Do you want to re-read what you said and rephrase?

if anyone reading this wants to respond to his post maybe? noting he wont like it if i say it.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 11 2026 11:35am

Entirely irrelevant to what I wrote but okay. You know nothing about the West, the hand that feeds you, yet you spit on it.

Consider that maybe the whole world hates you guys because you never, ever, engage in good faith on any topic whatsoever. And maybe consider that your people invaded and genocided nearly a million people to establish a state, and continue to bomb and slaughter children and infants in the present day? You refuse to talk about the plague of international jewry because it's your tribe?

The context.
Israel is at war with Hamas. Iranian regime is at war with.. its people ?
It’s not surprising that the Iranian regime calls the protestors “anarchists” and claim that it’s Israel and US behind them. That will grant them legitimacy to shoot and kill.
And don’t get me wrong, my side is f*ked up as well, labelling everyone as terrorists and continue to push the limit of “collateral damage”.
Now while you might agree that in a place like Gaza you can’t really operate without hurting the uninvolved, in Iran it’s a complete different story.

Iran and countries like Iran continue to criticize Israel while mass killing their own civilians. That’s what you can call irony.
Oh, and Iran is also a member in the UN.

This post was edited by WhiteSouned on Jan 11 2026 01:19pm

I know enough about the West to recognize what you clearly do not. Your society has not experienced real war for more than eighty years, and that distance creates moral comfort and false certainty. War is not an abstract debate to us. It is lived reality. When that reality reaches you, and history suggests it eventually will, the tone of certainty and judgment will disappear very quickly, and you will be asking for the kind of experience you now dismiss.


Your reply uses insults and group blame instead of responding to what I actually said, so it does not allow a real discussion. Criticizing a country or its policies is not being ungrateful, and no one owes silence because of alliances or support. Saying that “the whole world hates us” is not a fact, since countries act on interests and public opinion is divided and constantly changing. The claim that nearly a million people were genocided when Israel was founded is not supported by serious historical or demographic research. War in 1948 caused suffering and displacement, but calling it genocide by inventing numbers does not make it true. Civilian deaths in war are tragic and should never be dismissed, but there is a real difference between deliberately targeting civilians and civilians being killed during fighting with armed groups. Finally, talking about “international jewry” is not neutral language. It is a well known antisemitic idea that assigns collective guilt and hidden power, and it undermines any serious argument.



I dont like hypocrites

This post was edited by Many_Names on Jan 11 2026 01:19pm

There is a logical inconsistency in your post.

You criticized others for selective outrage, arguing that Iranian civilian deaths should be acknowledged universally. Immediately afterward, you explained that you only comment on events involving your own people. That clarification effectively exempts you from the standard you were just advocating. Do you understand what I just said?

This isn’t about motives or intent — it’s about consistency. If the principle is that all civilian deaths deserve equal attention, then limiting concern to a specific group contradicts that principle (As an example - how you view Palestinians). Hypocrisy, in its neutral definition, refers to applying a rule or expectation unevenly, holding others to a standard that one does not apply to oneself. The fact is not that you are a hypocrite, but that do you not comprehend this fact.

If I post the sun rises in the east, you will refute it, therefore I was hoping someone else would point at the error in your argument, alas it was not to be. I know I am wasting my time posting this as this will go right over your head, however I am acting on the principal that failed logic should be called out.

Finally, Iran was a constitutional monarchy with a parliament (the Majlis), which meant some democratic structures and elections were in place. That is the same as England btw.

can we like agree to not spar for the week. you are hard work.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 11 2026 02:25pm

That would only be a logical inconsistency if you were Palestinian.

I think the safest way to answer this is to add comments, which i have in bold. happy new year.

here is a blurb to expand on my view of the UN:

My point is rooted in the role and purpose of the UN. The United Nations exists as a global forum where all recognized sovereign states — democracies, autocracies, monarchies, even states with highly repressive regimes — can engage in diplomacy. The goal is collective dialogue, conflict resolution, and addressing global issues: peacekeeping, humanitarian aid, climate, public health, human rights. In that sense, membership does not imply moral equivalence between states; it simply acknowledges their sovereignty and right to be at the table.

From Israel’s perspective, especially in certain political narratives, the UN can be framed as biased or even hostile — for example, because it criticizes Israeli actions or passes resolutions against Israel more frequently than against other states. Using Iran’s membership as a foil is a rhetorical move: “If the UN admits a country we consider hostile, how can the UN be legitimate?” It’s emotionally powerful for domestic audiences but logically weak, because it ignores the UN’s very purpose: to engage with all countries, even enemies, to prevent escalation and maintain channels of communication.

My framing — that sovereign nations need a forum to speak to everyone, friends and foes alike — highlights this fundamental principle. Even if Israel considers Iran a threat, having diplomatic and multilateral channels through the UN is strategically valuable: it allows for negotiation, intelligence gathering, and influence in international law — things that unilateral isolation would deny Israel.

In short: Israel’s critique of the UN often conflates institutional function (engaging all members) with moral approval, which is not how the UN operates. Membership isn’t endorsement; it’s a recognition that states exist and need a venue for dialogue. This is a classic tension in international relations: pragmatism vs perceived moral alignment.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jan 11 2026 02:35pm

You are combining two separate ideas and treating them as one. I am not claiming that every person must speak about every civilian death everywhere. What I am criticizing is selective moral outrage, when people claim universal concern but apply it only where it supports their political position. That criticism is about the claim they make, not about my own posting habits.

I focus mainly on my own people because that is where my responsibility, knowledge, and personal stake are. I am not presenting myself as a neutral global voice. Because of that, I am not exempting myself from a rule. I am not imposing that rule on myself in the first place. I am pointing out when others do.

Saying “all civilian deaths matter” while only condemning Israel or the West is a political choice presented as moral consistency. Calling that out does not require me to comment equally on Iran, Sudan, or any other conflict.

Regarding Iran, describing it as a democracy because it had a parliament is misleading. Formal institutions alone do not equal democratic accountability. In practice, it was an authoritarian system with limited political freedom, even before the Islamic regime.

This post was edited by Many_Names on Jan 12 2026 12:50am

English to Israeli translator

English: hamas
Israeli: all arabs


Once this is understood, their comments make more sense.

That claim collapses under basic facts. Nearly one fifth of Israelis are Arabs. If Israelis believed ‘Hamas = all Arabs’, Israeli society could not function as it does. Hamas is a terror organization. Arabs are a diverse group of people, including millions who live as Israeli citizens.