JayTreeman

Ben Gurion airport LITERALLY has an Airforce Base attached to it. The US LITERALLY evacuated their bases and had personnel staying in local hotels. Arguing against this is like saying the Iranian frigate in Indonesia wasn't a valid target because it wasn't in the theater of war

Embassies often hold intelligence offices. They're absolutely a valid target. Airports are infrastructure that supports military operations. (Flying in food and other supplies) Hotels that have been hit were where military personnel were staying. (When other countries do this it's called 'using human shields')

Are hospitals and school girls valid targets? One side is acting defensively. If you've been following this conflict for a while, you'd know that Iran has done as much as possible to avoid this conflict. Their back is against the wall and they're swinging.

Embassies, yes. Check out what the US embassy was doing in Tehran during the 70s. Gas terminals, yes. But also Iran has been claiming the strike in SA wasn't them. Hospitals, no. I haven't seen anything about Iran striking hospitals. US and Israel regularly strike hospitals. Schools, no. Once again, Iran isn't, but you can't say the same about the agressors

Iran has been hitting military targets and other infrastructure that's supporting military targets. What exactly would they be defending? France is out of range.

Iran claims one strike killed 200. That's unlikely, but so is this low number. I've seen some of these explosions. There's no way the casualty numbers are so low

It's been a slow start, but it started in Ukraine. So far it's been Ukraine then Iran. Next is likely Cuba or Mexico. Cuba for regime change. Mexico for 'the cartels'. Once the final straw hits, then things will escalate faster

This doesn't feel like an actual serious question. Try looking up wild cows and jungle fowl. Yes the domestic cow and chicken would probably go extinct if no one was continuing to domesticate them. That's kinda how evolution works

(I want to be clear that I'm not advocating for accelerationism, I'm just seeing holes in the argument) Pushing people in a vulnerable position now to make change for the future is a great example of the needs of the many ethical arguments. Advocating against change because it hurts me in the short term is inherently selfish. I know people that are accelerationists, and The ones I know don't assume that they'll come out ahead or even the same. They recognize that the system is inherently broken and they think they need more people uncomfortable to make meaningful change.

https://sourcenews.scot/analysis-5-of-the-worst-crimes-of-winston-churchill/

Churchill is probably viewed as worse than Hitler in parts of the world for good reason.

I think a lot of the argument against voting for lesser evil is the acceleration aspect. It's advocating for a quicker fall of the American empire

Any American that thinks you're going to be able to vote this regime out is either not paying attention or a complete shill

Reminder that this incredibly evil guy referred to trump as 'uniquely evil'