When it comes down to it, is there really any difference between an Iranian citizen wanting the destruction of America and an American citizen wanting the destruction of Iran?
I'm an American citizen. That's different.
Yes, because the destruction of the Iranian state is a neo-imperialist venture, whereas the destruction of American state is anti-imperialist.
Not many Americans are traveling to Iran with explosive belts on.
I don't believe that's happening on the flip side either. I haven't heard of any Iranians strapping explosive belts to themselves before boarding a flight to America. Someone should tell the TSA about that.
One is supporting democracy and the other is supporting state sponsored terrorism and Islam.
Not all of Iran is Muslim.
The government is based on Islam so...
I think you've mixed up the countries.
I haven't, you have.
It is a theocracy and Islamic republic. Look up "(country name) government type" it will show you what the government is.
Well the US is the one who always funds radical Islam, so it's clear to me which country is the Islamic terrorist state.
Just motivation and opportunity.
When you consider all the shitty things we have done to Iran over the past 60 years, they have much better reasons to hate us than we have to hate them.
Both just seem like idiots to me. What kind of psychopath actually wishes for millions of people to die and an entire culture to be destroyed?
I believe so, yes. A third-world citizen wanting the destruction of an imperialist power exploiting him or her seems rational. A first-world citizen of an imperialist power wanting the destruction of a third-world country seems entirely irrational.
I think both perspectives are rational. Your point about American imperialism hits the nail on the head. It's definitely rational for Iranian citizens to hate the US.
However, don't you see that Americans here also feel threatened by terrorism instigated by countries like Iran? Is it not perfectly rational to want to wipe out a country that harbors terrorists, preaches the subjugation and oppression of women, and does not believe in the principles and values of humanitarianism and liberal democracy?
Let me be clear, the claim that someone is *rational* doesn't make them *right*. A suicide bomber is perfectly rational in killing hundreds of people if he genuinely believes that it is what God wants and he will go to heaven for doing so.
OhTheIrony I think you were almost right. The fear of terrorism in the west is incredibly irrational compared to the fear of imperialism in the third world. But I do think if we're talking rationality that it is rational for a first worlder to support imperialism, because without it our disproportionately high standard of living compared to the rest of the world would be unsustainable.
To be clear, I agree with Land. But I don't think irrational is the proper term to describe the American perspective, just dumb.
Rationality is not a particularly high bar. You can be perfectly rational and do terrible things.
For example, Hitler was an extremely rational person. The reason he did terrible things was because he made flawed assumptions about the world.
He assumed Jews were a plague on society. He assumed white people were superior to everyone else.
Acting on these beliefs is a rational act. In fact, if you genuinely believed these things and did not push for white supremacy, that would be irrational.
Feel free to change "Iran" to any nation, really. Could pertain to North Korea or Afghanistan etcetera etcetera.