Comment by whyage

First of all, knowing well that the US has been looking for excuses to attack Iran for the past, I don't know, twenty years at least, I am extremely suspicious of information about the numbers of these massacres. I know perfectly well that a media campaign filled with horrific reports is going to precede an attack by the US to either reduce the country in ruins or to a puppet state. I am also quite suspicious that these protests might be somehow encouraged by the US precisely for the same purpose. I mean, if Russian propaganda can influence foreign countries, I can't put a limit to what USA's power in the IT and social media space can do.

Besides this, of course when atrocities are perpetrated by an ally with whom you entertain friendly diplomatic, commercial and military relationships, it makes a lot of sense to protest: you have some leverage. When they are committed by an enemy country with which you have already severed any relationship, protests are pointless.

Because Iran claims foreign-backed terrorists were behind all the murder and destruction - backed by Israel, the US and UK.

Mossad has openly said they have people in Iran, and Israeli media has said they've sent weapons to the "protestors" in Iran. Senior figures in the US government have alluded to the same.

Many videos have been published by Iranians online, which certainly do not show "peaceful protestors" - they show gangs of masked men beating random civilians to death, fire-bombing buses and ambulance; they show leaders dishing out weapons and satellite comms devices, and trained men using assault rifles to attack civilians and the police.

We've also seem video of over a million Iranians marching in Tehran in support of the government, and in protest of the foreign-back terrorists.

And we have the MSM happily parroting any death figures they get, from anyone... even if they are literally from Pahlavi's mate or a CIA "human rights" group based in Langley!

We should all be more sceptical when our media and governments try to gain consent for war, and we should be asking who stands to gain - it's certainly not us, the people.

The principle we ought to follow is the principle we expected Soviet dissidents to follow.

What principle did we expect Andrei Sakharov [a Soviet scientist punished for his criticism of the U.S.S.R.] to follow? Why did people decide that Sakharov was a moral person?

Sakharov did not treat every atrocity as identical-he had nothing to say about American atrocities. When he was asked about them, he said, "I don't know anything about them, I don't care about them, what I talk about are Soviet atrocities."

And that was right-because those were the ones that he was responsible for, and that he might have been able to in­fluence. Again, it's a very simple ethical point: you are responsible for the predictable consequences of your actions, you're not responsible for the predictable consequences of somebody else's actions.

Conversely, how do we view the protests in the USSR against jim crow laws under stalin? They surely existed, but of what consequence were they? None whatsoever.

I want people to be REAL careful about "Israel obviously committed a genocide"

All those people brutally murdered on October 7 don't just disappear. Whatever you think about Israel's response it's kind of amazing the main focus is on the "big bad" of Israel

There were pro-Pally protests on October 8! If not October 7. Before the bodies were cool, so to speak

If you were pro-Palestine it is absolutely your moral duty to not just be silent. There is absolutely no ambiguity here. The Islamic Republic is slaughtering Iranians

Edit: And I don't give a damn if this is "construed as hostile", if you downvote me for this (Already one in the last minute) you do not deserve the 500 karma you have to be able to downvote me. I, in fact, suggest that you delete your account