Hah, I'm so used to thinking about these missiles as conventional that I forgot it actually means Iran was building the capability to nuke Europe. Or more accurately - to deter Europe with nukes while they export terrorism globally.
The only Middle Eastern country that has illegal nukes and doesn't deny the theories that they would nuke the whole world, including innocent countries when they felt "threatened" and they feel threatened by anything and everything, is not Iran.
It's not just about Iran, there are videos of some Israeli people bragging about how they throw rocks and fire grenades and rockets at Palestinian settlements, its quite clear that some people including elements of government and military have become quite deranged, which is all the more concerning given their lack of comment clarifying they don't believe in Samson option. Obviously if it was a question like "Do you think Jews control the world and own all the banks?" would be ridiculous question unworthy of an answer, but asking if the Samson option is real or false is a perfectly reasonable question especially given Israeli elements like Pollard are claiming that more extreme version of the option as true. The modern Israeli government has a policy of declaring anything and everything antisemitic, and obviously, the next step after "knowing" something is sufficiently anti semitic is some kind of military action as evidenced by the events of past few years.
Iran has always obliged with inspections of its nuclear program. It has never built any nukes. It had agreed to stop refining nuclear materials in negotiations, and then America and Israel backstabbed it and attacked Iran during the negotiations, to also speak nothing of the various times Israeli military action killed negotiators in progress.
In light of all this, it is now upon you to tell me which is false and which is "trolling".
Do you believe Israel doesn't have illegal nukes?
Or are you thinking Israel hasn't yet clarified or denied the extreme version of the so called Samson policy?
Could be. But won't be. The flying time to target is mere minutes, and taking the plane from zero (not even crew inside) to air takes much longer than that.
Conservatives draw towards authoritarian or "strong" leaders reflect this idea, while its at odds with the more individualistic philosophy.
There is a cognitive dissonance there.
While Hobbes is dark, he is giving an interesting explanation of how political power actually work, so that even when people are not nice, they can act in a civilized way.I only read a small parts of it and some summaries, from what I understand the crux of the argument doesn't necesserily force democracy or autocracy(although he seem skeptical of democracy) rather it explains the concept of sovereignity, even in a democracy.
I once quoted Leviathan in a course assignment to explain why Gandhi's method is effective :)
Niceness is the wrong lens to use for acting in a civilised way. Game theory generally recommends cooperation; in practical real-world situations most of the games we play are ones where the best situation comes from negotiation. The issue is more the truly enormous number of actors who either have remarkably short short time preferences, an unreasonable tolerance for risk or who are just unpredictable. That is one of the central themes of the whole liberal project, of course. How to minimise the amount of force required to contain irrational actors.
An easy example is that the scariest people to run in to in a dark ally are the drugged up types; because the problem is they don't have the ability to make decisions while considering the pros- and cons- over a couple of months and their normal behaviour isn't predictive of what they are about to do.
Someone who is truly horrible and comfortable with the idea of barbarism is actually pretty easy to get along with if they're happy to work with long term goals and are predictable in their deployment of violence. Their social place is probably in the military or police force. Or dentistry if they want more consensual torment.
> An easy example is that the scariest people to run in to in a dark ally are the drugged up types; because the problem is they don't have the ability to make decisions while considering the pros- and cons- over a couple of months and their normal behaviour isn't predictive of what they are about to do.
One can argue they can’t help it. But another strategy is to mimic that to gain an upper hand. Let’s imagine someone doesn’t want folks going down their street, they could pretend to act randomly and crazy. Even seasoned barbarians would stay away from that alley, not to even mention dentists ;-)
I remember the time when Israel shot a missile under a hospital in Gaza and immediately after the head of Hamas, brother of Yehia Sinwar was confirmed dead.
Maybe our intelligence isn't that bad after all.
Meanwhile doctors without borders denied seeing any militant activity in hospital, despite e.g one of their doctors turning out to be an Islamic Jihad rocket troops commander, or half the electricty of an hospital being diverted to a bunker right beneath it, or people firing from hospital windows at Al-Shabab anti-hamas militia.
And now they are unwilling to give a list of names of their members to be vetted for operating in the strip.
reply