Iran was an IQ test. You favorite pundits flunked.
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (58)
sorted by:
Yeah, Razor also attacks Dave Smith, and then uses Trump's pathetic smear that 'no one listens to Tucker anymore because he's not on legacy media...' which is fucking rich coming from the man who won the presidency by going on major podcasts like Joe Rogan.
That was such a weak smear, that Tucker is a loser because he's not on Fox News anymore. Razor repeating it isn't a good look for him either.
That was really weird and I didn't get the point at all. Then showing a tweet with the guy laughing. I took issue with that more than anything else in the video. I guess his point was "Trump pwned Tucker"? It felt like one of those Indian memes where they use the laughing and pointing emoji and you figure this must have made sense to Indians but it doesn't make sense to anybody else.
Yeah. This was freaking pathetic from Razor. The whole thing...not a single argument (I mean, unless you count 'Persians vs Arabs' or whatever the fuck).
"Please ignore all other similarities. WMDs vs nukes. Seven countries plan. Israel wants them gone. They hate us for our freedom. See, you're just retarded, because one is ARAB."
Yawn.
Did he at least address the fact that this bombing run was done for Israel and not for the interests of the United States?
Can't be arsed to listen to him for 9 1/2 minutes defending a wholly unnecessary act of war to find out.
Can't be arsed to re-listen to it, but, no, almost certain he didn't.
Again, gotta keep up those Mark Levin and Sebastien Gorka appearances.
Well that explains it.
I like Razor and his content, but there's plenty I disagree with him on, and this is some of it. I don't know his personal stance on the issue, or if he qualifies as a "Zionist," but I know he's cozy with some.
I'll take the people in the thumbnail - Tucker, MTG, Alex Jones, Candace Owens, Massie, Bannon - over the "Trust the Plan" retards, or the people who flipflopped as things changed. Orange Man Bad, no Orange Man Actually 4D Chess.
Sorry, but no. I hope this doesn't go any further, and if it doesn't, yeah, I'm still on Team Trump. But I won't support this action. It was completely needless, and pushes things in a bad direction, even if nothing more comes of it at the moment.
It's also way too soon to celebrate, and all the people praising Trump for "bringing peace" after needlessly bombing Iran for the heck of it, look super silly in my opinion.
I don't agree with them on everything, but I'm highly suspect of people who attack Massie or Tucker. They're some of the best out there. Bannon seems solid too, although I'm not as familiar with all of his stuff.
And did Razor really just say they're making "inapplicable comparisons to the Iraq war and WMDs?"
He isn't addressing their argument, he's just calling them grifters. And, sure, they definitely do also care about engagement and attention.
Iran and Iraq are both on the fucking seven countries list, Iran is the last. The same people who wanted Iraq and the rest gone, really, really, really want Iran gone too.
There's PLENTY of connections here to be made.
It’s an inapplicable comparison because Netanyahu didn’t speak before congress saying Iraq had WMDs… oh wait. Well it’s inapplicable because AIPAC didn’t lobby for the Iraq war… oh wait.
How could he? Do you think this is the result of 100 hours of reading (which is still not a whole lot to try to understand things), or did he watch a few segments on television and decide to point out a grifting video?
I'll still be here any time you all want to admit you were gaslit into panicking and freaking out over nothing. Again.
Again, it's not even over, but keep patting yourself on the back.
I don't think I ever sad war was guaranteed (and if I did, I massively misspoke), and I know I said it wasn't guaranteed multiple times.
But yeah, bombing a foreign country, and in the Middle east no less, for no reason, with bullshit propaganda as justification, is NOT GOOD.
I'm not apologizing for being wrong, because my arguments were sound, that this was needless and COULD spark larger conflict. I didn't say would, I said could.
There was no reason to bomb Iran. Well, not one in American interests at least.
Call me a "panican" (cute new term everyone's using) all you want, but I don't support bombing anyone without a REALLY good reason. And there wasn't one here.
Not backing down. As I said since the very beginning, I continue to hope this ends about where we are right now.
And I agree that there was no good reason for it. There was also no good reason for the entire "new right" anti-intelligentsia to immediately turn the World War III talk up to 11. For, as Razor points out, at least the third time. What exactly was the last thing Candace Owens or Nick Fuentes were right about?
A few said WW3. Most were saying another forever war in the sandbox. Which it looked like, and still could turn into.
I don't follow either super closely, and Fuentes not at all, but Candace is pretty sharp. She's on it on a lot of things.
Forgive me for being old, but I remember when Candace Owens was on the left wing and proposing/working on a doxxing website. Maybe I've judged her too harshly, but I don't trust her to be presenting genuine opinions, I think she's grifting off whatever gains her notoriety.
If she was a grifter, she wouldn't be taking so many stances that routinely get people canceled. And she wouldn't be going so hard in the paint either.
What happened is that she "noticed" what is happening in the world and she is pissed about it.
Lots of people profit off of professing 'fringe' (reasonably popular, but anti-establishment) opinions, probably even more than those presenting 'mainstream' (establishment) ones, because the 'market' for such opinions is less saturated.
And while I'll admit I don't follow her (for the reasons I've mentioned above), I'm unaware of any stances she espouses, Aside from her 'anti-semitism' (and some fairly mainstream 'right wing' opinions), that would get her cancelled. Could you provide a few examples?
Candace was a kid who proposed/worked on an anti-bullying website that could have easily been used as a doxxing website.
Gee, I guess we should condemn someone for a not-fully-thought-through idea they had when they were a teenager. It's almost like nearly every tool could be used for nefarious purposes.
I don't generally even watch Candace, but for the love of God please let this fucking ancient bit of misinformation die. You're taking the side of Zoe ("You'll ruin everything!") on this one for fuck's sake.
Have you ever heard "The purpose of a system is what it does"? The website Owens proposed would have been used almost exclusively to doxx/harass people. And unless she proposed the idea years before gamergate, she'd have been in her twenties, not a teenager.
What about the lack of sovereignty talk? It seems like RazorFist is taking advantage of some people going full WW3 to ignore the real problem.
Why are you hanging on every word of some indoors sunglasses-wearing douchebag who doesn't know the first thing he's talking about? We really are in idiocracy.
I don't care for either homosexual virgins or Candace. What was the last thing David Frum and Bill Kristol were right about? The arguments you're making are just preposterous - they're not even arguments.
The guy gaslit into panicking and freaking out over nothing, namely non-existent Iranian WMDs, is accusing others of needlessly panicking and freaking out over the absurd and disastrous war that he supported.
Where did I ever freak out over Iranian WMDs? I'm not one of the "bombs away" neocons. My entire point is that everyone who immediately jumped on the Trump-started-WW3 train has egg on their face.
This war was started under the false pretext of nukes that did not exist.
Yes and now it's over. The only people who seem to be unhappy about that are Israel and the entire right-wing online pundit sphere , including no small number of users on this board, who are currently refusing to admit it's over and acting like they wanted it to escalate into WW3 just so they can say "I told you so."
No, it's not. Actions have consequences. In this case, probably further proliferation of nukes.
Well, I didn't tell you so, because I didn't think it was WW3, nor did many people. We did say that it's an extraordinarily stupid war, one started without any provocation whatsoever, in an attempt to make yet another country into a failed state. You may not mind the fact that 10 million more 'refugees' would come to Europe, but I do.
Well fortunately for you all this has done is shore up support for the Islamic Republic and made regime change in Iran that much less likely. Which I'm sure was not Trump's goal, but now Netanyahu is not going to get what he wanted and POTUS is publicly and vocally pissed at Israel and calling them out for the first time in Israel's existence. So can we just take the win?
Missiles were flying yesterday, dude.
Again, I'm not saying it's not over (it might be, and I damn well hope it is), but it's still a ridiculous stance to definitely say it is over.
As opposed to the retards who were gaslit into panicking and demanding that we bomb a country that we weren't at war with?
On a pretext that, "they're gonna get a bomb and once they have a bomb they're going to blow us all up because they're psychopaths!" and then after the bombing, rather than full scale retaliation that they would have been 100% entitled to and justified in, they coordinated with our own military so that their retaliation wouldn't result in any loss of life? 'Cuz they're such unrepentant bloodthirsty psychopaths.
Yeah, it's definitely us "panicans" who got played. Fucking idiot.
That's different!
Because reasons.
IRAN ALMOST NUKED US! REEEEE.
It's almost funny how many of you are unable to argue my point about the right-wing overreaction without accusing me of being a warmongering neocon, which is a position I never expressed on here or anywhere else. It's like you can't conceive that there are more than two possible positions to take on this issue. No, I did not support the military action in Iran. I just never seriously thought that it was going to snowball into full-scale war. On this issue, with Trump's track record, it's very much a "nothing ever happens" scenario, and the doom-mongering about it in these spaces is frankly annoying. And also a distraction.
Razor even invokes the "cucker tarlson" insult at 3:00.
Yeah, like I said, I like Razor...but this whole thing was fucking pathetic from him.
Ironically, he'd probably be better off reading the room and adapting, like he accuses the other "grifters" of doing.
Plenty of comments support Razor, but a well above average percentage of his own people are calling him out on this, and saying he's dead wrong.
Also worth noting, he's cozy with Sebastian Gorka. If he ever wants to go back on his show he can't take any other stance but the one he's taking now.
Indeed, but not in the way he thinks. The subversive zionists all revealed themselves with no ambiguity to hide behind in the future. Bold move...
Both the out and out Zionists, and the grifters who flipped back and forth and then went back to Trump and waved the "Mission Accomplished" banner. A lot of people on all sides showed themselves to be pretty silly.
Ironically, the people Razor is attacking looked pretty good in all this, at least from the stance I look at things from.
Yeah, I'm going to side with the "let's not fucking bomb Iran for no reason and, yeah, this might escalate into a broader conflict and lead to American blood."
They seem to have their heads on straight.
Rare Razor L.
I'm an out and out zionist, in that I think Israel has the right to exist.
It doesn't have the right to bomb another country for literally 0 reason.
What does that even mean?
Israel, like all countries, has a right to attempt to exist. No one has a Right to Exist, per se.
And certainly not if you can't even do it on your own. Israel has a right to attempt to exist. We should let them do that. Without our help. They'd probably be less shitty neighbors, if they didn't have the US backing them up, too, and everything would be more peaceful.
And Zionism goes beyond that, as you know, or you'd also be whatever the equivalent would be for thinking Iran has a right to exist.
There was an active political movement post-WW1(Not, two, one) that called for Jews to actively emigrate and settle in Israel.
And it was called, well, Zionism.
They were enough of a political force in Israel pre-WW2 that they actively tried to boycott Germany and had political protests against Nazi Germany, again, all pre-WW2.
Israel wasn't just given over the Jews post-WW2 because people were being nice, after all. They'd pretty much taken the place over before then.
Good of you to question mindless slogans that are repeated endlessly, even without realizing it as I just did.
For me, it means that I support Israel's existence. It's not threatened as of right now, but if it were, I have no problem with sending them aid to ensure their survival. Why? Because it would be chump change for Europe, while being crucial for Israel surviving.
They probably wouldn't be trying to dominate the region and be a hegemon, and they'd make more compromises.
The flaw in that argument is that Iran has existed for 2.5 millennia. Israel was a state that was just created due to an ideological movement. They worked hard on changing my mind in the past 2 weeks, but I still think that was a good thing. Ergo, Zionist.
But what alternative definition of Zionism do you think of?
I would. They can stand on their own or they can die. With the exception that they had proven themselves to be a great ally worthy of helping for our benefit.
But they have never been a great ally. They don't produce anything worthwhile. They goad us into wars constantly. They are the source of nearly all of the ill will that we have received as a nation.
Lots of things would be chump change but that doesn't mean that we can afford to spend chump change on everything that would cost chump change, because then things cease to be chump change.
If Israel's survival is predicated on external support, then Israel isn't going to survive. Because they appear to be completely unable to play nice or make peace with anyone around them.
That is optimistic. The world hegemon is always going to be hated. If not for Israel, people will find another reason.
Source: I find other reasons myself.
But I didn't say to spend on everything that costs chump change. Nor did I tell America to spend anything. I was talking about Europe. I'm embarrassed that we are supporting their aggression, but at the same time, I'd be embarrassed if we stood by and let Israel be destroyed and its people killed.
That is the case because at the moment, they don't have to, due to the backing of the world's hegemon. They were very good at playing nice when they had to - e.g. trying to persuade Syria and Jordan not to join the war in 1967, even though they could conquer valuable lands, giving back the Sinai, the various proposals for a Palestinian state.
Thanks.
And in that vein:
Should we be sending aid money to Ukraine? Palestine? What about all the countries Israel is bombing? Does Lebanon have a right to exist?
DoesDid Syria?Foreign aid is never chump change, because "foreign" is a really fucking big place.
Oooh, boy. The funny part of that argument is...it's a huge Zionist talking point. Zionists say Israel has existed for over two thousand years. The hardcore ones will tell you Israel is the oldest country on the planet. So I guess they're pretty established, by this point.
We'll get to that at the end.
Honest question, why? They're a small country, but per capita they're right up there with all the big boys when it comes to competing for the 'most atrocious actions' award. There very short history started with terrorism, continued with terrorism, and could end with terrorism. They've not only been extremely violent (which can be justified in some scenarios), but also extremely aggressive. They're either starting shit, or massively overreacting. They might very well be the most expansionist country currently on the planet, and they're probably the most "colonialist" in post-war history.
They just seem like kind of a shit country, honestly.
I mean, you said it was based on ideology. That ideology happens to be largely based on ethnic and religious supremacy and ethnonationalism. Which would be one thing - although probably still not something you'd support - if they had a legitimate claim to the land...but you don't get to just settle down somewhere and claim it's yours and was always yours, just because people you share a name with and whose coattails you can ride to Divine Right were there way back in the day.
The whole 'this land was always ours' thing is utter and complete propaganda; they came up with it when they were deciding where and how to put their new country, and realized it would be a convenient argument.
Zionism has made a region that already have a ton of problems even worse and also, as we were talking about, has done a huge amount of damage to other cultures too, like Christianity. "God commands us to bless Israel."
Zionism is a psychotic supremacist cult, and a deeply subversive and expansionist one too.
You won't find a bigger opponent of what the West, along with Israel, did to Syria.
Iran has existed pretty continuously. Its right to exist is not really questioned. Well, some hardcore zionists and neocons do - they want to split up every state into tiny statelets that are perpetually at war with one another so that no one can challenge the hegemon.
They live in a very dangerous neighborhood, and they're not exactly popular as Jews, interlopers and Western colonialists. And they're not only dishing it out, they're also taking it and putting their own lives on the line.
If you look at it from their perspective, which is not the same as accepting it, I think it becomes understandable that they are very aggressive. They, along with their neighbors, have been brutalized by close to continuous war every generation since 1948. It's very traumatic. In their mind, they have offered everything to their neighbors and to the Palestinians, made peace whenever they could, only to be met by the three noes. Part of that narrative is self-serving, of course, no state is an innocent angel - states are Machiavellian entities. I think October 7th sent many over a cliff. "We've been here for 80 years. We've been repeatedly attacked, we gave back land for peace, we tried everything to deal with Palestinians as almost equals, only to be rebuffed, and still we have to go to bomb shelters because of rockets coming from a place that we withdrew from in 2005, and now they've invaded our country and killed many people and taken hundreds of hostages."
Everyone likes to pretend to be all good and moral. But I think that if I were Israeli, and I was in that situation, I wouldn't care much for "the people of Gaza" either. And you might not either. It's easy to judge when you have no skin in the game. We are a fallen and selfish species. Perfection is impossible and we need to minimize harm instead.
Well, they gave up the Sinai, and they've been occupying Gaza and the West Bank since 1967 without ethnically cleansing it or annexing it. The plan was always to give it up in exchange for peace. Even the Golan Heights have periodically been put up in exchange for peace with Syria, though destroying Syria took that off the table.
I agree. But can they buy land and settle there? It brings us to the question of immigration. Hell, I'd say no. But they could, and they did. Note that both the Balfour Declaration and the Israeli Declaration of Independence guaranteed the rights of the native inhabitants.
If I recall correctly, the secular Jews were fine with a country anywhere, but in another example of "the most intolerant wins", the religious Jews would only accept Outremer, so that's where they settled.
Fair enough, but Gaza or whatever. If we should jump in when a people's existence is threatened...Gaza tops the list. Now, you can say Israel is more deserving of active protection, and I can even see the argument from certain perspectives. I don't agree, but I can see the argument. But fact remains Gaza...well it already doesn't exist in its previous form, because of what Israel did there. If we were going to protect existence, we never should have let that happen. And it would have been easy, since it happened with our funding.
But we are. That's what aid to Israel is.
Uh, the leaders of some of the most powerful countries on Earth are actively calling for regime change. Which, yes, is generally pretty much the end of that country's existence in that form, and it will likely be decades of civil war and chaos at that.
Just like Gaza, Iran is also more at risk of no longer existing than Israel is. No matter how old of a country they are.
They should stop acting as interlopers and colonialists. They can't help the Jew thing, but they could vastly improve their image if they were better neighbors. Yeah, it's a dangerous neighborhood. And, no, they're not to blame for that...but they make it a whole lot more dangerous.
And also, once again, they make it more dangerous for my people. If the Middle East was just a 'dangerous neighborhood,' it wouldn't be the US's problem...because it's way over there. They'd have no reason to hate us, if we weren't involved, and we're backing Israel.
It's nowhere near proportional, though. Sometimes Israelis get killed, but their killing a whole lot more people, always.
Oh, for sure. And, if I were to say one thing, I'll say at least their wars are actually in their interest. I get it, although I think it's usually handled pretty monstrously. But, yeah, they take territory, they strengthen their positions and weaken their opposition. I definitely get it. It makes much more sense than the wars America has been engaging in. Also, to their credit...damn, Israel has been successful. Again, don't like what they did...but damn is it impressive that they pull it off, over and over. Even with massive US support, it's still incredible. Even if it's not all them, Israel is certainly a powerhouse.
If they believe that, they're buying their own propaganda. Their leaders don't want peace, have been caught saying that multiple times, do everything they can to sabotage peace movements, and have been caught engaging in and admitting to that as well.
Israelis might want peace. Israel absolutely does not. Or at least who's been running it for ages.
They knew it was coming. But I know you're talking about the people, so I agree; getting attacked of course makes you feel justified in taking the fight back to them. I understand and sympathize. But it's also just yet another example of Israeli leadership being duplicitous and murderous scumbags. At least in my opinion.
True, and I completely agree, but that's also assuming you buy the propaganda. America was attacked on 9/11. I condemned every American response to it. I didn't want blood, and thought the responses were retarded and evil. I think Israel's responses have been retarded and evil too.
We can talk about and understand why they do or think what they do, but that's not diminishing the evil, which is what I was objecting to. If I see something as evil, I'll call it out. I get why people do evil things. It's still evil.
Trump himself was screaming at Israel to stop attacking as the ceasefire almost fell apart. This was after the "doomers owned!" shill campaign was in full swing already. I wonder if RazorFist told Trump to calm down and trust the plan.
Razor's argument that the lead up to this is totally different than Iraq is that Iraq as and Araba country, but Iran is a Persian country. Wut.
Also, Israel was actively bombing Iran at the time while Iran was missile striking them. That's a very different situation than Syria. Syria also ultimately ended with a regime change, albeit years later, so comparing Iran to it is a little weird.
RazorFist also ignores all of the regime change propaganda circulating around this, including from Trump himself. You wouldn't see that shit going around if it weren't the intent. They likely would have tried if they didn't face so much public backlash.
He also ignores that it's plainly true that MAGA 2025 edition is crawling with former never-Trumpers like Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin, and even JD Vance. Trump has also endorsed the likes of Lindsay Graham.
He addresses none of the real concerns people had and instead resorts to nothing but mockery. I just learned from the comments that RazorFist does a show with Sebastian Gorka. That explains a lot.
You don't understand. Pointing to some irrelevant difference in two cases is a common way for midwits/nitwits to make an 'argument'. They don't know that they have to show how that surface distinction makes for any real meaningful difference.
Of course, Razor doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. It's the blind leading the blind.
It's less bad than in 2016, but yeah, it's bad. JD Vance disgraced himself with this Iran stuff, but at least he was never a warmonger like the others. Or does he believe anything at all?
Razor has always been embarrassingly cringe.
Wonder what Vox thinks about this lol
If you fell for the "Iraq WMD speedrun", you failed the IQ test.
Something resulting in partial rather than complete disaster is not an argument against people warning you against the risks. Or do you think you run no risks if you play Russian Roulette but manage to survive. "Why u panicking bruh, I'm still alive!"
Hmm. 12 hour old comment with inane worthless statement gets you a Razor like. 13h old, more popular comment saying 'I don't care about Israel or Iran' does not. Bit odd considering the whole argument seems to be 'all you doomers worried too much about nothing'.