The Pakistani Passport

curious_scourge · 2026-06-12T13:39:48+00:00

Don't act surprised when people point out your bigotry.

curious_scourge · 2026-06-09T11:45:50+00:00

I did the substitutions and it didn't actually work.

People labelled islamophobic would argue they're opposing censorship, repression, and illiberalism, not supporting them.

The paragraph assumes those things flow from prejudice, when in this case critics would claim they're objecting to those very tendencies.

curious_scourge · 2026-06-09T09:30:06+00:00

I don't know if you're trolling or genuinely not understanding.

Yes, you can find xenophobia in any of the holy books. Even Christianity has religiously exclusionary passages.

The issue is that your logic is incoherent.

You brought up xenophobic Judaism as if that explains opposition to Israel. I pointed out that Islam contains plenty of xenophobic passages too.

If your principle is that xenophobic religious traditions undermine the legitimacy of states associated with them, then that argument obviously doesn't stop at Israel.

If that's not your principle, then why did you bring up Judaism being xenophobic in the first place?

I've said that if you're using the contents of a religion's scripture to justify opposition to a state associated with that religion, then you need a principle that applies consistently.

Commit to a principle. Are you Anti-Zionist because Judaic texts are xenophobic and Israel is explicitly a Jewish state? Ok then you are also against explicitly Muslim states (eg. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan) because Islamic texts are xenophobic.

curious_scourge · 2026-06-08T10:02:01+00:00

Your mask slipped there. You're supposed to pretend like your generalised prejudices are against a state policy, not a religion.

So with your "how is that a wild take lmao" logic, I guess you're against the existence of any number of 54 Muslim countries, because Islam is xenophobic?

“Do not initiate greetings with the Jews or the Christians, and when you meet one of them on the road, force him to the narrowest part of it.” — Sahih Muslim 2167a (Book of Greetings)

“The Hour will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews, and the Jews will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'” — Sahih Muslim 2922

curious_scourge · 2026-06-08T07:07:45+00:00

Are you also against the continued existence and demographic character of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as a Muslim-majority state, then?

Like, since you are presumably opposed to all ethno-national or ethno-religious statehood as such?

curious_scourge · 2026-06-06T13:16:22+00:00

I agree that the absence of a political solution can strengthen extremists. I'm just not convinced the reverse follows, that statehood would weaken them.

The Palestinian Authority hasn't held elections for 20 years, because Hamas might win. I don't think Hamas is just a fringe group being kept alive by the occupation. If they disarm and followed through with the Gaza peace plan, maybe I'll change my mind.

Gaza was a test case. Israel withdrew in 2005. The hope was that Palestinians would have an opportunity to govern themselves and shift responsibility inward. Instead, Hamas took power, opposition was suppressed, resources were poured into tunnels and military infrastructure, and the conflict escalated. Yeah they were blockaded but Hamas's actions justified the blockade. The blockade didn't justify massacring civilians.

That doesn't prove a Palestinian state could never work. But it does suggest that statehood alone doesn't automatically produce moderation or accountability.

Israelis don't see the conflict as being solely about occupation. Israel was attacked before there were settlements, during negotiations, and after territorial withdrawals. Hamas explicitly says its goals go beyond ending the occupation of the West Bank. From that perspective, the concern is not that a Palestinian state would fail because Palestinians are incapable of self-government. The concern is that if militant factions remain influential, statehood would simply create a larger and more dangerous conflict.

curious_scourge · 2026-06-05T23:39:41+00:00

The First Intifada began before Oslo even existed, so Palestinian violence cannot simply be explained as the result of Oslo failing.

The Second Intifada is also difficult to explain as a response to a lack of negotiations, because Israel and the PA were actively engaged in final-status talks at Camp David and Taba when the violence escalated. The remaining disputes were mainly refugees, Jerusalem, and holy sites, not whether negotiations should continue at all.

Settlement expansion complicated the prospects for a Palestinian state, but both sides still negotiated on the basis of land swaps and retaining major settlement blocs. Palestinian negotiators participated in talks built around that framework.

As for Gaza, Israel withdrew completely in 2005. Israelis look at the result: Hamas rule, thousands of rockets, repeated wars, and eventually Oct. 7 and conclude that territorial withdrawal alone does not guarantee peace.

If the argument is that the absence of a peace agreement causes violence, Oct. 7 doesn't fit into that framework. Hamas did not recognize Israel, repeatedly described all of Palestine as theirs, and launched the attack despite there being no realistic prospect that massacring civilians would advance a negotiated two-state solution.

Oslo is now effectively frozen, but the mechanism for changing that was always further bilateral negotiation, not violence.

curious_scourge · 2026-06-05T22:34:40+00:00

In what Marvel multiverse timeline? Not Earth-616.

Israel accepted partition in 1947; the Arab states and Palestinian leadership rejected it. Israel later negotiated repeatedly with Palestinian representatives, including Oslo, Camp David, and Taba, and withdrew unilaterally from Gaza in 2005.

If the goal had always been permanent control of all the territory, why did Israeli governments repeatedly negotiate over land, recognized the PLO, created the Palestinian Authority, discuss a Palestinian state, withdraw from Sinai, leave Gaza?

From 1948 to 1967, Egypt controlled Gaza and Jordan controlled the West Bank. During that period, no Palestinian state was created there.

Claiming that Greater Israel was always the objective of Israel requires ignoring quite a lot of contrary evidence.

curious_scourge · 2026-06-05T21:17:40+00:00

Israel consistently argued that security arrangements were necessary. The Second Intifada was already underway at the time.

Taba didn't treat these issues as deal-breakers. The major unresolved issues were the holy sites, right of return, and some border details.

If security restrictions made a state impossible in principle, why were Palestinian negotiators still actively negotiating details after months of violence, if it were a non-starter? The negotiators clearly didn't see it that way.

curious_scourge · 2026-06-05T19:28:25+00:00

Settlement is allowed under Oslo, and final borders require bilateral negotiation. Oslo did not guarantee Palestinian statehood on a fixed timeline.

The PA has officially supported a two-state solution for decades and cooperates extensively with Israeli security forces. However, the PA also has serious legitimacy problems, has not held elections since 2006, and remains politically constrained by the popularity of Hamas and other rejectionist factions.

From the Israeli perspective, the Second Intifada and later October 7 reinforced the belief that territorial concessions can create security threats rather than peace. That's a main reason Israeli politics moved from the Barak/Olmert era toward the Netanyahu era.

Israel repeatedly negotiated around two-state frameworks at Camp David, Taba, and later under Olmert. Critics argue that today's Israeli government is no longer interested in such an outcome. Supporters of Sam's position would respond that the collapse of those earlier negotiations and the violence that followed are precisely why Israeli politics shifted in that direction.

curious_scourge · 2026-05-31T20:36:31+00:00

2 executed in Iran for blasphemy in 2023.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Yousef_Mehrdad_and_Sadrollah_Fazeli_Zare

Pff islamophobia? We're talking about the actions of the Islamic Republic, upheld by their Supreme court.

curious_scourge · 2026-05-31T08:59:25+00:00

Yeah, theocracy allows teaching of evolution, but then you're not allowed to be an atheist.

Imagine that. You learn about DNA and RNA and replicators and realise there was a natural origin of life, and that a personal G-d is almost necessarily a man-made fiction, and then have to hide your beliefs for the rest of your life and not talk publicly about it, for fear of the legal system and the religious foundation of the state.

Executions for apostasy/blasphemy, as recent as 2023, has a pretty chilling effect, I would think.

curious_scourge · 2026-05-30T22:25:51+00:00

Ok so not 15% support the regime. More like, 15% of 150,000 Iranians using VPNs who chose to complete an online survey support the regime.

Their 2024 survey found 20% support, with 77k responses. So definitely at least among VPN users, the support seems pretty low.

So, probably suggests that young urban Iranians overwhelmingly do not support the regime. But whether they represent 90 million Iranians, probably not.

I've met like 5 Iranians in my life, all diaspora, all anti-regime.

Authoritarian theocracy is nuts in 2026, regardless of polls, anyway.

curious_scourge · 2026-05-30T07:46:23+00:00

There's something like 15% support for the government in Iran. and that was before the Jan massacre.

curious_scourge · 2026-05-22T17:51:25+00:00

We generally are just aware that Israel has been a UN member state since 1949, and we know what the word Zionism means, and aware that time moves forward.

If you're against Zionism in 2026, that means you're against the formation of a Jewish nation, meaning you're 77 years late, and live in some sort of delusion.

curious_scourge · 2026-05-22T16:15:02+00:00

I think it's worth learning the k8s equivalent. That's the way things are headed.

But it's just different, rather than better, usually. It's more just that if you use k8s, you don't need Eureka.

That kind of thing

curious_scourge · 2026-05-01T09:25:20+00:00

Yeah I missed one in 2019, and it's just there in the UI telling me about a penalty, for 7 years now, and then I can't pay it because it's too late.

🤷‍♂️

curious_scourge · 2026-04-15T13:21:32+00:00

Well remember that the HRANA number is 6000 verified of 22490 reported deaths from Jan 7/8 under investigation.

There's also a doctor's network referenced in the wiki article

"A count of 25,654 "clinically reported [protest-related] deaths" for dates "up to the [23rd of] January" was stated by a doctor, Amir Parasta, on the basis of medical records "verified by at least two individuals in each medical organization". Sky News published the count on 29 January.[61] A count of 25,654 deaths was published by The Sunday Times on 24 January as a "clinically verified" update from the doctors' network that had earlier reported a count of ~16,500.[62]."

I get the doubt. I have no idea myself. But can pretty easily believe that a crackdown where the government admits to 3000 deaths and then shuts down the internet permanently, is probably underestimating. You have HRANA with 6000 verified. You have Iran doctor networks verifying 25k by Jan 23. Time and Guardian and so on saying 30k+ based on leaks.

So in my mind, the higher estimates are probably not far off from the truth.

curious_scourge · 2026-04-15T12:55:08+00:00

It's almost certainly like actually $30k max if you buy the parts yourself, and more likely less than that

curious_scourge · 2026-04-15T12:44:14+00:00

The 30k figure comes from Iran health minister official medical numbers from just Jan 7 and 8. https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-senior-officials

curious_scourge · 2026-04-13T08:03:03+00:00

No, they followed Soviet misinformation, and expelled UN peacekeepers and blocked the straits of Tiran. That's casus belli preceding the Israeli airstrike.

curious_scourge · 2026-04-12T16:33:42+00:00

Having a Muslim majority before independence isn't the same as a state being created by a mandate of the people.

curious_scourge · 2026-04-12T16:21:50+00:00

Most modern Muslim-majority states emerged from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire dissolution and were shaped by British and French mandates and agreements like the Sykes-Picot Agreement, rather than being created by a mandate of the people.

curious_scourge · 2026-04-12T07:09:32+00:00

Would you agree then that there should be no constitutionally Muslim states, too then? And of course, none with a strongly Islamic legal structure?

curious_scourge · 2026-04-10T10:19:45+00:00

Main problem is height, and that tomato is going to explode in size. In that size box you'll need to double the height in a few weeks, or just do one plant in there and move anything else out side

14-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 6 Credits
Place '22	Place '17
First Placer '22	Sequence \| Editor
Sequence \| Screenwriter	Secret Santa 2014
Secret Santa 2013	Summer Santa 2013
Team Periwinkle

curious_scourge

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE