Live data from Hacker News

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

iranintl.com

651–660 of 844 posts

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

#651
post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Palestinian and Iranian situations It's simple. One is a genocide. The other is not. The more "israelis" ( or is it "iranian expat" ) like you try to pretend to be "westerners" and skew the conversation, the more obvious it becomes.

[flagged]

Russias' narrative about its special operation in Ukraine is also about a defensive war. I'm curious to know about your stance on this Russian-Ukraine conflict.

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

#652

36,500 dead, 300,000 injured, In 2 days? People are buying this? Unarmed protesters tend to flee when the shooting starts and armed protesters shoot back. And all this without heavy weapons? Do people remember what Gaza turned into get to that toll? The actual final toll number is certainly in the thousands But all the numbers being touted in the western press reek of desperation. Lot of the sources are western-backe…

No different than any other war, the powers that be line up to psy op the public to support it. Interesting to see who the players are that are willing to amplify this overt propaganda. Sadly, looks like HN is front and center, right along with Reddit and basically every other mainstream US-based tech/news aggregator.

There is no major US social media company that doesn't have members of the Israeli military among its executives, HN included.

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

#653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's about preaching to the choir. I think it's an atrocity what happened to those Iranian supporters. But what's the point in posting about it? Everyone else thinks it's an atrocity. We have no power to change things in Iran.

One other point -- I think the left has effectively shifted the conversation on Israel very quickly. I think immediately following Oct 7 atrocities, public support was overwhelmingly with Israel. By raising awareness of the situation, it has now become more slanted towards "peace in Palestine." I see no reason a similar type of shift couldn't occur on any issue if a coordinated effort to discuss it and raise awarenes…

> By raising awareness of the situation, it has now become more slanted towards "peace in Palestine."

"the situation" changed from "more than a thousand Israelis murdered by Hamas" to the total destruction of Gaza, the death of tens of thousands and worse.

It's not exactly surprising that there was a shift in where public support is directed.

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

#654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your government doesn’t fund Israel, either.

Most Western governments fund Israel. The US funds it the most.

Where’s the data to support your extraordinary claim?

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

#655
post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right... although you wouldn't know it if you took a look at the current Christian right in the US: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/is-empathy-a-sin-some-...

There is some discussion about creating a new term, "Christ-like" to differentiate from the current Christian right. A number of years ago there was a saying WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) that epitomizes the new Christ-like term.

Or just call the current christian right "CINOs". Christian in name only.

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

#656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your government doesn’t fund Israel, either.

Not only do we fund israel, our leaders have been wasting trillions fighting wars on behalf of israel. The newest target israel want the US to take out is strangely enough - Iran...

US does not fund Israel. US has a strategic interest in Israel, just as much as it has in Germany, South Korea, Japan and many other places which host a huge US military presence. Unlike those outposts, the support to Israel is given in American military equipment.

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

#657
post #263
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

President Nixon was an outspoken friend of the Shah. It was Carter administration that stabbed him in the back and negotiated with Khomeini in the first place. The hostage crisis happened about 9-10 months after Khomeini was in power and only towards the end of that crisis you could argue Reagan was in the picture at all. The love for Islamists by the Democrats in power never ended and Clinton, Obama, and Biden all w…

Clinton using executive orders and legislation to keep Russia and Iran from cooperating on defense was a desperate act of "Mullah" appeasement? It was the iranians that called for the Negev summit?

Yes, it is all relative. It is appeasement compared to war and much heavier sanctions that ended up being necessary. Clinton and even Bush II administrations were hoping internal change would come up during Khatami era and hoping for him to be Gorbachev. Regardless of Bush II harsh rhetoric, the real animosity only really started after Ahmadinejad was installed in Iran. You are correct that Clinton was still not as friendly as the other two, who very explicitly played into their hands.

In any case I was simply responding to OP's "why" question and that their theory on blaming Reagan allegedly vs Carter on a narrow point, highlighting that particular case is temporally much later, and has no relevance to the underlying reason Carter is hated over there.

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

#658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No different than any other war, the powers that be line up to psy op the public to support it. Interesting to see who the players are that are willing to amplify this overt propaganda. Sadly, looks like HN is front and center, right along with Reddit and basically every other mainstream US-based tech/news aggregator.

There is no major US social media company that doesn't have members of the Israeli military among its executives, HN included.

I find myself wondering what people would think if we swapped "Israeli" for "Chinese" in your reply. And why this double standard exists in all our minds.

Clearly you can't run a country when your elites owe their first allegiance to somewhere else.

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

#659
post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Israel opposed the war knowing that it would be damaging rather than beneficial Here's a video of Benjamin Netanyahu doing the opposite of opposing the Iraq war in front of Congress in 2002. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVPauUOVrmk >Not only had the war in Iraq hurt Israeli security, rather than improving it I am aware there was internal debate in Israel on relative benefits of taking out Iraq's conventional mili…

Like I said to the other person here, Netanyahu was acting in a private capacity as a civilian, not a representative or office holder of the government of Israel. It amazes me how you conspiracy nutters can't tell the difference. You don't have a "theory". You worked backwards from your conclusion that "Israel = bad" and created an entirely false narrative that only sounds plausible in your own deluded head. Furtherm…

> You worked backwards from your conclusion that "Israel = bad"

I did work backwards. from the evidence. I didn't start with "Israel is responsible for everything". In fact i used to dismiss that theory as "low iq" and believe "that it's complicated". It is complicated, but not as complicated as i used to think.

Saying Netanyahu was "just a civillian" and had no political influence in the Bush admin, in Israel or the Israel Lobby is particularly comical he is the current primeminister and longest running leader of Israel. That period was just a brief interlude when he was not serving in a formal capacity. His vision of the middle-east is exactly what the middle-east is today.

edit : I partially take back 'Libya' - i think the Libya affair is less influenced by the Israeli interests. But still, even though Gadaffi had given up his WMD program and become a friend of US and Europe, he was still a foe of Israel. So he still never could become a friend of the west. Funny how that works isn't it. Almost Like Europe and the US can't have a relationship independent of Israel's interests.

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

#660
post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the Palestinian and Iranian situations It's simple. One is a genocide. The other is not. The more "israelis" ( or is it "iranian expat" ) like you try to pretend to be "westerners" and skew the conversation, the more obvious it becomes.

[flagged]

> One is a defensive war

So what the germans did in ww2 was a defensive war also? Funny how the people whining endlessly about genocide are so eager to defend it.

> Because they've decided the Jews in their historical lands

First of all, it was never the "historical lands" of the jews. It belonged to the canaanites whom the jews decided to steal it from. Read your torah. Secondly, europeans larping as jews are not part of the torah and hence have no claim to that land.

> the other is slaughtering of people by an oppressive regime.

Is that the "oppressive regime" defending itself from constant israeli attacks? Hmmm...

Another israeli trying to get the US involved in more wars for their selfish interests.

Post reply on HN