11 ms·

I keep getting downvoted and flagged, but there is noway anyone in good faith would support this war crime. A president who threaten to send a country to stone

by aogaili 6mo ago

I keep getting downvoted and flagged, but there is noway anyone in good faith would support this war crime. A president who threaten to send a country to stone age, saying in front of everyones face that he wants to take the oil.. I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime, when we have on other hand, someone who is vocally saying that he is willing to destroy the country's infrastructure and steal their oil. Well, sure I don't mind getting flagged or downvoted. But at least I speak my mind and what I believe is true.

2Gkashmiri 6mo ago
Hegseth saying no quarter is a war crime but no one seems to care. Why is that?
- YZF 6mo ago
  Saying things is not a war crime. So if Iranian soldiers surrendered to US soldiers and they were shot that would be a war crime. I don't think that happened? Hegseth statements could be used to support the claim of war crime under such circumstances if they were to arise. [EDIT: As a commenter suggests it is possible that simply saying this is a war crime, or at least there are some legal opinions suggesting it] Attacking civilian targets with cluster bombs has happened and Iran is doing that as we speak. That is a war crime. Attacking infrastructure is not a war crime if that infrastructure serves a military purpose. Attacking purely civilian use infrastructure is a war crime. Threatening to attack civilian use infrastructure is not a war crime. Threatening to attack infrastructure used for military purposes is also not a war crime. Mowing down protestors with machines guns is not a war crime but maybe we should consider it a crime against humanity. EDIT: FWIW I do care about what Hegseth said. It's wrong and he shouldn't have said that. But people say stuff- what matters are the actions.
  - etc-hosts 6mo ago
    I think the US destroyed a strategically important elementary school on the first day of the war.
    - YZF 6mo ago
      It's not confirmed but I agree it was very likely a US strike. An accidental one. Assuming the US did not intend to kill school girls that is also not a war crime. You can certainly argue that this happened due to the US decision to go to war and claim the actions to not be moral (or illegal as some have stated). Others might argue that more harm would occur if no action was taken and that the action minimizes the overall harm (e.g. to the Iranian people or others). You could also argue that attack was intentional. I don't think there's any evidence of that and I'm not sure what purpose it served if it was one.
      - etc-hosts 6mo ago
        It is difficult to extract the real purpose of most things about this war, if you're in the US, since almost every single part of it seems against the US' interests and public face. You're probably technically correct and that the US didn't intentionally look in Google Maps for an elementary school and decided to destroy it. But did we really need to Double Tap it? Timothy Snyder has an opinion about this: https://x.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/2040883546093436941?s=20 https://x.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/2040883546093436941?s=20 I'm not quite there yet.
        amarant 6mo ago
        That tweet by Timothy Snyder is quite ridiculous. There's just no way that's the motivation behind all this. Unfortunately it's also the only motivation anyone has presented that there is any real hope of actually achieving. And it's the kind of excuse trump could use to become glorious dictator. Or at least I wouldn't be surprised to learn he thinks it is. No, I really don't think that's why this war was started. I don't think trump actually wants terrorist attacks in America. But it just might be what he will get, whether he likes it or not.
        zimpenfish 6mo ago
        > I don't think trump actually wants terrorist attacks in America. He might not but he's surrounded by christian evangelist lunatics who think bringing about the end times is their moral responsibility and, more importantly, they are in charge because Trump is an addled idiot who has fewer thoughts in his head than an orange cat.
  - Shivatron 6mo ago
    > Saying things is not a war crime. On the contrary, there appear to be good legal arguments that Hegseth merely saying "no quarter" is, on its own, a war crime: https://www.justsecurity.org/133970/legal-advice-hegseth-no-quarter-hypo/ https://www.justsecurity.org/133970/legal-advice-hegseth-no-...
    - YZF 6mo ago
      You might be right. You're definitely right there are legal arguments to support that.
  - 8note 6mo ago
    There are some actual acts that count as war crimes as well, that Hegsdeth has overseen - killing civilians off the coast of venesuela by attacking and sinking fishing boats, but also then killing the civilians after theyve jumped ship. then in the iran conflict, leaving the sailors to drown after sinking iran's show boat with a sub
    - YZF 6mo ago
      The US should do better. But we got here when the parent said: > I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime, Iran's government mows down protestors by the 10's of thousands. They beat woman to death for violating the dress code. They conduct public hangings in stadiums. They routinely use torture and arbitrary arrests. They and their proxies bombard civilians routinely. They recruit child soldiers. The list is just endless. How is that even comparable to the US government? https://iranhumanrights.org/2024/03/crimes-against-humanity-state-atrocities-in-iran-revealed-in-first-report-of-un-fact-finding-mission/ https://iranhumanrights.org/2024/03/crimes-against-humanity-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning_of_Afghan_refugees_in_the_Hari_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning_of_Afghan_refugees_in... https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/iran/report-iran/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af... https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/03/1134782 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/03/1134782
      - vintermann 6mo ago
        I read this as "talk about Iran!" All you're willing to say about the US seems to be that they "should do better". How about the double tap strikes? Targeting first responders is a war crime, remember. And US use of double tap strikes is well documented. If you just want to talk about how bad the victim of war crimes is, that sounds like making excuses for war crimes to me.
        YZF 6mo ago
        I know this double tap terminology is frequently used in social media these days (IMO it's propaganda). I don't know there is solid evidence of targeting first responders intentionally. I haven't seen it. I did see some mention that the school was hit twice but I don't think that's supported by the satellite imagery or videos we've seen. In theory US service personnel can and should refuse to execute an order that is targeting first responders and my base assumption would be that the US does not practice this. There are huge number of people involved in planning strikes and executing them so you'd think some of those people would refuse such an order and/or speak about it publicly. I.e. I don't believe the US initial salvo of Tomahawk cruise missiles and bombings were designed to intentionally hit first responders. Beyond it being a war crime it also makes no sense to "waste" bombs and cruise missiles on first responders when presumably there are a lot of other more valuable targets; beyond it being morally wrong and a war crime it's also stupid. The only time I've seen this sort of strategy being executed intentionally is during the suicide bombing campaign in Israel. e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Lid_suicide_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Lid_suicide_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Yehuda_Street_bombings#2001_(11_killed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Yehuda_Street_bombings#200... In the context of terrorizing a population it makes perfect sense. In the context of the US attack on Iran it makes zero sense since it doesn't serve the US interest to terrorize the population of Iran and the regime couldn't care less. What do you want me to say about the US? I would like to see zero war crimes from the US. I would like to see a US president that doesn't sound like a mad person on social media and a SecDef that isn't a religious zealot. I still think that big picture there is no comparing the US to Iran in terms of the actions each is taking and has taken. Iran fundamentally wants to make the world a worse place and the US wants to make it a better place (and sure, make a lot of money while doing that...). Would a solution that doesn't involve dropping bombs be better? Sure. Find me one.
  - bjourne 6mo ago
    0 evidence of the "mowing down protestors with machine guns" claim. Plz don't spread rumors.
  - megous 6mo ago
    US president, holding nukes and saying things like "whole civilization will die tonight" is just state terrorism of the worst kind, ... so far, yes. It may become a war crime of genocide. Not sure why should I or anyone wait and see, before issuing sweeping comments about all of america, which made this possible, by working hard to building up the military capable of doing it and giving power to nutjob issuing the threats. Be sure that this US threat is not just against Iran, it's a US threat aginst the entire world, and it will be taken as such by many, you war crime justifying tool. Also pretty telling, that you're using intl. law to justify US attacks, instead of using it for what their purpose was,... which is to limit the ways in which states execute war. The same thing Israel was doing to justify murdering 20 000 children in Gaza, just constantly finding "loopholes" and using it retroactively to justify every single thing they did that someone contensted.
- throwaway894345 6mo ago
  Why do you think no one cares? My feeds are outraged. Maybe some normies can’t keep up with all the specific heinous stuff coming out of this administration, but I don’t think they’re happy about it.
- globalnode 6mo ago
  people care, theyre just being censored and overwritten with rubbish.
eightysixfour 6mo ago
This isn’t a contest for most just or most evil. Iran has committed horrible atrocities. The US’s approach to this war has been completely wrong and they are threatening war crimes. Everyone sucks here.
- nashashmi 6mo ago
  Keep in mind that we now know that US supplied the protestors weapons to wage violence during the crackdown that resulted in many police officers being killed. We also know that the US has run a campaign to turn protests into riots in past events. And we know that the US sponsors campaigns to create unrest in the country. If Iran sucks, it is only because the US wants it to suck
  - aogaili 6mo ago
    That's exactly it. They admitted supplying anti-government rebels with weapons. Imagine a country comes and arm a group in the US to rebel against the government..
  - gcanyon 6mo ago
    Wait, cites on the "US supplied Iranian protestors with weapons" bit? Other than Trump? It sounds ridiculous to question whether he's telling the truth, but here we are...
    - aogaili 6mo ago
      Are you suggesting I provide a citation for the President's claims? Beyond his reputation as a loose cannon, it is difficult to fathom why he would boast about such a thing. From the beginning, the primary objective of this conflict has been for Israel to eliminate regional resistance, leaving Iran as the final holdout. By arming internal rebels to oppose the administration, external forces are essentially inciting a civil war to topple the government. While the nation and its current leadership require reform, it is important to remember that these radical regimes do not emerge in a vacuum. Their perceived need to resist stems from external efforts to dismantle them. Such radicalization is often the direct consequence of aggressive policies, including economic sanctions, historical support for Saddam Hussein, and the installation of corrupt monarchies. Every radical movement triggers a counter-movement, making it difficult to distinguish cause from effect. Much like the chills and fever associated with the flu, these movements represent an extreme but instinctive immune response to an outside threat.
throwaway894345 6mo ago
> I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime Iran mass murdered tens of thousands of protesters in one day. I was outraged when Trump’s goons murdered two Minnesotan protesters—if we can agree this is evil, it should follow that a regime that murders tens of thousands of protesters is also evil. This isn’t complicated, which is why you’re being downvoted (I did not downvote you).
- adjejmxbdjdn 6mo ago
  But as Trump has assured us, that’s the old regime which is completely different from the current regime, which as Trump again has assured us, is not anywhere near as crazy as the old regime. /s The Iranian regime is incredibly evil. That makes the American actions even more evil given that they’re providing that evil regime so much cover and allowed it to transition from their 86 year old leader with almost no opportunity for opposition.
  - aogaili 6mo ago
    So the country waging wars from the sky, threatening to take their oil, annexing Greenland, suffocating Cuba, the only country who used nuclear bombs twice...is what?
  - throwaway894345 6mo ago
    I am vehemently opposed to Trump and this war as well. My position in this thread is that both sides are bad.
    - aogaili 6mo ago
      [dead]
- aogaili 6mo ago
  Those are not neutral protests, those are armed fraction to take down the government, any existing government would fight back. He said it clearly: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/6/has-trump-confirmed-irans-claim-that-protesters-were-us-armed https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/6/has-trump-confirmed-... And anyone who knows a bit of history in the region they will understand that this is the case. They armed Saddam to fight Iran for 8 years. The main issue with Iran is that it is against Israel.
globalnode 6mo ago
youre only getting downvoted because they pay people good money to make sure their ridiculous narrative gets front page every single day. us murders a countries leader and a bunch of school kids and suddenly iran is accused of murdering 100k protesters and committing war crimes... like wtf lol
eli_gottlieb 6mo ago
> I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime, Well mainly by having Iranian friends who tell us their government is an evil regime, and when we try to insist our government is evil too, lecture us about our privilege to show they really mean it.
IanCal 6mo ago
> I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime You seem to be trying to force reality into a “good vs evil” storyline. There does not have to be a good side.

by aogaili 6mo ago

2Gkashmiri 6mo ago

Hegseth saying no quarter is a war crime but no one seems to care. Why is that?

YZF 6mo ago
Saying things is not a war crime. So if Iranian soldiers surrendered to US soldiers and they were shot that would be a war crime. I don't think that happened? Hegseth statements could be used to support the claim of war crime under such circumstances if they were to arise. [EDIT: As a commenter suggests it is possible that simply saying this is a war crime, or at least there are some legal opinions suggesting it] Attacking civilian targets with cluster bombs has happened and Iran is doing that as we speak. That is a war crime. Attacking infrastructure is not a war crime if that infrastructure serves a military purpose. Attacking purely civilian use infrastructure is a war crime. Threatening to attack civilian use infrastructure is not a war crime. Threatening to attack infrastructure used for military purposes is also not a war crime. Mowing down protestors with machines guns is not a war crime but maybe we should consider it a crime against humanity. EDIT: FWIW I do care about what Hegseth said. It's wrong and he shouldn't have said that. But people say stuff- what matters are the actions.
- etc-hosts 6mo ago
  I think the US destroyed a strategically important elementary school on the first day of the war.
  - YZF 6mo ago
    It's not confirmed but I agree it was very likely a US strike. An accidental one. Assuming the US did not intend to kill school girls that is also not a war crime. You can certainly argue that this happened due to the US decision to go to war and claim the actions to not be moral (or illegal as some have stated). Others might argue that more harm would occur if no action was taken and that the action minimizes the overall harm (e.g. to the Iranian people or others). You could also argue that attack was intentional. I don't think there's any evidence of that and I'm not sure what purpose it served if it was one.
    - etc-hosts 6mo ago
      It is difficult to extract the real purpose of most things about this war, if you're in the US, since almost every single part of it seems against the US' interests and public face. You're probably technically correct and that the US didn't intentionally look in Google Maps for an elementary school and decided to destroy it. But did we really need to Double Tap it? Timothy Snyder has an opinion about this: https://x.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/2040883546093436941?s=20 https://x.com/TimothyDSnyder/status/2040883546093436941?s=20 I'm not quite there yet.
      - amarant 6mo ago
        That tweet by Timothy Snyder is quite ridiculous. There's just no way that's the motivation behind all this. Unfortunately it's also the only motivation anyone has presented that there is any real hope of actually achieving. And it's the kind of excuse trump could use to become glorious dictator. Or at least I wouldn't be surprised to learn he thinks it is. No, I really don't think that's why this war was started. I don't think trump actually wants terrorist attacks in America. But it just might be what he will get, whether he likes it or not.
        zimpenfish 6mo ago
        > I don't think trump actually wants terrorist attacks in America. He might not but he's surrounded by christian evangelist lunatics who think bringing about the end times is their moral responsibility and, more importantly, they are in charge because Trump is an addled idiot who has fewer thoughts in his head than an orange cat.
- Shivatron 6mo ago
  > Saying things is not a war crime. On the contrary, there appear to be good legal arguments that Hegseth merely saying "no quarter" is, on its own, a war crime: https://www.justsecurity.org/133970/legal-advice-hegseth-no-quarter-hypo/ https://www.justsecurity.org/133970/legal-advice-hegseth-no-...
  - YZF 6mo ago
    You might be right. You're definitely right there are legal arguments to support that.
- 8note 6mo ago
  There are some actual acts that count as war crimes as well, that Hegsdeth has overseen - killing civilians off the coast of venesuela by attacking and sinking fishing boats, but also then killing the civilians after theyve jumped ship. then in the iran conflict, leaving the sailors to drown after sinking iran's show boat with a sub
  - YZF 6mo ago
    The US should do better. But we got here when the parent said: > I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime, Iran's government mows down protestors by the 10's of thousands. They beat woman to death for violating the dress code. They conduct public hangings in stadiums. They routinely use torture and arbitrary arrests. They and their proxies bombard civilians routinely. They recruit child soldiers. The list is just endless. How is that even comparable to the US government? https://iranhumanrights.org/2024/03/crimes-against-humanity-state-atrocities-in-iran-revealed-in-first-report-of-un-fact-finding-mission/ https://iranhumanrights.org/2024/03/crimes-against-humanity-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning_of_Afghan_refugees_in_the_Hari_River https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drowning_of_Afghan_refugees_in... https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/middle-east/iran/report-iran/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-af... https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/03/1134782 https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/03/1134782
    - vintermann 6mo ago
      I read this as "talk about Iran!" All you're willing to say about the US seems to be that they "should do better". How about the double tap strikes? Targeting first responders is a war crime, remember. And US use of double tap strikes is well documented. If you just want to talk about how bad the victim of war crimes is, that sounds like making excuses for war crimes to me.
      - YZF 6mo ago
        I know this double tap terminology is frequently used in social media these days (IMO it's propaganda). I don't know there is solid evidence of targeting first responders intentionally. I haven't seen it. I did see some mention that the school was hit twice but I don't think that's supported by the satellite imagery or videos we've seen. In theory US service personnel can and should refuse to execute an order that is targeting first responders and my base assumption would be that the US does not practice this. There are huge number of people involved in planning strikes and executing them so you'd think some of those people would refuse such an order and/or speak about it publicly. I.e. I don't believe the US initial salvo of Tomahawk cruise missiles and bombings were designed to intentionally hit first responders. Beyond it being a war crime it also makes no sense to "waste" bombs and cruise missiles on first responders when presumably there are a lot of other more valuable targets; beyond it being morally wrong and a war crime it's also stupid. The only time I've seen this sort of strategy being executed intentionally is during the suicide bombing campaign in Israel. e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Lid_suicide_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beit_Lid_suicide_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Yehuda_Street_bombings#2001_(11_killed) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Yehuda_Street_bombings#200... In the context of terrorizing a population it makes perfect sense. In the context of the US attack on Iran it makes zero sense since it doesn't serve the US interest to terrorize the population of Iran and the regime couldn't care less. What do you want me to say about the US? I would like to see zero war crimes from the US. I would like to see a US president that doesn't sound like a mad person on social media and a SecDef that isn't a religious zealot. I still think that big picture there is no comparing the US to Iran in terms of the actions each is taking and has taken. Iran fundamentally wants to make the world a worse place and the US wants to make it a better place (and sure, make a lot of money while doing that...). Would a solution that doesn't involve dropping bombs be better? Sure. Find me one.
- bjourne 6mo ago
  0 evidence of the "mowing down protestors with machine guns" claim. Plz don't spread rumors.
- megous 6mo ago
  US president, holding nukes and saying things like "whole civilization will die tonight" is just state terrorism of the worst kind, ... so far, yes. It may become a war crime of genocide. Not sure why should I or anyone wait and see, before issuing sweeping comments about all of america, which made this possible, by working hard to building up the military capable of doing it and giving power to nutjob issuing the threats. Be sure that this US threat is not just against Iran, it's a US threat aginst the entire world, and it will be taken as such by many, you war crime justifying tool. Also pretty telling, that you're using intl. law to justify US attacks, instead of using it for what their purpose was,... which is to limit the ways in which states execute war. The same thing Israel was doing to justify murdering 20 000 children in Gaza, just constantly finding "loopholes" and using it retroactively to justify every single thing they did that someone contensted.
throwaway894345 6mo ago
Why do you think no one cares? My feeds are outraged. Maybe some normies can’t keep up with all the specific heinous stuff coming out of this administration, but I don’t think they’re happy about it.
globalnode 6mo ago
people care, theyre just being censored and overwritten with rubbish.

eightysixfour 6mo ago

This isn’t a contest for most just or most evil. Iran has committed horrible atrocities. The US’s approach to this war has been completely wrong and they are threatening war crimes. Everyone sucks here.

nashashmi 6mo ago
Keep in mind that we now know that US supplied the protestors weapons to wage violence during the crackdown that resulted in many police officers being killed. We also know that the US has run a campaign to turn protests into riots in past events. And we know that the US sponsors campaigns to create unrest in the country. If Iran sucks, it is only because the US wants it to suck
- aogaili 6mo ago
  That's exactly it. They admitted supplying anti-government rebels with weapons. Imagine a country comes and arm a group in the US to rebel against the government..
- gcanyon 6mo ago
  Wait, cites on the "US supplied Iranian protestors with weapons" bit? Other than Trump? It sounds ridiculous to question whether he's telling the truth, but here we are...
  - aogaili 6mo ago
    Are you suggesting I provide a citation for the President's claims? Beyond his reputation as a loose cannon, it is difficult to fathom why he would boast about such a thing. From the beginning, the primary objective of this conflict has been for Israel to eliminate regional resistance, leaving Iran as the final holdout. By arming internal rebels to oppose the administration, external forces are essentially inciting a civil war to topple the government. While the nation and its current leadership require reform, it is important to remember that these radical regimes do not emerge in a vacuum. Their perceived need to resist stems from external efforts to dismantle them. Such radicalization is often the direct consequence of aggressive policies, including economic sanctions, historical support for Saddam Hussein, and the installation of corrupt monarchies. Every radical movement triggers a counter-movement, making it difficult to distinguish cause from effect. Much like the chills and fever associated with the flu, these movements represent an extreme but instinctive immune response to an outside threat.

throwaway894345 6mo ago

> I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime Iran mass murdered tens of thousands of protesters in one day. I was outraged when Trump’s goons murdered two Minnesotan protesters—if we can agree this is evil, it should follow that a regime that murders tens of thousands of protesters is also evil. This isn’t complicated, which is why you’re being downvoted (I did not downvote you).

adjejmxbdjdn 6mo ago
But as Trump has assured us, that’s the old regime which is completely different from the current regime, which as Trump again has assured us, is not anywhere near as crazy as the old regime. /s The Iranian regime is incredibly evil. That makes the American actions even more evil given that they’re providing that evil regime so much cover and allowed it to transition from their 86 year old leader with almost no opportunity for opposition.
- aogaili 6mo ago
  So the country waging wars from the sky, threatening to take their oil, annexing Greenland, suffocating Cuba, the only country who used nuclear bombs twice...is what?
- throwaway894345 6mo ago
  I am vehemently opposed to Trump and this war as well. My position in this thread is that both sides are bad.
  - aogaili 6mo ago
    [dead]
aogaili 6mo ago
Those are not neutral protests, those are armed fraction to take down the government, any existing government would fight back. He said it clearly: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/6/has-trump-confirmed-irans-claim-that-protesters-were-us-armed https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/6/has-trump-confirmed-... And anyone who knows a bit of history in the region they will understand that this is the case. They armed Saddam to fight Iran for 8 years. The main issue with Iran is that it is against Israel.

globalnode 6mo ago

youre only getting downvoted because they pay people good money to make sure their ridiculous narrative gets front page every single day. us murders a countries leader and a bunch of school kids and suddenly iran is accused of murdering 100k protesters and committing war crimes... like wtf lol

eli_gottlieb 6mo ago

> I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime, Well mainly by having Iranian friends who tell us their government is an evil regime, and when we try to insist our government is evil too, lecture us about our privilege to show they really mean it.

IanCal 6mo ago

> I don't understand how any human in good faith could look at Iran's government and say they are the evil regime You seem to be trying to force reality into a “good vs evil” storyline. There does not have to be a good side.