4 ms·

> non-violence Armed Baloch and Kurdish groups have been boasting of firing on Iranian police. The police are firing back. Hard to call them non-violent when

> non-violence Armed Baloch and Kurdish groups have been boasting of firing on Iranian police. The police are firing back. Hard to call them non-violent when they openly boast about armed attacks. Who knows where they are getting their weapons, with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran.

wetpaws 7mo ago
[dead]
Aromasin 7mo ago
The key part is that there are multiple insurgencies going on simultaneously. There are separatist movements that are looking to create new nations states, while simultaneous there are non-violent protests ongoing, generally looking for regime change and a move away from extremists religious tendencies. Both can be true simultaneously.
- regularization 7mo ago
  > separatist movements The Kurds had their own state at the end of World War II - the US and UK forced them to dissolve and integrate with Iran. Actually the US just abandoned the Kurds in Syria two weeks ago as it signed deals with Syria's former al Qaeda leader. Kurds are people the West foments to armed rebellion, and then quashes, for decades, depending on western material needs at the minute.
  - logicchains 7mo ago
    >The Kurds had their own state at the end of World War II - the US and UK forced them to dissolve and integrate with Iran. The Kurds were also supposed to have their own state at the end of World War 1, but western countries abandoned them and didn't force Turkey to honour its obligations, leaving Turkey free to genocide them just like it did the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks.
    - mothballed 7mo ago
      They effectively had their own state in Rojava up until a few weeks ago, and KRG (Iraq) is pretty damn close to a state, it's basically a state in everything but recognition as the immigration, defense, and law system is almost entirely separated. When I lived Rojava, Assad had zero influence, the military and police and borders were entirely separated, there was zero chance you were going to experience the force of law ofthe state of Syria anywhere you went. The state of Rojava dissolved due to tactical loss of alliance with Arab militias when the rebels retook Damascus. I would characterize their recent loss of state in Syria had more to do with being surrounded by Turkey and dependence on wish-wash arab allies than it had to do with the US or UK.
  - whatever1 7mo ago
    Kurds are getting abandoned by the west on a weekly basis for the past like century. It's insane what these people have have gone through,still no resolution.
  - philwelch 7mo ago
    Wikipedia describes it as a “a short-lived Kurdish self-governing unrecognized state in present-day Iran” and “a puppet state of the Soviet Union”. Doesn’t really count as a free and independent state.
    - wetpaws 7mo ago
      [dead]
don_esteban 7mo ago
Just think about would have happened if protesters in USA shot and killed 150 policemen. Protesters which foreign states (China or Russia) openly boasted they are supporting, and provided them with weapons and communication technology.
- Wytwwww 7mo ago
  So there are no circumstances where armed rebellion is justifiable and the only legitimate type of resistance to state violence is literally trying to drown the state forces in bodies of non-violent protestors? At a certain point there ceases to be a middle path between violent resistance and complete surrender. > Protesters which foreign states (China or Russia) This type of relativism is dishonest. Of course US is speed running the path to authoritarianism but its not quite there. e.g. morally it would be perfectly acceptable to support weapons to protestors in Russia and not the other way around. The Iranian regime is objectively evil, period. Regardless of what honest or dishonest motives foreign actors might or might not have.
  - pydry 7mo ago
    >So there are no circumstances where armed rebellion is justifiable What circumstances has Iran created that demand armed rebellion?
    - mupuff1234 7mo ago
      Economic collapse, failed infrastructure, lack of human rights, ruthless religious dictatorship? All while spending 25% of their budget on military ventures. Just to name a few.
      - pydry 7mo ago
        The economic suffering has largely been inflicted deliberately by US sanctions. This would seem to suggest that sinking an aircraft carrier and frigate or two would actually be justified according to your principles?
mothballed 7mo ago
I don't think it's as simple as the Kurds starting the violence, though, except in KRG where they now have autonomous territory that's mostly left alone, the other 3 nations Kurds lived in have lived with systemic violence against them (sometimes to the extent of banning their languages, sometimes more like genocide). Like most of the ME engagements, untangling who is firing back at who ranges from difficult to impossible to untangle depending on what situation you are looking at. > Who knows where they are getting their weapons, with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran. When I fought in the YPG (Kurdish militia in Syria), almost all the weapons were Russian / USSR block type weapons, though the AK were stamped with the symbol of many soviet block countries.
brookst 7mo ago
But also weird to say that the tens of thousands of student protestors are actually violent because totally different people in a different part of the country are armed. Two things that can both be true: the Iranian regime is fundamentalist and authoritarian and massively abusive to its people, and also western countries are continuing their long history of meddling and funding separatist and terrorist groups with the goal of regime change and establishing a client state (because that worked out so well with the Shah).
JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> Armed Baloch and Kurdish groups have been boasting of firing on Iranian police “…it is important to note that while the overall framework of these two approaches is the same their tactics are totally different and indeed fundamentally incompatible in most cases. Someone doing violence in the context of a non-violent movement is actively harming their cause because they are reducing the clear contrast and uncomplicated message the movement is trying to send. Likewise, it is relatively easy to dismiss non-violent supporters of violent movements so long as their core movement remains violent, simply by pointing to the violence of the core movement. It is thus very important for individuals to understand what kind of movement they are in and not ‘cosplay’ the other kind” (Id.). The core protest is strategically and factually a non-violent protest. It is ringed by armed insurgencies. They undermine each other. > Who knows where they are getting their weapons, with western countries Nobody has a monopoly on weapons supply to the Middle East. If you want to seriously interrogate this line of questioning, try to learn what weapons they’re using.
alephnerd 7mo ago
The Baloch movement is orthogonal to the students movement. Jaish al-Adl would continue bombing Iranian police stations regardless of who's in power in Tehran as long as India maintains operational control of Chabahar Port, Chabahar-Zahedan Railway, and INSTC. Similarly, the BLA and BNA would continue bombing Pakistani police stations regardless of who's in power in Islamabad/Pindi as long as China maintains operational control of Gwadar Port, the Western Alignment expressway, and CPEC. Iran is de facto non-existent in much of Sistan-ve-Balochistan. Heck, Urdu/Hindi fluency remains the norm in much of Iranian Balochistan as a large portion of Iranian Baloch continue to have family ties across the border in Pakistan, work with their brethren in the Gulf as migrant workers, or travel to Karachi, Quetta, or India for medical, religious (most Iranian Baloch are Deobandi), and education services.
- selimthegrim 7mo ago
  There is some crossover otherwise agencies wouldn’t have killed Sabeen Mahmud.
  - alephnerd 7mo ago
    There is a lot of crossover. Heck, one of our old neighbors growing up was a Iranian Baloch-Pakistani Baloch couple and according to them Baloch marriage across the border was extremely common. And Uzair Baloch had ties to both Iranian and Indian intelligence [0]. The Iran-Pakistan and the Iran-Afghanistan border is very porous because of how isolated Sistan-ve-Balochistan and much of Khorasan is from the rest of Iran. [0] - https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153754 https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153754
    - selimthegrim 7mo ago
      Oh man I haven’t heard that name in a while. I still remember the Vice documentary going inside his house.
      - alephnerd 7mo ago
        Haha yep, that documentary was wild - very old school Vice before they all got poached. But anyhow, the entire thing has become a quagmire after CPEC was announced in 2015, because that forced India to confront the very real possibility of being enricled by China during a war. This is what lead to India's quiet and now overt diplomacy with the Taliban, continued investment in Iran despite the sanctions, and building Saudi and UAE cofinanced megaprojects on the Indo-Pak border in GJ and RJ as well as in JK.
Wytwwww 7mo ago
> with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran As opposed to standing idly by when the regime 'stabilizes' the country by murdering thousands of people? It's well past the stage where non violent protest or resistance stopped being a viable option..
- santoshalper 7mo ago
  Not really. We absolutely have the option to let things play out in Iran and refuse to intervene. There are many regimes in Africa that are as bad or worse than Iran. We seem to have little interest in "regime change" there. You should think about why not.
  - mupuff1234 7mo ago
    Because those countries are not trying to become a global power, with potential nuclear weapon, ICBM and drone capabilities along with a strategic location? And all while making "death to america" part of their national slogan.
  - Wytwwww 7mo ago
    Well it's not black and white. Sometimes doing the right thing even if you have ulterior motives is better than doing nothing. Africa is tricky due to historical reasons, though. Any western power that would intervene there without the explicit invitation of the local government would be accused of neo-colonialism etc.
    - don_esteban 7mo ago
      You know, doing the Syria and Libya (and Iraq and Afghanistan) thing was the 'right thing', right? Do you really believe that after the violent regime change Iran will become the beacon of prosperity in the ME? Yes, I believe if the things are really out of hands (like Khmer rouge in Kambodia), external intervention is warranted. That can be done against small/weak states where the result can be achieved fast and without too much bloodshed (compared to what is already going on), and when agreed on by UN. Will most definitely need boots on the ground. It is an entirely different matter against a 90million vast state like Iran. Note that boots on the ground is not in the cards, and most probably will never be. The approach is 'bomb and hope'. Which guarantees misery and bloodshed of Iranian blood. And if the result is fall of the ayatollah regime, and replaced by nationalists with socialistic tendencies, that would not really cooperate with USA (= sell oil rights and totally dismantle their military) then what? Bomb more? How can you honestly believe this is the best for Iranian people?
libertine 7mo ago
This is a bit confusing, isn't Iran actively trying to destabilize Western countries? Like for example supporting Russia genocide in Ukraine? As far as I know Ukraine had no qualms with Iran, why is Iran helping it's destruction?

wetpaws 7mo ago

[dead]

Aromasin 7mo ago

The key part is that there are multiple insurgencies going on simultaneously. There are separatist movements that are looking to create new nations states, while simultaneous there are non-violent protests ongoing, generally looking for regime change and a move away from extremists religious tendencies. Both can be true simultaneously.

regularization 7mo ago
> separatist movements The Kurds had their own state at the end of World War II - the US and UK forced them to dissolve and integrate with Iran. Actually the US just abandoned the Kurds in Syria two weeks ago as it signed deals with Syria's former al Qaeda leader. Kurds are people the West foments to armed rebellion, and then quashes, for decades, depending on western material needs at the minute.
- logicchains 7mo ago
  >The Kurds had their own state at the end of World War II - the US and UK forced them to dissolve and integrate with Iran. The Kurds were also supposed to have their own state at the end of World War 1, but western countries abandoned them and didn't force Turkey to honour its obligations, leaving Turkey free to genocide them just like it did the Armenians, Assyrians and Pontic Greeks.
  - mothballed 7mo ago
    They effectively had their own state in Rojava up until a few weeks ago, and KRG (Iraq) is pretty damn close to a state, it's basically a state in everything but recognition as the immigration, defense, and law system is almost entirely separated. When I lived Rojava, Assad had zero influence, the military and police and borders were entirely separated, there was zero chance you were going to experience the force of law ofthe state of Syria anywhere you went. The state of Rojava dissolved due to tactical loss of alliance with Arab militias when the rebels retook Damascus. I would characterize their recent loss of state in Syria had more to do with being surrounded by Turkey and dependence on wish-wash arab allies than it had to do with the US or UK.
- whatever1 7mo ago
  Kurds are getting abandoned by the west on a weekly basis for the past like century. It's insane what these people have have gone through,still no resolution.
- philwelch 7mo ago
  Wikipedia describes it as a “a short-lived Kurdish self-governing unrecognized state in present-day Iran” and “a puppet state of the Soviet Union”. Doesn’t really count as a free and independent state.
  - wetpaws 7mo ago
    [dead]

don_esteban 7mo ago

Just think about would have happened if protesters in USA shot and killed 150 policemen. Protesters which foreign states (China or Russia) openly boasted they are supporting, and provided them with weapons and communication technology.

Wytwwww 7mo ago
So there are no circumstances where armed rebellion is justifiable and the only legitimate type of resistance to state violence is literally trying to drown the state forces in bodies of non-violent protestors? At a certain point there ceases to be a middle path between violent resistance and complete surrender. > Protesters which foreign states (China or Russia) This type of relativism is dishonest. Of course US is speed running the path to authoritarianism but its not quite there. e.g. morally it would be perfectly acceptable to support weapons to protestors in Russia and not the other way around. The Iranian regime is objectively evil, period. Regardless of what honest or dishonest motives foreign actors might or might not have.
- pydry 7mo ago
  >So there are no circumstances where armed rebellion is justifiable What circumstances has Iran created that demand armed rebellion?
  - mupuff1234 7mo ago
    Economic collapse, failed infrastructure, lack of human rights, ruthless religious dictatorship? All while spending 25% of their budget on military ventures. Just to name a few.
    - pydry 7mo ago
      The economic suffering has largely been inflicted deliberately by US sanctions. This would seem to suggest that sinking an aircraft carrier and frigate or two would actually be justified according to your principles?

mothballed 7mo ago

I don't think it's as simple as the Kurds starting the violence, though, except in KRG where they now have autonomous territory that's mostly left alone, the other 3 nations Kurds lived in have lived with systemic violence against them (sometimes to the extent of banning their languages, sometimes more like genocide). Like most of the ME engagements, untangling who is firing back at who ranges from difficult to impossible to untangle depending on what situation you are looking at. > Who knows where they are getting their weapons, with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran. When I fought in the YPG (Kurdish militia in Syria), almost all the weapons were Russian / USSR block type weapons, though the AK were stamped with the symbol of many soviet block countries.

brookst 7mo ago

But also weird to say that the tens of thousands of student protestors are actually violent because totally different people in a different part of the country are armed. Two things that can both be true: the Iranian regime is fundamentalist and authoritarian and massively abusive to its people, and also western countries are continuing their long history of meddling and funding separatist and terrorist groups with the goal of regime change and establishing a client state (because that worked out so well with the Shah).

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> Armed Baloch and Kurdish groups have been boasting of firing on Iranian police “…it is important to note that while the overall framework of these two approaches is the same their tactics are totally different and indeed fundamentally incompatible in most cases. Someone doing violence in the context of a non-violent movement is actively harming their cause because they are reducing the clear contrast and uncomplicated message the movement is trying to send. Likewise, it is relatively easy to dismiss non-violent supporters of violent movements so long as their core movement remains violent, simply by pointing to the violence of the core movement. It is thus very important for individuals to understand what kind of movement they are in and not ‘cosplay’ the other kind” (Id.). The core protest is strategically and factually a non-violent protest. It is ringed by armed insurgencies. They undermine each other. > Who knows where they are getting their weapons, with western countries Nobody has a monopoly on weapons supply to the Middle East. If you want to seriously interrogate this line of questioning, try to learn what weapons they’re using.

alephnerd 7mo ago

The Baloch movement is orthogonal to the students movement. Jaish al-Adl would continue bombing Iranian police stations regardless of who's in power in Tehran as long as India maintains operational control of Chabahar Port, Chabahar-Zahedan Railway, and INSTC. Similarly, the BLA and BNA would continue bombing Pakistani police stations regardless of who's in power in Islamabad/Pindi as long as China maintains operational control of Gwadar Port, the Western Alignment expressway, and CPEC. Iran is de facto non-existent in much of Sistan-ve-Balochistan. Heck, Urdu/Hindi fluency remains the norm in much of Iranian Balochistan as a large portion of Iranian Baloch continue to have family ties across the border in Pakistan, work with their brethren in the Gulf as migrant workers, or travel to Karachi, Quetta, or India for medical, religious (most Iranian Baloch are Deobandi), and education services.

selimthegrim 7mo ago
There is some crossover otherwise agencies wouldn’t have killed Sabeen Mahmud.
- alephnerd 7mo ago
  There is a lot of crossover. Heck, one of our old neighbors growing up was a Iranian Baloch-Pakistani Baloch couple and according to them Baloch marriage across the border was extremely common. And Uzair Baloch had ties to both Iranian and Indian intelligence [0]. The Iran-Pakistan and the Iran-Afghanistan border is very porous because of how isolated Sistan-ve-Balochistan and much of Khorasan is from the rest of Iran. [0] - https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153754 https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153754
  - selimthegrim 7mo ago
    Oh man I haven’t heard that name in a while. I still remember the Vice documentary going inside his house.
    - alephnerd 7mo ago
      Haha yep, that documentary was wild - very old school Vice before they all got poached. But anyhow, the entire thing has become a quagmire after CPEC was announced in 2015, because that forced India to confront the very real possibility of being enricled by China during a war. This is what lead to India's quiet and now overt diplomacy with the Taliban, continued investment in Iran despite the sanctions, and building Saudi and UAE cofinanced megaprojects on the Indo-Pak border in GJ and RJ as well as in JK.

Wytwwww 7mo ago

> with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran As opposed to standing idly by when the regime 'stabilizes' the country by murdering thousands of people? It's well past the stage where non violent protest or resistance stopped being a viable option..

santoshalper 7mo ago
Not really. We absolutely have the option to let things play out in Iran and refuse to intervene. There are many regimes in Africa that are as bad or worse than Iran. We seem to have little interest in "regime change" there. You should think about why not.
- mupuff1234 7mo ago
  Because those countries are not trying to become a global power, with potential nuclear weapon, ICBM and drone capabilities along with a strategic location? And all while making "death to america" part of their national slogan.
- Wytwwww 7mo ago
  Well it's not black and white. Sometimes doing the right thing even if you have ulterior motives is better than doing nothing. Africa is tricky due to historical reasons, though. Any western power that would intervene there without the explicit invitation of the local government would be accused of neo-colonialism etc.
  - don_esteban 7mo ago
    You know, doing the Syria and Libya (and Iraq and Afghanistan) thing was the 'right thing', right? Do you really believe that after the violent regime change Iran will become the beacon of prosperity in the ME? Yes, I believe if the things are really out of hands (like Khmer rouge in Kambodia), external intervention is warranted. That can be done against small/weak states where the result can be achieved fast and without too much bloodshed (compared to what is already going on), and when agreed on by UN. Will most definitely need boots on the ground. It is an entirely different matter against a 90million vast state like Iran. Note that boots on the ground is not in the cards, and most probably will never be. The approach is 'bomb and hope'. Which guarantees misery and bloodshed of Iranian blood. And if the result is fall of the ayatollah regime, and replaced by nationalists with socialistic tendencies, that would not really cooperate with USA (= sell oil rights and totally dismantle their military) then what? Bomb more? How can you honestly believe this is the best for Iranian people?

libertine 7mo ago

This is a bit confusing, isn't Iran actively trying to destabilize Western countries? Like for example supporting Russia genocide in Ukraine? As far as I know Ukraine had no qualms with Iran, why is Iran helping it's destruction?