The death toll is way above this number, you have to consider the fact that Iran is a big country with many small cities, and in my city alone (which is very small and rarely has any protest going on) many people have died (i don’t have the exact numbers but it could be anywhere between 100 to 200) and when you put this into perspective you will understand that in scale of the entire country a lot of people have died.
I have heard that not only they killed people on the street but they have chased those who fled and killded them at their places or hidings, let alone the killing of the injured ones in hospitals.
It’s is a big tragedy and people are reluctant to talk about it because those who are committing this massacre are MUSLIMS and support PALESTINE so this is a moral dilemma for the left lovers! because they see Mullah’s regime as one of their biggest allies when it comes to attack West/Israel/Free market
It’s a shame that all those activist that would shred themselves for Palestine are absolutely quite about Iran
you are looking it differently, I disagree, I am one of those who supported Palestine.
Reason we are silent, because our governments already did what's needed from our side: heavily sanctioned the Iran, if I go and protest, what do I ask? To sanction Iran? They would laugh at me. Obviously, I am not going to protest and ask our government to go to war with Iran, which kills even more people.
Why is it different for Israel? Because our government supported it, we didn't sanction them, that was what we were asking for, while brutality was even higher than Iranian regime.
Not trying to downplay casualties, but just looking at relative numbers and methods, I don't see Iran bombing own people or killing 10% of its own population
My government doesn’t fund Iran.
A lot of my peers have been incredibly active on social media the last couple years supporting Palestinians. They've been mostly completely silent on Iran, the imbalance is notable.
Even the government can do little more, except engage in war.
Compare this to Palestine, where direct action and protest is much more tangibly impactful.
Encourage your government to invade/incite regime change I guess...?
I have never been able to work out where the line lies between intervention and colonialism tbh.
1. Palestine is a settler-colony of Israel, where the Israeli-right currently in power is conducting a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza ( https://www.btselem.org/publications/202507_our_genocide ) while continuing to steal their land and deny them basic rights. ( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/11/6/who-are-israeli-set... ). The oppressors and the victim are clear in the Israel - Palestine conflict, and thus it is easy to take a firm moral stand supporting one over the other.
2. What is happening in Iran is either (at best) a power struggle and violent conflict between two groups - the supporters of the Ayatollah and the supporters of the Shah (backed by the west), or at worst, the start of a civil war. In this case, apart from sympathy for the victims of violence on both sides, it is hard to take a firm political stand for one side because both have a tainted record. (How The CIA Overthrew Iran's Democracy In 4 Days - https://www.npr.org/2019/01/31/690363402/how-the-cia-overthr... ). Note that these so-called "revolutionaries" in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal went on a senseless rampage when law and order collapsed their, looting killing and doing senseless destruction ultimately destabilising their whole country. (Now Bangladesh is conducting a farce "democratic" election that deliberately excludes a major political party, the Awami League, because the so called "revolutionaries" fear that they will not be able to defeat them electorally. Something similar happened in Ukraine too). When both sides choose violence to capture power, and are hell bent on excluding the "other" from any future "democratic" setup, who really is the one with the "democratic" values and the real victim?
There is no doubt in my mind that the stand of the west (US / UK) here is totally hypocritical (and morally repugnant) if you praise the opponents of Ayatollah as "freedom fighters", while with the same breath you denounce the Palestinians as "terrorists" for daring to fight their Israeli colonial masters for freedom!
"I don't know anything about them, I don't care about them, what I talk about are Soviet atrocities." he replied.
I wonder how many of the people arguing that "more leftists should be out protesting Iran" agree with the Soviet Union's criticism of its dissident?
My guess would be zero.
And by doing so, it would likely cause change and or discussion by those in power.
The reason this is an absurd comparison is because on the Palestine issues, it’s a desire to stop using / selling weapons into a conflict and on the Iran issue “causing change” would be starting another war in the Middle East.
By not speaking out, it lessens the moral standing of those making a huge ruckus over certain issues, but remaining silent on arguably far more serious ones.
The power to cause change in democracy rests mostly in influence over decision makers who hold the power and money. The ability to get the news and media and celebrities talking about an issue is what gives protestors and those shouting on the left power to change things. Ultimately politicians and the elites want to be "in the right" to hold onto their power and money.
As an example, suppose 80% of the population was suddenly in an uprising about atrocities in Iran, and the next major election hinged on this subject. If some political party takes the right actions, they win the presidency house and senate. Do you think nothing would happen? Trump has literally said he wants to annex Greenland -- anything is possible if leaders feel they have political mandate.
Sitting in comfortable silence or talking about relatively easier issues just allows the more complex issues to go unsolved.
Again, nothing against pushing for peace for people in Palestine, but claiming that we should just ignore things in Iran reduces the legitimacy of the cause.
The pro-peace activist in WWII, who knew of concentration camps, but never mentioned it, and even told others not to discuss it. They claimed there was no point, nothing could be done. But the legacy wasn't the pro-peace activism, it was denial of the glaring situation they ignored.
I am not saying all the people, protestors/fighters, parties, involved were mossad/cia agents or all of them arose out of covert action. I am saying that is what shaped them, and ultimately determined their outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yinon_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_...
UK doesn't fund Israel, yet they've had most demonstrations there - still do. Clearly it isn't about the violence (whether in Iran or Israel). It's about Israel.
To "fix" the situation in Palestine, a war has to stop.
That's inherently very different.
Curious then, why, instead of tearing down photos of the hostages, we saw precious few protesters urging Hamas to return the hostages they kidnapped in order to stop the war they started.
I don't support all that 100% but it's not like I have any advice on the matter. I certainly don't have better ideas of where to bomb Iran or how to help a populace 8000 miles away rise against their oppressors.
The protests have also been against the Israeli government so you’d anticipate at least protests against the Iranian government if not against one’s own government which they protest because of funding.
But we don’t see those protests against the Iranian regime. It reminds me of US protestors protesting the removal of Maduro contrasted with near total approval from expat Venezuelans in various countries.
Something doesn’t square.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-united-states-iran-an...
https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/03/politics/us-sends-plane-iran-...
And the US liberal party did similar attacks on the Palestinian people so it's consistent.
This created absolute hell in Syria, Libya and other nations. Democracy was certainly not delivered.
Are you calling for the US to bomb Iran? Or are you against that?
Anyway, IMO the thing about Iran is that it's mostly Shia, and the population isn't that religious, especially not in cities. Unlike Syria, Iraq and Libya of the past, they aren't ruled by a secular dictatorship, but religious extremists. So, while US intervention in Iraq, Libya and so on created space for religious extremists to rise, I think getting rid of Iranian government could actually do the opposite - give a chance for secular opposition to rise.
Palestine : Dont send bombs. Send Aid. Lift blockade so Palestinians dont suffer.
Iran : Dont send bombs. Send Aid. Lift sanctions so Iranian people dont suffer.
Interested to hear your take regarding the same.
I am not sure how you're imagining this. Showing that they can buy an American iPhone, for example, is a worse "flex of power" than killing 30k protestors? I just don't get what is the supposed power flex without sanctions gonna be.
The purpose of sanctions is (everytime) actually different. It's to break the civilians so they would revolt against the government. So with sanctions, you're hurting civilians by definition. It might be "for the greater good", but it's certainly amoral approach in my book.
This is criticism given from most of the region when the topic of lifting sanctions comes up. Nothing I said is novel or extreme.
In fact, we have direct evidence of what happens when those sanctions are lifted from when it was done under the Biden administration. They expanded their nuclear program and expanded funding to their regional proxies to carry out terror campaigns. The Houthis attacked global shipping lines and October 7th happened. That's not theoretical.
Btw, I'm of Iranian descent.
That's not a fair position, those people don't have the duty to make every wrong right. As an Iranian expat how much of your time and money did you invest in fixing Iran? Apparently there are 2 million Iranians in US and just over a million in Europe and a million more in the rest of the world. What did the 4 million strong Iranian diaspora did on that matter?
That's really an unfortunate statement. I see this talking point from pro-Netanyahu accounts, showing empty university campuses and I wonder if they are demanding right to kill more people under their control(since Iranians killed more people per day and Israel is mission out) or trying to smear the protesters(which I don't see how it make sense, you don't become hypocritical of you don't invest your time and money in every issue).
I know iranians in Spain, my country. It is lilely they are not perfectly organized but everyone deserves a life as normal as ours.
I support the fact that he comes here to disclose some more information if possible.
I think your optics are skewed as to what is seen as "the left" in US centric ways. In my east european part of the world the perspective isn't shaped by ethnicity at all (except when the organized right does anti immigration manifestations), but with disgust of what authoritarians do around the world. The world seems to be in a simmering stage, and the fact that we have our Serbian neighbors continuously protesting for more than a year, dampens ideals of being able to effect change through protests.
I don't want to be called "leftist" because I don't want to belong to any tribe. But I do embrace a lot of the humanist ideals of the so called "progressives" and I think they might have some moral ground in here. But feel free to call me whatever you want.
In my perspective, the oppression in Iran is different from what is going on in Gaza. It is more like what happens in Belarus, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Turkey and Myanmar: it is an authoritarian government killing and oppressing their own people. I am not American but if the American government wants to kill innocent people in Minneapolis that is an American problem that the Americans should solve, because I respect the US sovereignty.
OTOH, I am ok with western interference in Gaza because Zionism is a racist project from one ethnicity against other, it is the racist government of a racist people committing genocide against another ethnicity. It isn't an internal issue of a sovereign state as much as apartheid wasn't an internal affair of the South African regime.
Wait till you learn about the people they are fighting....
To the best of my knowledge this is not progressive but christian in origin in our westerner societies... never mind you are not a christian. In the west it has been like that historically.
And did you come to this worldview before or after October 7?
Why would leftists (or anyone) be confused who the bad guy is here? Generally as a rule of thumb for international conflict you can count on the left to be on the side of the underdog, no matter how naive a view that may be in a given circumstance.
Because there are literally pro-Palestine protests that have supporters of Iran's supreme leader[1].
I've seen a lot of comments and sentiment from leftists in support of Iran.
What bug(s) do you have, that you didn't know this?
[1]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-04/international-reactio...
Even more rich because Iran is currently massacring their /leftist/ population who were protesting for rights like /free markets/. How does that dissonance feel to you?
Where did I imply that, justonceokay? And no, I don't think every leftist supports the Ayatollah. Do you think every leftist, globally, doesn't support them?
I was as vague as you were, in referring to leftists. I gave a concrete example of there being confusion about who the bad guys, since you questioned why leftists (or anyone) would be confused.
What is striking is that the death toll in Iran from a couple of weeks of demonstrations is half as much as what Gaza suffered in 2 years of a devastating war. Even taking into account the difference in population this is shocking.
Well done to my fellow Hners for trying to gaslight op that the 2 are not comparable, when everyone here knows what is really behind this anomaly.
You have all my sympathy. Even Israelis understand the difference between the regime and the people of Iran. From a practical point of view how do feel the West should respond? Would you welcome American airstrikes? What do you feel about the looming possibility of another conflict with Israel?
The IRGC had "no choice" if they wanted to remain in power; but they did have a choice.
>It’s a shame that all those activist that would shred themselves for Palestine are absolutely quite about Iran
Did you consider if there are any differences between the two situations? The money I earn is not being seized to fund the Iranian regime. Government and other organizations in my country are not declaring a blank check in support of the Iranian government; they're not suggesting it's hate speech to merely question the Iranian government's actions and no one is being investigated, arrested, or deported for being skeptical of the Iranian government or it's violence.
Horrifying.
Amiry-Moghaddam of Iran Human Rights said the death toll could be higher than 20,000, based on evidence reviewed by his organization.
At this point they need to split the country so people who want to live differently can do so. Maybe that would prevent needing to bomb the Iranian government into oblivion.
Can you provide us with any evidence of that?
Most of the human rights organisation in Iran, cited heavily by western media, are backed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which some countries (and some right-wing political organisations) believe is used by the CIA (if not funded and a front for it). Human Rights Activists in Iran is based in Fairfax, Virginia (where the CIA HQ is). (Apparently, they've received up to a million dollars in funding from the NED). The Abdorrahman Boroumand Center for Human Rights in Iran (ABCHRI) has also been associated with the NED. The Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI) is also based in New York City and Washington, D.C, and also funded by the NED (according to the Chinese).
Additionally, a large portion of NGOs are based in Fairfax county due to the proximity to DC.
The NRA headquarters is in Fairfax, and Maria Butina lived down the road from the NRA headquarters.
A fun game to play is following the source. For instance, when events in Xiajiang were getting nonstop coverage, nearly every article that came out would cite either the adrian zenz paper or an NGO's article, which would cite the paper.
Sometimes you'd have to go a few NGO layers deep. I repeated this experiment a few dozen times, about half would lead to an office park in Fairfax County. One time it was an Australian NGO that had the US DoD as a sponsor.
There is an entire industry around intelligence laundering and consent manufacturing.
One such example is James Leibold, a scholar of Xinjiang ethnic policy. He would report on Xiajiang and the claimed genocide. He is an australian. He worked for the Jamestown Foundation based in DC.
On the Board of Directors for the Jamestown Foundation is a man named Michael G Vickers, who was previously the Under Secretary of Defense for intelligence, and worked at the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan War(The one where the US funded the Mujahadeen who immediately began throwing grenades into schools for girls).
Vickers was even featured in the book, "Charlie Wilson's War", about Operation Cyclone and the events which would eventually lead to blowback via 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, and the second Iraq war.
This is just one example. Any time you see articles like this, follow the sources. They either wont cite anything, or will cite a thinktank/NGO staffed by career intelligence workers and funded by similar groups.
https://jamestown.org/analyst/james-leibold/
https://jamestown.org/our-team/?department=board
[1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20161118042417/https://www.nytim...
a) HOW was the data acquired? b) WHO obtained the data?
That said, I'm sure the death count numbers from the Rasht Massacre are staggeringly higher than the initial tallies of 2-5k.
My daughter’s hair stylist is Iranian (she was an accountant in old country). When Jimmy Carter’s wife died, she said “I’m happy she’s dead.” I’ve never seen anyone else say a negative thing about the Carters personally. Even die hard Republicans who think he was a weak President don’t hate him as a person. But this is not an uncommon sentiment among the Iranian diaspora.
Iranian who left Iran here. Do you have stats or reference for this critical piece of information?
It’s as if someone’s says, since Bangladesh is predominantly muslim, the majority aligns with what the Islamic regime does for ideological reasons and would try to undermine the account of atrocities.
But one shouldn’t believe this before seeing some polls, stats, etc.
Also, as a Russian who left Russia, it's certainly a familiar pattern.
Note, by the way, that this doesn't really imply anything about whether those people are wrong to be antagonistic.
I've noticed there's two distinct 20th century Russian diaspora groups in the US. Those who came here prior to the fall of the USSR, and those who came after.
In talking with the ones who came after the fall, life wasn't glamorous but got truly unlivable in the wake of the collapse.
In talking with the ones who came before the fall, they wanted to make money.
All I can do is throw my anecdotes into the pool: I mostly have met two types of Iranians: Those that fled in the 80's post-revolution, and those that come to the US for university (90's, 00's, and 10's).
All of them have been anti-regime.
I have met a few that came for other reasons (not education and not the 80's stock). Yes, those are either pro-regime or neutral.
My guess is that what rayiner says is correct: The majority of the Iranian diaspora in the US is self selecting and not representative of the full population.
That’s true. Bangladeshi people strongly supported amending the constitution to make Islam the official religion. Islamization of the country has accelerated since we left, and now it looks like the Islamist parties will get a seat at the table in a coalition government.
It seems to be true across the Muslim world. My father is from North Africa, and any time we've been back there over the past decades it's very clear a large swath of the youth are embracing the more religious political movements.
It’s very odd. I saw lots of younger Bangladeshis supporting the overthrow of the Awami League government (the most secular of the parties). I wasn’t sure if it was people who just didn’t realize it would leave a vacuum for Islamists, or or people who wanted that. It seems there’s some of both.
Given the veracity of the current administration, the repeated history of the US government lying to justify military interventions (Vietnam Tonkin Gulf incident looks fake going back a little further), I think people who know a little bit of history and are paying attention have legitimate reason to want more than just one source. Whatever the number is in Iran it's terrible but there's no military intervention outside countries can do that's going to change that given Iran is already sanctioned to the gills and it's a huge country that presents many challenges - the people there are going to have to do it themselves.
Well - the data they publish can be correct; or it can be a made-up lie. We simply don't know.
So why should we assume the data they publish should be correct? How did they reach that number? And why is that number more precise than earlier reported numbers? And, why is that number so different to the other numbers told before?
What if they say tomorrow it is 50.000 suddenly?
Leftists, with Western pro-Khomeini protests, not just in Iran, with the usual involvement from the KGB, and the CIA opposing, brought Khomeini to power with claims that he would bring a communist revolution. As per tradition in a communist revolution, first thing he did once in power is execute communist allies. Of course, Iran is still allied with the KGB (now FSB) and Moscow, currently delivering weapons and weapon designs for use in the war against Ukraine.
You could also point out that Iran is kind-of socialist, in the sense that the state controls, at minimum, 70% of the economy, and all those "companies" are directly controlled by the government.
So socialists are still at it, supporting the ayatollah, for example:
https://marxist.com/iran-for-a-nationwide-uprising-down-with...
Note: yes, I get what the title says, but read. IN the article you'll find an insane rant about how Israel and the US are really behind the revolution and how despite that the regime really held back, and this popular revolution, if it fails will bring back national Iranian pride, and the revolution failing will be the final push that ayatollah's need to actually bring the communist revolution to Iran
Including the Mossad, which is kinda an important footnote you might not want to omit: https://xcancel.com/BarakRavid/status/1560685368780939265/
> As many as 30,000 people could have been killed in the streets of Iran on Jan. 8 and 9 alone, two senior officials of the country’s Ministry of Health told TIME
Meanwhile, the US is rearranging its forces in the middle east. What a coincidence.
And their names are never called.
Remember "bomb serbs to heel" or "sinister world of saddam"
EDIT: Sorry... that is too strong... "state aligned influence media". Note that the headline might be true, or it might not, but that source is quite glowy.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2026/jan/27/i...
iran site:theguardian.com
There is a narrative that has been floating around and it seems like a Russian psyop designed to sow discord (not accusing you of being a bot personally), “the lefties are friends with Iran and don’t complain about their attrocities”, which is objectively false.
Indeed if you look at independent aggregators the latest article on Iran is more “left leaning” reported: https://ground.news/article/at-least-6-126-people-killed-in-...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_protests_of_1989
There was plenty of rounding up student leaders and executions afterwards, but I don't think even the wildest anti-communists would claim a death toll in the thousands for this.
To this day, the official version is, nothing happened there and then. If you talk about it online inside china, or using chinese services outside of it, it will automatically be blocked.
So yes, people did get out, but till this day they will have to face persecution or other disadvantages and some want to to visit family again or not have them face consequences.
In other words I don't know about any numbers, but how can you claim to know, when the chinese government did all it could to prevent acurate information?
In the end they decided it was worth the risk and I guess they were right, because China survived that period without any rotation of elites and became more prosperous and powerful as a result, avoiding all the chaos of the former Soviet countries
but yeah, compared to what Israelis do in Gaza or Iran, even whole Beijing numbers are negligible considering China population
That's like ~40% of the deaths in the current gaza war, except over just 2 days instead of 2 years.
"We killed about 80,000 people by mistake" isn't the exculpation you think it is.
This is ridiculous.
I don't want to be a Hamas apologist; they're certainly brutally cynical enough to use civilians as shields, but in the case of Gaza, what else would you expect them to do?
Urban areas are strong defensive structures, and 75% of Gaza is urban. Where else would you expect them to fight? It would be unrealistic to expect Hamas to take on the IDF in open farmland so they could be annihilated by Israeli air power.
This was the primary method for groups like the Hind Rajab foundation, to locate these war criminals while they were vacationing in other countries to have them arrested on war crime charges.
They didn't need orders, they simply were never told no.
No need to argue with people who hate.
No, the IDF has been built up as an occupation force. Therefore, they do occupation force things, like shoot through fences at children, destroy ambulances, post on instagram "I am blowing up this block of civilian housing in revenge for my friend" which is two explicit war-crimes.
I think Israel as a nation has to contend with the level of violence they have permitted to happen to those who they have dehumanized as they've continued to maintain an apartheid state, seize land, and kill without any kind of accountability.
"On 9 October 2023, Mr Yoav Gallant, Defence Minister of Israel, announced that he had ordered a “complete siege” of Gaza City and that there would be “no electricity, no food, no fuel” and that “everything [was] closed”. On the following day, Minister Gallant stated, speaking to Israeli troops on the Gaza border: “I have released all restraints . . . You saw what we are fighting against. We are fighting human animals. This is the ISIS of Gaza. This is what we are fighting against . . . Gaza won’t return to what it was before. There will be no Hamas. We will eliminate everything. If it doesn’t take one day, it will take a week, it will take weeks or even months, we will reach all places.”
Also, the measures concluded in the end of the document are about ensuring this was a motivational speech for soldiers that are going to fight Hamas terrorists, not a vague statement.
If not, I don't see him making that distinction, by stating to block all food from entering Gaza and dropping all restraints for attacking Hamas.
I did not had he impression there ever were restraints when dealing with Hamas. So restraints were always for bystanders. Which were dropped.
"No matter what your beliefs are"? Some people believe that Israel is trying to make the people in Gaza starve. If that was true, how would they not be a target?
Funny that you say that, because the reason Iran is under sanctions is that Israel wanted it. Obama had agreed to a lift on the sanctions in exchange for a strict control on Iran's nuclear program; Trump and his cohort of rabid zionists remote controlled from Tel Aviv reneged on the agreement and restored the sanctions.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2018/09/1021192
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Netanyahu%27s_2015_ad...
“By December 2025, the Gaza Health Ministry had reported that at least 70,117 people in Gaza had been killed. The vast majority of the victims were civilians, and around 50% were women and children. Compared to other recent global conflicts, the numbers of known deaths of journalists, humanitarian and health workers, and children are among the highest. Thousands more uncounted bodies are thought to be under the rubble of destroyed buildings. A study in the medical journal The Lancet estimated that traumatic injury deaths were undercounted by June 2024, while noting an even larger potential death toll when "indirect" deaths are included. The number of injured is greater than 171,000. Gaza has the most child amputees per capita in the world; the Gaza war caused more than 21,000 children to be disabled.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
Russia has more than likely killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians since February 2022 but what is happening in Ukraine is not termed a genocide. Why? Because by and large it is Russian military personnel killing Ukrainian military personnel (and vice versa, of course). Why is what is happening in Gaza being termed a genocide? Because the Israeli military* is targeting and killing civilians. I'm not the one saying that, genocide scholars (among others) are the ones saying that.
“The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. It encompasses mass killings, deliberate starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and prevention of births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites. The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, multiple human rights groups, numerous genocide studies and international law scholars, and other experts.”
One cannot blockade an entire population and not be targeting the civilians in that population.
“An Israeli blockade heavily contributed to starvation and confirmed famine. As of August 2025, projections show about 641,000 people experiencing catastrophic levels and that "the number of people facing emergency levels will likely increase to 1.14 million". Early in the conflict, Israel cut off Gaza's water and electricity, but it later partially restored the water. As of May 2024, 84% of Gaza's health centres have been destroyed or damaged. Israel also destroyed numerous cultural heritage sites, including all 12 of Gaza's universities, and 80% of its schools. Over 1.9 million Palestinians—85% of Gaza's population—were forcibly displaced.”
* with the backing of primarily the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany
I'm quite frankly quite appalled at the amount of apologists in this thread. Warning civilians is not an excuse to genocide them.
Demonizing one side is neither rational, moral, nor conducive to resolving the situation.
I'm quite frankly quite appalled at the amount of apologists in this thread.
https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministr...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/edit-wars-over-israel-spur-rar... https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1pvs1b6/as_a_wikipe...
Problem even discussed and acknowledged by Jimmy Wales: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U_aQWaxOTE
https://www.inss.org.il/publication/wikipedia/
https://jewishjournal.com/cover_story/380074/gaming-the-wiki...
They are and so were doctors, journalists and such.
The "Where's Daddy" program in Israel tells the opposite story. They take anyone designated a target, track them home, then send rockets to their home to take out their family.
There's dozens of documented events like this happening to doctors working to save casualties, finding out their entire family was killed.
After seeing the highly targeted attacks in Iran that Israel was capable of, makes you think that targeting families of aid workers was the point.
Supporters of Israel ignore inconvenient facts and patterns of behavior.
And such move will not change anything in this behavior just make some israeli farmer (maybe still employing some palestinians/arabs) lose some income.
Sure you will get some nay-sayers who say 'a life is a life', if moral particles existed, they might be correct.
But for some reason, humanity doesn't seem to care as much.
What makes intra-state politics more acceptable to use violence?
I don’t know that anyone thinks a state’s violence against its citizens is less immoral. It’s more that countries are more hesitant to get militarily involved in the domestic affairs of another country because it would mean essentially declaring war against that state. But in a conflict between states, an outsider can more easily support one side militarily without declaring war against the other side.
If Aliceville attacks Bobtopia, there are existing military and civilian organisations in Bobtopia that can take foreign aid and use it effectively. The population of Bobtopia are generally going to support their homeland or at least be neutral, and are available for conscription so they'll do all the dying and international forces don't have to.
If Bobtopia just starts massacring its own people, then:
A) You have to dismantle those same military structures along with many of the civilian ones, and you're now in charge of building an entire government from the ground up.
B) Some of the population, e.g. the ones who were doing the massacring, are now shooting at you instead. Some of their victims are probably going to shoot at you too.
C) You can't exactly conscript Bobtopians during a civil war you started and have them be an effective fighting force, because they're not unified, don't have a government, and often hate you. If you try to work with Bobtopian militias, you'll find yourself embroiled in Bobtopian politics.
This all holds true regardless of who has to declare war on whom.
Luckily we have largely moved past that view.
I think as a purely practical matter, moral outrage is shaped by who controls the information space. If you are a country being invaded, you probably have an organized, well funded communication department to tell your side. If you are an Iranian protestor, not only do you not have that, you don't even have internet at all because the state cut off all means of communication.
Have we? I don't think the UN is going to invade Iran over this, especially after it went so well the last time with the US. And sanctions for Iran are already at the "you don't get anything" level, i don't think they can be ramped up any more. Morally sure, people now believe this is wrong while in the distant past they may have not cared, but practically not much has changed. The best we can hope for is an organized resistance that other large nations can funnel money and arms to.
Strongly worded letters might not mean much, but at least they are on the right side of the issue, even if only symbolically.
That’s from my readings of philosophy.
But yeah, I do recognize the same sentiment as you found. I think philosophy itself is an answer: most philosophies explicitly champion dictatorships, under whitewashed terms. Ever heard something like “society is a big organ transcending individual needs”? We got it from Hegel.
I don't understand how you could make this claim.
"society is a big organ transcending individual needs”?"
How does this statement by Hegel champion dictatorships?
After studying Plato, Hegel, Marx, Rousseau, fascist ideologies, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. This list is by no means exhaustive, just a few majors from the top of my head.
Sure, they didn’t just say “shoot people for power.” That’s a very shallow modern view. Instead, they champion extreme forms of altruism and its only logical expression: statism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state, to society, to the group, the race, the nation, the economic class.
> How does this statement by Hegel champion dictatorships?
The statement alone surely doesn’t. His philosophy does. For him, state is a sacred authority that transcends individual will.
State authority exists in democracys therefore that's not an argument for dictatorships
>they champion extreme forms of altruism and its only logical expression: statism
Why is statism the only logical expression of extreme altruism? Jesus Christ was the ultimate altruist and is not a state. I can dedicate my life to only helping others over myself as an individual .
You're arguments and example are extremely poor because you showing evidence related to governments and states but your original claim was to one specific type of government, a dictatorship.
Jesus Christ wasn’t a politician so we don’t know. But we do know that religious politicians, past and modern, rarely respect freedom.
> you showing evidence related to governments and states
Not just states but statism, a system in which man’s life and work belong to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it. This provides the theoretical hardware for dictatorial control.
I don’t think that’s a particularly established moral position.
Whereas the Iranian people just want human rights and didn’t do anything to their leaders.
Are you seriously asking this or are you just fucking with us? It’s blatantly obvious why it is different.
Who holds this opinion?
>But for some reason, humanity doesn't seem to care as much.
All of humanity cares less about when a government uses violence against its citizens than wars?
How can you possibly make this generalization when each internal conflict is different just like every war and how difficult it is to measure sympathy
And it’s not far fetched either: With a state‘s power structure ultimately resting upon (enough) support from society, there is an implicit legitimacy assumed in their actions.
The same can not be said about mass executions of citizens by an invading foreign power structure. Which is why you see the typical propaganda rush to make the victims look like perpetrators.
But actually, the largest mass killings in history have been always performed by States against their own citizens and not by enemy states:
- Great Chinese Famine (CCP): 20-30 million dead. - Holocaust (NSP): 6 million - Holodomor (USSR): 3-5 million - Congo mass killings (Colonial Regime + Private parties): 1-5 million - Cambodian genocide (Maoists): 2 million - Armenian genocide (Young Turk / CUP) ...
The list continues, and remains mainly dominated by assassination's of the State against their own citizens. Majorly communist and totalitarian regimes.
Most dead Jews were not German citizens and neither were the Poles who died.
Which books say that?
Acceptable? It's more about the consequences or lack thereof, the incentives
History has shown that pretty much nothing happens to the regime unless two coalitions of countries invade from both sides simultaneously, and that's like, not going to happen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar
The Nazis were still killing people in other places at the same time, so the deadliest day is probably much much higher.
The scale of the Holocaust is hard to imagine. Even just looking at very specific suranmes, there are 23,000 killed with the surname Rosenberg, 12,000 with the surname Adler...
https://collections.yadvashem.org/en/names/search-results-na...
The death camps were a practical end result of how much manual labor was required to line thousands of people up and shoot them dead. That’s what they were doing in Poland, to such extremes that is was literally more efficient to build gas chambers.
This is about what dedicated murderous goverments can pull off using conventional means.
At least 700k people died in Gaza.
I doubt even 100 people died in those Iranian protests, and there are videos of Mossad agents shooting people before getting arrested by the Iranian police.
Like even the UN stopped pushing that lie after Iranian ambassadors showed them the videos.
The fact that this whole thread got so many upvotes to end up on the front page is the signal I finally needed to delete the account, this has become an echo chamber, the cypherpunk or whatever those smart people with critical thinking and strong moral values are called are not here anymore.
There is also the issue of not being easy to confirm anything out of Iran right now, which is certainly concerning.
In what world is that happening? Specific strikes against the regime is vastly different that carpet bombing the country.
It was probably the headline article for a couple of hours on the site. I don't remember extended coverage either so I looked it up.
There are, IMO, very grave and very serious double standards at play here because I don't think we're going to see any of those.
That is only pragmatic, right? Speaking up might actually change things by putting these relations at stake. For Iran, there might not be much left to do from a western perspective except military involvement. Starting another war is not something a Greta led flotilla might want to do.
I think the real reason has to do with 1) there was an existing, organized pro-Palestinian movement that had experience protesting; 2) many organizations on the left saw the Israel-Gaza conflict as fitting very nicely into their larger anti-imperialist ideology in a way that other conflicts don't; 3) everyone more-or-less knows where Israel is on the map and has some familiarity with it; 4) there were a lot of really shocking images and video from Gaza
You are criticising protesters who claim to not talk about the Iranian exactions because their government is not funding it, by pointing out that they are not protesting against the Sudanese Civil War either? I may have misunderstood but their government is probably also not funding that war so it's consistent isn't it?
I cant believe Greta as a platform in 2026; people are dumb i guess
Hoping that people of Iran get freedom, peace and prosperity.
Yes, but not the kind delivered in an American/Israeli bomb.
Very likely in the millions.
"Iranian security forces deployed unknown chemical substances amid deadly crackdowns on protestors in several cities earlier this month, eyewitnesses told Iran International, causing severe breathing problems and burning pain.
They described symptoms that they said went beyond those caused by conventional tear gas, including severe breathing difficulties, sudden weakness and loss of movement...
...According to the accounts, in some cases gunfire began at the same time, or immediately after, protesters lost the ability to walk or run and fell to the ground.
Several witnesses said that moments of immobilization became points at which shooting intensified, particularly when protesters collapsed in alleys or while trying to flee.
Reports came from multiple cities, including Tehran, Isfahan and Sabzevar."
The footage was clearly released to potentially reveal these sensitive facts, as the local police were thusly trying to prevent carrying the blame for her death, by showing the parts requisite for understanding.
If you need a more detailed description just reply to this comment and I will give more detail analysis of the footage.
The official name of Iran is "The Islamic Republic of Iran" and it is a country ruled by sharia law. Countries ruled by Sharia are already totalitarian states.
As for the numbers:
Interior Ministry reports say security forces confronted demonstrators in more than 400 cities and towns, with more than 4,000 clash locations reported nationwide
As to the how, the article suggests some deaths immediately occurred in crowds - firing, dispersing, funneling, crush injuries, etc. leading to many intakes to hospitals and treatment tents etc ... followed by execution of the injured.
It's grim stuff.
Some years past the waves of the Rwanda massacres saw almost a million people killed in bursts across 100 days, mostly with machetes and hand guns.
The numbers reported here are absolutely feasible, the reporting is certainly questionable; bad things happened, but was it at the claimed scale?
The museum of the city has a paper with the order that every soldier would have to kill 400 people, by sword. Of course they were already captured but there were about 1 million people in that city. The city is still perfectly leveled after 800 years. Only a couple of buildings were left standing.
Mongols were very well coordinated. Iranian crowd control has had 45 years and several insurrections to train.
Quite a lot of detail in the nyt article https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/25/world/middleeast/iran-how...
No different from any other military operation to be honest. I'm not sure why you're incredulous about the death toll when a military is ordered to shoot to kill.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre 400-1500 civilian deaths by 50 British soldiers armed with bolt action rifles (tried to get machine guns on site but thankfully couldn't)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Severloh Possibly single handedly killed an hard to estimate count of US soldier, but possibly in the hundreds (he had people supplying him ammunitions).
Crowds are just easy to thin with repeating firearms and a good supply of ammo...
> Did the protestors get boxed in somehow?
That did also happen.[2]
> And across so many locations, that seems to require a crazy amount of coordination to kill so many in so little time.
The IRGC's primary purpose is to protect the regime, I'm sure they would have plans in place for suppressing protests.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Co...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2026/01/25/ira...
The article says "36,500 killed in 400 cities". That's 91 people per city.
I'm very against foreign forces intervening in such situations they can do more harm than good.
On the other hand, effective dictatorships (hell executive in democratic countries too) are good at controlling police and military.
E.g. take Belarus when it went through a wave of protests few years ago. I always think, if the people would really be against the regime, wouldn't members of the police and military know that?
Receive pressure from families and friends, even non direct one, clearly showing that the public thinks otherwise and they can easily topple those regimes? The moment your armed forces and police stops obeying orders those regimes are cooked. Yet they don't.
Which means that either there is no such an internal pressure or the regimes are extraordinarily good at selecting and incentivizing people to maintain the status quo.
Still, I think this is no excuse for foreign intervention and you should not do others what you don't wish on yourself. But at the same time if those regimes are indeed so effective, how do you get to help them?
I wish that at least instead of unilaterally, drastic measures were first sanctioned and carried out by UN, like it used to happen few decades ago in Africa.
But now it is always unilateral and stuff like what happened in Venezuela has been a tragedy imho where de facto a single country decides to topple the leadership of another one. Again, I don't wish we do what we don't wish for ourselves.
And I wouldn't want my country attacked and it's leadership decimated because somebody more powerful thinks so.
Or there is pressure and discontent, but simply not enough to topple the regime as it needs way more than 50% support for a internal regime change.
I have childhood memories of such a succesful change in eastern germany. Most people had enough for a long time, but they knew the sovjet tanks would come if they revolted. After it seemed the sovjets were busy on their own and won't come but rather did democratic reforms themself, but the GDR refused and stayed stalinistic - then the people went to the streets. And at some point those in power just gave up. Not really a consciouss choice, but they were visibly insecure and confused, so weak and fell. (But it was a close call, some wanted to bring out the machine guns as well)
The iranian mullahs were insecure, but they choose the violent path of dominance.
Not the same situation, as they did not rely on a foreign power like in GDR, but it seems they lost majority support a long time ago, but have a loyal enough religious base to use the weapons.
And yes, military and police who have family members on the streets will defect at some point and it seems that also happened in Iran, just not enough.
german here. Thanks for invading nazi germany and killing hitler. was very very nice. Thanks again
It depends a lot on how much power the people have. The more advanced and diverse an economy and the more qualified and educated the population are the more power they have. On one extreme you have countries like Angola with an economy consisting virtually only out of exporting oil. These countries only need a few qualified engineers for their resource extraction which they pay well and everyone else is entirely replaceable. That leads to extreme inequality between the leading political class that absorbs all the money and pays the military with it. As long as they pay and treat the military well enough they can just suppress the rest of the country. If people act up they can literally just kill everyone part of the rebellion. The political class, the military and the rest are just entirely disjunct classes of people with different incentives. The family of the militaries profit enough from the system to not excert pressure on their family member working for the military. It's the hand that feeds them.
On the other end you have countries with highly developed, specialized economies and a population that is educated enough to understand at least a few things about politics. There ordinary people have extensive training and work experience. You cannot just replace them. They can protest and go on strike and if you start killing everyone the economy will quickly start crashing down. Just pulling a few cogs out of the massively complex machine will stop it from working. And at that point it's not just a problem for the working population but also for the owning class and the pressure will propagate all the way up through the hierarchy. Also people can just leave. They have the economic means to and their qualifications mean that other countries have an interest in attracting already qualified people without having to pay for their education and traning first. That's what happened to east Germany and why they built the wall.
There are some methods of social control that can help to control a population beyond that. The key ingredient is surveillance, mutual control and seeding distrust. One person alone can never challenge the system. People need to organize. You can try to find the organizers via surveillance quick enough and get rid of them before they get dangerous. Also if a significant portion of the population is secretly informing the government people might be to afraid to organize as they distrust each other. That's how the Stasi worked in East Germany. For an extreme case of that see the Inminban[1] system in North Korea where people are bundled into groups where all surveil each other and report any dissident behavior. Failing to do so will lead to collective punishment for the whole group. It's a really perverse system that plays people against each other and their own interest aligning the incentives for the individual with the government rather than their class.
In fact, we believe - quite rightly - that if the US had conditioned military assistance to Israel on appropriate care for civilians, then the awful tragedy that unfolded in Gaza could have been averted. Similar levers for changing the behaviour of Iran do not exist.
What you saw in Gaza was ALREADY incredible levels of care and restraint (that has cost many Israeli soldiers their lives) to minimize civilian harm, when fighting against an enemy that benefits from increasing said harm.
And there have absolutely been examples of mass protest movements against regimes that are hostile to the US that are committing crimes against humanity. Years ago I went to a huge demonstration about the genocide in Darfur on the national mall in Washington. Raising awareness of what is happening and putting pressure on the Iranian regime (and on Western governments) can have an impact regardless of whether or not the West is hostile to Iran.
What about the 1953 CIA/MI6 coup that overthrew Iran's elected prime minister?
Protesting in your country against an enemy country that has been subjected already to all kinds of sanctions and military attacks makes little sense.
Protests serve to force your government to take action. i honestly at this point don't see what could mine to to stop this. Given the sanctions are not working, the only option to change Iran is maybe a direct intervention like Syria. And that sure worked great.
Fourteen arrested after protest at Iranian embassy: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y3g8glgxvo
Protester climbs on to balcony of Iranian embassy in London: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy09yvd57x2o
Silent protestors gather in solidarity with Iran: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4g1me23x7o
People protest to affect political change in their own countries. For example, that's why Americans now protest against ICE and not against the secret police in Turkmenistan. In my country, the government recently signed a secret arms deal with Israel to sell it weapons. Weapons that are then used to maim children. I don't like that. Major politicians have said that Israel should be "thanked" for what it's doing in Gaza. I don't like that either. Hence, why I protest. If the Sionazi regime in Israel was isolated in the same way as the Islamic regime in Iran or the Taliban regime in Afghanistan people would protest less because there would be less political change to affect.
Please.
With Iran, there's not a whole bunch of similar material, the death count estimates vary greatly from source to source, and we've got an untrustworthy president beating a war drum which probably makes people a bit more skeptical.. Atrocity propaganda to persuade a democracy to enter a war is something attentive people will be familiar with; incubator babies being tossed on the floor, dissidents being fed feet first into industrial grinders, people remember these stories preceding other wars and remember that evidence for the claims never materialized. Then there's the whole geopolitical angle where the Trump administration in fact supports Israel and Iran happens to be one of Israel's most powerful regional opponents. There are plenty of reasons to temper feelings of certainty.
Other state institutions have also received differing figures from other security bodies. However, given the scale of the killings, deliberate concealment, and what appears to be intentional disorder in the registration and transfer of bodies – along with pressure on families and, in some cases, the quiet burial of victims – it appears that even the security agencies themselves do not yet know the precise final death toll.
In a report presented on Wednesday, January 21, to the Iranian parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee seen by Iran International, the number of those killed was listed as at least 27,500.
According to sources within Iran’s Interior Ministry who spoke to Iran International on condition of anonymity, a consolidation of figures received from provincial security councils by Tuesday, January 20, showed the death toll had exceeded 30,000.
Two informed sources from the Supreme National Security Council also told Iran International that in two recent reports by the IRGC Intelligence Organization, dated January 22 and January 24, the number of those killed was listed as more than 33,000 and more than 36,500 respectively.
> [...] newly obtained classified documents, field reports, and accounts from medical staff, witnesses, and victims’ families.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_International
But does the number even matter? Whether its 4000 or 35000 the conduct has been unacceptable.
The real question is the solution, is reporting like this designed to be used as the backdrop to foreign intervention? How many people will be killed then?
"one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" - Not Stalin
IRGC is not involved in internal affairs, it's Iran's special forces and focuses on strategic defense forces.
Daily reports from the BBC, and the rate of them is increasing
https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/cjnwl8q4ggwt
Some of the headlines-
New Iran videos show bodies piled in hospital and snipers on roofs
'I saw people getting shot': Eyewitness tells of Iran protest crackdown An Iranian who got out of the country describes scenes of chaos as security forces opened fire in her home town.
Photos leaked to BBC show faces of hundreds killed in Iran's brutal protest crackdown
The end of the regime was brought about by an incursion into the Vietnamese border town of Ba Chúc, resulting in the massacre of more than 3000 civilians. Vietnam invaded, toppled the Khmer Rouge and brought an end to the executions although civil war would continue for much of the next decade.
For these actions Vietnam was extensively sanctioned[1]. The parallels with ongoing conflicts today are hard to ignore.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge#Crimes_against_hum...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian%E2%80%93Vietnamese_W...
The notion of some well-defined "people" is a fiction that ruling powers use to keep humanity's innate tribalistic tendencies pointed outward at their adversaries.
The truth is that the powers-that-be consider themselves to be above "the people", and will dispose of you as soon as you become inconvenient.
“ While most of the killings were carried out by IRGC and Basij forces, reports received by Iran International indicate that proxy forces from Iraq and Syria were also used in the crackdown. The deployment of non-local forces suggests a decision to expand repression capacity as quickly as possible.”
Also, read the article. :)
Usually mercenaries mean people doing it for money not ideology who get paid significantly more than your average soldier.
It’s generally not very hard to incite violence across groups in the Middle East, especially when you consider how bad the outcome might be for the losing side. Case in point, the Alawites who lost control of Syria and are now persecuted by the new government.
The actual final toll number is certainly in the thousands But all the numbers being touted in the western press reek of desperation. Lot of the sources are western-backed anti-iranian ngos ( lot of them with cia, mossad and other intelligence ties) which themselves cite dubious sources. IranIntl is itself Saudi-backed and a Mossad asset according to Axios's Barak Ravid, who is himself worked for Israel's Unit 8200. Netanyahu seems to try rope the US into war in the short window before the US mid-terms and the Monarchists seem similarly desperate to show traction to the Trump admin. With Epstein and whatever else that is hanging over Trump's head this is a very dangerous trap.
https://www.cruisingearth.com/ship-tracker/united-states-nav...
It is great shame that fascist US regime is the only real hope and ally of Persian people today, but it is what it is.
(Israel too, but Israel alone cannot do much).
(But I'm sure EU will send a strongly worded letter any day now)
External to the planet?
The hemisphere?
The continent?
The lands previously a part of a former empire?
The lands that a country lost to a war?
A country border drawn arbitrarily (straight!) by an English Lord hundreds of years ago?
A country border not everybody agrees about?
A country border defined to keep out intervention more than to protect?
A country border that is porous and is walked across daily by people that aren’t even sure where it is?
Etc…
At some point you may release that humans live on both sides of lines that often exist only on maps, and serve only to keep people servile to autocrats.
Autocrats whom make sure that their schools teach the importance of borders.
don't know a solution but this one isn't it
An amazing level of privilege. In half of the world, if you stop working, you will very soon die of hunger.
Regarding Iran, most of their money is from Oil. As throwawayheui57 says. So I don't really think that they would care much for civil disobedience
I have heard that Iranian shops are either closed or running in the least minimum operational way (barely open/working)
Tough times. I hope for a better future for people of Iran.
Machiavelli in Discourses on Livy says you are inviting an overthrow of your government by doing this.
The mercenaries can flip sides if the opposite faction pays them and offers them better terms... or maybe the mercs just flip.
Hard to say how true this is.
I mean, this is the nail in the coffin, I'm removing my hacker news account, this is even worse than reddit in propaganda.
Bye
plotted and went about to oust one of the most democratically legitimate leaders of his country by night.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Should Macron be judged by what Napoleon III. (or for that matter, I.) did? Surely there is some kind of continuity between those French heads of state, they even fly the some colors and sit in the same palace.
Oh btw, since we're on the topic of false flags:
Did you think that running a dictatorship is a stable endeavor? No foreign intervention even needed when you build your house on sand.
The world of 2026 cannot be reduced to a CIA/Mossad theatre where everyone else is a NPC and must suffer whatever they cook up there. Other people have agency and do their things. EU, India, China, Iran, Russia, Qatar, all influential players.
Sure some people love to live in the past, but it is not the past anymore, of course.
Trump chickening out of every world confrontation is a nice example of the diminishing capability of the US to bend the rest of the world to its will. US can probably keep its influence in Latin America, but in the Old World, the balance of power has shifted.
Is Trump de facto more powerful than Mohammad bin Salman? IDK.
Sure, it had a nontrivial effect. But it also happened in a time when Stalin and Churchill were still alive, there were 6 billion people fewer on the planet and the first antibiotics and transistors barely entered production. Korea was poorer than Ghana etc.
It is 2026, three generations have passed, and not everything can be explained and excused by a 1953 event forever. But it is convenient for autocracy advocates in general.
It reminds me of the worship of the Great Patriotic War in Russia. Again, as if nothing that happened later matters.
How, precisely how?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations_(Unit...
Nobody can, that I know of.
I am no longer on Facebook or Twitter/X, where that question is very relevant.
It is a bit like explaining the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia (1948) by the Western betrayal at Munich in 1938. It was a factor. But not The Factor. Just one of many.
In case of Iran, there, too, were other factors at play. The general drive of the Shah to be the Iranian Atatürk-like Modernizer, which clashed with the conservative rural population. The abilities of Khomeini, who pursued his goal of overthrowing the monarchy with absolute zeal. (Would Turkey be nowadays a modern state if Atatürk himself faced a similar opponent?) Willingness of France to shelter Khomeini and willingness of some Western intellectuals to fawn over him. Naivete of the Iranian Left that joined Khomeinis movement and hoped to come up on top, only to eventually get slaughtered for being "enemies of God".
Etc.etc. It is somewhat intellectually lazy to just drag out Mossadegh and leave the conversation, like GP did. It also masks other unpleasant facts.
For example, in my opinion, the Western intellectual class of the 1970s made a serious mistake by supporting Khomeini and cannot even bring itself to acknowledge it. I think this was at least as consequential to the eventual birth of the Islamic Republic as the Mossadegh coup. But the more people talk about the latter, the more they tend to forget about the former.
timothy snyder describes it as the "politics of eternity"
Too busy making deals with China and India for Russian gas, I suppose.
It really seems more like a test to see how gullible people are when presented with mass confirmation bias and no evidence.
So while the source is biased the numbers are not intrinsically unlikely.
Meaning, the people should be able to defend themselves against the violence directed to them.
Dangerous, probably but they can't stop us all. Pointless? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution.
Yes. But not just and not mainly from your government: you are way more likely to get killed by criminals and/or terrorists then by law enforcement officers.
To put things in perspectice in the US there are more than 20 000 homicides per year.
And for women rape and rape attempts are scary, here are the numbers for the UK:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/283100/recorded-rape-off...
You cannot really compare 36 000+ people getting killed by an islamist regime that rules the country by sharia law with the number of people killed by law enforcement officers in, say, France or the US. Where the number of people being killed by officials, yearly, can be counted on one hand's fingers.
In the same vein, you cannot really compared terror attacks like the 2024 one in Russia where 145 people where killed in a theater or the 130 people killed by terrorists at the Bataclan in France or the 70 killed in Nice (my sister was there with her two kids that day and she saw the terrorist and her son is still, to this day, traumatized) with the number of people getting killed by law enforcement officers in a country like France or the US (I'm using these two as an example for they are country where, each year, a few people are killed by law enforcement officers).
Unarmed people vs terrorists with kalashnikovs: slaughter.
A great many are highly concerned, for example, that there are now sleeping islamists terrorists cells in the EU. Even mainstream media began reporting the concerns. There are regularly arrests and terrorists plots foiled. And Christmas markets and celebrations have been cancelled this year in many european cities because the risk of islamist terror attacks were too high.
When a country disarms its people, it doesn't just make them vulnerable to the governement's wrongdoings: it makes them vulnerables to criminals and terrorists too. Which, so far in the western world, is definitely a much bigger threat.
Now that said there are more than 10 billion ammo sold, each year, in the US, to civilians. If there's one country where either the government or the terrorists would have a problem should they go "all in", it's the US.
That's not true globally; in the 20th century governments in Russia, Germany, China and Cambodia collectively killed over a hundred million of their own people.
>it makes them vulnerables to criminals and terrorists too. Which, so far in the western world, is definitely a much bigger threat.
Germany is the western world. Many of six million Jews would probably still be around if they'd been well-armed.
They had a literal military. This absurdist belief that something like the 2nd amendment would have ANY impact is literal propaganda.
Find me an oppressive government overthrown with private firearm ownership.
Like ones that appear when west-backed Julani killed Alawites. But there is almost no such content - only rumors, unnamed sources and documents no one bother to check.
There is a reason why the Iranian government cannot activate internet and phones anymore. Once people can communicate again, they will count and document the true scale of events. Right now, it seems the Iranian government would rather give up on internet and telephones altogether than having anyone find out, which tells you just about how bad the situation is.
I had talked to an iranian person who had misconfigured internet provider so I was able to talk to them on a forum. They mentioned that phone calls are still there in the daytime tho (they are cut at night), Sim,internet,starlink all are blocked
If someone's from Iran/related to it feel free to correct me but has there been any recent development where phone calls are completely shut off?