Comment by bawolff
2 days ago
That's crazy.
That's like ~40% of the deaths in the current gaza war, except over just 2 days instead of 2 years.
2 days ago
That's crazy.
That's like ~40% of the deaths in the current gaza war, except over just 2 days instead of 2 years.
Unfortunately I would not be surprised if the real death toll is even higher. I have first-hand information. We are talking about indiscriminate shooting with heavy machine guns into peaceful protests, happening in every city of the country. The rule of law has completely broken down. The wounded avoid hospitals because they are afraid of getting killed there.
There was a lot of death in 2 days but the revolution started about a month ago so it's not just those two days. I think you could compare Gaza to a single Iranian city, but Iran is much larger than this. Another important distinction is that - no matter what your beliefs are - civilians aren't the target in Gaza, but they clearly are the target in Iran. If the civilians had weapons, it would be a different story.
> civilians aren't the target in Gaza
"We killed about 80,000 people by mistake" isn't the exculpation you think it is.
That has to be true first.
No one who is sane is saying that. IDF is saying – we killed 40.000 combatants who were hiding in ciivilan infrastructure, so unfortunately 1:1 civilian deaths happened, becaue of the terrorist urban warfare tactics hamas and palestinian islamic jihad are using.
18 replies →
> Another important distinction is that - no matter what your beliefs are - civilians aren't the target in Gaza
"No matter what your beliefs are"? Some people believe that Israel is trying to make the people in Gaza starve. If that was true, how would they not be a target?
With the amount of sanctions against Iran right now we could say that Iran is being starved as well, but we can't blame Israel for everything. Almost everyone participates in the sanctions but citizens aren't the target.
1 reply →
> no matter what your beliefs are - civilians aren't the target in Gaza
“By December 2025, the Gaza Health Ministry had reported that at least 70,117 people in Gaza had been killed. The vast majority of the victims were civilians, and around 50% were women and children. Compared to other recent global conflicts, the numbers of known deaths of journalists, humanitarian and health workers, and children are among the highest. Thousands more uncounted bodies are thought to be under the rubble of destroyed buildings. A study in the medical journal The Lancet estimated that traumatic injury deaths were undercounted by June 2024, while noting an even larger potential death toll when "indirect" deaths are included. The number of injured is greater than 171,000. Gaza has the most child amputees per capita in the world; the Gaza war caused more than 21,000 children to be disabled.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
Russia has more than likely killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians since February 2022 but what is happening in Ukraine is not termed a genocide. Why? Because by and large it is Russian military personnel killing Ukrainian military personnel (and vice versa, of course). Why is what is happening in Gaza being termed a genocide? Because the Israeli military* is targeting and killing civilians. I'm not the one saying that, genocide scholars (among others) are the ones saying that.
“The Gaza genocide is the ongoing, intentional, and systematic destruction of the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip carried out by Israel during the Gaza war. It encompasses mass killings, deliberate starvation, infliction of serious bodily and mental harm, and prevention of births. Other acts include blockading, destroying civilian infrastructure, destroying healthcare facilities, killing healthcare workers and aid-seekers, causing mass forced displacement, committing sexual violence, and destroying educational, religious, and cultural sites. The genocide has been recognised by a United Nations special committee and commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, multiple human rights groups, numerous genocide studies and international law scholars, and other experts.”
One cannot blockade an entire population and not be targeting the civilians in that population.
“An Israeli blockade heavily contributed to starvation and confirmed famine. As of August 2025, projections show about 641,000 people experiencing catastrophic levels and that "the number of people facing emergency levels will likely increase to 1.14 million". Early in the conflict, Israel cut off Gaza's water and electricity, but it later partially restored the water. As of May 2024, 84% of Gaza's health centres have been destroyed or damaged. Israel also destroyed numerous cultural heritage sites, including all 12 of Gaza's universities, and 80% of its schools. Over 1.9 million Palestinians—85% of Gaza's population—were forcibly displaced.”
* with the backing of primarily the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany
There are hundreds of videos of tower blocks being bombed, where people are standing a distance away with cameras set up, ready and waiting, because they’ve been warned and evacuated. These are not the actions of an army trying to target civilians.
2 replies →
Ahem, Gaza Health Ministry?
https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/03/hamas-run-health-ministr...
wikipedia has been hijacked to present one-sided view of the conflict
https://www.timesofisrael.com/edit-wars-over-israel-spur-rar... https://www.reddit.com/r/Jewish/comments/1pvs1b6/as_a_wikipe...
Problem even discussed and acknowledged by Jimmy Wales: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U_aQWaxOTE
1 reply →
"Gaza Health Ministry had reported" do you think this is an unbiased, accurate source?
> civilians aren't the target in Gaza
They are and so were doctors, journalists and such.
> civilians aren't the target in Gaza
The "Where's Daddy" program in Israel tells the opposite story. They take anyone designated a target, track them home, then send rockets to their home to take out their family.
There's dozens of documented events like this happening to doctors working to save casualties, finding out their entire family was killed.
After seeing the highly targeted attacks in Iran that Israel was capable of, makes you think that targeting families of aid workers was the point.
It almost makes Israel look like they are not there to wipe out Palestine
Or that international pressure succesfully prevented worse.
Or that it unnecessarily dragged out a conflict by hamstringing Israel and thus empowering Hamas.
International pressure when US is shielding and blocking literally any move against means effectively nothing. Sure, you or me can say we will for example never buy products from Israel but thats about it.
And such move will not change anything in this behavior just make some israeli farmer (maybe still employing some palestinians/arabs) lose some income.
This is a country of 90 million, compared to Gaza which was 2million
These are 30,000 human lives. Their value doesn’t diminish because of a larger supply.
[flagged]
Is this a racist comment on how those "animals" like to breed like crazy?
2 replies →
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. But in a conflict between states, an outsider can more easily support one side militarily without declaring war against the other side.
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.
There is big difference between somebody starting a war to destroy you and you fight back. Vs people want to live free and their own government kills them so they can be in power.
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 you are a country being invaded, you probably have an organized, well funded communication department to tell your side. If you are an Iranian protestor, not only do you not have that, you don't even have internet at all because the state cut off all means of communication.
>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 changed. The best we can hope for is an organized resistance that other large nations can funnel money and arms to.
1 reply →
Because the international order is fundamentally anarchic, while domestic orders are (supposed to be at least) nomic, structured by law and rights. Yes, there are attempts at creating international law, but these amount to treaties more than a structured, visible, governing law.
“A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors.”
That’s from my readings of philosophy.
But yeah, I do recognize the same sentiment as you found. I think philosophy itself is an answer: most philosophies explicitly champion dictatorships, under whitewashed terms. Ever heard something like “society is a big organ transcending individual needs”? We got it from Hegel.
>most philosophies explicitly champion dictatorships
I don't understand how you could make this claim.
"society is a big organ transcending individual needs”?"
How does this statement by Hegel champion dictatorships?
4 replies →
> one nation killing another is more immoral than when a nation does this to their own domestic population.
I don’t think that’s a particularly established moral position.
>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.
Who holds this opinion?
>But for some reason, humanity doesn't seem to care as much.
All of humanity cares less about when a government uses violence against its citizens than wars?
How can you possibly make this generalization when each internal conflict is different just like every war and how difficult it is to measure sympathy
He doesn’t need a list of people he can quote for his observation to be true.
And it’s not far fetched either: With a state‘s power structure ultimately resting upon (enough) support from society, there is an implicit legitimacy assumed in their actions.
The same can not be said about mass executions of citizens by an invading foreign power structure. Which is why you see the typical propaganda rush to make the victims look like perpetrators.
I share your opinion. There's nothing worse than a State killing its own citizens, the ones the state had pledged to protect.
But actually, the largest mass killings in history have been always performed by States against their own citizens and not by enemy states:
- Great Chinese Famine (CCP): 20-30 million dead. - Holocaust (NSP): 6 million - Holodomor (USSR): 3-5 million - Congo mass killings (Colonial Regime + Private parties): 1-5 million - Cambodian genocide (Maoists): 2 million - Armenian genocide (Young Turk / CUP) ...
The list continues, and remains mainly dominated by assassination's of the State against their own citizens. Majorly communist and totalitarian regimes.
> Holocaust (NSP): 6 million
Most dead Jews were not German citizens and neither were the Poles who died.
Because the Palestinians raped and killed thousands of innocent people, causing the war.
Whereas the Iranian people just want human rights and didn’t do anything to their leaders.
Are you seriously asking this or are you just fucking with us? It’s blatantly obvious why it is different.
> 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.
Which books say that?
> What makes intra-state politics more acceptable to use violence?
Acceptable? It's more about the consequences or lack thereof, the incentives
History has shown that pretty much nothing happens to the regime unless two coalitions of countries invade from both sides simultaneously, and that's like, not going to happen
I can’t even imagine how this could be done. Nazi concentration camps would have had trouble killing that many in 2 days.
The difference is that the nazis moved people from their homes onto trains, then the execution was a formalized program of removing property, valuables, execution and incineration. In Iran the military unloaded machine guns into crowds and left the locals to deal with the bodies, and it happened throughout the country instead of at specific locations.
At its peak i think (based on googling) the nazis killed about 14,000 per day, which would put it in a similar ball park on a per-day basis. However they kept up the level of killing and didn't stop after just a few days.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/2846/
In Babi Yar, over two days, 33,771 Jews were killed, and this was prior to the 'peak' in Operation Reinhard:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar
The Nazis were still killing people in other places at the same time, so the deadliest day is probably much much higher.
The scale of the Holocaust is hard to imagine. Even just looking at very specific suranmes, there are 23,000 killed with the surname Rosenberg, 12,000 with the surname Adler...
https://collections.yadvashem.org/en/names/search-results-na...
Nazis were … prolific.
The death camps were a practical end result of how much manual labor was required to line thousands of people up and shoot them dead. That’s what they were doing in Poland, to such extremes that is was literally more efficient to build gas chambers.
They wouldn't struggle, even before the gassing systems were built. In Babiy Jar (September 1941), about 33 thousand Jews from Kyiv were shot in two days by SS Einsatztruppen.
This is about what dedicated murderous goverments can pull off using conventional means.
that's because they weren't shooting crowds already assembled in the streets and going into hospitals nationwide to find the injured. Nazi Germany was aiming to maintain plausible deniability in the concentration camps for as long as possible, while parallel competing plans for what to do with the population were being explored and failing. (there were other solutions before and alonside the final solution)
They also, in many camps, used the inmates as slave labor.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Do you believe that there’s a single person (or small group) who chooses what’s on the front page?
have you heard of algorithmic bias?
[flagged]
[dead]
7000$ have been sent to your bank account.
At least 700k people died in Gaza.
I doubt even 100 people died in those Iranian protests, and there are videos of Mossad agents shooting people before getting arrested by the Iranian police.
Like even the UN stopped pushing that lie after Iranian ambassadors showed them the videos.
The fact that this whole thread got so many upvotes to end up on the front page is the signal I finally needed to delete the account, this has become an echo chamber, the cypherpunk or whatever those smart people with critical thinking and strong moral values are called are not here anymore.
I spoke to a few people living in Iran, and they definitively confirmed that 100+ people died. They obviously don't have the exact number, so that 36,500 figure might be exaggerated, but there are more than enough videos online to verify the 100+ claim if you really want to.