Would be funny, if not so disastrous for world peace:
In defending the US attack on Iran, John Bolton said today:
"The religious fanatics leading Iran are a threat to the US and its allies. "
Thus implying (rightly)
Islamic religious fundamentalism is a threat to the the non-Muslim world.
But also today:
(The Independent)
"Commander said Trump was 'anointed by Jesus' to justify Iran strikes".
A military commander told a group of non-commissioned officers that President 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 filed with a religious freedom watchdog....while everyone is arguing over whether the US attack on Iran is "legal" or not.
In fact, the absurd UN doctrine of "legal" war is at the heart of the problem: "legality" is in the eye of the beholder.
eg Bin Laden himself told us Moslems will wage "rightous war" against "infidel crusaders" who occupy Muslim lands (eg Israel, and US military bases).
And Carney?
Carney says he backs strikes on Iran ‘with some regret’ as world order frayshttps://apnews.com/article/australia-carney-canada-iran-regret-ab529749962be194a.........
And the world order is fraying because religious fundamentalists are able to govern - because
the UN has failed to face the consequences of its absurd doctrine of "legal" war. Murder is illegal. Full stop.
National law can't stop unknown individuals from committing murder, but international law backed by a UNSC without veto OUGHT to be able to eradicate war as a dispute settlement mechanisn between nations whose policies ARE known.
"Legal" war be damned.
eg, an individual who kills in self-defence may not be charged with murder, as determined by the courts.
But war IS mass murder, by definition.
No court of law required, just a UNSC minus veto capable of enforcing law determined by an UN-ordained ICJ acting as 'Supreme Court' .
Meaning no Israel war or Ukraine war ....or Iran war, since the policies of each nation are well known and can be adjudicated, to prevent war.
Let's ask AI re the insanity of war:
The phrase "war is the ultimate insanity" reflects a long-standing viewpoint that organized, large-scale violence is a fundamentally irrational, destructive act, often described as doing the same thing over and over—violence—while expecting different, peaceful results.
Here is a breakdown of why war is often equated with ultimate insanity:
Destruction Over Solution: While war is often marketed as a method to solve conflicts, it rarely provides lasting solutions, instead causing generational trauma, immense loss of life, and the destruction of property.
The "Fog" and Chaos: War inherently creates chaos, where plans fail, communication breaks down, and decisions are made based on incomplete or inaccurate information—a state that can be described as a "slow slide into insanity" for those involved.
Insanity of Modernity: The modern, industrial, and digital age has only heightened this, making the sheer scale of destruction in modern warfare, such as in Ukraine or other global conflicts, seem like a "mass insanity".
Irrationality of Action: Even when it is clear that a battle is futile or that peace is possible, war often continues, with soldiers sometimes dying on the final day of a conflict, highlighting the irrational, relentless momentum of battle.
Mental Erosion: Beyond the physical, war forces human beings into situations of extreme horror that break down sanity, with significant percentages of populations experiencing serious, long-term mental health problems.
This perspective suggests that true progress and resolution come from diplomacy and cooperation, not from the irrational and destructive path of war. .....no doubt the Green's perspective.
What is YOUR perspective: try AI, and let us know if it supports your perspective.
Forum
Pages: 
