You then use the power of AGI to keep everyone else down, economically and militarily. Billions of AGI-controlled drones patrolling the Earth and enforcing your supremacy. Yes, the future is grim and dystopian.

If one thinks this is farfetched, they aren't paying attention to geopolitics.

The person who posted that question is Israeli.

Nelson Mandela's grandson agrees.

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/mandelas-grandson-...

The problem is that the label is used in media to assign moral judgement, when it's just a political proscription that is typically assigned for entirely geopolitical reasons. Almost every country occupying a foreign territory, or is engaged in war with a group, or even another country, calls military action of the other side terrorism.

It doesn't mean anything. If it is to carry a moral judgement, it needs to be based on universally applied principles. It takes 5 seconds of thinking to see that it's absolutely not based on universally applied principles.

Oh, they're banned in Israel?! Why would they possibly be banned?? Could it be that...

Zionists have showed what they are about through their actions ever since establishing their ethnosupremacist state. And they showed that genocide is not a red line to them over the past 2 and a half years. What they say they are about on paper is no longer relevant.

Well that would be counter-productive to actually building a surveillance state.

They are covering for and not prosecuting perpetrators in the biggest child trafficking and abuse scandal in recent memory -- the Epstein case. Let us do away with even a surface-level pretense that they care about kids at all.

2) Alleged by the authorities to have been done by Hezbollah.

3) Not Europe.

4) Not Europe, and it's been merely alleged by PM Albanese that the incident had anything to do with Iran.

> I can add more if that’s not “terroristy” enough for you.

Please do, as the ones above are really not meeting the bar.

Provide strong evidence or retract your statement.

Before Israel was established in 1948, was Western civilization toast? Or was it the power of the "western civilization" that conquered and ruled the world for centuries beforehand that allowed the creation of Israel?

Have a good night.

Now, specifically, you said that: "Their idea of "martyrdom" is killing people who disagree with them". Are "they" Iranians? Shia? Muslims in general? People of the middle east in general? After having settled the question of who "they" are, you are then claiming that if they kill those who merely disagree with them, they consider those doing the killing to be martyrs? That would disagree with the common understanding of what a martyr is worldwide, and hence my comment about your claim being quite extraordinary.

I challenge you to not try to steer the topic away from my questions, or make additional claims without being specific and providing evidence for those either. I am not interested in widening the scope of the conversation into endless arguing.

You know the one about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?

If they are invading your country when you haven't invaded theirs, absolutely. An illegal war of aggression makes all the participants on the attacking side morally bad, yes.

Those pilots are dealing death and destruction to people and the infrastructure of the attacked country on a daily basis, which they sneak-attacked in the middle of what the victim country thought were diplomatic negotiations, for the second time. Do those pilots not deserve a lot of bad things happening to them in return?

If you are stabbing someone on the ground and I am standing next to you, pointing a gun at anyone who comes close and tries to help, and when your current knife breaks I hand you another one to use, I am an active participant in your crime. If it weren't for me, someone would have got you, or you wouldn't have done it in the first place due to caution since no one is there to protect you.

US took that role with Israel, and was an activate participant in Israel's genocide of the indigenous people of Palestine.

Sir, have you read about Western countries' imperial and colonial past, even over the last century alone? What about just the last 2 years, as they stood by Israel in every meaningful way while from time to time 'expressing concern' and issuing statements that 'international law must be respected' as the hypocrites that they are? The original commenter was correct: Israel fits right in.

I understand that appealing to myths of noble intentions of western populations is ultimately a good thing if it gets them to act more like it, but a part of me can't resist pointing out that it's just a myth and it's never been anything other than 'might makes right'. I agree with your goal, just please don't frame it as if western countries are these beacons of morality when they're anything but.

Let's look at a scenario. I'm a local policeman who jails everyone in my neighborhood who steals from others, except one person that I allow to steal anything they want, whenever they want. When a victim of their theft tries to take their property back from the thief, I stop the victim and jail them for theft, because they tried to take what is now the property of the original thief. Some people say that I had no right to jail the victim for trying to take back what was originally theirs from the thief. Other people cite that it is technically theft and that someone else constantly getting away with theft does not mean that the policeman shouldn't stop this current case of "theft". Whenever the victims tried to do it the proper way and report the thefts to me, I did nothing.

Should the society trust me to continue doing law enforcement? Of course not. They should immediately replace me, and if that's not possible, they should exile me and organize themselves into a militia and enforce the rule of law on their own.

Going back to the real topic, USA has no moral right to intervene on the basis of punishing "slaughter" when they themselves are in the business of slaughtering people worldwide if it's in the business interest of its elite, and supports other countries slaughtering if it's somehow to the perceived benefit of the USA's leaders. The rest of the world should never allow it given USA's historical record, even a recent one.