The source (Iran International) is backed by Saudi money and has a bias to dunk on Iran. That said, I'm sure the death count numbers from the Rasht Massacre are staggeringly higher than the initial tallies of 2-5k.
There are other sources, like this: https://time.com/7357635/more-than-30000-killed-in-iran-say-...
Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal
91–100 of 844 posts
Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal
#92Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal
#93I can't comprehend how a population can kill that many of their own people. They aren't even an "other" people, which has been the most common scapegoat lately. Same skin color, same religion, same language, same homeland.
[flagged]
Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal
#94[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal
#95I can't comprehend how a population can kill that many of their own people. They aren't even an "other" people, which has been the most common scapegoat lately. Same skin color, same religion, same language, same homeland.
[flagged]
Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal
#96Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal
#97Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal
#98Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal
#99The source (Iran International) is backed by Saudi money and has a bias to dunk on Iran. That said, I'm sure the death count numbers from the Rasht Massacre are staggeringly higher than the initial tallies of 2-5k.
[flagged]
Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal
#100That's crazy. That's like ~40% of the deaths in the current gaza war, except over just 2 days instead of 2 years.
I've read a ton of philosophy and something I don't really understand is that one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population. 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 think that’s a particularly established moral position.