to be completely inept and a total vassal state of the US, so it's pretty rich for them to demand Iran make positive steps when it is them that failed to deliver any benefits to Iran and remember the maximum pressure sanctions are still on. So, now that they have a sympathetic administration on NATO and the value of European alliances, they are trying to be relevant in a way that's comfortable for them, scream louder and louder about Iran's actions to show America you are loyal so you get more favours in terms of NATO support.
    (2) Same as above
    (3) Yeah, I think so long as Iran can keep China on its side while it continues to renege on its commitments as it sees no sanctions relief, this will continue. I believe the Iranians are thinking that the west is probably not reliable anymore given that they can just pull out of agreements and impose sanctions whenever they like, so they will move east. That said, it's not good for Iran's independence in the long-term to be so reliant on China. It defies the neither east or west pillar of the revolution.
    (4) These are good steps but they are not enough. Iranians have been very clear on sanctions relief being the bottom line. I'm not sure if they will attend the meeting, their current position is they are consulting among themselves, as well as talking to China and Russia, so we will see. If they do meet, they have said it should be members of the P4+1 with the US as an observer, as it is their view that the US has left the deal, Iran has reneged on its commitments, but it is still a party to the deal since its actions were in response to a US pullout, which article 36 of the JCPOA permits.
    (5) So far, they've only offered to meet, and done a few signaling moves, but there's no movement on the sanctions at all.
    (6) Yes, this is precisely what I say in (4). Iran will continue with its suspension of the additional protocol on February 23rd because they've not seen sanctions relief and so far the moves are symbolic.
    I think the Biden administration has a number of different voices, his Iran envoy, Rob Malley and few others favour a clean return to the JCPOA, but there are more hawkish voices in the administration that are basically keen on adopting Trump's policy, like Brett McGurk and Jake Sullivan, they want the sanctions to stay in place unless Iran not only returns to its commitments but also negotiates a longer deal and missiles, in which case you may as well kiss the deal goodbye. There are others who seem to want a JCPOA - type of deal, where Iran would halt some of the things its doing outside of its commitments and the US would provide limited sanctions relief. This step would help the US to box in Iran's nuclear program, but would prevent the Biden administration from having to take important steps like lifting terrorism sanctions on the Iranian CB, the state owned Iranian oil company, etc. which Trump imposed as a means to impose political cost on the next admin. It seems to me like the administration is too worried about Republicans in congress as well hawkish dems like Menendez in the senate. But if it keeps moving slowly on this, it will be too late eventually, because I don't see Iran after having survived Trump's maximum pressure moving to accommodate the US' demands, they will probably continue moving East and think the West is a lost cause. The only thing is with this approach, the Israelis might strike militarily and then we could have a regional war. Iran's tame response to Soleimani's assassination and its non-response to Fakhrizadeh has exposed it as weak and I think some voices probably think that even if they strike, in an attempt to avoid war, which they are wary of they will probably not respond in a way that is escalatory. But this is risky because at some point they may think they have no choice given that they will probably invite more attacks if they do so. Also, if Iran is attacked, it almost certainly would move its program further and further underground to where airstrikes couldn't damage it and then probably go for a bomb. So, this is a risky move, but I have no doubt some voices in the Biden admin think Trump's approach to Iran exposed Iran's weaknesses and think its worth going along with it or at least using the sanctions as leverage to get more concessions out of Iran.
  5. Completely Agree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from hasanhh in JCPOA [Official Thread]   
    Yeah, I think Europe will still be limited, but they have vowed to stick to the deal, Federica Mogherini just made a statement that the deal cannot be renegotiated, it will stay as it is. Sounds like if the US manages to sway the Europeans from staying away from Iran, it will be through bullying and coercing, which hurts the US more than anything. 
  6. Like
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in JCPOA [Official Thread]   
    (1) the Europeans proved themselves to be completely inept and a total vassal state of the US, so it's pretty rich for them to demand Iran make positive steps when it is them that failed to deliver any benefits to Iran and remember the maximum pressure sanctions are still on. So, now that they have a sympathetic administration on NATO and the value of European alliances, they are trying to be relevant in a way that's comfortable for them, scream louder and louder about Iran's actions to show America you are loyal so you get more favours in terms of NATO support.
    (2) Same as above
    (3) Yeah, I think so long as Iran can keep China on its side while it continues to renege on its commitments as it sees no sanctions relief, this will continue. I believe the Iranians are thinking that the west is probably not reliable anymore given that they can just pull out of agreements and impose sanctions whenever they like, so they will move east. That said, it's not good for Iran's independence in the long-term to be so reliant on China. It defies the neither east or west pillar of the revolution.
    (4) These are good steps but they are not enough. Iranians have been very clear on sanctions relief being the bottom line. I'm not sure if they will attend the meeting, their current position is they are consulting among themselves, as well as talking to China and Russia, so we will see. If they do meet, they have said it should be members of the P4+1 with the US as an observer, as it is their view that the US has left the deal, Iran has reneged on its commitments, but it is still a party to the deal since its actions were in response to a US pullout, which article 36 of the JCPOA permits.
    (5) So far, they've only offered to meet, and done a few signaling moves, but there's no movement on the sanctions at all.
    (6) Yes, this is precisely what I say in (4). Iran will continue with its suspension of the additional protocol on February 23rd because they've not seen sanctions relief and so far the moves are symbolic.
    I think the Biden administration has a number of different voices, his Iran envoy, Rob Malley and few others favour a clean return to the JCPOA, but there are more hawkish voices in the administration that are basically keen on adopting Trump's policy, like Brett McGurk and Jake Sullivan, they want the sanctions to stay in place unless Iran not only returns to its commitments but also negotiates a longer deal and missiles, in which case you may as well kiss the deal goodbye. There are others who seem to want a JCPOA - type of deal, where Iran would halt some of the things its doing outside of its commitments and the US would provide limited sanctions relief. This step would help the US to box in Iran's nuclear program, but would prevent the Biden administration from having to take important steps like lifting terrorism sanctions on the Iranian CB, the state owned Iranian oil company, etc. which Trump imposed as a means to impose political cost on the next admin. It seems to me like the administration is too worried about Republicans in congress as well hawkish dems like Menendez in the senate. But if it keeps moving slowly on this, it will be too late eventually, because I don't see Iran after having survived Trump's maximum pressure moving to accommodate the US' demands, they will probably continue moving East and think the West is a lost cause. The only thing is with this approach, the Israelis might strike militarily and then we could have a regional war. Iran's tame response to Soleimani's assassination and its non-response to Fakhrizadeh has exposed it as weak and I think some voices probably think that even if they strike, in an attempt to avoid war, which they are wary of they will probably not respond in a way that is escalatory. But this is risky because at some point they may think they have no choice given that they will probably invite more attacks if they do so. Also, if Iran is attacked, it almost certainly would move its program further and further underground to where airstrikes couldn't damage it and then probably go for a bomb. So, this is a risky move, but I have no doubt some voices in the Biden admin think Trump's approach to Iran exposed Iran's weaknesses and think its worth going along with it or at least using the sanctions as leverage to get more concessions out of Iran.
  7. Like
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from hasanhh in Picking Tomorrow's Enemy . . .   
    They've gone from Al Qaeda to now talking about great power competition with Russia and China, but seems like their solution is to deploy military assets to the South China Sea and to continue expanding NATO. The US needs an Africa strategy that China clearly has beyond just viewing it through a counterterrorism and economic aid lens. China is really gaining on that front and I haven't seen one policymaker discuss this, it's always about greater militarization which is just not how China works.
  8. Partially Agree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from hasanhh in JCPOA [Official Thread]   
    (1) the Europeans proved themselves to be completely inept and a total vassal state of the US, so it's pretty rich for them to demand Iran make positive steps when it is them that failed to deliver any benefits to Iran and remember the maximum pressure sanctions are still on. So, now that they have a sympathetic administration on NATO and the value of European alliances, they are trying to be relevant in a way that's comfortable for them, scream louder and louder about Iran's actions to show America you are loyal so you get more favours in terms of NATO support.
    (2) Same as above
    (3) Yeah, I think so long as Iran can keep China on its side while it continues to renege on its commitments as it sees no sanctions relief, this will continue. I believe the Iranians are thinking that the west is probably not reliable anymore given that they can just pull out of agreements and impose sanctions whenever they like, so they will move east. That said, it's not good for Iran's independence in the long-term to be so reliant on China. It defies the neither east or west pillar of the revolution.
    (4) These are good steps but they are not enough. Iranians have been very clear on sanctions relief being the bottom line. I'm not sure if they will attend the meeting, their current position is they are consulting among themselves, as well as talking to China and Russia, so we will see. If they do meet, they have said it should be members of the P4+1 with the US as an observer, as it is their view that the US has left the deal, Iran has reneged on its commitments, but it is still a party to the deal since its actions were in response to a US pullout, which article 36 of the JCPOA permits.
    (5) So far, they've only offered to meet, and done a few signaling moves, but there's no movement on the sanctions at all.
    (6) Yes, this is precisely what I say in (4). Iran will continue with its suspension of the additional protocol on February 23rd because they've not seen sanctions relief and so far the moves are symbolic.
    I think the Biden administration has a number of different voices, his Iran envoy, Rob Malley and few others favour a clean return to the JCPOA, but there are more hawkish voices in the administration that are basically keen on adopting Trump's policy, like Brett McGurk and Jake Sullivan, they want the sanctions to stay in place unless Iran not only returns to its commitments but also negotiates a longer deal and missiles, in which case you may as well kiss the deal goodbye. There are others who seem to want a JCPOA - type of deal, where Iran would halt some of the things its doing outside of its commitments and the US would provide limited sanctions relief. This step would help the US to box in Iran's nuclear program, but would prevent the Biden administration from having to take important steps like lifting terrorism sanctions on the Iranian CB, the state owned Iranian oil company, etc. which Trump imposed as a means to impose political cost on the next admin. It seems to me like the administration is too worried about Republicans in congress as well hawkish dems like Menendez in the senate. But if it keeps moving slowly on this, it will be too late eventually, because I don't see Iran after having survived Trump's maximum pressure moving to accommodate the US' demands, they will probably continue moving East and think the West is a lost cause. The only thing is with this approach, the Israelis might strike militarily and then we could have a regional war. Iran's tame response to Soleimani's assassination and its non-response to Fakhrizadeh has exposed it as weak and I think some voices probably think that even if they strike, in an attempt to avoid war, which they are wary of they will probably not respond in a way that is escalatory. But this is risky because at some point they may think they have no choice given that they will probably invite more attacks if they do so. Also, if Iran is attacked, it almost certainly would move its program further and further underground to where airstrikes couldn't damage it and then probably go for a bomb. So, this is a risky move, but I have no doubt some voices in the Biden admin think Trump's approach to Iran exposed Iran's weaknesses and think its worth going along with it or at least using the sanctions as leverage to get more concessions out of Iran.
  9. Haha
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Iranian-Israeli Mixture.   
    You're right. And this may just be the way our world works, that you can't oppose every government's crimes especially as  a country that's vulnerable to pressure from the outside, and you need some partners to hedge against the actions of your arch enemies. But to me it seems like if this is the stance, the rhetoric about opposing oppression turns out to be hollow and the Iranian government is better off looking after the needs of its own people who really are suffering under the weight of the sanctions imposed on them. If it's taking being silent about the atrocities of the Chinese state to feed your people, you're better off dropping the rhetoric of "resistance" altogether, stop arming groups like Hamas/Hezbollah and allow your own people to prosper. 
  10. Completely Agree
    Mohamed1993 reacted to El Cid in Iranian-Israeli Mixture.   
    I was only giving an example. I said when you tell Sunnis that You're a shia, the first thing they do is think about the tatbir rituals. When you tell non Sunnis you're a shia, they only know Shiaism from the vile and hateful things Iranian officials and statesmen and supporters say  
    Let's assume all those hadith are true and valid. In fact, let's say that every person in the army of Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام) will be from Iran, not a majority of minority. 100% No other nationality is getting in. It still doesn't give you the right to call yourself by that rank because that rank can only be given by Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام). We don't know which Iranians are the ones who the Imam(عليه السلام) will choose. You choosing for yourself is the arrogance of Shaitan and it usurps the right of Imam Mahdi(عليه السلام) and it's also not beneficial for people's spirituality. If I call myself a Jannati right now, a person who will go to heaven. It means I can stop praying and start committing every haram action I want because hey who cares, I've already declared myself a person of Heaven. Who cares about the approval of Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) right? I can just read a bunch of hadith about the Shi'a being immune from hell-fire and other hadith of that elk and start living wild/free right now. I can also get power over other people by telling them that I'm a person of Heaven so my actions are justified and they should not criticize me if they catch me sipping alcohol. Hopefully you get the point. And once again this is all propaganda. You are the army of Mahdi. Israel is the army of the Messiah. Just what you feed yourself and your masses so they continue to support you.
    If I keep repeating propaganda of America and Israel and KSA. Then you keep repeating the the indoctrinated belief system that's been fed to you all your life despite the truth being in front of you.
    Even Iran doesn't have a Shi'a government. You hide your political ambitions and actions in the disguise of Shi'a Islam and this is the entire point of this topic. If you want to call yourself a Shi'a government, then you can't betray the words of the Ahyle-Bayt(عليه السلام) just because it suits the timing. If you call yourself a Shi'a government, then you're going to have to be at a higher standard than the rest of the world combined because you're claiming to represent the Highest of God's Creation when in reality you're just misusing their Holy Names for your own ends.
    Iran is in bed with the people who are oppressing the Uighurs aka China. Iran has also approved the oppression of the Uighurs as a necessary counter-measure. The truth is right in front of your own eyes. Look at the pictures which have all those charming sayings by Ayatallah Khomeini and Khameini. Then compare those sayings with the head-lines I posted that are happening right now. There is no consistency. What you're doing right now is just picking at straws or trying to justify the actions which reminds me of that Sunni scholar from a long time ago who looked at all the things the Shi'a say about the Sunni Caliphs and companions, then He wrote a whole book justifying their actions whilst acknowledging everything from the Shi'a point of view for example: Umar denied Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) the pen and paper because He didn't want the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) to be physically exerted or because he thought that islam was complete and Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) shouldn't add anything else to Islam unnecessarily. Then the scholar went on and on doing all this for a bunch of other companions. I don't know this scholar's name, I heard this from a Majlis but if you do feel free to share it. But the point is you're doing the exact thing right now. There is nothing else to talk about. All you'll do at this point is write apologist dribble for the IR, justifying their problematic actions or shifting the blame onto something else like KSA/TURKEY/USA. You'll open up the quran and hadith, rummage through the pages until you find something that can justify their actions with the justification being your own weak interpretation. That's all there is to do at this point whilst the point stands:
    "Opposing oppression in general, yes. Selectively opposing those who don't subscribe to your politics while turning a blind eye to oppressors who have good relations with you, no."
    Go ahead and compare those images and headlines and you'll see the truth that this is all a political game for Iran. China is doing the same thing Israel is doing right now but Iran needs those sweet chinese dollars so they are deaf/blind/mute yet they roar out like wounded lions to Israel because they only have a problem with "oppression of Muslims" when their political rival is doing it whilst giving a free pass to their friends if they oppress Muslims because of that sweet money. This is the Army of Mahdi(عليه السلام). These are the representatives of Shi'as world-wide. What a sad joke.
    Anyway, this is my final post on this topic. There's really not much for me to say anymore. The truth is right in front of your eyes. Just see it. If you don't want to see the truth and close your eyes, fine by me. If you want to make excuses for the truth which is right in front of your eyes, fine by me. I can't break years of Iranian indoctrination on the minds of Iranians and their supporters with one topic. They are programmed to never go against their Leaders. Political cult at the end of the day.
    So this will be my closing statement:
    Iran does not represent Shi'a Islam nor is Iran the same thing as Shi'a Islam. To criticize and hold Iran accountable for it's actions is not an attack on Shi'a Islam itself. An attack on Iranian political interests is not an attack on Shi'a Islam. Iranian political interests and ambitions have nothing to do with Shi'a Islam. Iranian generals and officials are not Heroes and Martyrs of Shi'a Islam, they are the heroes and martyrs of Iran just like Pakistan's fallen soldiers are not the heroes and martyrs of Sunni-ism or Shi'aism yet of the state itself. If you're a Shi'a, you do not owe Iran anything. The only allegiance you have to give is to the Prophet(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) and Imam(عليه السلام) of your time. These IRI people do not represent either but their own political gains and ambitions and they fight/die only for these political goals because that's what every country is at the end of the day. Some use Shi'a Islam like Iran does for dirty politics. Some use Salafi Islam like Saudi Arabia does. Some use athiesm like the USSR and China do. Some use excuses and made up lies for their dirty politics. At the end of the day, these are all chess players using religion or excuses to stay in power.
     
    Wasalam.
  11. Like
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from MohammadAli313 in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    While I completely oppose the aggression the Israeli government carries out against the Palestinians, I think the Arab states have given up and choosing to focus on their own selfish interests. Iran's strategy is leaving it more isolated. 
    If it wasn't for Hezbollah, Lebanon would normalize ties, and Syria had nearly done so in the past. So it is not unforeseeable for the Arab states to normalize ties with Israel eventually. 
    I think it is upto Iranians to decide, but I would wonder what the Iranian government gets out of this hostility toward Israel. It may seem like it is being on the side of justice, but in geopolitics, very often opposing oppression in one place leaves you no choices but to rely on oppressors on the other side. The Chinese which are undoubtedly an oppressive state, are close partners with Iran and Iran due to how battered its economy has gotten under US sanctions is increasingly reliant on their investment and help. How does this in any way aid the cause of opposing oppression? The Iranians are also supporting a brutal regime in Syria that has killed far more of its own people than the number of Palestinians Israel has killed.
    Iran doesn't even need to recognize Israel, but I really question the wisdom of the hostile rhetoric and the arming of groups which are increasingly less relevant as other states try to isolate them and Iran. It will only hurt the Iranian people. 
  12. Disagree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Zainuu in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    It was not an occupation earlier? It was the most highly militarized zone on the face of the earth, with some of the worst human rights abuses committed by the Indian military documented by the same organizations that have documented Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/INDIA935.PDF. This document was from back in the 1990's. The status of Kashmir needs to be decided by a referendum that will never be held because both India and Pakistan do not want to let this territory go. The Pakistanis hold that the accession was not legitimate because Singh had lost control of some parts of the territory, while India argues that the instrument of accession, which notably does highlight the need for a referendum once all foreign forces withdraw (which would include India, the invitation by Singh would not legitimize this presence because he was not a leader that was elected, rather  he was a monarch whose legitimacy was obviously questionable given that he was facing protests in some parts of the territory had lost territory even before the Pakistanis came in). And to hold onto an instrument from 1947 to legitimize the atrocities highlighted in the document I linked is ridiculous. 
    Um, your initial argument was they back Hezbollah and now they normalize ties, you never mentioned they would normalize ties under certain conditions, so now you're changing your argument? So you concede it is possible for them to have backed Hezbollah and then still want to normalize ties on certain conditions?
    Yeah, one after 2003 post Iraq invasion, which included Iran demilitarizing Hezbollah and turning it into a political organization, and accepted the two-state peace process on Israel/Palestine in line with Arab initiative from 2002. This would be in exchange for full sanctions relief and a security guarantee that the US would not ever try to overthrow Iran's government. The US denied it then, because the Bush administration at the height of his arrogance thought they could just militarily win in Iraq and head to Iran. That failed. But today, if Iran made that same proposal under a Biden admin, the US/EU would take it. Not because they are interested in accepting Iran's government, but because they see China as the threat of the century, not Iran, which is a regional power but not a global one.
    On PLO/Hamas, you're not wrong, but that still doesn't mean Iran should be pouring its resources into the conflict. It was willing to make a massive bargain in 2003 and drop military support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for restoration of full relations, so there are at least some elements of the leadership that have obviously contemplated this before. No reason they shouldn't now.
  13. Disagree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    It was not an occupation earlier? It was the most highly militarized zone on the face of the earth, with some of the worst human rights abuses committed by the Indian military documented by the same organizations that have documented Israeli atrocities against Palestinians. https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/INDIA935.PDF. This document was from back in the 1990's. The status of Kashmir needs to be decided by a referendum that will never be held because both India and Pakistan do not want to let this territory go. The Pakistanis hold that the accession was not legitimate because Singh had lost control of some parts of the territory, while India argues that the instrument of accession, which notably does highlight the need for a referendum once all foreign forces withdraw (which would include India, the invitation by Singh would not legitimize this presence because he was not a leader that was elected, rather  he was a monarch whose legitimacy was obviously questionable given that he was facing protests in some parts of the territory had lost territory even before the Pakistanis came in). And to hold onto an instrument from 1947 to legitimize the atrocities highlighted in the document I linked is ridiculous. 
    Um, your initial argument was they back Hezbollah and now they normalize ties, you never mentioned they would normalize ties under certain conditions, so now you're changing your argument? So you concede it is possible for them to have backed Hezbollah and then still want to normalize ties on certain conditions?
    Yeah, one after 2003 post Iraq invasion, which included Iran demilitarizing Hezbollah and turning it into a political organization, and accepted the two-state peace process on Israel/Palestine in line with Arab initiative from 2002. This would be in exchange for full sanctions relief and a security guarantee that the US would not ever try to overthrow Iran's government. The US denied it then, because the Bush administration at the height of his arrogance thought they could just militarily win in Iraq and head to Iran. That failed. But today, if Iran made that same proposal under a Biden admin, the US/EU would take it. Not because they are interested in accepting Iran's government, but because they see China as the threat of the century, not Iran, which is a regional power but not a global one.
    On PLO/Hamas, you're not wrong, but that still doesn't mean Iran should be pouring its resources into the conflict. It was willing to make a massive bargain in 2003 and drop military support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah in exchange for restoration of full relations, so there are at least some elements of the leadership that have obviously contemplated this before. No reason they shouldn't now.
  14. Disagree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Zainuu in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    Yes, interests change, you should really familiarize yourself with how geopolitics actually work; https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20201008-syrias-assad-agrees-to-normalise-relations-with-israel-if-conditions-are-met/
    Maybe you should read your own articles, it says Iran issued a "rare" criticism of Kashmir and that in the past it has sought to not antagonize India because it needed to balance its relationships with Pakistan. They issued this after 370 was revoked, but Indian forces have been occupying and terrorizing Kashmiris for far longer when Tehran's criticisms have remain muted. 
    You saw one video of someone who you saw working for the CIA and used that as basis to conclude that the Uyghur thing isn't real or is exaggerated, and when I showed you a UN report, you dismissed it out of hand after inaccurately claiming the UN has not condemned China in a way it has condemned Israel. It isn't true. I mean your argument is like saying if one person who isn't credible says something on a particular issue, that particular issue is doubtful itself. There are numerous people beyond that woman that have reported on the Chinese states' atrocities in Xinjiang. You do not care to learn about them, because you;ve found one non-credible person and want to run with it.
    My solution is Iran should re-evaluate its interests, because its quite clear its foreign policy is not and never has been driven by any semblance of morality. It doesn't take the same moral position in other arenas, it doesn't take a moral position in its support for regimes that suppress their own people in the Middle East, it in fact supports those regimes. It's funny you talk of courage and all that, but Iran has no courage to go tell the Uyghurs or the Kashmiris that they are severing all ties with the governments oppressing them and arming them. It doesn't do that because it has a clear-eyed view of what its interests are and what they aren't. It isn't about moral courage, get that out of your head. So, given this it should evaluate whether this moral posturing, which is just posturing is actually doing it any good. 
    It's annoying you because you can't explain the inconsistency of the government in Iran. I mean even the US harps on and on about its values, and supporting the aspirations of the people in Hong Kong and Tibet, and yet supports the oppression against Palestinians. Why? Because ultimately it is in their interests to show support for one and not another. It wants to weaken China. Iran wants to champion a regional order in which it delegitimizes governments that are allied with Washington and since it faces serious limitations in terms of its Persian and Shia identity, it uses the Palestinian cause to weaken the legitimacy of the region's governments and thus, Washington's influence. The actual concern for the people in Gaza is not what drives their policies. Otherwise, they would support the oppressed everywhere and they don't.
    This is my final post too. 
  15. Disagree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    Yes, interests change, you should really familiarize yourself with how geopolitics actually work; https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20201008-syrias-assad-agrees-to-normalise-relations-with-israel-if-conditions-are-met/
    Maybe you should read your own articles, it says Iran issued a "rare" criticism of Kashmir and that in the past it has sought to not antagonize India because it needed to balance its relationships with Pakistan. They issued this after 370 was revoked, but Indian forces have been occupying and terrorizing Kashmiris for far longer when Tehran's criticisms have remain muted. 
    You saw one video of someone who you saw working for the CIA and used that as basis to conclude that the Uyghur thing isn't real or is exaggerated, and when I showed you a UN report, you dismissed it out of hand after inaccurately claiming the UN has not condemned China in a way it has condemned Israel. It isn't true. I mean your argument is like saying if one person who isn't credible says something on a particular issue, that particular issue is doubtful itself. There are numerous people beyond that woman that have reported on the Chinese states' atrocities in Xinjiang. You do not care to learn about them, because you;ve found one non-credible person and want to run with it.
    My solution is Iran should re-evaluate its interests, because its quite clear its foreign policy is not and never has been driven by any semblance of morality. It doesn't take the same moral position in other arenas, it doesn't take a moral position in its support for regimes that suppress their own people in the Middle East, it in fact supports those regimes. It's funny you talk of courage and all that, but Iran has no courage to go tell the Uyghurs or the Kashmiris that they are severing all ties with the governments oppressing them and arming them. It doesn't do that because it has a clear-eyed view of what its interests are and what they aren't. It isn't about moral courage, get that out of your head. So, given this it should evaluate whether this moral posturing, which is just posturing is actually doing it any good. 
    It's annoying you because you can't explain the inconsistency of the government in Iran. I mean even the US harps on and on about its values, and supporting the aspirations of the people in Hong Kong and Tibet, and yet supports the oppression against Palestinians. Why? Because ultimately it is in their interests to show support for one and not another. It wants to weaken China. Iran wants to champion a regional order in which it delegitimizes governments that are allied with Washington and since it faces serious limitations in terms of its Persian and Shia identity, it uses the Palestinian cause to weaken the legitimacy of the region's governments and thus, Washington's influence. The actual concern for the people in Gaza is not what drives their policies. Otherwise, they would support the oppressed everywhere and they don't.
    This is my final post too. 
  16. Disagree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from TheAnticipator12 in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    The way in which Israel may have been established is deeply unjust, but the fact remains that is considered a state by the authority that legitimizes states, i.e. the UN, which recognizes Israel in its pre-1967 borders, but does not recognize its illegal occupation of the west bank, gaza and the golan heights. I mean if you want to argue beyond that as to whether the foundations of the state makes the existence illegal, then we have to start digging up why we consider any state legitimate. The US conquered lands through expansion for example, does that mean the US is now an illegal entity? Should white people in America that have lived here since the 18th century go back and hand the land back to Natives? Wouldn't that be the equivalent of Israelis saying we lived here thousands of years ago and that gives us a right to Judea and Samaria. History is filled with conquests and illegitimate acquisitions of land and territory, the framework that we are operating within is the framework that was established after WW2, which grants statehood and distinguishes between what is a state and what is not a state. 
    I'm not arguing for normalization with Israel, I'm simply arguing about the benefits of arming groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which are in no way shape or form a legitimate threat to Israel's existence as a state. They do not possess the capability of destroying Israel without Lebanon and Gaza getting wiped out in response. The Iranian leadership knows this much, but it tries to support these groups as a means of gathering leverage to respond to attacks against it by the US or Israel or any of the gulf states as a power that's militarily at least conventionally weaker than the US. This is part of its assymetric warfare doctrine, and it's a strategy weaker powers often adopt. 
    Iran doesn't take the same uncompromising approach toward China that it does Israel. It doesn't arm the Uyghurs, in fact by trading with the Chinese state and refusing to condemn its atrocities against the Uyghurs it is in effect giving legitimacy to the Chinese state's atrocities. Tell me if Iran traded with Israel for example, would you say it is not legitimizing it and that it is simply just compromising with it? I mean I think you're trying to find excuses to defend what is clearly an unjustifiable position. Is a simple condemnation too difficult?
  17. Disagree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from AmirioTheMuzzy in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    The way in which Israel may have been established is deeply unjust, but the fact remains that is considered a state by the authority that legitimizes states, i.e. the UN, which recognizes Israel in its pre-1967 borders, but does not recognize its illegal occupation of the west bank, gaza and the golan heights. I mean if you want to argue beyond that as to whether the foundations of the state makes the existence illegal, then we have to start digging up why we consider any state legitimate. The US conquered lands through expansion for example, does that mean the US is now an illegal entity? Should white people in America that have lived here since the 18th century go back and hand the land back to Natives? Wouldn't that be the equivalent of Israelis saying we lived here thousands of years ago and that gives us a right to Judea and Samaria. History is filled with conquests and illegitimate acquisitions of land and territory, the framework that we are operating within is the framework that was established after WW2, which grants statehood and distinguishes between what is a state and what is not a state. 
    I'm not arguing for normalization with Israel, I'm simply arguing about the benefits of arming groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which are in no way shape or form a legitimate threat to Israel's existence as a state. They do not possess the capability of destroying Israel without Lebanon and Gaza getting wiped out in response. The Iranian leadership knows this much, but it tries to support these groups as a means of gathering leverage to respond to attacks against it by the US or Israel or any of the gulf states as a power that's militarily at least conventionally weaker than the US. This is part of its assymetric warfare doctrine, and it's a strategy weaker powers often adopt. 
    Iran doesn't take the same uncompromising approach toward China that it does Israel. It doesn't arm the Uyghurs, in fact by trading with the Chinese state and refusing to condemn its atrocities against the Uyghurs it is in effect giving legitimacy to the Chinese state's atrocities. Tell me if Iran traded with Israel for example, would you say it is not legitimizing it and that it is simply just compromising with it? I mean I think you're trying to find excuses to defend what is clearly an unjustifiable position. Is a simple condemnation too difficult?
  18. Disagree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Zainuu in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    After the camp David Accords were signed in 1978, the Israelis did not invade Egypt and reconquer the Sinai Peninsula they had lost in 1973. Israel isn't interested in giving up the west bank, but Iran does not have any influence there. But as far as Lebanon and Syria goes, based on the camp david accords with Egypt, it's not unfathomable that Israel would let Shebaa farms and golan heights go the same way they did Egypt in exchange for security guarantees.
    The Kashmiris are resisting occupation too, is Iran doing the same things to support them as it is doing in Gaza or Lebanon?
    The treatment of Uyghurs has in fact been documented over and over again by organizations that have frequently criticized Israel's occupation. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/14/unprecedented-un-critique-chinas-xinjiang-policies#. The claims are not yet substantiated while they're substantiated by the same rights organizations that criticize Israel's occupation. So are we picking and choosing now on what is and is not convenient? Why is the Chinese state a legal entity btw? A lot of its territory was conquered through conquest and unjust means. So why is the modern day Chinese state, far larger than what China existed in its initial state legitimate?
    Btw, you cite Professor Finkelstein, who I admire a great deal, but his position is not that Israel is an illegal entity in itself, it is that Israel is illegally occupying territory that does not belong to it by international law, which is the only framework we have at this point to evaluate what is and isn't legal. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2012/2/28/finkelstein-bds-and-the-destruction-of-israel/. https://vimeo.com/36854424.
    You seem to harp on and on about the fact that Israel is an illegal entity, but a lot of states throughout history have been established through force and injustice, if we want to overturn the decision in 1948 then who is to stop other people from saying we don't recognize x state's control over us because they carried out this injustice a couple of centuries ago? Where does one draw the line? What we do have is a framework for addressing these issues, and defining what is and is not legal based on the world that exists. You want a different world, that's fine, but that involves a lot more than just Israel's existence and it's not the world we live in.
  19. Disagree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    After the camp David Accords were signed in 1978, the Israelis did not invade Egypt and reconquer the Sinai Peninsula they had lost in 1973. Israel isn't interested in giving up the west bank, but Iran does not have any influence there. But as far as Lebanon and Syria goes, based on the camp david accords with Egypt, it's not unfathomable that Israel would let Shebaa farms and golan heights go the same way they did Egypt in exchange for security guarantees.
    The Kashmiris are resisting occupation too, is Iran doing the same things to support them as it is doing in Gaza or Lebanon?
    The treatment of Uyghurs has in fact been documented over and over again by organizations that have frequently criticized Israel's occupation. https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/14/unprecedented-un-critique-chinas-xinjiang-policies#. The claims are not yet substantiated while they're substantiated by the same rights organizations that criticize Israel's occupation. So are we picking and choosing now on what is and is not convenient? Why is the Chinese state a legal entity btw? A lot of its territory was conquered through conquest and unjust means. So why is the modern day Chinese state, far larger than what China existed in its initial state legitimate?
    Btw, you cite Professor Finkelstein, who I admire a great deal, but his position is not that Israel is an illegal entity in itself, it is that Israel is illegally occupying territory that does not belong to it by international law, which is the only framework we have at this point to evaluate what is and isn't legal. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2012/2/28/finkelstein-bds-and-the-destruction-of-israel/. https://vimeo.com/36854424.
    You seem to harp on and on about the fact that Israel is an illegal entity, but a lot of states throughout history have been established through force and injustice, if we want to overturn the decision in 1948 then who is to stop other people from saying we don't recognize x state's control over us because they carried out this injustice a couple of centuries ago? Where does one draw the line? What we do have is a framework for addressing these issues, and defining what is and is not legal based on the world that exists. You want a different world, that's fine, but that involves a lot more than just Israel's existence and it's not the world we live in.
  20. Disagree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Ashvazdanghe in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    The way in which Israel may have been established is deeply unjust, but the fact remains that is considered a state by the authority that legitimizes states, i.e. the UN, which recognizes Israel in its pre-1967 borders, but does not recognize its illegal occupation of the west bank, gaza and the golan heights. I mean if you want to argue beyond that as to whether the foundations of the state makes the existence illegal, then we have to start digging up why we consider any state legitimate. The US conquered lands through expansion for example, does that mean the US is now an illegal entity? Should white people in America that have lived here since the 18th century go back and hand the land back to Natives? Wouldn't that be the equivalent of Israelis saying we lived here thousands of years ago and that gives us a right to Judea and Samaria. History is filled with conquests and illegitimate acquisitions of land and territory, the framework that we are operating within is the framework that was established after WW2, which grants statehood and distinguishes between what is a state and what is not a state. 
    I'm not arguing for normalization with Israel, I'm simply arguing about the benefits of arming groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which are in no way shape or form a legitimate threat to Israel's existence as a state. They do not possess the capability of destroying Israel without Lebanon and Gaza getting wiped out in response. The Iranian leadership knows this much, but it tries to support these groups as a means of gathering leverage to respond to attacks against it by the US or Israel or any of the gulf states as a power that's militarily at least conventionally weaker than the US. This is part of its assymetric warfare doctrine, and it's a strategy weaker powers often adopt. 
    Iran doesn't take the same uncompromising approach toward China that it does Israel. It doesn't arm the Uyghurs, in fact by trading with the Chinese state and refusing to condemn its atrocities against the Uyghurs it is in effect giving legitimacy to the Chinese state's atrocities. Tell me if Iran traded with Israel for example, would you say it is not legitimizing it and that it is simply just compromising with it? I mean I think you're trying to find excuses to defend what is clearly an unjustifiable position. Is a simple condemnation too difficult?
  21. Disagree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Zainuu in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    The way in which Israel may have been established is deeply unjust, but the fact remains that is considered a state by the authority that legitimizes states, i.e. the UN, which recognizes Israel in its pre-1967 borders, but does not recognize its illegal occupation of the west bank, gaza and the golan heights. I mean if you want to argue beyond that as to whether the foundations of the state makes the existence illegal, then we have to start digging up why we consider any state legitimate. The US conquered lands through expansion for example, does that mean the US is now an illegal entity? Should white people in America that have lived here since the 18th century go back and hand the land back to Natives? Wouldn't that be the equivalent of Israelis saying we lived here thousands of years ago and that gives us a right to Judea and Samaria. History is filled with conquests and illegitimate acquisitions of land and territory, the framework that we are operating within is the framework that was established after WW2, which grants statehood and distinguishes between what is a state and what is not a state. 
    I'm not arguing for normalization with Israel, I'm simply arguing about the benefits of arming groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, which are in no way shape or form a legitimate threat to Israel's existence as a state. They do not possess the capability of destroying Israel without Lebanon and Gaza getting wiped out in response. The Iranian leadership knows this much, but it tries to support these groups as a means of gathering leverage to respond to attacks against it by the US or Israel or any of the gulf states as a power that's militarily at least conventionally weaker than the US. This is part of its assymetric warfare doctrine, and it's a strategy weaker powers often adopt. 
    Iran doesn't take the same uncompromising approach toward China that it does Israel. It doesn't arm the Uyghurs, in fact by trading with the Chinese state and refusing to condemn its atrocities against the Uyghurs it is in effect giving legitimacy to the Chinese state's atrocities. Tell me if Iran traded with Israel for example, would you say it is not legitimizing it and that it is simply just compromising with it? I mean I think you're trying to find excuses to defend what is clearly an unjustifiable position. Is a simple condemnation too difficult?
  22. Completely Agree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Diaz in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    I think Arab publics are moving on, maybe Bahrain is an exception, but I doubt the younger generation of Saudis and Emiratis really care about anything else other than their ability to live nice lives. It is not perhaps the ethical position to hold but its reality.
    Not sure what makes Israel's enemies, God, when the Chinese communist party is literally putting up signs in mosques advocating complete loyalty and devotion to XiJin Ping and the communist party, which at its essence is anti-theist in its ideology. Iran may not have other alternatives other than China at this point, but it's not inaccurate to argue that they are making choices on who to see as enemies of God and who to not see as so, despite there being clear evidence of some of the people they rely on as showing they are clearly hostile to the idea of God.
    This is subjective. The US government is undoubtedly more aggressive internationally, but that does not mean the Chinese state isn't much more repressive internally. You say the relationship is based on mutual interests, yes, but that's how international relations work, people pick and choose who their partners and foes are based on their assessment of who is willing to cooperate and work with them and who isn't. It's very difficult to operate in international relations in some kind of absolutist moral way, because we live in a world where countries rely on each other for trade, investment, aid etc. The choices Iran seems to be making may well make sense, but it is also true that it has put aside any argument for behaving in a way in line with moral principles.
  23. Like
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Diaz in Normalization of Arabs with Israel is now normal.   
    While I completely oppose the aggression the Israeli government carries out against the Palestinians, I think the Arab states have given up and choosing to focus on their own selfish interests. Iran's strategy is leaving it more isolated. 
    If it wasn't for Hezbollah, Lebanon would normalize ties, and Syria had nearly done so in the past. So it is not unforeseeable for the Arab states to normalize ties with Israel eventually. 
    I think it is upto Iranians to decide, but I would wonder what the Iranian government gets out of this hostility toward Israel. It may seem like it is being on the side of justice, but in geopolitics, very often opposing oppression in one place leaves you no choices but to rely on oppressors on the other side. The Chinese which are undoubtedly an oppressive state, are close partners with Iran and Iran due to how battered its economy has gotten under US sanctions is increasingly reliant on their investment and help. How does this in any way aid the cause of opposing oppression? The Iranians are also supporting a brutal regime in Syria that has killed far more of its own people than the number of Palestinians Israel has killed.
    Iran doesn't even need to recognize Israel, but I really question the wisdom of the hostile rhetoric and the arming of groups which are increasingly less relevant as other states try to isolate them and Iran. It will only hurt the Iranian people. 
  24. Completely Agree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Gaius I. Caesar in Iran nuclear architect assassinated   
    From my position it seems like Iran has been really embarrassed to have its senior figures targeted, and they haven't killed anyone in response because they are afraid of a war, when Soleimani was assassinated, they bombed an empty base and then made it a point to say this was the response, and they were so terrified of a response, they shot down a civilian airline, highlighting just more of their incompetence. They didn't respond to an attack on Natanz in the summer, where it was quite clearly an Israeli cyber attack. Now with this attack, it looks like there will be no response either.
    I don't want a war, so I'm glad there is restraint, but I think Iran needs to stop its bombastic language, and supporting proxies whose victims are primarily defenseless Sunni Arabs and even Shia Iraqi Arabs, because when it comes to confronting the US and Israel directly, they hunker down and suffer blow after blow, without retaliating. It seems like if this is the case, the Islamic Republic should abandon its regional policies of "Resistance" (only resistance in name) and focus on getting sanctions lifted and developing the lives of its own people. It would serve its people well, and who knows maybe it will become powerful enough one day to actually be able to confront its adversaries, rather than terrorizing defenseless populations with false assertions of targeting big and little satan. 
  25. Completely Agree
    Mohamed1993 got a reaction from Gaius I. Caesar in Iran nuclear architect assassinated   
    It depends if there is a full blown war, there won't be over a covert action I don't think, the concern is more how Mossad is able to infiltrate the Iranian security establishment this easily.
×
×
  • Create New...