The conflict in Iran is a religious war,...

[puc]

...as are all wars it seems to me. Blood shed in the name of...

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) is a non-profit organization that advocates for religious freedom and separation of church and state in the US military and has been watching this unfold.

From the article: "A combat-unit commander told non-commissioned officers at a briefing Monday that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Pres. Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,” according to a complaint by a non-commissioned officer."

Scary.

 

[Borg]

Scary

Exactly.

 

[puc]

It's got Pete Hegseth written all over it.

 

[fresh_42]

 

[MindlessPieces]

My god's better than your god, and I'll prove it by blowing you guys up, but if I lose, it's because it was part of god's plan, nothing to do with my god not existing or being weak.

But of course, I'm not going to lose, because my god is better than your god.

Nek minute, Thor walks into the room holding his hammer.

 

[fresh_42]

I think religious wars are a myth. Yes, there have been many, but any closer look reveals that it is always about something else. The religious label is only a disguise. And you may start with the crusades to debate this opinion.

 

[puc]

No, you start with the Crusades if you want to debate my opinion.

 

[fresh_42]

No, you start with the Crusades if you want to debate my opinion.

From Wikipedia:

Gesellschaftliche Faktoren in Europa​

Der abendländische Adel erhoffte sich durch die Eroberung neue Besitztümer. Das traf vor allem auf die jüngeren Söhne des Adels zu, die nicht erbberechtigt waren und nun die Chance sahen, doch noch über ein eigenes Gebiet herrschen zu können. Dies war ebenso ein Ziel der Kirche, da der Gottesfrieden immer wieder durch Konflikte gestört wurde, in denen es in erster Linie um Gebietsstreitigkeiten ging. So boten die Kreuzzüge auch eine willkommene Beschäftigung für die überzähligen Söhne, die nicht im Kloster oder im Klerus untergebracht werden konnten oder wollten.

Große Teile der Landbevölkerung sahen im Kreuzzug eine Fluchtmöglichkeit vor den harten und oft sehr ungerechten Lebensumständen in der Heimat – zumal der Papst ein Ende der Leibeigenschaft in Aussicht gestellt hatte für jeden, der das Kreuz nehmen und ins heilige Land mitziehen würde. Den Kreuzrittern schlossen sich im Tross die Nichtkombattanten an: Frauen, Kleriker, Alte und Arme.

Auch Verbrecher und Gesetzlose folgten den Aufrufen, weil sie sich durch ihr Kreuzzugsgelübde der Strafverfolgung entziehen konnten und sich ein neues Leben oder Beute erhofften.

Wirtschaftspolitische Motive​

Wirtschaftlich profitierten auch die italienischen Seerepubliken (Genua, Pisa, Venedig und andere) vom Handel mit dem Orient. So wurde kurzzeitig überlegt, einen Kreuzzug zur Sicherung der Gewürzstraße durchzuführen. Die Idee wurde allerdings recht bald wieder fallen gelassen.

Das Papsttum versprach sich von der Kontrolle über das Heilige Land eine massive Stärkung seiner Machtposition. Letztlich haben die Päpste wohl auch auf die Wiedervereinigung mit der bzw. auf die Kontrolle über die Ostkirche gehofft. Daneben dominierten mit Beginn des Vierten Kreuzzuges auch wirtschaftliche Interessen. Das beste Beispiel für dieses Motiv ist wohl der Vierte Kreuzzug selbst, der von der Handelsmetropole Venedig nach Konstantinopel umgeleitet wurde und in der Plünderung durch das Kreuzfahrerheer mit Abtransport der Beute nach Venedig mündete, um den Handelskonkurrenten auszuschalten. Hier zeigt sich die vollständige Pervertierung des ursprünglich religiösen Kreuzzugsgedankens einerseits, andererseits auch ein Grund für die immer geringere Wirkung der Kreuzzüge in der Verteidigung des oströmischen Reiches.

Die Finanzierung der Kreuzzüge in den einzelnen Bistümern erfolgte über den Kreuzzugszehnten. Zu diesem Zweck wurden Amtsbücher wie der Liber decimationis angelegt.

Weitere Faktoren​

Der britische Historiker Robert Bartlett sieht die Kreuzzüge in einem größeren, gesamteuropäischen Zusammenhang<a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreuzzug#cite_note-13"><span>[</span>13<span>]</span></a>: Im 11. Jahrhundert setzt ein starkes Bevölkerungswachstum ein, bedingt durch günstige klimatische Umstände und neue Entwicklungen in der Landwirtschaftstechnik. Der Bevölkerungsüberschuss führt zu einer Expansion in die Peripherien Europas: Iberische Halbinsel, Irland, Germania Slavica, Baltikum und eben auch ins Heilige Land.

Translation:

Social Factors in Europe

The Western nobility hoped to acquire new possessions through conquest. This was especially true for the younger sons of the nobility, who were not entitled to inherit and now saw an opportunity to finally rule their own territory. This was also a goal of the Church, as the Peace of God was repeatedly disrupted by conflicts primarily over territorial disputes. Thus, the Crusades also offered a welcome opportunity for surplus sons who could not or would not be placed in monasteries or the clergy.

Large segments of the rural population saw the Crusade as an escape from the harsh and often very unjust living conditions at home—especially since the Pope had promised an end to serfdom for anyone who took up the cross and went to the Holy Land. The Crusaders were joined in the baggage train by non-combatants: women, clergy, the elderly, and the poor.

Even criminals and outlaws answered the calls, hoping to escape prosecution by taking their crusading vows and to gain a new life or plunder.

Economic Motives

The Italian maritime republics (Genoa, Pisa, Venice, and others) also profited economically from trade with the Orient. For a short time, there was consideration of launching a crusade to secure the Spice Route. However, this idea was quickly abandoned.

The Papacy hoped that control of the Holy Land would significantly strengthen its power. Ultimately, the popes likely also hoped for reunification with, or control over, the Eastern Church. Furthermore, economic interests dominated from the beginning of the Fourth Crusade. The best example of this motive is probably the Fourth Crusade itself, which was diverted from the trading metropolis of Venice to Constantinople and culminated in the plundering of Constantinople by the crusading army, with the booty being transported back to Venice to eliminate their trading rival. This demonstrates the complete perversion of the originally religious concept of the Crusades, on the one hand, and on the other hand, one reason for the ever-decreasing effectiveness of the Crusades in the defense of the Eastern Roman Empire (see also: Latin Empire).

The Crusades in the individual dioceses were financed through the Crusader tithe. Official records such as the Liber decimationis were compiled for this purpose.

Further factors

The British historian Robert Bartlett sees the Crusades in a broader, pan-European context[13]: In the 11th century, strong population growth began, driven by favorable climatic conditions and new developments in agricultural technology. This population surplus led to expansion into the peripheries of Europe: the Iberian Peninsula, Ireland, Germania Slavica, the Baltic region, and also the Holy Land.

Considerations like these can be made to any "religious" war.

 

[puc]

People that 'believe', in whatever form that might take, are prone to express their desires within the context of their chosen outlook. This to get what they want because they feel they deserve it or for some other reason.

In my experience anyway, the more firmly a person believes the more they feel they should express it. Share it; try and convince others to agree, etc.. This firmness of their belief gives them a very convenient and easily rationalized motivation, to varying degrees of course because everyone is different.

Divisions in belief systems can and do foster conflict, on personal and on international levels. And then this whole 'belief' concept can be used as a psychological weapon by those in power to get what THEY want. I think we all can see that happening.

This is too complex for me.

fresh_42: Were your responses meant to defend your beliefs?

 

[puc]

I'm not saying a war will happen, but this is how shit gets started.

 

[fresh_42]

fresh_42: Were your responses meant to defend your beliefs?

They were meant to support my opinion that religion is and was never the real reason for conflicts, only the label under which they are and were sold to the public. Patriotism is another big PR label used to sell wars, particularly in the USA and Russia. Religion makes and has made people think they would die for an eternal reward in the afterlife and that it's worth it. If you dig deep enough, you find primarily economic interests, the pursuit of power, fights for territory, or, as e.g., in the case of Northern Ireland, discrimination of a minority by the majority. It's often a mixture of very secular reasons. In Trump's case, you may add his narcissism as his main driving force. If you give a narcissist the command of the most powerful forces on the globe, what do you expect will happen?

 

[puc]

Oh, I'm not surprised by what's happening, but I don't like it either.

 

[Grinkle]

@puc I am convinced that Trump is atheist. I am atheist, and I can see tells of that belief system in him.

Fundamental to the Christian Good Life is contrition for ones sins - Trump doesn't even make lip service to this. In fact, he adopted the more Islamic or Hindu transactional approach when he said that in order to make up for his sins he needed to a lot of good. He said this as a joke - also an atheist tell. He somehow attempts to map what he thinks are Christian virtues onto his own deeply held transactional world views.

He made a casual joke about him having a beautiful and good soul, something a Christian believer would never do, imo. I have never been around someone I believe to be a Christian Believer indulge in deep sacrilege as an off-hand light hearted bit of humor.

I sometimes get pretty strong negative reactions when I argue to other atheists that Trump is 'one of us' with regards to spirituality, but atheism per se is not good or bad, and many atheists in my own experience are overly prone to mapping hypocrisy to a theist belief system. Atheists can be hypocrites, too. You never argued otherwise, not implying you disagree.

 

[Borg]

If there wasn't religion, they wouldn't be able to use it to falsely justify their wars.

 

[Grinkle]

Trump himself hasn’t, to my knowledge. It’s not necessary imo, to invoke religion. It might be convenient sometimes. When I’m at my desktop I’ll look for correlation between state sponsored violence and religion rates in the population.

 

[MindlessPieces]

@puc I am convinced that Trump is atheist. I am atheist, and I can see tells of that belief system in him.

Fundamental to the Christian Good Life is contrition for ones sins - Trump doesn't even make lip service to this.

I think it's pretty obvious that D Trump doesn't know much about Christianity. He doesn't seem to know the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament
He once said his favourite verse was "eye for an eye", which probably isn't a verse that Christians are going to hold in their top 1,000.

Another time he couldn't state his top verse.

He obviously didn't see the problem in merging the bible with USA constitutional documents.


Now I'm not going to cite his obvious non-pious lifestyle of cheating on his wives, lying, stealing (via fraud, and failure to pay debts or failure to pay out contracts to people who work for him, his extortion of people, his many scams e.g. Trump university. I'm not citing these as proof he isn't Christian because it is clear that being a Christian doesn't make a person more law abiding or more ethical or "Good".

Trump used to be "proChoice" until he was running for the Republican presidential candidate then all of a sudden he was "proLife".

But really, it doesn't matter if Trump is Christian or atheist or something else. He can claim to be Christian, and it's not for you or me to judge who is or isn't a "True" Christian. I just don't think Trump knows much about Christianity.

In fact, he adopted the more Islamic or Hindu transactional approach when he said that in order to make up for his sins he needed to a lot of good.

This seems like a slap in the face to Islam and Hindu religions. As far as I can tell there really isn't much difference between Islam and Christian religion, they are both based on the OT (Abrahamic stories), both derived from Jewish faith.

Trump's transactional approach to life comes from his upbringing as a businessman, he has been taught by his father to approach everything from a standpoint of "what's in it for me" and "how do I get the very best possible deal for me". This has nothing to do with any religion.

He made a casual joke about him having a beautiful and good soul, something a Christian believer would never do, imo. I have never been around someone I believe to be a Christian Believer indulge in deep sacrilege as an off-hand light hearted bit of humor.

The most interesting thing to me though is how so many USA people believe that Trump was chosen by God, many have professed this. It makes me wonder what has been happening at the grass roots of Evangelical Christianity in USA? Has Trump paid high ups in the faith to push this narrative onto the flock, or has this organically happened some how?

 

[Grinkle]

This seems like a slap in the face to Islam and Hindu religions.

I didn't mean it that way, and I'll retract that statement - I shouldn't have said it.

it's not for you or me to judge who is or isn't a "True" Christian.

From your past posts around morals, I suspect you mean that we can't be accurate about it because we can't get inside someone else's head, so I'm responding based on that being your meaning. I don't think there is anything wrong with individuals judging whether other individuals are living up to their professed rules/ethics/standards etc. We can compare any individuals behavior vs some defined set of 'rules to live by' and assess if they are "True" to those rules. Since there is no God, if humans don't make these assessments, they simply won't be made, and sometimes there is social value in making these assessments.

That aside, and this may be a nuance that isn't really relevant, I'm not saying that Trump isn't a "True" Christian, I am asserting that he is an atheist who is cynically using the beliefs of others, which beliefs he does not share and is fully self-aware that he does not share, to manipulate them. You can correctly counter that I have no direct knowledge of what is in Trump's head, but based on my observations of him, those are my beliefs about him while acknowledging I have no way to confirm those beliefs. I think that is more defensible that me saying that he's a "Bad" Christian or putting him somewhere on the scale of how well he adheres to the ethos of Christianity. I'm arguing that he doesn't believe any of it and doesn't care about any of it. For him its all cynical theatrics.

has this organically happened some how?

I think it very likely that Trump funneled money to the organizations of Jerry Falwell and other prominent evangelical influencers in exchange for their support and advocacy to their followers.

What he did policy-wise that appeals to evangelicals (that Falwell et al could talk to) were promising (and fulfilling the promise) to nominate anti-abortion SCOTUS judges and as often as he could / can taking the anti-gay side of culture war issues, eg businesses not wanting to serve gay clientele etc. He also picks surrogates who champion the idea that the US always has been and should always be a Christian nation - what exactly that means the evangelical person can picture in their own mind and believe they are voting for it when they vote for Trump.

IIRC, this evangelical messaging from Falwell et al was combined with admonitions to remember that sometimes God uses imperfect vessels.

 

[MindlessPieces]

I didn't mean it that way, and I'll retract that statement - I shouldn't have said it.

It's OK, no biggie, I'm not telling you off or anything. I'm stating that we can't really know if he is a Christian or not. There are many people that profess to be Christian who don't attend Church, have never read the bible, and some of those people are sitting prison having committed horrendous crimes. Even some people that devoutly study the bible, can tell you book and verse number of anything, are sitting in prison having committed horrendous crimes.
So all I'm saying is, that it is very difficult for a 3rd person to know if someone is a Christian or not. You cannot tell them by their fruit.
If they profess to be a Muslim or a Hindu person, then sure, we can know they aren't Christian. But if they say they are Christian, how can we confirm or falsify this? If they don't go to a Hindu temple, don't go to a mosque etc, if we have no evidence of an alternative affiliation, how can we know?

Who is the authority regarding whether a person is a Christian or not?

I just think it would be more precise to say, I doubt he is a Christian because he doesn't seem to know anything about the bible, doesn't seem understand much about the faith and traditions and when put on the spot he tends to say things that are ambiguous or seem contradictory to what a Christion would say, such as OT and NT are equal and "eye for an eye" is an top inspirational verse for him, and he misquotes references e.g. "I hear this is a major theme right here, but Two Corinthians, 3:17 that's the whole ball game," Trump told the arena of students. "You know, when you think -- and that's really -- is that the one? Is that the one you like? I think that's the one you like, because I loved it."
Clearly he fills in space with a bunch of words that have no meaning, ask him what Second Corinthians is about and I'm sure he doesn't have a clue. Ask him if it is in OT or NT and I'm sure he wouldn't know.

He does this when asked about policy too, just word salad comes out, no specifics, catch phrases that he applies to anything and everything.

He is just a figure head, an icon, he knows very little about anything, speaks about tropes, says disgusting racist things, trolls and tries to get as much attention as he can. But he certainly doesn't come across as being knowledgeable about anything., let alone Christianity, Politics, foreign affairs, American history, Geography, ...

From your past posts around morals, I suspect you mean that we can't be accurate about it because we can't get inside someone else's head, so I'm responding based on that being your meaning. I don't think there is anything wrong with individuals judging whether other individuals are living up to their professed rules/ethics/standards etc.

You didn't claim that he wasn't living up to Christian ideals, you were saying he was an atheist and not a Christian. I don't care either way, I suspect he probably is an atheist, but who knows?

He says he is a Christian, so let's just run with that. We have no way of verifying that claim. He can self identify as a Christian if he wants.

We can compare any individuals behavior vs some defined set of 'rules to live by' and assess if they are "True" to those rules.

I think most Christians fall way short of the supposed Christian rules to live by. Most Christians don't go to church, most probably haven't read the bible, they all think they are sinners, they all think Jesus died for their sins. So they believe they have a pass anyway and will be going to heaven regardless.

That aside, and this may be a nuance that isn't really relevant, I'm not saying that Trump isn't a "True" Christian, I am asserting that he is an atheist who is cynically using the beliefs of others, which beliefs he does not share and is fully self-aware that he does not share, to manipulate them.

You could very well be right, but we have no way of knowing.

You can correctly counter that I have no direct knowledge of what is in Trump's head, but based on my observations of him, those are my beliefs about him while acknowledging I have no way to confirm those beliefs. I think that is more defensible that me saying that he's a "Bad" Christian or putting him somewhere on the scale of how well he adheres to the ethos of Christianity. I'm arguing that he doesn't believe any of it and doesn't care about any of it. For him its all cynical theatrics.

I agree, I suspect he is playing the USA religious right, he gives them what they want (Christian lipservice, attacks on gays and trans, attacks on non whites, trolling of the left) and they give him what he wants (money, power, fame, idolation).

But in saying that, there is no authority other than himself to say whether he is actually a Christian or not.

 

[Grinkle]

there is no authority other than himself to say whether he is actually a Christian or not.

I will be meeting with a lifelong friend who is a Christian. Last we spoke, he was a Trump supporter. If I can convince him that Trump is knowingly lying about being Christian, this would matter a great deal to him. I don't know if I can convince him or not. The outcome of our discussion has a real world political impact - albeit a small one.

Do you think I (or any person) have no basis to argue as an objectively factual matter that Trump is knowingly lying about being Christian, and that I should stay short of that in my discussions and leave the matter of Trump's genuineness around Christianity as an unknowable matter of opinion?

That is not rhetorical - I am truly asking what you think about that question.

I can see your point in the quote I snipped, and I can make the same point about -

Is Trump racist
Is Trump conservative
Is Trump patriotic
Does Trump see himself as above the law

etc

None of these things are verifiable, but if I am not willing to argue such questions about the POTUS as objectively true or false based on my observations of his behavior, I feel I am falling short of my civic duty to exert political influence, infinitesimal though that influence may be, is my concern with taking the approach you conclude with in the above snip.

Perhaps I should note for people I am trying to influence that outcomes matter, and if looks and quacks like a duck we are well served to call it a duck and behave as though its a duck even if we can never be 100% sure its a duck?

 

[MindlessPieces]

I will be meeting with a lifelong friend who is a Christian. Last we spoke, he was a Trump supporter. If I can convince him that Trump is knowingly lying about being Christian, this would matter a great deal to him. I don't know if I can convince him or not. The outcome of our discussion has a real world political impact - albeit a small one.

Do you think I (or any person) have no basis to argue as an objectively factual matter that Trump is knowingly lying about being Christian, and that I should stay short of that in my discussions and leave the matter of Trump's genuineness around Christianity as an unknowable matter of opinion?

That is not rhetorical - I am truly asking what you think about that question.

I'm not the best person to give advice on how to interact with other people.

I think it is dangerous (if you value your friendship) to argue too forcefully on politics or on D Trump.
I feel your friend might be more likely to be persuaded if you speak factually rather than make a claim and hope he just accepts your claim. He might feel like you are pushing him into your conclusion and therefore he might get his back up, dig his feet in and then be forced into taking the other position.

Perhaps, as an alternative approach you could ask him for his advice on how he can know if someone is a Christian or not? Be upfront about it, don't try to trick him into a gottcha position. Like, he gives his stance and then you say, "Whatabout Trump? does he meet your criteria" That would seem like a trap and I doubt your friend would appreciate this approach.


But maybe state that you don't believe Trump when he says he is a Christian and that you feel he seems more atheistic to you, that it's no big deal to you one way or another, but just something you find interesting, given that a large amount of his supporters are evangelicals who seem to think Trump best fits the Christian USA values.


Like, what I'm trying to say is to downplay it quite a bit so that it is no big deal either way. It's not a "Gottcha, Trump isn't Christian, ha ha, libs win, Conservatives are suckers, kinda thing."

You are just asking your friend, because he is a Christian and understands better than you what Christianity is and what it means when a person is a Christian.

Maybe your friend would then value that you respect him for his knowledge.

But I would say to you, if you friend engages in this, then listen to him. Hear his points, understand them. You could say that Trump has cheated on all his wives, and your friend could say that many Christians have cheated on their wives. You could say that Trump seemed very awkward when trying to answer questions about the bible and doesn't seem to much up with biblical stuff, and he might say many Christians haven't studied the bible or even read it.

So you might learn from him, at the very lest, what might qualify someone as being a Christian.
He might just say if they profess to love Jesus and accept (or just publicly say) Jesus as god and saviour then they are Christian.
I don't know.

Approach it from a view to gain an understanding from your friend about how someone can claim to be Christian but not know much about the bible and live as a pretty dishonest, unethical, grifting and unsavoury billionaire. You might find that the bar is very low to simply being a Christian.

Don't approach it from the perspective that you are going to convince your friend that Trump is bad, not a Christian and not worth voting for. Don't try to convince him of anything, just try to learn from him how Trump could be a genuine Christian in his opinion.

This doesn't devalue Christians, Christian is a very broad umbrella term, not all Christians have the same devotion to living by Christian values.

I can see your point in the quote I snipped, and I can make the same point about -

Is Trump racist
Is Trump conservative
Is Trump patriotic
Does Trump see himself as above the law

etc

It's a bit different though. A rapist is a person that has unconsentual sex with an unwilling or underage partner. So there is a very descrete set of actions/activities that a rapist has to have done to qualify as a rapist.


It could be similar to calling one's self a conservative though.
conservative/liberal isn't a binary thing its a scale. I'd say most "conservatives" in NZ would be called "liberals" in USA as by USA standards I'd say most NZ conservatives are closer to the Dem party than the Repubs party policies. So this would be a self identity thing and would be in context of the environment one is in.

Same with being patriotic, that is a very loosely defined thing,.

Trump had his lawyers argue in court that he is above the law, the Supreme Court agreed with him.

 

[MindlessPieces]

It's a bit different though. A rapist is a person that has unconsentual sex with an unwilling or underage partner. So there is a very descrete set of actions/activities that a rapist has to have done to qualify as a rapist.

Whoops, sorry, on your list you said Trump as a racist (not rapist).
You could make a case and cite lots of evidence of Trump saying things that only racists would say. e.g.
Calling black and brpwn countries "shithole countries", saying that brown people are poisoning the blood of the country, saying there were fine people on both sides of Charlotesville, wasn't he and his father done for racist selection processes for tenents in a building of theirs?

Anyway, I'm just not sure what would be evidence for a person not being Christian, other than having evidence that they were in a competing religion such as being Muslim or Hindu or Jewish. I don't see much criteria needed to qualify a person as being Christian. We shouldn't assume that a Christian is law abiding and pious, and that an atheist is not.

 

[Grinkle]

@MindlessPieces Thanks for taking the time to share your perspectives on my question - I appreciate it. Its a small thing, but if I do find a way to discuss politics with my friend and still preserve our ability to enjoy spending time together I'll feel that is a tiny victory against the deliberately induced polarization we are suffering under. Its long odds.

edit: Our discussion has made me decide to drop the Christian angle because its not something I personally care about. I'm going to stick to things that Trump has done that are red lines for me personally, and not try to tell my friend what his red lines should be and then argue that Trump has crossed them - again, thanks for taking the time to respond.

 

[fresh_42]

 

[Grinkle]

Talarico has really found a promising lane for himself. Its rare to see a Democrat putting Christianity front-and-center. If that can work anywhere Red, it would be Texas.

 

[MindlessPieces]

@MindlessPieces Thanks for taking the time to share your perspectives on my question - I appreciate it. Its a small thing, but if I do find a way to discuss politics with my friend and still preserve our ability to enjoy spending time together I'll feel that is a tiny victory against the deliberately induced polarization we are suffering under. Its long odds.

edit: Our discussion has made me decide to drop the Christian angle because its not something I personally care about. I'm going to stick to things that Trump has done that are red lines for me personally, and not try to tell my friend what his red lines should be and then argue that Trump has crossed them - again, thanks for taking the time to respond.

Sounds like a better approach. Best of luck to you. Friends are for fun, not serious conflict.

 

[Grinkle]

A threat. How novel.

Iran strikes near Israeli nuclear research center as Trump threatens attacks on Iranian power plants

President Donald Trump on Saturday says the U.S. will “obliterate” Iranian power plants if it doesn’t fully open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours.

apnews.com

 

[puc]

And if this ever resolves itself before nukes are dropped he'll add it to his list of wars he's ended.

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Is Trump completely out of touch? Escalating against a religious war seems vanishingly unlikely to work. And when he says "fully open" does he seriously mean to US ships as well? That's effectively the same as his original futile demand for "unconditional surrender".

 

[Grinkle]

Is Trump completely out of touch?

Its my view that he is genuinely so; not from stupidity but from something about how his brain works.

He simply does not know how to relate to people who put what I will loosely call 'abstract ideals' above whatever he views as what he would consider his own self-interest were he in their position.

At some point, its my expectation that a quasi-permanent military presence will be established to restore and maintain security in the SoH. It will probably end up being mostly US and Arab funded / supported, perhaps 100% so. How much more destruction the world has to endure before Trump recognizes that the Iranian regime will never stop tit-for-tat on energy infrastructure attacks remains to be seen.

 

[MindlessPieces]

Its my view that he is genuinely so; not from stupidity but from something about how his brain works.

He simply does not know how to relate to people who put what I will loosely call 'abstract ideals' above whatever he views as what he would consider his own self-interest were he in their position.

If I were try to assess Trump's style and guess where it comes from, I'd say this.

Trump doesn't seem to be academic. His degree seems bought not earned. I say this because his phrases aren't particularly coherent, he also doesn't seem to value learned knowledge, instead he seems to be one of those people that believe they just intuitively know stuff. Go by gut feel.

For all of his life he has lived in privilege. Extreme wealth since 8 years old, handed the keys to his father's empire, and been the boss, everyone around him needs to kowtow and he has never had anyone with power over him make him accountable for his words and actions. So "rules don't apply to him".

His core values seem to be fame, money, power. He also seems to be very old school and has a Mob boss mentality. Needs to show strength at all times, needs to have people fear him.

People, to him, are disposable. Loyalty is something the weak give to the powerful in the feeble hopes of being thrown some scraps. The powerful don't give loyalty, they demand it. Giving loyalty is a sign of weakness. Retribution is his main tool to get people to fear him. He is ruthless in his pursuit for retribution, he will complete destroy a person's career, reputation if they have ever been an obstacle to him. He uses his wealth as power, uses it to gain control. If he wants something from you he will try to take it by force as negotiation, favours etc are for the weak. His army of lawyers allows him to dominate people and companies, tying them up in costly and lengthy litigation where typically his foes just give up rather than defend themselves.

Trump has no loyalty towards morals or ethics, he has no shame, he is willing to do anything that will ultimately benefit himself.
To that regard, he has amassed a large fan base, and they are a tool for him. He grifts them (well, because he loves money), he uses them to gain power over Republican politicians (do what I want otherwise I'll get you primaried), he uses them to threaten people (a crowd sourced army) and he manipulates them all the time.
When he says "windmills are killing birds or causing cancer" he doesn't actually believe this is a problem nor does he care about birds or cancer. He is trying to get retribution because he had a legal fight over wind turbines. He has no interest in informing or educating the public, he says stuff to further his own goals. He does not speak truth and let listeners decide what to do with it, he manipulates his loyal (weak) followers for his own goals/gain.

So when looking at a situation like the Iran war,
Is Trump doing this for world peace? Not at all likely.
Is Trump doing this because it is the "right" thing to do? For Trump the definition of "right" is things that will give him fame, money and/or power.
Listening to Trump's words is a waste of time “They weren’t willing to stop their nuclear research,” Trump said. “They weren’t willing to say they will not have a nuclear weapon. Very simple.”
These words Trump said above is to manipulate the public, they aren't to broadcast the truth.

So why did Trump attack Iran?
My guess is that there is some deal in it for Trump. Maybe the Saudi's are paying Trump, via his Trump bitcoin, via his stocks in Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG)
Maybe some deal the Saudis have with Kushner and maybe Kushner then funnels money back to D Trump. Dunno. But my guess is that Trump has used USA's military to attack Iran because somehow it makes Trump personally richer, more famous or more powerful.