realm47

Israel relies heavily on false flags. Literally. That is not a real flag. It's a rigid cone painted like one.

@noam_dworman This is a weird way of framing it. "Can we accept a nuclear Iran" is not a yes or no question. It all comes down to costs and tradeoffs. If all it takes is a few weeks of high gas prices, by all means do it. If it takes another Afghanistan/Iraq quagmire, then it's not worth it

We are a funny species. Even our best and brightest can avoid fundamental questions en masse. Can the world accept a nuclear-armed Iran? If not, what is it prepared to do to stop it? However we got here, as of 5.4.26, that is our choice. And it is barely being faced head-on.

@noam_dworman @Hormesislover She made him seem like my aunt who believes in the healing power of crystals, a little mystical and kooky but otherwise harmless. I was shocked how little she pushed him on things.

@Hormesislover I don't think that's the reason. They hate him I think. She just didn't master the subject matter before she went into the interview.

A properly prepared journalist would have called him on it. Unbelievable missed opportunity.

@noam_dworman @floro77 Honest question: does this not count? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peac…

@floro77 Send me a link to the terms the "other state" would accept or has offered to accept in the last 25 years.

I already answered this elsewhere. I'll add: There are countless "ethnostates." The very notion of self-determination of peoples implies ethnicity. What is Japan? Egypt? Armenia? Do people yell "ethnostate" when the Kurds seek their own nation? It's absurd.

@noam_dworman @_Classical_Lib_ @bleeker185 @Aizenberg55 Yes, I remember thinking the same thing the first time I heard Dave and Darryl talking about WW2 being the worst thing that ever happened. I agreed. But the obvious follow-up, that is could have been much worse with the Nazis winning, was just ignored.

In one way, yes. But in another way, it was a watershed cultural moment. Rogan took a clear side with the Darryl Cooper wing, and every reasonable person by now understands Darryl is some form of Nazi sympathizer. Until the debate he was sort of considered above the fray. Now he's firmly in a camp. Murray scored the key point. When Smith said that WWII was the worst possible outcome, Murray answered, "no, the worst outcome was the Nazis winning." [ And taking over the world.]

.@Aizenberg55 (Salo Aizenberg) speaks! We discuss the casualty count debate, the moral dilemma that Hamas's war strategy imposes on Israel, jihadi journalists, Genocide, and more.

@_Classical_Lib_ @bleeker185 @noam_dworman @Aizenberg55 I don't think Murray won his debate with Dave. He came in so unprepared, and it showed (he started criticizing Darryl Cooper, but didn't even know his name and confused him with someone else). Coleman on the other hand dominated because he did his research ahead of time.

@realm047 @bleeker185 @noam_dworman @Aizenberg55 Dave got exposed during the Rogan Murray debate and was then executed by Hughes. He is just another surface-level useful idiot.

@bleeker185 @noam_dworman @Aizenberg55 Yeah, I used to be a big fan of Dave, but lost a ton of respect when he responded to one of Noam's pods but blacked out Noam's face every time he appeared on screen. Dave, rightfully, calls out people like Ben Shapiro for refusing to debate, but then he avoids Noam. Hypocrite

@noam_dworman @realm047 @Aizenberg55 Noam is fantastic. Exactly why Dim Dave Smith won’t sit down with him.

@noam_dworman @levine2001 @OldMeanLady @DebbieSchlussel @MaxNordau @ComicDaveSmith Lol, as a teen in the 90s, it was drilled into us to NEVER USE YOUR REAL NAME ON THE INTERNET. For many in my generation it stuck. Personally I think it's nuts to use your real name on social media, unless you're trying to build a public persona.

@levine2001 @OldMeanLady @DebbieSchlussel @MaxNordau @ComicDaveSmith I notice a lot of people who hide behind anonymity are not normal, and feel free to behave like boors. I put my name out there despite risk to my business. You are a coward.

I asked @ComicDaveSmith 2 years ago if he was being used as a "useful idiot" by the Jew-haters he was associating with.

@noam_dworman Personally, I think it was a major accomplishment for Obama, and far more preferable than the situation we're in now. Trump tearing it up was stupid and reactionary, just trying to undo everything Obama did. And I say this as someone who voted against Obama and for Trump.

@noam_dworman Could you go into more detail on exactly how you feel/felt about the JCPOA? At times it sounds like you're admitting that Trump tearing it up was a mistake, but then here you're maybe blaming it for 10/7? You've touched on it a bit on the pod, but I'd like a clearer answer.

It’s chilling that people of such influence can be this blatantly partisan, this dumb, or both. Iran signed the JCPOA because it served Iran’s interests at the time. (It surely wasn’t trembling at the thought of Obama’s military option.) Did the deal lead to 10/7 by giving Iran billions to fund its proxy network? Maybe. But post-10/7, the world has reset. Iran has been exposed as a paper tiger and humiliated in the 12-Day War. It is terrified by the Abraham Accords, by the prospect of Saudi Arabia joining, and by a future of unstoppable Israeli bombing runs. The JCPOA would not have prevented any of this. Iran's conclusion is obvious: go nuclear. Nothing else can restore its deterrence or rehabilitate its position in the region. If Saddam had gone nuclear, he would still be in Kuwait today. The JCPOA is irrelevant to Iran’s position today. There is only one thing that might make Iran postpone a bomb: American military pressure. Period. Rhodes either doesn’t see this, or pretends not to. His half-assed TDS analysis is an embarrassment.

@noam_dworman @Syrio_Forrel @What Wouldn't this hypothetical pipeline be running through countries they have already shown a willingness to hit though? And they haven't just been attacking US bases, they've already gone after oil infrastructure. What is special about a pipeline that doesn't apply to a refinery?

@Syrio_Forrel @realm047 @What All I can tell you is that it would be a very different scenario if Iran started bombing civilian infrastructure in other countries. However, if you believe it, isn't it then pretty urgent to prevent them from getting a nuclear bomb and bullying the entire region.

If there were no Strait of Hormuz, would Gulf oil go forever unutilized? Trump, Israel, and our Gulf allies should announce a major Red Sea pipeline and export-bypass project. Call it “Plan B.” Iran has played the card once. Five years from now, that card should be worth a lot less, if not worthless. Put that in your Pape and smoke it.

@noam_dworman @steady_drumbeat @dark7eleme40971 You seriously think a liberal successor would do something about the settlers, beyond just slowing new growth? They're no longer niche, around 10% of Israeli Jews live beyond the Green Line. And the west bank has been bisected, this isn't something you can fix with land swaps

It's just not that simple, is it? Ehud Olmert actually ran and won a promise to unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and it was derailed by violence. "Decamping" from Gaza led to non-stop rockets, and then 10/7, and the world was not sympathetic to Israeli reprisal. Hamas, by all data, will take over in the West Bank. That's the high ground, overlooking the Israeli population centers. In an age of drones and cheap missiles, are you putting yourself in the shoes of others? Is it asking too much, prior to your solution, to ask the Palestinians to simply stop swearing they'll never ever accept Israel and never ever end the fight? Yes, we should lean on Israel to crack down on settlers. If Netanyahu loses the next election, hopefully that what we'll see. But as you surely know, Hamas sees Tel Aviv as a settlement too. Remember, Jordan invaded from the West Bank in 67 before a single settlement existed.

“For the sake of Palestinian liberation” is pretty glib here. Liberation meaning what exactly? “River to the sea”? That’s the slogan we hear at rallies. So Israel gets embargoed while Iran’s proxies keep attacking from multiple fronts until Palestinians agree to terms they’ve repeatedly rejected? Or is it until Israel is no more? Sheesh @mattyglesias

@noam_dworman @nadirabid Come on, this is like "Fauci is just trying to help now. It doesn't matter that he helped fund the creation of the thing. That's all in the past." Is it too much to ask that we get new people in charge?

@nadirabid We are playing the current hand with the current cards. I don't know why so few people understand that the past does not matter. A new President would have to handle the same situation that Trump now has to handle.

Wanting to be fairminded (I assume), do you make any allowances for the fact that a wartime leader has to say certain things that might not actually represent the compromises he's ready to eventually accept? Or, none of the normal rules of fairness apply to Trump-matters?

@noam_dworman @0millennial Is there a level of West Bank settlement that would change your mind? Even if they didn't intended to hold it in 67, it sure looks like they want it today. I'm reminded of your conversation with that right wing Israeli who said your thinking was stuck 20-30 years in the past.

Indication that Israel was looking to take the West Bank in '67, or that the Palestinians didn't walk away from Omert's offers, or indications that Hamas, Hezbollah, et al, don't want the destruction of Israel. That individual Israelis say this or that, like Joe Kent says this or that, are not real evidence. They are cherry picking.

Implication successfully inferred! This is a deeply unjust tweet. Peace between Sunni and Shia is not achievable, let alone by Israel. And, of course, the war is fueled by Iran - intentionally. All Israel wants, is to be safe within its own borders. A simple observation Pape will never utter. With a real and reliable offer of that safety, all is possible. Without it, nothing is.

@noam_dworman Consider not just the motivation, but the odds of success. I don't want Iran to get a nuke, but it doesn't seem to me like this war is working. We gave them even more reasons to pursue one, and now we're looking for ways to end the war. What exactly did we accomplish here?

These are weighty questions, but when a jihadist country sitting on an unlimited supply of energy wants to develop a super-weapon, maybe this is not the best-case-scenario for your argument? I suppose you oppose background checks for AR-15s as well?

@noam_dworman @conor64 Fair enough, but at some level it's very frustrating to see many of the people in charge now are the same ones who made the bad calls in the past. And of course they never acknowledge making any mistakes. I don't think it's unfair for someone like @mehdirhasan to point that out.

I tell people this every day. YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE PAST. You analyze a situation from where you are, not where you were. This is not an emotionally satisfying lesson to learn, but anything else is patently irrational. Yes yes doc, I shouldn't have smoked, what does that have to do with my cancer?

1/2 Ok, ok. As it unfolded last night, I was clearly too conciliatory for everyone's tastes. I'd love for America to throw whatever it takes at Iran – but that ain't gonna happen. As a matter of practical prioritization, preventing a nuclear Iran – and a nuclear Middle East – is by far the critical goal. And I suspect that if Iran turns itself into a kind of pariah rogue state by tolling 20% of the world's energy, it will lead to another set of unintended consequences, probably positive for America after a few years. That is not a firm opinion – just a gut feeling that no plan survives contact with the enemy, especially when the enemy has Red Sea options. (I DON'T WANT THE TOLL, but if that's the only possible compromise...) If Saddam had had an atom bomb, Kuwait would no longer exist. Like a black hole bends time and space, Trump bends the logic and consistency of everyone in his gravitational field. Prior to Trump, preventing a nuclear Iran was a 90/10 issue embraced by every major U.S. politician and president. I'm astonished by the TDS-induced complacency. Iran WILL go nuclear if we allow it to escape this situation. Even the anti-Trumpers admit as much. But somehow they no longer care. Drones, missiles, proxies, we should hope the regime falls. However it turns out, the simple question will be: Are we better off than we were before? Which status quo ante would we like to return to? 10/8/2023? 06/12/2025, before the 12-day war? 02/27/26, before the current war? Of course, I probably don't know enough even to comment here – but who does that stop these days?

@noam_dworman @conor64 I agree they now have every reason to go nuclear, but it's in large part due to disastrous choices we made. Exiting the JCPOA, using negotiations as a rouse to bomb them, etc. I get that we can't go back now, but do you agree in hindsight we should have chosen diplomacy?

I think after the 12 Day War, Iran going nuclear became a certainty, absent some kind of intervention. That's my working assumption. How could they not? I'm pessimistic we'll have the will to prevent it long term though. Hopefully something will give in the next year or two. We have to try IMHO.

@noam_dworman Which status quo would we like to return to? How about before Trump tore up the JCPOA? That seems infinitely more preferable than where we ended up.

Dusty may 2 years 1 natty Tom Izzo 31 years 1 natty