Live data from Hacker News

Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal

iranintl.com

191–200 of 844 posts

Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal

#191
post #188

[flagged]

Israel has killed more than double that in Gaza, and that’s only what’s been confirmed as many bodies are under rubble and millions are left living in tents: https://aje.io/5b4h1e

Note that these numbers come straight from the Hamas run health ministry which does not track civilian vs combatant deaths and has questionable accuracy.

Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't understand how you could make this claim. After studying Plato, Hegel, Marx, Rousseau, fascist ideologies, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. This list is by no means exhaustive, just a few majors from the top of my head. Sure, they didn’t just say “shoot people for power.” That’s a very shallow modern view. Instead, they champion extreme forms of altruism and its only logical expression: statism, which h…

>For him, state is a sacred authority that transcends individual will. State authority exists in democracys therefore that's not an argument for dictatorships >they champion extreme forms of altruism and its only logical expression: statism Why is statism the only logical expression of extreme altruism? Jesus Christ was the ultimate altruist and is not a state. I can dedicate my life to only helping others over mysel…

[deleted]

Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal

#193

[flagged]

> But these numbers are simply not credible.

Why do you think that?

> Remember the governing ideology of the US and Israel sees the continued existence of Iran as an existential threat.

Obviously Israel would see the Iranian regime as an existential threat when they quite openly advocate for the destruction of Israel[0] and have a nuclear weapons program.

> Their aims may align with the protestors temporarily but I think a permanently fractured, Syria type situation is much more palatable to them than a rapid transition to a more democratic system that leaves the country intact.

Israel would almost certainly prefer a stable intact Iran with normalized relations.

> There is no guarantee a post-islamic Iran would step into line, and it would remain a regional power that would be much harder to justify continued sanctions against.

Israel and the US don't want to destroy Iran, they want Iran to stop funding terrorists and stop threatening regional stability.

> A clean change of government with domestic US pressure to lift sanctions would be their nightmare scenario.

Why should the US lift sanctions while Iran continues to fund terrorists and attempts to develop nuclear weapons?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Israel_in_Irani...

Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal

#194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. I don’t know that anyone thinks a state’s violence against its citizens is less immoral. It’s more that countries are more hesitant to get militarily involved in the domestic affairs of another country because it would mean essentially declaring war against that state…

It's also just a matter of logistics and support.

If Aliceville attacks Bobtopia, there are existing military and civilian organisations in Bobtopia that can take foreign aid and use it effectively. The population of Bobtopia are generally going to support their homeland or at least be neutral, and are available for conscription so they'll do all the dying and international forces don't have to.

If Bobtopia just starts massacring its own people, then:

A) You have to dismantle those same military structures along with many of the civilian ones, and you're now in charge of building an entire government from the ground up.

B) Some of the population, e.g. the ones who were doing the massacring, are now shooting at you instead. Some of their victims are probably going to shoot at you too.

C) You can't exactly conscript Bobtopians during a civil war you started and have them be an effective fighting force, because they're not unified, don't have a government, and often hate you. If you try to work with Bobtopian militias, you'll find yourself embroiled in Bobtopian politics.

This all holds true regardless of who has to declare war on whom.

Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Historically there was sometimes the idea that citizens are the property of the sovereign to use or dispose of as he sees fit. A lot of historical international law had the view that states have absolute feeedom to conduct their internal affairs however they saw fit. Luckily we have largely moved past that view. I think as a purely practical matter, moral outrage is shaped by who controls the information space. If yo…

>Luckily we have largely moved past that view. Have we? I don't think the UN is going to invade Iran over this, especially after it went so well the last time with the US. And sanctions for Iran are already at the "you don't get anything" level, i don't think they can be ramped up any more. Morally sure, people now believe this is wrong while in the distant past they may have not cared, but practically not much has c…

I still think there is a huge ideological difference between thinking something is wrong but not doing anything about it vs thinking something is A-ok.

Strongly worded letters might not mean much, but at least they are on the right side of the issue, even if only symbolically.

Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal

#197
post #54

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.

It is a source run by expatriate Iranians of the diaspora.. the fact that so many people just discount their point of view it's pretty frustrating. If you speak to Iranians that you work with it's pretty illuminating

It's clear that at least a couple of thousands Iranians have died in protests. Khamenei even said so in a speech a few days ago. but its not 36,000.

Re: Over 36,500 killed in Iran's deadliest massacre, documents reveal

#199
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a source run by expatriate Iranians of the diaspora.. the fact that so many people just discount their point of view it's pretty frustrating. If you speak to Iranians that you work with it's pretty illuminating

The “Iranians that you work with” in the west are highly self-selecting. They’re like Cubans in Florida or Vietnamese—people who fled in the aftermath of the revolution and are extremely antagonistic towards the regime. My family left Bangladesh the year after the dictator made Islam the official religion. My dad is apoplectic about the Islamist parties being unbanned recently after the government was overthrown. By…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN