3 ms·

This is the counter argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres Here's hoping the regime is d

by noosphr 7mo ago

This is the counter argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
> This is the counter argument When the French helped us during the Revolutionary War, they didn't shore bombard the colonists' kids because it would have been bad and counterproductive.
hrimfaxi 7mo ago
How is this in any way a counter argument to the US bombing a school? That their own government would stoop to such lengths gives free reign to foreign governments?
- Invictus0 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - sho_hn 7mo ago
    > Accidents are common in war; As an engineer a substantial amount of my professional effort is spent on preventing them. They aren't acceptable.
    - annexrichmond 7mo ago
      Nobody is saying they are acceptable. But it'd be naive to say there's ever zero risk. What's your brilliant plan? Let Iran have nukes?
      - cogman10 7mo ago
        > Nobody is saying they are acceptable. Saying "Accidents happen in war" is absolutely a way of saying "Accidents are acceptable in war". That's what's being said here. Otherwise, it's a useless thing to say. > What's your brilliant plan? Let Iran have nukes? There was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nukes. Certainly no evidence that they were `n days` away from getting nukes. My "brilliant" plan would have been the negotiations that were happening where Iran agreed to pretty strict monitoring and stipulations on nuclear fuel development. The "Iran was getting nukes" rhetoric needs real evidence that was actually happening not "we think that might be happening because Trump said so."
        alex_sf 7mo ago
        > Saying "Accidents happen in war" is absolutely a way of saying "Accidents are acceptable in war". Bridges fall down sometimes. I don't think it's acceptable. It's a statement of fact. There are always going to be mistakes, in every field and in pursuit of every goal. Your objection and implications aren't particularly charitable here. > My "brilliant" plan would have been the negotiations that were happening where Iran agreed to pretty strict monitoring and stipulations on nuclear fuel development. Iran was not complying with the monitoring requirements. > The "Iran was getting nukes" rhetoric needs real evidence that was actually happening not "we think that might be happening because Trump said so." Intelligence agencies under both Biden and Trump (and since at least the 90s) have repeatedly confirmed it. This isn't really a question or doubt any reasonable person can have. There can be an argument about how close they are at any given moment, but they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
        cogman10 7mo ago
        > Intelligence agencies under both Biden and Trump (and since at least the 90s) have repeatedly confirmed it. Cite your source. When did this happen under Biden?
        alex_sf 7mo ago
        This isn't buried or hard to find, but in good faith: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ODNI-Unclassified-Irans-Nuclear-Weapons-Capability-and-Terrorism-Monitoring-Act-of-2022-202407.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ODNI-Un... https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/congressional-testimonies/congressional-testimonies-2023/3685-dni-haines-opening-statement-on-the-2023-annual-threat-assessment-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/congressional-testimo...
    - Invictus0 7mo ago
      I see in your bio that you work on cars. Surely you've heard of car accidents? Clearly we find them acceptable enough to keep driving, wouldn't you agree?
  - JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
    > Accidents are common in war Sure. The point is this was a particularly tragic accident. And it happened for, from the looks of the ceasefire conditions, jack shit. More pointedly: if it was an accident, it should be investigated. Honestly. Openly. Not only is it horrible, bombing children is a strategic blunder in a war for hearts and minds.
  - int_19h 7mo ago
    > Accidents are common in war That's precisely why you don't just start wars to show the world that your dick is still bigger than everybody else's.
  - tdeck 7mo ago
    These kinds of accidents seem to be particularly common in wars waged by Israel for some reason.
- michelsedgh 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - hilbertseries 7mo ago
    Investigation isn’t finished, but it was almost certainly the US. If it was Iran Trump or Hegeseth would not have been able to contain themselves.
  - sali0 7mo ago
    The school was bombed by US Tomahawk missiles, twice via a double tap so the medical personnel were killed too. It's absolutely absurd to think this would be caused by a misfire from Iran.
- Manuel_D 7mo ago
  The idea is that incurring a few hundred civilians deaths to liberate Iranians from a regime that slaughtered them by the thousands or tens of thousands is a net positive for human life. Of course this only works as a justification if the Iranians actually are liberated front their regime, which I don't think they will. But the justification, if the liberation actually transpires, is sound. An order of magnitude more French and Dutch died at the hands of Allied bombing and shelling in 1944. I think most agree the the upside of being liberated from Germany makes the Allied landings a net positive, though. But to reiterate, I really doubt the revolutionary guard is going to lose control of Iran.
  - stanfordkid 7mo ago
    No one wants to liberate Iran. Israel just wants to continue committing genocide and apartheid without any opposition. Iran arms Hezbollah and Hamas, the main forms of Palestinian resistance. The whole point of this operation is to decimate those groups so ethnic cleansing can continue without any resistance. Israel could care less about the Irani people. You are very naive if you think the IRGC truly killed 10's of thousands of it's own people. Israel openly talks about Mossad organizing and supporting the coup, and good old Donny has admitted they have given weapons to organized resistance. I estimate that many of the death numbers come from armed resistance being killed by the IRGC, not ordinary peaceful protestors. I also think armed resistance killed many Irani citizens. There is obviously fog of war here. The thousands of deaths were likely inflated and obfuscated. Look at the coups we have backed in the middle east (including formerly in Iran which is what originally led to the Islamic revolution) -- and you will see a pattern. Both US and Israel provide material support to groups like ISIS or actors like Bin Laden. An Al-Qaeda fighter is literally the head of Syria now thanks to Israel. I don't love Hamas, IRGC or Hezbollah, I don't like their ideology. But it is myopic to think they exist in a vaccum.
  - jamesgill 7mo ago
    Congratulations for rediscovering Machiavelli. “The ends justify the means” is such a winning philosophy.
    - 7mo ago
lern_too_spel 7mo ago
The counter argument is missing some justification. Is it reasonable to go killing people on the hope that something good will come out of it? Is there no less violent way to achieve those objectives? Do we really think that people will organize a toppling while they're being bombed without Internet access? Do we think they'll topple the current regime for one that is less antagonistic to Israel and the US after the bombings?
8note 7mo ago
i dont imagine spending a bunch on the military and oil is nearly enough to topple the US government. what case does it make that the constitution needs to be abandoned?
pphysch 7mo ago
This is black propaganda, not a counterargument. At most there were a couple thousand casualties from violent riots that involved armed gangs (or sleeper cells if you want to go that route). There were not "60,000" peaceful protestors executed by the government, as Trump claimed yesterday without evidence. That is murderous propaganda, blood libel intended to deflect from the actual mass murder of civilians by American forces e.g. the Minab school. It was a narrative specifically designed to induce comments like yours.
stouset 7mo ago
The American commander in chief was, as of yesterday, vowing to end their entire civilization.
- noosphr 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
mindslight 7mo ago
> Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself. It's looking like this is the exact type of magical thinking of the most useless "president" ever. Meanwhile in the real world, such things take hard work.
KennyBlanken 7mo ago
Aside from the fact that the events you linked to have no connection whatsoever to why the US started attacking Iran, there is absolutely no reality or moral code in which "a government kills a couple hundred of its citizens" justifies another government on the other side of the world blowing up a hundred plus schoolchildren and other civilians.

by noosphr 7mo ago

This is the counter argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself.

JumpCrisscross 7mo ago

> This is the counter argument When the French helped us during the Revolutionary War, they didn't shore bombard the colonists' kids because it would have been bad and counterproductive.

hrimfaxi 7mo ago

How is this in any way a counter argument to the US bombing a school? That their own government would stoop to such lengths gives free reign to foreign governments?

Invictus0 7mo ago
[flagged]
- sho_hn 7mo ago
  > Accidents are common in war; As an engineer a substantial amount of my professional effort is spent on preventing them. They aren't acceptable.
  - annexrichmond 7mo ago
    Nobody is saying they are acceptable. But it'd be naive to say there's ever zero risk. What's your brilliant plan? Let Iran have nukes?
    - cogman10 7mo ago
      > Nobody is saying they are acceptable. Saying "Accidents happen in war" is absolutely a way of saying "Accidents are acceptable in war". That's what's being said here. Otherwise, it's a useless thing to say. > What's your brilliant plan? Let Iran have nukes? There was no evidence that Iran was pursuing nukes. Certainly no evidence that they were `n days` away from getting nukes. My "brilliant" plan would have been the negotiations that were happening where Iran agreed to pretty strict monitoring and stipulations on nuclear fuel development. The "Iran was getting nukes" rhetoric needs real evidence that was actually happening not "we think that might be happening because Trump said so."
      - alex_sf 7mo ago
        > Saying "Accidents happen in war" is absolutely a way of saying "Accidents are acceptable in war". Bridges fall down sometimes. I don't think it's acceptable. It's a statement of fact. There are always going to be mistakes, in every field and in pursuit of every goal. Your objection and implications aren't particularly charitable here. > My "brilliant" plan would have been the negotiations that were happening where Iran agreed to pretty strict monitoring and stipulations on nuclear fuel development. Iran was not complying with the monitoring requirements. > The "Iran was getting nukes" rhetoric needs real evidence that was actually happening not "we think that might be happening because Trump said so." Intelligence agencies under both Biden and Trump (and since at least the 90s) have repeatedly confirmed it. This isn't really a question or doubt any reasonable person can have. There can be an argument about how close they are at any given moment, but they are actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
        cogman10 7mo ago
        > Intelligence agencies under both Biden and Trump (and since at least the 90s) have repeatedly confirmed it. Cite your source. When did this happen under Biden?
        alex_sf 7mo ago
        This isn't buried or hard to find, but in good faith: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ODNI-Unclassified-Irans-Nuclear-Weapons-Capability-and-Terrorism-Monitoring-Act-of-2022-202407.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ODNI-Un... https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/congressional-testimonies/congressional-testimonies-2023/3685-dni-haines-opening-statement-on-the-2023-annual-threat-assessment-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/congressional-testimo...
  - Invictus0 7mo ago
    I see in your bio that you work on cars. Surely you've heard of car accidents? Clearly we find them acceptable enough to keep driving, wouldn't you agree?
- JumpCrisscross 7mo ago
  > Accidents are common in war Sure. The point is this was a particularly tragic accident. And it happened for, from the looks of the ceasefire conditions, jack shit. More pointedly: if it was an accident, it should be investigated. Honestly. Openly. Not only is it horrible, bombing children is a strategic blunder in a war for hearts and minds.
- int_19h 7mo ago
  > Accidents are common in war That's precisely why you don't just start wars to show the world that your dick is still bigger than everybody else's.
- tdeck 7mo ago
  These kinds of accidents seem to be particularly common in wars waged by Israel for some reason.
michelsedgh 7mo ago
[flagged]
- hilbertseries 7mo ago
  Investigation isn’t finished, but it was almost certainly the US. If it was Iran Trump or Hegeseth would not have been able to contain themselves.
- sali0 7mo ago
  The school was bombed by US Tomahawk missiles, twice via a double tap so the medical personnel were killed too. It's absolutely absurd to think this would be caused by a misfire from Iran.
Manuel_D 7mo ago
The idea is that incurring a few hundred civilians deaths to liberate Iranians from a regime that slaughtered them by the thousands or tens of thousands is a net positive for human life. Of course this only works as a justification if the Iranians actually are liberated front their regime, which I don't think they will. But the justification, if the liberation actually transpires, is sound. An order of magnitude more French and Dutch died at the hands of Allied bombing and shelling in 1944. I think most agree the the upside of being liberated from Germany makes the Allied landings a net positive, though. But to reiterate, I really doubt the revolutionary guard is going to lose control of Iran.
- stanfordkid 7mo ago
  No one wants to liberate Iran. Israel just wants to continue committing genocide and apartheid without any opposition. Iran arms Hezbollah and Hamas, the main forms of Palestinian resistance. The whole point of this operation is to decimate those groups so ethnic cleansing can continue without any resistance. Israel could care less about the Irani people. You are very naive if you think the IRGC truly killed 10's of thousands of it's own people. Israel openly talks about Mossad organizing and supporting the coup, and good old Donny has admitted they have given weapons to organized resistance. I estimate that many of the death numbers come from armed resistance being killed by the IRGC, not ordinary peaceful protestors. I also think armed resistance killed many Irani citizens. There is obviously fog of war here. The thousands of deaths were likely inflated and obfuscated. Look at the coups we have backed in the middle east (including formerly in Iran which is what originally led to the Islamic revolution) -- and you will see a pattern. Both US and Israel provide material support to groups like ISIS or actors like Bin Laden. An Al-Qaeda fighter is literally the head of Syria now thanks to Israel. I don't love Hamas, IRGC or Hezbollah, I don't like their ideology. But it is myopic to think they exist in a vaccum.
- jamesgill 7mo ago
  Congratulations for rediscovering Machiavelli. “The ends justify the means” is such a winning philosophy.
  - 7mo ago

lern_too_spel 7mo ago

The counter argument is missing some justification. Is it reasonable to go killing people on the hope that something good will come out of it? Is there no less violent way to achieve those objectives? Do we really think that people will organize a toppling while they're being bombed without Internet access? Do we think they'll topple the current regime for one that is less antagonistic to Israel and the US after the bombings?

8note 7mo ago

i dont imagine spending a bunch on the military and oil is nearly enough to topple the US government. what case does it make that the constitution needs to be abandoned?

pphysch 7mo ago

This is black propaganda, not a counterargument. At most there were a couple thousand casualties from violent riots that involved armed gangs (or sleeper cells if you want to go that route). There were not "60,000" peaceful protestors executed by the government, as Trump claimed yesterday without evidence. That is murderous propaganda, blood libel intended to deflect from the actual mass murder of civilians by American forces e.g. the Minab school. It was a narrative specifically designed to induce comments like yours.

stouset 7mo ago

The American commander in chief was, as of yesterday, vowing to end their entire civilization.

noosphr 7mo ago
[flagged]
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]

mindslight 7mo ago

> Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself. It's looking like this is the exact type of magical thinking of the most useless "president" ever. Meanwhile in the real world, such things take hard work.

KennyBlanken 7mo ago

Aside from the fact that the events you linked to have no connection whatsoever to why the US started attacking Iran, there is absolutely no reality or moral code in which "a government kills a couple hundred of its citizens" justifies another government on the other side of the world blowing up a hundred plus schoolchildren and other civilians.