Israel’s protection of the Druze is not merely humanitarian, it is strategic. It is a message to the world that true coexistence must be defended with action, not slogans.
I read your article and wanted to offer a different perspective. While your focus on jihadist violence and the protection of minorities is important, several points in your piece seem to oversimplify the Middle East and exaggerate the threat of Sharia law in liberal democracies.
1)Israel and humanitarian framing: You describe Israel as “the last shield for religious minorities” portraying IDF actions as morally necessary.I argue that U.S. and Israeli policies are shaped by political and strategic interests, not purely humanitarian concerns.Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights highlights the humanitarian cost of Israeli military operations, including civilian casualties in Gaza which complicates the narrative of Israel as a purely protective force.
2)Alarmism about Sharia law: Your depiction of Sharia as a looming, coercive threat across Europe and Africa overgeneralizes complex realities.I would challenge the idea that Muslim communities in liberal democracies are systematically trying to impose religious law. Most Muslims in Europe live under secular legal systems and framing them as a monolithic threat risks spreading fear rather than understanding. To add perspective remember how, after 9/11, President George W. Bush repeatedly told Americans that “they hate our freedom” and suggested that if terrorists weren’t blowing things up, they would be enforcing Sharia law in New York. That rhetoric was part of a propaganda effort to justify the Iraq War and the killing of thousands of people. Let’s not belittle our intelligence by recycling the same kind of fear mongering propaganda that worked 20 years ago,the propaganda machine was alive and well back then.
3)Jihadist threat in context: You emphasize jihadist groups as central drivers of conflict and instability. I stress that Western interventions and state policies have significantly contributed to extremism in the Middle East. Reducing the region’s instability to jihadist ideology alone oversimplifies history and geopolitics. For instance, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham,was once designated a specially designated global terrorist by the U.S., with a $10 million bounty on his head. Despite this, in December 2024 U.S. diplomats met with him in Damascus, leading to the removal of the bounty. This shift underscores the complex interplay of political interests and the evolving nature of alliances in the region. It also highlights how the West's approach to jihadist groups can be pragmatic and opportunistic, challenging the narrative of a monolithic, unchanging threat.
4)European and South African parallels: Assertions about churches converting into mosques or Sharia compliance spreading in public institutions are not substantiated by credible evidence. Such claims echo lazy alarmist narratives , as they stigmatize communities and distract from structural issues like governance, poverty and political marginalization.
5. Recommended reading for context:
To provide readers with a more nuanced understanding of the Middle East, covert operations, and international policy dynamics, I suggest you read the following books:Creative Chaos: Inside the CIA's Covert War to Topple the Syrian Government by William Van Wagenen: detailing U.S. and regional covert interventions in Syria and Treacherous Alliance by Trita Parsi :exploring the secretive and strategic relationships among Israel, Iran and the U.S.
I personally came to Rational Standard after watching Bureaucrats Gone Wild in Brussels and Stellenbosch on Youtube and in my excitement to find like-minded thinkers, I came across your article which is quite frankly a blot on what I had hoped would be a collection of thoughtful commentary. Engaging with the books above and exploring diverse perspectives would provide a far more balanced and evidence-based view of the issues you discuss.
Your comment proves exactly the problem I wrote about: denial, dilution, and deflection. You accuse me of “alarmism” about Sharia law, but tell that to Christians in Nigeria slaughtered by Boko Haram, to villagers in Mozambique beheaded by ISIS, or to Somalis under Al-Shabaab where Sharia is daily terror. That is not propaganda; that is blood in the streets.
Israel’s role as a shield for minorities is not some romantic myth, it is confirmed by the Druze, Christians, and even Muslims who live safely inside Israel’s democracy while their kin are persecuted across the Middle East. Strategy and humanity can coexist. The humanitarian protection is real, no matter how many Francesca Albaneses you quote.
As for church burnings, your denial is insulting to victims. In France alone, over 1,000 churches were vandalized or burned in 2019 (reported by Le Figaro). In Nigeria, over 17,000 churches have been destroyed since 2009 by jihadists (International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law). Hagia Sophia, once the jewel of Byzantine Christianity, was converted into a mosque in 2020. That is not “lazy alarmism,” it is history unfolding before our eyes.
You recommend books to me. Fine. Let me recommend one to you: “Inside the Muslim Brotherhood: The Truth About the World’s Most Powerful Secret Society” by Hazem Kandil. Or better yet, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s own writings, where he openly promotes jihad and martyrdom. And if you want to hear Muslim voices against this madness, read Sheikh Dr. Usama Hasan, a former Islamist turned reformist, who has warned repeatedly about the Brotherhood’s ideological infiltration of Europe. Even Sheikh Dr. Tawfiq Hamid, once in an extremist cell, has exposed how the Brotherhood grooms youth for jihad. These are not Zionist propagandists, they are Muslim scholars who lived it.
So no, I am not recycling Bush-era “they hate our freedom” rhetoric. I am echoing the testimony of jihad’s survivors and defectors. To reduce all this to “Western interventions” is cowardice dressed up as analysis.
The reality is simple: jihadist ideology existed long before Iraq, before the CIA, before Bush. It was present in the early Caliphates, in the Armenian genocide, in centuries of forced conversions. Denying that pattern is not sophistication, it’s complicity.
1. Strategic necessity and acting out of moral necessity isn’t mutually exclusive. Israel and the USA can do the right thing geopolitically and morally. They don’t necessarily contradict each other. It was right for the Allies to fight the Axis to prevent domination of Europe strategically, but it was also morally the right thing to do.
2. I think you need to familiarise yourself with Sharia and what it entails. And what people, especially women, have to go through in Sharia dominated countries. Just because some people manipulate narratives for their own ends, doesn’t make the narrative wrong.
3. The Middle East was a chaotic quagmire long before Western dominance. The Islamic conquests have been a threat to regional stability since the first millennia and that hasn’t really stopped.
4. My background is history, so I think it is cogent to point out the prominent conversions of churches (and other holy sites) into mosques. Notably, the Haggiah Sophia, the most important religious site in Eastern Orthodoxy that was stolen and converted into a mosque. Or Al-Aqsa Mosque, that was constructed atop the most important holy site in Judaism, the Temple Mount. Or the Babri Masjid, where a mosque was constructed over a demolished Hindu temple. Islam builds its temples over the ashes of stolen holy sites. It is the modus operandi of its founder and faith. Non-Western Muslims have no shame admitting this as they don’t see a problem with their faith dominating others.
5. Van Wagenen is not really an academic source. His background is theological studies, not geopolitics, and his claim to fame is being kidnapped. A tragedy, not a qualification. And Parsi’s book is by no means extensive or uncontroversial.
I reject the idea that Israeli and U.S. actions in the Middle East can be treated as both strategically necessary and morally justified by default. The WWII analogy is misleading. History shows that moral rhetoric is often a cover for geopolitical aims. Strategic objectives do not automatically confer moral legitimacy. Iraq 2003, for example was framed as both strategic and moral yet it produced mass civilian suffering and regional destabilization. Palestinians are not Axis powers threatening global domination and using WWII in this context obscures the reality of occupation, blockades and civilian casualties. True morality requires examining outcomes not invoking convenient analogies.
I am fully aware of what Sharia entails and the very real abuses in some Sharia-based regimes especially against women and minorities. These abuses are serious human rights issues. However, awareness of Sharia’s harsh realities does not give Western states the moral high ground to act unilaterally or justify interventions that themselves produce massive civilian suffering. Western ideals from drone strikes to regime change wars and domestic inequalities are far from perfect. Condemning Sharia abuses while ignoring the consequences of U.S. and Israeli policy in the Middle East is selective morality not principled analysis. Moral authority comes from consistency, not convenience.
Modern jihadist groups are overwhelmingly products of recent interventions. U.S. and allied policies arming Afghan mujahideen, funding Gulf monarchies and operations like Timber Sycamore in Syria directly empowered groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The instability in the region is largely manufactured through these interventions. Blaming it solely on historical Islamic conquests erases the role of Western powers in creating the very threats you highlight.
While some Islamic empires repurposed sacred sites this is far from unique. Conquest and the repurposing of religious sites are a universal human phenomenon: Christians built churches atop pagan temples, colonial powers destroyed indigenous sacred spaces and Jews built synagogues over older temples in antiquity. To claim Islam uniquely does this misrepresents both history and the faith. Historical analysis demands context not cherry-picked examples serving fear-based narratives.
Accounts like Van Wagenen’s Creative Chaos and Parsi’s Treacherous Alliance demonstrate that U.S. and Israeli interventions funding and arming of regional actors have fueled extremism. Ignoring this evidence while presenting selective narratives as moral is convenience-driven not reasoned.
The “terror threat” you emphasizes does not exist in isolation. CIA programs in Syria, support for Afghan mujahideen and other interventions directly empowered groups that later became jihadist organizations. Many modern conflicts and extremist groups are blowback from these policies. Morality requires acknowledging the role of these interventions in creating the very violence they claim to fight
Strategic necessity does not automatically equal morality. Highlighting abuses under Sharia while ignoring Israeli apartheid laws and U.S./Israeli intervention is selective morality. True moral authority comes from consistency, addressing root causes and ending interventions that manufacture enemies. Occupation, bombings and foreign meddling produce far more suffering than any abstract ideological
I just want to focus on one of the things you said because it's a topic that grinds my gears quite a bit.
US support of Afghan resistance against the USSR in no way justified the rise of Al Qaeda. At all.
The US backed the Mujahadeen in a pragmatic exchange. Enemy of my enemy. The Mujahadeen would have fought regardless of US backing. The US backing gave them an increased likelihood of success resisting foreign invasion.
The idea that the US should be blamed for backing a local group against a foreign invader is just absurd.
Al Qaeda claims that the US was immoral for arming them and then not giving them support afterwards. This is, frankly and please excuse the French, bullshit. It is entitled whining. The US didn't conscript the Mujahadeen and send them into war. They helped them. Yes, because it made geopolitical sense. But they also didn't need to. They were being generous.
The error the US made backing the Mujahadeen wasn't because they sinned against them. It was that they should have chosen their friends better and not trusted Islamists. It has been collaboration in the Middle East that has caused the most harm.
Military interventions like the Gulf Wars, cracking down on aggressive powers did far more for regional stability than trying to be diplomatic.
Just… wow. What did you say your background is again?
Your dismissal of U.S. support for the Afghan Mujahideen as a mere "pragmatic exchange" overlooks the profound consequences of such interventions. While the Mujahideen may have resisted the Soviet invasion regardless, U.S. backing significantly altered the scale, success and post-war power dynamics. This support inadvertently empowered factions that later evolved into Al Qaeda ,a clear example of interventionist blowback. To dismiss this as “entitled whining” is not only historically naive it is willfully blind to the causal impacts of foreign intervention. Strategic expedience does not absolve moral responsibility.
Even more critically, your framing assumes that intervention missteps are mistakes. Historical evidence, however suggests they were often part of a broader, deliberate strategy General Wesley K Clark former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, has publicly revealed that in 2007 the Pentagon had a plan to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years starting with Iraq then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” This so-called “Clean Break” strategy demonstrates that what some dismiss as accidental consequences were in fact premeditated efforts to reshape the Middle East according to US and Israeli strategic interests. Regarding Iran, Clark warned that Israel’s military operations are likely to continue and may eventually escalate into a ground conflict,showing that the regional destabilization is ongoing and intentional not incidental.
Moreover, your claim that military interventions like the Gulf Wars or “cracking down on aggressive powers” produced regional stability is contradicted by recent evidence. Take Israel’s strike on Hamas negotiators in Doha: it derailed ceasefire negotiations, undermined Qatar’s mediation role and signaled to the region that diplomacy is unreliable. This action feeds radicalization rather than quelling it. The pattern is clear: interventions may achieve short term tactical goals but they frequently produce long term crises, empower violent actors and destabilize alliances.
The manipulation of proxies inside Gaza further illustrates this. Reports indicate that Mossad chief Yossi Cohen pressured Qatar to continue financing Hamas at Israel’s behest, effectively arming factions to control outcomes while diverting aid and perpetuating civilian suffering. This is not an unintended consequence,it is state strategy executed under the guise of counterterrorism!
Just to underscore how extreme the rhetoric has become, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly said on September 8, 2025 that the West Bank villages tied to the Jerusalem attackers "should look like cities in Gaza" cities already devastated by Israeli military operations. He went further, calling for the Palestinian Authority to "disappear from the map".This isn’t some abstract threat,it’s a clear endorsement of collective punishment and mass destruction, echoing a long pattern of hardline policies. Framing U.S. or Israeli interventions as "generous" or morally neutral while ignoring statements like this? That’s not just selective reasoning,it’s downright crazy and a mind-bogglingly absurd way to look at history. Geopolitical generosity does not exist,every action is strategic!! But strategic logic alone does not confer moral legitimacy. From Afghanistan in the 1980s to Gaza and Doha in 2025 the evidence is overwhelming: interventions designed for immediate strategic gain create predictable instability, radicalization and human suffering. Recognizing these patterns is not whining, it is rigorous, historically grounded critique something you should try. Give it a go, Because dismissing decades of intervention, targeted assassinations and rhetoric like Smotrich’s as irrelevant or morally neutral isn’t analysis it’s selective fantasy
Morality and strategy cannot be decoupled. Ignoring the consequences of arming proxies, assassinating negotiators or manipulating regional power dynamics undercuts our ability to understand and prevent long-term cycles of violence.
I’ve traced the interventions, studied the blowback and followed the targeted assassinations and proxy manipulations from Afghanistan to Gaza. Oversimplifying decades of U.S. and Israeli interference as mere ‘pragmatism’ while ignoring the predictable chaos it unleashes isn’t analysis it’s ignorance and won’t let selective reasoning pass unchallenged. Recognizing these patterns is not whining; it’s rigorous, historically grounded critique.
Narrowing the debate to abstract hypotheticals is exactly how this conversation loses sight of real world consequences. Nicholas, you’re ignoring most of my points again. Let’s get clear the U.S. support for the Afghan Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion wasn’t a act of generosity. It was a deliberate Cold War strategy designed to create a “Soviet Vietnam.” Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski openly admitted in a 1998 interview that U.S. covert aid actually began before the Soviet invasion. The explicit goal? Provoke or intensify Soviet intervention so Moscow would get bogged down in an unwinnable guerrilla war. Afghans were used as pawns in a geopolitical chess game with no regard for the human cost.
The consequences were catastrophic millions of Afghans killed or displaced, Pakistan destabilized and jihadist networks empowered networks that eventually gave rise to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. That is blowback in its purest form ,a predictable outcome of deliberate interventionist policy not some unforeseen accident. Framing this as a moral lifeline for Afghans or dismissing it as mere pragmatism is historically naive.
As for your questions about “valid interventions” and what constitutes them: intervention should never be justified simply because it serves strategic interests or allows a state to humiliate its adversaries. A valid intervention must meet clear moral and practical criteria
Legitimate threat or defense: There must be a direct threat to the population or state not just a geopolitical advantage.
Proportionality: The intervention must be measured aiming to protect life and rights not reshape regions for strategic gain.
Consent or multilateral legitimacy: Ideally sanctioned by international law, UN mandates or broad coalition support to prevent unilateral power plays.
Long-term outcome focus: The goal should be sustainable peace and stability not short term tactical victories or humiliation of an adversary.
By this standard most modern interventions Afghanistan,Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria fail miserably. They produce chaos, radicalization and enduring humanitarian crises while claiming strategic necessity. Afghanistan under Operation Cyclone is a textbook example: the U.S. armed resistance fighters not to save Afghans, but to bleed the Soviets dry, ignoring the blowback that continues to destabilize the region decades later.
So yes, hypotheticals aside there are cases where intervention can be justified but the vast majority of U.S and allied actions in the post-Cold War Middle East do not meet these moral or strategic standards. Ignoring this reality while framing intervention as inherently strategic or generous is selective reasoning at best and dangerously misleading at worst.
I read your article and wanted to offer a different perspective. While your focus on jihadist violence and the protection of minorities is important, several points in your piece seem to oversimplify the Middle East and exaggerate the threat of Sharia law in liberal democracies.
1)Israel and humanitarian framing: You describe Israel as “the last shield for religious minorities” portraying IDF actions as morally necessary.I argue that U.S. and Israeli policies are shaped by political and strategic interests, not purely humanitarian concerns.Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights highlights the humanitarian cost of Israeli military operations, including civilian casualties in Gaza which complicates the narrative of Israel as a purely protective force.
2)Alarmism about Sharia law: Your depiction of Sharia as a looming, coercive threat across Europe and Africa overgeneralizes complex realities.I would challenge the idea that Muslim communities in liberal democracies are systematically trying to impose religious law. Most Muslims in Europe live under secular legal systems and framing them as a monolithic threat risks spreading fear rather than understanding. To add perspective remember how, after 9/11, President George W. Bush repeatedly told Americans that “they hate our freedom” and suggested that if terrorists weren’t blowing things up, they would be enforcing Sharia law in New York. That rhetoric was part of a propaganda effort to justify the Iraq War and the killing of thousands of people. Let’s not belittle our intelligence by recycling the same kind of fear mongering propaganda that worked 20 years ago,the propaganda machine was alive and well back then.
3)Jihadist threat in context: You emphasize jihadist groups as central drivers of conflict and instability. I stress that Western interventions and state policies have significantly contributed to extremism in the Middle East. Reducing the region’s instability to jihadist ideology alone oversimplifies history and geopolitics. For instance, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham,was once designated a specially designated global terrorist by the U.S., with a $10 million bounty on his head. Despite this, in December 2024 U.S. diplomats met with him in Damascus, leading to the removal of the bounty. This shift underscores the complex interplay of political interests and the evolving nature of alliances in the region. It also highlights how the West's approach to jihadist groups can be pragmatic and opportunistic, challenging the narrative of a monolithic, unchanging threat.
4)European and South African parallels: Assertions about churches converting into mosques or Sharia compliance spreading in public institutions are not substantiated by credible evidence. Such claims echo lazy alarmist narratives , as they stigmatize communities and distract from structural issues like governance, poverty and political marginalization.
5. Recommended reading for context:
To provide readers with a more nuanced understanding of the Middle East, covert operations, and international policy dynamics, I suggest you read the following books:Creative Chaos: Inside the CIA's Covert War to Topple the Syrian Government by William Van Wagenen: detailing U.S. and regional covert interventions in Syria and Treacherous Alliance by Trita Parsi :exploring the secretive and strategic relationships among Israel, Iran and the U.S.
I personally came to Rational Standard after watching Bureaucrats Gone Wild in Brussels and Stellenbosch on Youtube and in my excitement to find like-minded thinkers, I came across your article which is quite frankly a blot on what I had hoped would be a collection of thoughtful commentary. Engaging with the books above and exploring diverse perspectives would provide a far more balanced and evidence-based view of the issues you discuss.
Your comment proves exactly the problem I wrote about: denial, dilution, and deflection. You accuse me of “alarmism” about Sharia law, but tell that to Christians in Nigeria slaughtered by Boko Haram, to villagers in Mozambique beheaded by ISIS, or to Somalis under Al-Shabaab where Sharia is daily terror. That is not propaganda; that is blood in the streets.
Israel’s role as a shield for minorities is not some romantic myth, it is confirmed by the Druze, Christians, and even Muslims who live safely inside Israel’s democracy while their kin are persecuted across the Middle East. Strategy and humanity can coexist. The humanitarian protection is real, no matter how many Francesca Albaneses you quote.
As for church burnings, your denial is insulting to victims. In France alone, over 1,000 churches were vandalized or burned in 2019 (reported by Le Figaro). In Nigeria, over 17,000 churches have been destroyed since 2009 by jihadists (International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law). Hagia Sophia, once the jewel of Byzantine Christianity, was converted into a mosque in 2020. That is not “lazy alarmism,” it is history unfolding before our eyes.
You recommend books to me. Fine. Let me recommend one to you: “Inside the Muslim Brotherhood: The Truth About the World’s Most Powerful Secret Society” by Hazem Kandil. Or better yet, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s own writings, where he openly promotes jihad and martyrdom. And if you want to hear Muslim voices against this madness, read Sheikh Dr. Usama Hasan, a former Islamist turned reformist, who has warned repeatedly about the Brotherhood’s ideological infiltration of Europe. Even Sheikh Dr. Tawfiq Hamid, once in an extremist cell, has exposed how the Brotherhood grooms youth for jihad. These are not Zionist propagandists, they are Muslim scholars who lived it.
So no, I am not recycling Bush-era “they hate our freedom” rhetoric. I am echoing the testimony of jihad’s survivors and defectors. To reduce all this to “Western interventions” is cowardice dressed up as analysis.
The reality is simple: jihadist ideology existed long before Iraq, before the CIA, before Bush. It was present in the early Caliphates, in the Armenian genocide, in centuries of forced conversions. Denying that pattern is not sophistication, it’s complicity.
1. Strategic necessity and acting out of moral necessity isn’t mutually exclusive. Israel and the USA can do the right thing geopolitically and morally. They don’t necessarily contradict each other. It was right for the Allies to fight the Axis to prevent domination of Europe strategically, but it was also morally the right thing to do.
2. I think you need to familiarise yourself with Sharia and what it entails. And what people, especially women, have to go through in Sharia dominated countries. Just because some people manipulate narratives for their own ends, doesn’t make the narrative wrong.
3. The Middle East was a chaotic quagmire long before Western dominance. The Islamic conquests have been a threat to regional stability since the first millennia and that hasn’t really stopped.
4. My background is history, so I think it is cogent to point out the prominent conversions of churches (and other holy sites) into mosques. Notably, the Haggiah Sophia, the most important religious site in Eastern Orthodoxy that was stolen and converted into a mosque. Or Al-Aqsa Mosque, that was constructed atop the most important holy site in Judaism, the Temple Mount. Or the Babri Masjid, where a mosque was constructed over a demolished Hindu temple. Islam builds its temples over the ashes of stolen holy sites. It is the modus operandi of its founder and faith. Non-Western Muslims have no shame admitting this as they don’t see a problem with their faith dominating others.
5. Van Wagenen is not really an academic source. His background is theological studies, not geopolitics, and his claim to fame is being kidnapped. A tragedy, not a qualification. And Parsi’s book is by no means extensive or uncontroversial.
I reject the idea that Israeli and U.S. actions in the Middle East can be treated as both strategically necessary and morally justified by default. The WWII analogy is misleading. History shows that moral rhetoric is often a cover for geopolitical aims. Strategic objectives do not automatically confer moral legitimacy. Iraq 2003, for example was framed as both strategic and moral yet it produced mass civilian suffering and regional destabilization. Palestinians are not Axis powers threatening global domination and using WWII in this context obscures the reality of occupation, blockades and civilian casualties. True morality requires examining outcomes not invoking convenient analogies.
I am fully aware of what Sharia entails and the very real abuses in some Sharia-based regimes especially against women and minorities. These abuses are serious human rights issues. However, awareness of Sharia’s harsh realities does not give Western states the moral high ground to act unilaterally or justify interventions that themselves produce massive civilian suffering. Western ideals from drone strikes to regime change wars and domestic inequalities are far from perfect. Condemning Sharia abuses while ignoring the consequences of U.S. and Israeli policy in the Middle East is selective morality not principled analysis. Moral authority comes from consistency, not convenience.
Modern jihadist groups are overwhelmingly products of recent interventions. U.S. and allied policies arming Afghan mujahideen, funding Gulf monarchies and operations like Timber Sycamore in Syria directly empowered groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. The instability in the region is largely manufactured through these interventions. Blaming it solely on historical Islamic conquests erases the role of Western powers in creating the very threats you highlight.
While some Islamic empires repurposed sacred sites this is far from unique. Conquest and the repurposing of religious sites are a universal human phenomenon: Christians built churches atop pagan temples, colonial powers destroyed indigenous sacred spaces and Jews built synagogues over older temples in antiquity. To claim Islam uniquely does this misrepresents both history and the faith. Historical analysis demands context not cherry-picked examples serving fear-based narratives.
Accounts like Van Wagenen’s Creative Chaos and Parsi’s Treacherous Alliance demonstrate that U.S. and Israeli interventions funding and arming of regional actors have fueled extremism. Ignoring this evidence while presenting selective narratives as moral is convenience-driven not reasoned.
The “terror threat” you emphasizes does not exist in isolation. CIA programs in Syria, support for Afghan mujahideen and other interventions directly empowered groups that later became jihadist organizations. Many modern conflicts and extremist groups are blowback from these policies. Morality requires acknowledging the role of these interventions in creating the very violence they claim to fight
Strategic necessity does not automatically equal morality. Highlighting abuses under Sharia while ignoring Israeli apartheid laws and U.S./Israeli intervention is selective morality. True moral authority comes from consistency, addressing root causes and ending interventions that manufacture enemies. Occupation, bombings and foreign meddling produce far more suffering than any abstract ideological
I just want to focus on one of the things you said because it's a topic that grinds my gears quite a bit.
US support of Afghan resistance against the USSR in no way justified the rise of Al Qaeda. At all.
The US backed the Mujahadeen in a pragmatic exchange. Enemy of my enemy. The Mujahadeen would have fought regardless of US backing. The US backing gave them an increased likelihood of success resisting foreign invasion.
The idea that the US should be blamed for backing a local group against a foreign invader is just absurd.
Al Qaeda claims that the US was immoral for arming them and then not giving them support afterwards. This is, frankly and please excuse the French, bullshit. It is entitled whining. The US didn't conscript the Mujahadeen and send them into war. They helped them. Yes, because it made geopolitical sense. But they also didn't need to. They were being generous.
The error the US made backing the Mujahadeen wasn't because they sinned against them. It was that they should have chosen their friends better and not trusted Islamists. It has been collaboration in the Middle East that has caused the most harm.
Military interventions like the Gulf Wars, cracking down on aggressive powers did far more for regional stability than trying to be diplomatic.
Just… wow. What did you say your background is again?
Your dismissal of U.S. support for the Afghan Mujahideen as a mere "pragmatic exchange" overlooks the profound consequences of such interventions. While the Mujahideen may have resisted the Soviet invasion regardless, U.S. backing significantly altered the scale, success and post-war power dynamics. This support inadvertently empowered factions that later evolved into Al Qaeda ,a clear example of interventionist blowback. To dismiss this as “entitled whining” is not only historically naive it is willfully blind to the causal impacts of foreign intervention. Strategic expedience does not absolve moral responsibility.
Even more critically, your framing assumes that intervention missteps are mistakes. Historical evidence, however suggests they were often part of a broader, deliberate strategy General Wesley K Clark former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, has publicly revealed that in 2007 the Pentagon had a plan to “attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years starting with Iraq then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.” This so-called “Clean Break” strategy demonstrates that what some dismiss as accidental consequences were in fact premeditated efforts to reshape the Middle East according to US and Israeli strategic interests. Regarding Iran, Clark warned that Israel’s military operations are likely to continue and may eventually escalate into a ground conflict,showing that the regional destabilization is ongoing and intentional not incidental.
Moreover, your claim that military interventions like the Gulf Wars or “cracking down on aggressive powers” produced regional stability is contradicted by recent evidence. Take Israel’s strike on Hamas negotiators in Doha: it derailed ceasefire negotiations, undermined Qatar’s mediation role and signaled to the region that diplomacy is unreliable. This action feeds radicalization rather than quelling it. The pattern is clear: interventions may achieve short term tactical goals but they frequently produce long term crises, empower violent actors and destabilize alliances.
The manipulation of proxies inside Gaza further illustrates this. Reports indicate that Mossad chief Yossi Cohen pressured Qatar to continue financing Hamas at Israel’s behest, effectively arming factions to control outcomes while diverting aid and perpetuating civilian suffering. This is not an unintended consequence,it is state strategy executed under the guise of counterterrorism!
Just to underscore how extreme the rhetoric has become, Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich openly said on September 8, 2025 that the West Bank villages tied to the Jerusalem attackers "should look like cities in Gaza" cities already devastated by Israeli military operations. He went further, calling for the Palestinian Authority to "disappear from the map".This isn’t some abstract threat,it’s a clear endorsement of collective punishment and mass destruction, echoing a long pattern of hardline policies. Framing U.S. or Israeli interventions as "generous" or morally neutral while ignoring statements like this? That’s not just selective reasoning,it’s downright crazy and a mind-bogglingly absurd way to look at history. Geopolitical generosity does not exist,every action is strategic!! But strategic logic alone does not confer moral legitimacy. From Afghanistan in the 1980s to Gaza and Doha in 2025 the evidence is overwhelming: interventions designed for immediate strategic gain create predictable instability, radicalization and human suffering. Recognizing these patterns is not whining, it is rigorous, historically grounded critique something you should try. Give it a go, Because dismissing decades of intervention, targeted assassinations and rhetoric like Smotrich’s as irrelevant or morally neutral isn’t analysis it’s selective fantasy
Morality and strategy cannot be decoupled. Ignoring the consequences of arming proxies, assassinating negotiators or manipulating regional power dynamics undercuts our ability to understand and prevent long-term cycles of violence.
I’ve traced the interventions, studied the blowback and followed the targeted assassinations and proxy manipulations from Afghanistan to Gaza. Oversimplifying decades of U.S. and Israeli interference as mere ‘pragmatism’ while ignoring the predictable chaos it unleashes isn’t analysis it’s ignorance and won’t let selective reasoning pass unchallenged. Recognizing these patterns is not whining; it’s rigorous, historically grounded critique.
Do you believe that the US should have not armed and trained resistance fighters against USSR invasion?
Are there any valid cases of intervention?
What constitutes a valid case?
Narrowing the debate to abstract hypotheticals is exactly how this conversation loses sight of real world consequences. Nicholas, you’re ignoring most of my points again. Let’s get clear the U.S. support for the Afghan Mujahideen during the Soviet invasion wasn’t a act of generosity. It was a deliberate Cold War strategy designed to create a “Soviet Vietnam.” Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski openly admitted in a 1998 interview that U.S. covert aid actually began before the Soviet invasion. The explicit goal? Provoke or intensify Soviet intervention so Moscow would get bogged down in an unwinnable guerrilla war. Afghans were used as pawns in a geopolitical chess game with no regard for the human cost.
The consequences were catastrophic millions of Afghans killed or displaced, Pakistan destabilized and jihadist networks empowered networks that eventually gave rise to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. That is blowback in its purest form ,a predictable outcome of deliberate interventionist policy not some unforeseen accident. Framing this as a moral lifeline for Afghans or dismissing it as mere pragmatism is historically naive.
As for your questions about “valid interventions” and what constitutes them: intervention should never be justified simply because it serves strategic interests or allows a state to humiliate its adversaries. A valid intervention must meet clear moral and practical criteria
Legitimate threat or defense: There must be a direct threat to the population or state not just a geopolitical advantage.
Proportionality: The intervention must be measured aiming to protect life and rights not reshape regions for strategic gain.
Consent or multilateral legitimacy: Ideally sanctioned by international law, UN mandates or broad coalition support to prevent unilateral power plays.
Long-term outcome focus: The goal should be sustainable peace and stability not short term tactical victories or humiliation of an adversary.
By this standard most modern interventions Afghanistan,Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, Syria fail miserably. They produce chaos, radicalization and enduring humanitarian crises while claiming strategic necessity. Afghanistan under Operation Cyclone is a textbook example: the U.S. armed resistance fighters not to save Afghans, but to bleed the Soviets dry, ignoring the blowback that continues to destabilize the region decades later.
So yes, hypotheticals aside there are cases where intervention can be justified but the vast majority of U.S and allied actions in the post-Cold War Middle East do not meet these moral or strategic standards. Ignoring this reality while framing intervention as inherently strategic or generous is selective reasoning at best and dangerously misleading at worst.