I don’t know if it is that off-base to be honest, restraint does not mean that they practiced pacifism, just that the response was disproportionately small.

In what world would a country in a similar situation not support groups that try to counter an invading force? What about the assassinations inside Iran? The terrorist attacks orchestrated by the west? The sabotage of their nuclear facilities? How is it that those things can go on for decades, and then when Iran finally reacts, people go “oh look what these maniacs did, how dare they!”

Do you not care that Iran was on the receiving end of these things, or were you simply not aware?

Iran has been notoriously docile because it knows the US had been looking for an excuse to attack it. Just like Wesley Clarke stated.

That’s like poking a bear and then halfway through your shenanigans claim you’ll have to put it down because you’re in danger. What a bunch of hollow rhetoric. There’s 3 sentences in your paragraph and each one is just a slogan. Each one vague enough that it means both nothing and anything you can think of.

Diverting from the usual warmongering is not isolationism, in fact, the problem you allude to is the result of the former, not the other way around.

I know it’s a crazy idea but perhaps we should look at our failed approaches from recent history and try to learn from it. But judging from your edit, you have an extremely short attention span mixed with tunnel vision. Where were you when the US and its allies assassinated people inside Iran? Funded terrorist groups to carry out attacks in Iran? Sabotaged their nuclear facilities? Or, you know, when the idea of another pre-emptive attack on that nation was so imminent that one presidential candidate figured it’d be funny to fuel that by singing “bomb bomb Iran”, based on nothing but the lie that they were close to getting a nuclear bomb?

Was all that a festering problem that Iran should’ve responded to, or is it different when you’re on the receiving end?

I’ll take “how to repeat bad mistakes from recent history” for 500 Jim.

Did you sleep through the past 20 years or are you just not that observant?

“Your honor the suspect had blood on his hands when we found him. Well you’re 10% blood so what’s your point?”

I know a 5 year old who shoved a crayon up his nose.

Probably stuck on an older os which doesn’t support the newest browser updates.

That’s because it’s not dirt but normal pigmentation of the shell.

What would be the point of washing that part of the egg you’re going to throw out 3 seconds later?

Unless you’re saying bibi paid hamas to attack them

Bibi paying Hamas is common knowledge. I assume the attack on October 7th was really convenient, and I would assume they at the very least let it happen. I think there is also evidence to support that theory, but since I’ve only watched from the sidelines, I’m not going to try and build a case.

this should not be painted as Iran being the reasonable guys in contrast

Well, what would be reasonable for Iran to do when it is being encircled, attacked, and for years called out as the next target? I think they’ve shown quite a lot of restraint as it is.

Neither Israel nor prticularly Palestine benefitted from triggering Oct 7th.

Apart from Israel getting the excuse to do what they’ve always wanted to do, of course.

none of that refutes that Iran has been using Gaza, Hezbollah and the Houthis like chess pawns to strengthen their position in the middle east

Are they strengthening their position? Or is this a matter of survival? They’ve been under attack by the US and Israel for the past 2 decades. Framing their actions as some surreptitious plan to conquer the middle east is no different from describing Israel’s actions against Palestine as self defense.

It’s not so much that Iran is the voice of reason, but that they’re left with no other choice than to be the counterweight to what is happening. And if they had not done so covertly, they’d be putting their very existence in danger as well.

Either you understand that the consensus is that naming things is hard and you just want to elevate yourself above everyone else by arguing against it, or you’re unaware that it is the consensus, in which case your opinion doesn’t really matter because you most likely underestimate the issue.

It’s such a truism that I’d suggest googling "naming things is hard*.

There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things. – Phil Karlton

https://www.namingthings.co/

“Figured it was a bad idea” actually means that some people were against it because they believed semantic class names were the solution, I was one of them. This was purely ideological, it wasn’t based on practical experience because everyone knew maintaining CSS was a bitch. Heck, starting a new project with the semantic CSS approach was a bitch because if you didn’t spend 2 months planning ahead you’d end up with soup that was turning sour before it ever left the stove.

Bootstrap and the likes were born out of the issues the semantic approach had, and their success and numbers are a testimony to how real the issue was, and I say this as someone who never used and despised bootstrap. Maintaining semantic CSS was hard, starting was hard, the only thing that approach had going for it was this idea that you were using CSS the way it was meant to be used, it had nothing to do with the practicality. Sure, your html becomes prettier to look at, but what good is that when your clean html is just hiding the monstrosity of your CSS file? Your clean html was supposed to be beneficial to the developer experience, but it never succeeded in doing that.

There’s dumb people and some of them drink or smoke.

The US reluctantly dragged into war.

By the brothers Grimm.

How is this getting upvotes? That’s like saying your cow’s name is actually “mammal”. The post was not about a general term to label a group of things.

What’s silly is that you lot consistently see the situation on its head. Either you don’t get what is going on, or you don’t want to tell the truth.

Hamas is what happens when you do to people what Israel does. It’s that simple. You cannot deprive an entire people of their dignity and commit atrocities for half a century and then complain when a section of them turns to violence. Anyone who suggests that is an idiot.

You sound so utterly clueless about the whole thing. And stupid to boot.

I suggest you go back to the beginning of the discussion to see what it was about, because I feel like I’m going to be repeating myself.

Of course it’s better because the risk of consequences is quite small compared to when you’re breaking the law in your own country.