As I said to the other guy, that is literally not what the word peaceful means. You can be tyrannical and still peaceful, especially since the context obviously implies they’re talking about Iranian foreign policy.
I mean otherwise you could make similar claims about the US. Such a peaceful country! It wasn’t them overthrowing the legitimately elected governments, but local resistance groups! Who trained and armed them? How does this relate to the conversation?
You should put something between the link and the semicolon, otherwise it breaks the link. That aside, while that is certainly not very peaceful, it strikes me as not relevant to the context of countries lobbing bombs at each other.
You should put something between the link and the semicolon, otherwise it breaks the link.
It works both on Voyager and the web client for me
That aside, while that is certainly not very peaceful, it strikes me as not relevant to the context of countries lobbing bombs at each other.
It isn’t relevant to the bombing really, and if you go back in the discussion you’ll see that I stated this (edit: or rather that I’m against bombing Iran). This was only in response to the implication that Iran is peaceful.
If you think so… I never said it is, this was purely objecting to the statement that Iran is a peaceful country. It’s a repressive regime that finances insurgent groups to put it lightly. Does that justify the attack that just happened? No. But still doesn’t make Iran peaceful
I mean otherwise [from context: saying that financing terror groups is a thing peaceful countries do] you could make similar claims about the US. Such a peaceful country! It wasn’t them overthrowing the legitimately elected governments, but local resistance groups! Who trained and armed them? How does this relate to the conversation?
Here, what Iran does is applied to the US in an ironic manner, because I, the writer, assume that nobody thinks the US is a peaceful country, because I don’t think so either, hence calling them out though indirectly; but again nobody called them peaceful (rightfully so), so there was no need to spell it out, I assumed.
Yeah like when women aren’t wearing headscarves
As I said to the other guy, that is literally not what the word peaceful means. You can be tyrannical and still peaceful, especially since the context obviously implies they’re talking about Iranian foreign policy.
Iran’s foreign policy isn’t peaceful either, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_diplomat_terror_plot_trial; just because they don’t operate in the open doesn’t mean it’s peaceful.
I mean otherwise you could make similar claims about the US. Such a peaceful country! It wasn’t them overthrowing the legitimately elected governments, but local resistance groups! Who trained and armed them? How does this relate to the conversation?
Weird how nobody notices this until it’s useful to criticize someone the Americans want war with.
Then they forget once the war starts in earnest and never fix the problem
You should put something between the link and the semicolon, otherwise it breaks the link. That aside, while that is certainly not very peaceful, it strikes me as not relevant to the context of countries lobbing bombs at each other.
It works both on Voyager and the web client for me
It isn’t relevant to the bombing really, and if you go back in the discussion you’ll see that I stated this (edit: or rather that I’m against bombing Iran). This was only in response to the implication that Iran is peaceful.
Yes this is all to protect the women of Iran.
If you think so… I never said it is, this was purely objecting to the statement that Iran is a peaceful country. It’s a repressive regime that finances insurgent groups to put it lightly. Does that justify the attack that just happened? No. But still doesn’t make Iran peaceful
Weird how you only talk about the violence and terrorism of one side here
I have also accused the US of it in this very thread, but in order to understand it, you’d need reading comprehension skills
Also nobody has called “the other side” peaceful, so there’s no need for a rebuttal
Scrolled down pretty far, didn’t see. Still don’t.
You already replied to it, here the text again:
Here, what Iran does is applied to the US in an ironic manner, because I, the writer, assume that nobody thinks the US is a peaceful country, because I don’t think so either, hence calling them out though indirectly; but again nobody called them peaceful (rightfully so), so there was no need to spell it out, I assumed.
Oh I just assume anyone genuinely attacking the middle east without any nuance is choking down a whole lotta Florida .