this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2026
82 points (100.0% liked)
chat
8579 readers
367 users here now
Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.
As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.
Thank you and happy chatting!
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The shorthand I always use is that they attacked Iran because they're bored. I haven't tried it because I've really disengaged from arguing. But I think, if someone engages with the idea and tries to explain a justification, you could get a lot of frustration and onlooker approval by doubling down on "it's only happening now because Epstein died and they have nothing to do."
I think boredom is part of it, before invading Venezuela, Trump was all bark, no bite, sat in charge of a dying empire and looked miserable. Now he can at least say that he is doing something I guess. But he is still in charge of a dying empire and miserable lol.
The dying empire is alternating years between imperialism and imperial boomerang. 2027 will be back to boomerang.
I don't think they did it to honor Trump's good friend Epstein, it's probably just a reminder that they're running out of time (because Trump is getting old, not because the democrats will do anything about it).
the democrats will run in the midterms on how they can bomb schoolchildren better and more efficiently than trump did
It'll be "Iran is bad and evil, and obviously we could not allow them to acquire a nuke, but we care about human life and blowing up 165 little girls is an atrocity, which is why under my administration we will only be killing their parents"
If anyone tries this on me, my response will be "If Iran had nukes, those schoolgirls would still be alive"
(Based on arguments I've had with supposed 'bleeding heart lefty' Zionists)
A large number of people would then counter with 'those girls would be alive but then Israel would be a smoking radioactive crater'. They simply don't 'value' (or consider, for that matter) non-white people. The calculus here is 1 Israeli > any number of non-Israelis.
You can't argue or counter argue a liberal into the correct position, it just throws their white supremacy into stark relief.
That being said, I think it could be a useful counter to some people, but yeah not a silver bullet retort, if that makes sense.