I used to attend elementary school on a military base. I didn't feel like a human shield at the time, then again I was more naive and had less life experience than I do now.
You weren’t a human shield. It would have been very easy for the US and Israel to not have blown up a school, the attack was intentional.
Notice they had 0 issues precisely striking the building housing Iranian leadership when this whole thing started. They didn’t “accidentally” hit the grocery store two blocks away.
So you think there was a conspiracy to target a school? Who do you think did it? Why? What was their goal?
I think either an intelligence failure, or a mistake or a miss is more likely. Maybe missiles don't always hit where they were meant to go. Especially if there is anti missile defences (which Iran is likely to have). Maybe Iran anti-air hit the school, or sent a US missile off course?
Today on several news media were a story that people of Iran were called by the government and formed human shields at the bridges and power plants that Trump threatened to bomb if no deal reached by the deadline.
My wife is Iranian and I know many Iranian expats, and all my in-laws are in Iran.
This attack on the school comes up all the time as a talking point. And I will tell you exactly how most Iranians react: they find it weird that you’ll talk about this school, but you won’t talk about the thousands of protesters killed by the regime.
Yes. People die in war. It’s sad. But most Iranians will say “whether we go to war or not Iranians are being killed” and it’s better to fight for regime change than to just accept the status quo.
Imagine being against the American Revolution because some innocent civilians will get killed? Yes, people die in war, but if there’s a chance for something better than it’s definitely worth it!
Every Iranian I know thinks it’s worth it and they danced in the street when Khamenei was killed.
"This attack on the school comes up all the time as a talking point. And I will tell you exactly how most Iranians react: they find it weird that you’ll talk about this school, but you won’t talk about the thousands of protesters killed by the regime."
The US government is not in any way responsible for the murder of protesters in Iran. That is done entirely by the government in Iran.
The USA and Israel ARE responsible for the murder of the kids (and adults) in that school. If you are American or Israeli you can care about the murdered protesters, but it it not really your responsibility. The murdered kids are however.
I understand what you’re saying, but I think you’re missing the point of my comment.
People bring up the school as a way of discouraging American military bombing Iran. It’s a way of shaming Americans, as if we are bad, making us feel guilty for bombing. Right?
What I’m trying to say is that Iranians I’ve spoken to are happy that we are bombing the regime. From their perspective, they are already being killed. The regime is dangerous to them. Bombing the regime and possibly destroying the regime is worth the risk.
So don’t be so hard on yourself. Iranians want your help. People die in wars, there is always collateral damage, but sometimes war is just. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. That’s how the Iranians I’ve spoken to feel.
> Imagine being against the American Revolution because some innocent civilians will get killed?
What was so great about the American revolution anyway? It's not like it gave any average people the right to vote, and it arguably preserved slavery for an extra 30 years.
Because it seems nigh impossible to actually get the 18-27 crowd to actually go and vote. Doesn’t matter if their life sucks, they just can’t be bothered to go do it. Of course you’ll get people that try and deflect blame and say that “my vote doesn’t really change anything” but these people know it does change things and they still just stay at home on voting day.
tbh I think that vote would succeed, if one happened right now. his approval poll results are abysmally bad.
what do you think the vote would be, though? "we don't like him"? last I checked, change.org-petition-style voting didn't have much of an effect on country laws.
Too many are either disinterested in politics because it's ugly, or mad that their assigned candidate betrayed one of their values (e.g., genocide in Gaza). I think a lot of younger people just don't want to be bothered.
Being against genocide isn't a "value". It's not idealistic, or naive either.
It's a duty. Moral, and legal; domestic and international.
Drawing a hard red line at genocide is damn near the very least any human must demand from their leader; perhaps only exceeded by "don't threaten entire civilizations with nuclear weapons".
Same with prosecuting rapist insurrectionists, and going after billionaire's child-trafficking/murdering blackmail rings. These are not "nice to haves" - ya simply gotta do it.
If you're not "mad" when people fail to do these things, then are you really "interested in politics", or are you simply caught in some kind of us-vs-them death spiral?
People don't seem really engaged in politics. They find it a frustrating waste of time because the news doesn't bother explaining anything to them, so they don't see the results of elections. They say both sides are the same. They don't take part in local elections. A mix of taught helplessness, learned helplessness, laziness, and the fact that if you're a white guy gas prices might affect you more than foreign wars and death squads
Both factions are filled with criminals that hate America (but LOVE Israel) and solely seek to exploit Americans as tax cows and organ donors. I take the third position: I'm a decline enjoyer and prepper.
Nukes are not really for actual use but for deterrence so likely no lives would have been lost. Israel has nukes and they don't use them unless somebody attacks them with nukes. Same with other countries. Ideally both Israel and Iran as well as North Korea, maybe also Pakistan and India should not have nukes. And even more ideal it would be if nobody had them but the cat's out of the bag already.
What part of this war has made Iran less likely to get a nuclear weapon?
There could have been a good war in Iran. A coalition of nations going in to secure the uranium. It would have been messy. But it would have had a clean objective.
As objective yes but whose lives would be spared for this objective? Messy is relative to policies. Aren't other ways to attain this objective other than through war? I really think there were attempts and progress in that direction.
they have a religious law against making or using them, and theyve been sitting at "they could make a nuke within a week" for the past 20 years or more
it feels like people are falling for iran's bargaining chip - they want people to think they could make one, but not actually make one
There was zero evidence they were close to a nuke. In fact, they've been alleged to be weeks away from a nuke for over 20 years. And the accusations come from the ones with the illegal nukes themselves!
Iran shouldn't have nukes, but starting a war—burning billions of dollars a day, killing kids and innocent civilians, and leveling bridges and universities—is objectively the worst possible way to prevent it.
The JCPOA under Obama actually did a solid job of constraining their nuclear development. That was the pragmatic approach, but Trump just unilaterally scrapped the deal. He doesn't have an actual strategy, maybe just "concepts of a plan".
This regime has been around for half a century. We supposedly destroyed their nuclear program last summer. And somehow their nuclear potential just became a war-worthy threat in February? Come on. Don’t tell me you actually believe that shit.
Unless we actually invade, all this war will do is demonstrate to Iran that obtaining nuclear weapons is an existential necessity for them, and kick the program into high gear. Oh, and provide them with plenty of funding for it due to their newfound ability to collect tolls for a vital shipping chokepoint.
> We supposedly destroyed their nuclear program last summer. And somehow their nuclear potential just became a war-worthy threat in February?
What news are you even reading? You are terribly misinformed or out of touch. Not all of it was destroyed. A lot of enriched uranium was saved. The IAEA still could not verify the stockpile's location, size, or composition due to denied access. Iran refused full inspections post-strikes.
The rest of your post is pure conjecture and nonsense.
How is this in any way a counter argument to the US bombing a school? That their own government would stoop to such lengths gives free reign to foreign governments?
The idea is that incurring a few hundred civilians deaths to liberate Iranians from a regime that slaughtered them by the thousands or tens of thousands is a net positive for human life. Of course this only works as a justification if the Iranians actually are liberated front their regime, which I don't think they will.
But the justification, if the liberation actually transpires, is sound. An order of magnitude more French and Dutch died at the hands of Allied bombing and shelling in 1944. I think most agree the the upside of being liberated from Germany makes the Allied landings a net positive, though.
But to reiterate, I really doubt the revolutionary guard is going to lose control of Iran.
Aside from the fact that the events you linked to have no connection whatsoever to why the US started attacking Iran, there is absolutely no reality or moral code in which "a government kills a couple hundred of its citizens" justifies another government on the other side of the world blowing up a hundred plus schoolchildren and other civilians.
> Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself.
It's looking like this is the exact type of magical thinking of the most useless "president" ever. Meanwhile in the real world, such things take hard work.
The counter argument is missing some justification. Is it reasonable to go killing people on the hope that something good will come out of it? Is there no less violent way to achieve those objectives? Do we really think that people will organize a toppling while they're being bombed without Internet access? Do we think they'll topple the current regime for one that is less antagonistic to Israel and the US after the bombings?
When the French helped us during the Revolutionary War, they didn't shore bombard the colonists' kids because it would have been bad and counterproductive.
At most there were a couple thousand casualties from violent riots that involved armed gangs (or sleeper cells if you want to go that route).
There were not "60,000" peaceful protestors executed by the government, as Trump claimed yesterday without evidence. That is murderous propaganda, blood libel intended to deflect from the actual mass murder of civilians by American forces e.g. the Minab school.
It was a narrative specifically designed to induce comments like yours.
* The people responsible for murdering ten thousand protesters are now dead.
* The IRGC's military capability is significantly degraded.
* Their nuclear program is likely set back even further. It's hard to get real information here but we should assume that supporting facilities were high on the target list.
That's not nothing. From a strict utilitarian perspective, it's probably "worth it". Which sucks, but I haven't heard a better plan.
i dont think those are nearly as clearcut as suggested.
some of the iranian side for events that resulted in a bunch of death have been killed... while also killing a bunch mkre iranians, but have the americans/israelis that armed the protestors into terrorists and incided them to violence been killed?
i think theres enough police, mossad, and cia folks left to do that again and again until the protestors are all gone.
similarly, its blatantly obvious for everyone that the US destoryed the iranian capabilities that dont matter. iran is still capable enough to seter both putting american ships in the strait, and boots on the ground, so that degradation is not significant. optimization without profiling.
from a strict utilitarian perspective, definitely not worth it. the costs were extraordinarily expensive and havent been fully paid yet, and the profits for the US is a worse position than they started it
theres some light benefits to the gulf and ukraine in that the gulf realizes that they can spend much less on defense by buying from ukraine, but that pales in comparison to the costs paid in destroyed oil infrastructure and interceptors that could have gone to ukraine
I used to attend elementary school on a military base. I didn't feel like a human shield at the time, then again I was more naive and had less life experience than I do now.
You weren’t a human shield. It would have been very easy for the US and Israel to not have blown up a school, the attack was intentional.
Notice they had 0 issues precisely striking the building housing Iranian leadership when this whole thing started. They didn’t “accidentally” hit the grocery store two blocks away.
So you think there was a conspiracy to target a school? Who do you think did it? Why? What was their goal?
I think either an intelligence failure, or a mistake or a miss is more likely. Maybe missiles don't always hit where they were meant to go. Especially if there is anti missile defences (which Iran is likely to have). Maybe Iran anti-air hit the school, or sent a US missile off course?
5 replies →
For what reason would they attack a single school? Some strikes being well some doesn't mean others can't be mistaken.
9 replies →
[flagged]
I'm...not seeing how the comment you're responding to "blames the victims."
5 replies →
Today on several news media were a story that people of Iran were called by the government and formed human shields at the bridges and power plants that Trump threatened to bomb if no deal reached by the deadline.
https://www.ms.now/news/iran-youths-protect-power-plants-sau...
Sounds like a blatant violation of all the conventions and a war crime.
It’s hard to imagine that international law actually intends to consider civilians hanging out as “human shields” at civilian sites to be a war crime.
4 replies →
https://youtu.be/u7J3_EX7rQk
I think this was done voluntarily as a demonstration of sacrifice and nationalism.
9 replies →
My wife is Iranian and I know many Iranian expats, and all my in-laws are in Iran.
This attack on the school comes up all the time as a talking point. And I will tell you exactly how most Iranians react: they find it weird that you’ll talk about this school, but you won’t talk about the thousands of protesters killed by the regime.
Yes. People die in war. It’s sad. But most Iranians will say “whether we go to war or not Iranians are being killed” and it’s better to fight for regime change than to just accept the status quo.
Imagine being against the American Revolution because some innocent civilians will get killed? Yes, people die in war, but if there’s a chance for something better than it’s definitely worth it!
Every Iranian I know thinks it’s worth it and they danced in the street when Khamenei was killed.
"This attack on the school comes up all the time as a talking point. And I will tell you exactly how most Iranians react: they find it weird that you’ll talk about this school, but you won’t talk about the thousands of protesters killed by the regime."
The US government is not in any way responsible for the murder of protesters in Iran. That is done entirely by the government in Iran.
The USA and Israel ARE responsible for the murder of the kids (and adults) in that school. If you are American or Israeli you can care about the murdered protesters, but it it not really your responsibility. The murdered kids are however.
I understand what you’re saying, but I think you’re missing the point of my comment.
People bring up the school as a way of discouraging American military bombing Iran. It’s a way of shaming Americans, as if we are bad, making us feel guilty for bombing. Right?
What I’m trying to say is that Iranians I’ve spoken to are happy that we are bombing the regime. From their perspective, they are already being killed. The regime is dangerous to them. Bombing the regime and possibly destroying the regime is worth the risk.
So don’t be so hard on yourself. Iranians want your help. People die in wars, there is always collateral damage, but sometimes war is just. Sometimes the ends do justify the means. That’s how the Iranians I’ve spoken to feel.
1 reply →
> Imagine being against the American Revolution because some innocent civilians will get killed?
What was so great about the American revolution anyway? It's not like it gave any average people the right to vote, and it arguably preserved slavery for an extra 30 years.
[flagged]
Because it seems nigh impossible to actually get the 18-27 crowd to actually go and vote. Doesn’t matter if their life sucks, they just can’t be bothered to go do it. Of course you’ll get people that try and deflect blame and say that “my vote doesn’t really change anything” but these people know it does change things and they still just stay at home on voting day.
tbh I think that vote would succeed, if one happened right now. his approval poll results are abysmally bad.
what do you think the vote would be, though? "we don't like him"? last I checked, change.org-petition-style voting didn't have much of an effect on country laws.
And some percent will say they deserved it
Too many are either disinterested in politics because it's ugly, or mad that their assigned candidate betrayed one of their values (e.g., genocide in Gaza). I think a lot of younger people just don't want to be bothered.
Being against genocide isn't a "value". It's not idealistic, or naive either.
It's a duty. Moral, and legal; domestic and international.
Drawing a hard red line at genocide is damn near the very least any human must demand from their leader; perhaps only exceeded by "don't threaten entire civilizations with nuclear weapons".
Same with prosecuting rapist insurrectionists, and going after billionaire's child-trafficking/murdering blackmail rings. These are not "nice to haves" - ya simply gotta do it.
If you're not "mad" when people fail to do these things, then are you really "interested in politics", or are you simply caught in some kind of us-vs-them death spiral?
A good chunk of America watch "news" crafted by right-wing billionaires and think he's doing a bang-up job.
Because another ~11% of Americans think the Democrats would be worse.
People don't seem really engaged in politics. They find it a frustrating waste of time because the news doesn't bother explaining anything to them, so they don't see the results of elections. They say both sides are the same. They don't take part in local elections. A mix of taught helplessness, learned helplessness, laziness, and the fact that if you're a white guy gas prices might affect you more than foreign wars and death squads
Both factions are filled with criminals that hate America (but LOVE Israel) and solely seek to exploit Americans as tax cows and organ donors. I take the third position: I'm a decline enjoyer and prepper.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Nukes are not really for actual use but for deterrence so likely no lives would have been lost. Israel has nukes and they don't use them unless somebody attacks them with nukes. Same with other countries. Ideally both Israel and Iran as well as North Korea, maybe also Pakistan and India should not have nukes. And even more ideal it would be if nobody had them but the cat's out of the bag already.
Iran has repeatedly stated their intent to use them.
3 replies →
India, The biggest democratic country should not have nukes but its ok for a bunch of colonizers and authoritarian state like china to have.
[flagged]
8 replies →
> we should have let Iran have nukes?
What part of this war has made Iran less likely to get a nuclear weapon?
There could have been a good war in Iran. A coalition of nations going in to secure the uranium. It would have been messy. But it would have had a clean objective.
As objective yes but whose lives would be spared for this objective? Messy is relative to policies. Aren't other ways to attain this objective other than through war? I really think there were attempts and progress in that direction.
> So we should have let Iran have nukes? How many lives would have been lost then?
Fewer, because we would've been deterred from attacking them. Unless we decided to risk nuclear war, I guess.
US doesn't have to engage for Iran to use nukes. But of course we should prevent that from becoming a realistic scenario?
1 reply →
If Israel can have them, yes. Ideally, neither Israel nor Iran would have them.
I thought Iran's nuclear capability was destroyed in the June 2025 bombings?
They were able to move and hide a lot of the enriched uranium ahead of those bombings. Not all of it was destroyed.
1 reply →
does iran even want nukes?
they have a religious law against making or using them, and theyve been sitting at "they could make a nuke within a week" for the past 20 years or more
it feels like people are falling for iran's bargaining chip - they want people to think they could make one, but not actually make one
There was zero evidence they were close to a nuke. In fact, they've been alleged to be weeks away from a nuke for over 20 years. And the accusations come from the ones with the illegal nukes themselves!
Why do we "let" Israel have nukes?
Iran shouldn't have nukes, but starting a war—burning billions of dollars a day, killing kids and innocent civilians, and leveling bridges and universities—is objectively the worst possible way to prevent it.
The JCPOA under Obama actually did a solid job of constraining their nuclear development. That was the pragmatic approach, but Trump just unilaterally scrapped the deal. He doesn't have an actual strategy, maybe just "concepts of a plan".
This regime has been around for half a century. We supposedly destroyed their nuclear program last summer. And somehow their nuclear potential just became a war-worthy threat in February? Come on. Don’t tell me you actually believe that shit.
Unless we actually invade, all this war will do is demonstrate to Iran that obtaining nuclear weapons is an existential necessity for them, and kick the program into high gear. Oh, and provide them with plenty of funding for it due to their newfound ability to collect tolls for a vital shipping chokepoint.
> We supposedly destroyed their nuclear program last summer. And somehow their nuclear potential just became a war-worthy threat in February?
What news are you even reading? You are terribly misinformed or out of touch. Not all of it was destroyed. A lot of enriched uranium was saved. The IAEA still could not verify the stockpile's location, size, or composition due to denied access. Iran refused full inspections post-strikes.
The rest of your post is pure conjecture and nonsense.
3 replies →
Evil dictator who killed millions of people in his lifetime is also now dead.
He was 86 and is now, unfortunately, a beloved martyr rather than the symbol of an old and decaying regime.
3 replies →
Replaced by his son.
2 replies →
This is the counter argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Iran_massacres
Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself.
How is this in any way a counter argument to the US bombing a school? That their own government would stoop to such lengths gives free reign to foreign governments?
The idea is that incurring a few hundred civilians deaths to liberate Iranians from a regime that slaughtered them by the thousands or tens of thousands is a net positive for human life. Of course this only works as a justification if the Iranians actually are liberated front their regime, which I don't think they will.
But the justification, if the liberation actually transpires, is sound. An order of magnitude more French and Dutch died at the hands of Allied bombing and shelling in 1944. I think most agree the the upside of being liberated from Germany makes the Allied landings a net positive, though.
But to reiterate, I really doubt the revolutionary guard is going to lose control of Iran.
10 replies →
[flagged]
11 replies →
[flagged]
2 replies →
The American commander in chief was, as of yesterday, vowing to end their entire civilization.
[flagged]
1 reply →
Aside from the fact that the events you linked to have no connection whatsoever to why the US started attacking Iran, there is absolutely no reality or moral code in which "a government kills a couple hundred of its citizens" justifies another government on the other side of the world blowing up a hundred plus schoolchildren and other civilians.
> Here's hoping the regime is destabilised enough to topple by itself.
It's looking like this is the exact type of magical thinking of the most useless "president" ever. Meanwhile in the real world, such things take hard work.
The counter argument is missing some justification. Is it reasonable to go killing people on the hope that something good will come out of it? Is there no less violent way to achieve those objectives? Do we really think that people will organize a toppling while they're being bombed without Internet access? Do we think they'll topple the current regime for one that is less antagonistic to Israel and the US after the bombings?
> This is the counter argument
When the French helped us during the Revolutionary War, they didn't shore bombard the colonists' kids because it would have been bad and counterproductive.
This is black propaganda, not a counterargument.
At most there were a couple thousand casualties from violent riots that involved armed gangs (or sleeper cells if you want to go that route).
There were not "60,000" peaceful protestors executed by the government, as Trump claimed yesterday without evidence. That is murderous propaganda, blood libel intended to deflect from the actual mass murder of civilians by American forces e.g. the Minab school.
It was a narrative specifically designed to induce comments like yours.
i dont imagine spending a bunch on the military and oil is nearly enough to topple the US government.
what case does it make that the constitution needs to be abandoned?
> for basically nothing
* The people responsible for murdering ten thousand protesters are now dead.
* The IRGC's military capability is significantly degraded.
* Their nuclear program is likely set back even further. It's hard to get real information here but we should assume that supporting facilities were high on the target list.
That's not nothing. From a strict utilitarian perspective, it's probably "worth it". Which sucks, but I haven't heard a better plan.
i dont think those are nearly as clearcut as suggested.
some of the iranian side for events that resulted in a bunch of death have been killed... while also killing a bunch mkre iranians, but have the americans/israelis that armed the protestors into terrorists and incided them to violence been killed?
i think theres enough police, mossad, and cia folks left to do that again and again until the protestors are all gone.
similarly, its blatantly obvious for everyone that the US destoryed the iranian capabilities that dont matter. iran is still capable enough to seter both putting american ships in the strait, and boots on the ground, so that degradation is not significant. optimization without profiling.
from a strict utilitarian perspective, definitely not worth it. the costs were extraordinarily expensive and havent been fully paid yet, and the profits for the US is a worse position than they started it
theres some light benefits to the gulf and ukraine in that the gulf realizes that they can spend much less on defense by buying from ukraine, but that pales in comparison to the costs paid in destroyed oil infrastructure and interceptors that could have gone to ukraine