7 ms·
Iran summons families of exiled journalists to halt their activities
- michelsedgh 8mo agoWhile IRGC killed thousands in Iran, and they killed some of the doctors who were helping the injured civillian protestors, Doctors Without Borders just refuses to say anything, anything at all about this situation. Sometimes you just lose faith in humanity...
- toomuchtodo 8mo agoIf it’s any consolation, it appears a strike by the US is imminent based on hardware that has been repositioned, with the backing or approval of the Saudis.
- optimalsolver 8mo agoFor those following along at home, that's the same US Gov which is currently killing civilians protesting against its own activities.
- undersuit 8mo agoHooray more death, that'll fix things.
- testing22321 8mo agoAnd billions spent on weapons that could be healthcare…
- learingsci 8mo agoSometimes it does though, eg Hiroshima.
- DocTomoe 8mo agoHooray genocide.
- pineaux 8mo agoProbably the worst example, because Japan was probably going to surrender anyways.
- didntfixathing 8mo agoAnd it was followed by another bomb.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago> Japan was probably going to surrender anyways Well yes. The question is how many more would have had to die to get it. This question doesn’t have an easy answer. To the extent there are wrong ones, it’s anyone claiming confidence.
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 8mo agoA nonsensical false dichotomy of sorts. Between "Japan surrenders without a single further death" and "We have to nuke two cities for them to surrender" there are numerous steps of gradual escalation that could have been taken before arriving at the "nuke the cities" option. One such possible step could have been nuking a remote area, or at the very least sparsely populated area, to achieve the demonstration of destruction without hundreds of thousands of deaths. I have no sympathy for the Japanese who killed tens of millions of people in their WW2 atrocities, and the two bombs killed orders of magnitude fewer of their people. I also see no reason to pretend that there weren't obvious alternatives to USA dropping nukes on their cities if we are to believe that the objective was merely getting Japan to surrender (an objective most difficult to believe). No need for pretense -- they wanted to demonstrate their new weapons, AND they wanted to kill a lot of Japanese.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago> One such possible step could have been nuking a remote area, or at the very least sparsely populated area, to achieve the demonstration of destruction without hundreds of thousands of deaths There is a reason it took bombing both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to cause surrender. And if you telegraph that you’re going to bomb a remote place and the bomb fails, you’ve undermined your weapon’s credibility in unique ways. I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just that your confidence is wrong. What you’re talking about was contemporaneously and continues to be historically debated.
- delecti 8mo agoThere's good reason to believe that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially technical demonstrations warning the soviets, given the clearly imminent end of the war, to not start anything with us. There were already signs of a Japanese desire for surrender.
- nozzlegear 8mo ago> There were already signs of a Japanese desire for surrender. I'm no historian but this point doesn't sound very noteworthy unless it was the leadership who wanted that surrender. It took two bombs to make them surrender; they didn't surrender after the first. Edit: actually this is much more nuanced than I think either of us make it sound. Japan did send out "peace feelers", but they were more like "we want peace but we don't accept your terms." The Japanese required that the US allow retention of the emperor, no occupation, self-conducted war crime trials, and even possibly keeping some of their conquered territory. The US wanted an unconditional surrender.
- didntfixathing 8mo agoHiroshima didn’t fix anything because they dropped another on Nagasaki. Furthermore they could have only destroyed only one city if Hiroshima had been an at sea demonstration instead, maybe even destroy zero cities.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago> Hiroshima didn’t fix anything because they dropped another on Nagasaki After which Japan surrendered. This logic is like arguing 99% of a drug doesn’t do anything because the bug is only eradicated by the last effective molecule. > they could have only destroyed only one city if Hiroshima had been an at sea demonstration instead, maybe even destroy zero cities This was considered. The bombs’ unreliability (and cost) made it a non-starter.
- ben_w 8mo ago> Furthermore they could have only destroyed only one city if Hiroshima had been an at sea demonstration instead, maybe even destroy zero cities. Given the immediate response to Hiroshima was disbelief, surely an at-sea demonstration would have been even less convincing than the observable absence of a city? Even once the Japanese government confirmed that Hiroshima had indeed been destroyed by a nuclear weapon, part of the reason Nagasaki followed Hiroshima was that the Japanese forces estimated the US couldn't have built more than one or two more (they were correct, they just hadn't internalised what losing an entire city meant). Even after Nagasaki, there were some who attempted a coup to prevent surrender: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyūjō_incident
- kasrak 8mo agoDo you have a suggestion for a plausible alternative that can stop the IR government from continuing to murder thousands of its own people?
- delusional 8mo agoI can accept that I don't have any better alternative while while not exactly being consoled.
- pineaux 8mo agoIt's not about the Iranian government killing its own. Then we should have seen a lot more interventions. It's about oil and regional power. The US wants that the region is in hands of their allies and Iran threatens this.
- tgma 8mo agoEverything is about self-interest. That does not mean there is no such thing as aligning interests.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo agoYes. Iran’s territory includes ethnic minorities that could be joined to its neighbors, neighbours who are less brutal. Starting there might be a good first step since we’re now firmly back into redrawing borders with force.
- tgma 8mo agoReally? You are advocating regional/civil war, aligned with ethnic ties at that, instead of surgical regime change by the US? How would a regime change of the Mullahs equate to "redrawing borders?" No such thing happened when they were installed and won't need to happen now. Seems like that's what you are suggesting.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago> How would a regime change of the Mullahs equate to "redrawing borders?" It doesn’t. Maybe there is a Delcy Rodriguez in the IRGC. I’m doubtful. If there isn’t, we have the option of creating a power vacuum or quarantining the problem. I’m arguing for the latter. The Azeri-majority northnorth to Azerbaijan; the Turkic areas to its west to Turkey [1]. Balochistani southeast to Pakistan. Arab southwest to Iraq. Hell, if you’re ambitious, find a way to give Bandar Abbas to the Emiratis and secure the Strait of Hormuz. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicities_in_Iran
- michelsedgh 8mo agoI would not be surprised if a lot of these humaitarian organizations come out and condemn the said strike u are mentioning rather than the IRGC actios. Also the Qataris, the Turkey, Russians, Chinese and Pakistanis and Palestinians are all supporting the IRGC killing Iranian civillians. All over the world we are seeing their actions. Also Obama,Biden they had same opportunities but they decided to help IRGC than actually fight them and take them out of power. There's a video of Obama admitting he made a mistake when he was in power. But still even now he's silent on Iran. That's why everyday, I lose a little bit more faith in humanity. Even the EU, France, Spain, UK they barely put IRGC as a terrorist organization now, they did NOT want to do it. Iranian embassies and their personel are active in all said countries... Just terrible politics ad terrible people in power if you ask me.
- ku-man 8mo ago[dead]
- tgma 8mo agoDon't lose faith in humanity, just global institutions and NGOs. Frankly, if you hadn't lost faith in those already...
- smallmancontrov 8mo agoTheir work requires physical presence which makes them easy to threaten. Do you have similar presence, vulnerability, and defiance in spite of it? Or are you casting stones from a position of comfort while doing, comparatively, nothing?
- michelsedgh 8mo agoI think you are the one that casting stones from a position of comfort rather than seeing and condemning evil for it is evil, same as all these NGOs and organizations. They could put themselves in danger its literally doctors without borders made to help the unrepresented populations. They were in Palestine and keep being against Israel, but can not say a word against IRGC? what are you trying to accomplish by your comment? I am doing what I can for my friends and family in Iran who many of them have had dangerous stuff almost getting killed by IRGC.
- omio 8mo ago"It's easy to be a saint in paradise." Cmdr. Sisko, ST:DS9
- throwawayheui57 8mo agoThe real question is have they tried to “be present” and denied access? If not, what you’re saying is moot.
- vidarh 8mo agoIt took me one search to determine that they have teams in Iran, and so face both direct physical risk to their teams, and face a direct risk to their mission if they are not careful about what they say.
- throwawayheui57 8mo agoThat was a question. From the source: “While we are not authorized to carry out activities beyond the scope of our projects — which focus on marginalized communities in Iran — we continue to offer medical support to hospitals.” https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/iran https://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/what-we-do/where-we-wo... It seems that they are present physically but don’t have proper authorization for activities beyond the scope… Compare it with their missions elsewhere (i.e. Gaza, which I’m not against btw): “In Palestine, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) provides humanitarian assistance to people affected by violence and displacement, and has scaled up activities to assist people affected by Israel’s war and siege on Gaza.” Why the difference? Do you get the point of the original comment now?
- YZF 8mo agoMSF is not filling its mission. I used to donate but I regret it now. "Our actions are guided by medical ethics and the principles of impartiality, independence, and neutrality." - They are obviously not impartial nor neutral and this is just one example. Don't give them money unless they actually start acting as their mission statement states.
- orochimaaru 8mo agoHumanity is violent. It’s a primal impulse. Tiananmem killed thousands as well but they have been forgotten and no one really refuses to do business with the Chinese. So yes, I do feel sorry for those who died. But make no mistake - whatever the result, their death will be in vain. Whoever ends up taking the reins in Iran will be as corrupt and as bad as the mullahs. It’s just that they will acquiesce to US priorities.
- michelsedgh 8mo agoUr last statement could not be more wrong, the Shah did not kill anyone and left the country when the protests became big enough.Thats a historical fact. You can not be any worse than those in power (the mullahs). Even Nazi Germany wasn't killing their own people. It rarely happens that a minority in power start mass killing people of their own population, AK-47's against civillains.
- joe_hills 8mo agoYou’re mistaken. The Nazi Party in Germany intentionally killed a lot of German citizens.
- orochimaaru 8mo agoAbsolutely!! The intual Jews killed and sent to concentration camps were german jews.
- michelsedgh 8mo agoI just meant other than Jews obviously, the Pure Blood Germans if you wanna call them.
- orochimaaru 8mo agoThe shah was a brutal ruler. His SAVAK police were responsible for widespread torture and killings. The only reason he fled is the army may have turned against him.
- rukuu001 8mo agoBecause if MSF says anything they lose their access and can't get anything done.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- _DeadFred_ 8mo agoWeird, MSF chooses politics and making statements all the time. They even choose to refuse to follow requirements and to be kick out of some host nations (though they chose to follow Iran's). https://kagi.com/search?q=msf+statement https://kagi.com/search?q=msf+statement https://www.msf.org/msf-statement-sharing-staff-information-and-humanitarian-operations-palestine https://www.msf.org/msf-statement-sharing-staff-information-...
- Daishiman 8mo agoThis website has no more than a year in video presence in Youtube. It talks exclusively about Iran-only affairs that are of interest for foreigners. [It was started in 2017 and is mostly funded by Saudi money](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_International https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_International). Sorry but we're going to need a more credible source than a propaganda site.
- engineer_22 8mo agoDo you have any suggestions?
- Daishiman 8mo agoGet better sources with a history of credibility instead of being funded by a state actor whose main man had a journalist dismembered.
- postsantum 8mo agoAlways baffled how credulous hn users are when it comes to political news
- pineaux 8mo agoyes, I think it's because HN users think that politics are comparable to systems design, and its not. Politics is very complex and a lot of non-rational things are done and rationalized later.
- postsantum 8mo agoI also blame undeveloped theory of mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind
- beepbooptheory 8mo agoI guess I thought that would be a good thing? Like shouldn't we be measured and critical? Check our sources? Recognize at least the possibility of being fooled? I think we should always default to skepticism no matter our priors, even if that ends up being wrong, its not a fruitless position compared to the alternative.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo agoDoes anyone have a link to a good political model for Iran? This looks maximally stupid given the American hardware in the region. But there may be internecine angles I’m missing. (Which factions benefit from American air strikes?)
- abtinf 8mo agoNo one is afraid of the US. Iran has continuously waged war on America since the revolution, killing countless soldiers, as well as murdering civilians on western soil. America’s response has been essentially non-existent. Short of an unignorable mass attack on the homeland, America has a proven track record of turning the other cheek.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago> No one is afraid of the US No one should be. But only idiots, today, are not fearful of the largest and most-comprehensive war machine in human history. > America’s response has been essentially non-existent Are we starting the clock after the Israeli campaigns that established air superiority over all of Iran?
- abtinf 8mo agoAfter waging war on America continuously for 46 years, the response was to take out a handful of targets, leaving the entire theocratic regime and nearly all of its regional military capabilities intact. Yep, that’ll show them.
- engineer_22 8mo agohttps://tatsuikeda.substack.com/p/iran-strike-probability-just-dropped https://tatsuikeda.substack.com/p/iran-strike-probability-ju... This writer has developed a model of the situation
- idolofdust 8mo agoClicked on the podcast portion and its Google Notebook LM AI Slop
- AmbroseBierce 8mo agoAt some point when you go to extreme lengths to pick the softest wording possible you yourself become an accomplice, they didn't "summon", that word is better for fantasies where they summon spirits or beasts like shai-hulud, here the fitting word would be "forced" as in "Iran government forces families of exiled journalists to stop any criticism against them"
- DocTomoe 8mo agoThe word summon comes from Anglo-French somundre and Old French somondre (or semondre), meaning "to call, send for, or notify". It derives from the Latin summonere, meaning "to remind privately, warn, or hint to". To summon is the correct word in this case. The fantasy meaning comes from thee power politics between one that summons (usually: a king) and the one being summoned (usually the serf).
- dwb 8mo agoEtymology is irrelevant to current meaning and understanding.
- DocTomoe 8mo agoI sincerely doubt that if someone hears 'summon' today, they think about Dungeons and Dragons-style summoning of fantasy beings. They more likely hear 'to be made to appear in front of [a state power / a court / ...]" As such, current understanding is closely aligned to the etymological meaning.
- vidarh 8mo agoEven summoning in fantasy tends to imply the entity being summoned has no choice in the matter. If anything, summoning in fantasy is usually stronger, in that there is a tendency for it to imply the entity is powerless to resist.
- vidarh 8mo agoIn this case, however, it reflect the current usage.
- almokhtar 8mo ago[flagged]
- ErneX 8mo agoThese types of regimes are truly perverse, specially when threatened. Maduro imprisoned and sentenced to maximum time (30 years) the son in law of the president elect Edmundo Gonzalez in the stolen 2024 election, simply to pressure Edmundo to stop denouncing the election sham. It’s Sippenhaft.
- piskov 8mo ago[flagged]
- mystraline 8mo agoLet's cut the euphemistic crap. This is government blackmail upon threat of death of any family they could find.
- derelicta 8mo agoIranintl is a saudi-funded propaganda organ[1]. I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of this rag. [1]: https://www.mintpressnews.com/iran-international-saudi-funded-tv-channel-promoting-regime-change-iran/284115/ https://www.mintpressnews.com/iran-international-saudi-funde...
- throwawayheui57 8mo agoCurious who funds mintpressnews.com It’s a blatant translation of Islamic Regime propaganda websites. see KhabarOnline, IRIB, etc.
- awesome_dude 8mo agoOut of [genuine] curiousity - is there any media available that is "trustworthy" When it comes to politically charged events (especially wars) both sides tend to only release articles that make themselves look brilliant, and the others as shite, and it's really REALLY hard to get an accurate picture of what's happening on the ground. Purely yelling that everyone else is producing a "rag" isn't really helpful either, for the same reasons.
- derelicta 8mo agoImo, trustworthiness is all about which side represents best your material interests. As a worker, the Epoch Times, the Business Insider, or the Washington Post are diametrically opposed to my interests, because they are owned by and represent the interests of the Bourgeoisie. What's important is thus finding a source from your own class. CGTN, The Morning Star, or Mintpress being a workers-funded, they represent my class interests best, and are therefore trustworthy sources. To determine this is a bit tricky ofc, because 1) you have to know on which "side" you are, and 2) you have to follow the money and understand how those sources are funded. TL;DR iranintl is a rag (if you are a worker!) because it's by and for the Saudi aristocracy. But if you are a powerful aristocrat, then I'd say its an adequate news website.
- awesome_dude 8mo agoI already know which "side" I am on though, the side that's asking to be well informed of the facts, not something slanted to some "class warfare" idealogue.
- ck2 8mo agoSounds like they'll be invited to the Oval Office as best buddies and scold the press for asking about the truth on murdering journalists Or go to a few judges to try to get journalists imprisoned and when the judges say no that's not legal, they'll go to grand jury and just lie instead Oh wait that's US not Iran, the tyrannical "lite" government
- akagusu 8mo agoWhy this was flagged?