I clicked through to the source for Amnesty International scrutinizing the claims and that likely 3000 people have died and it reads:
> On 17 January, in a public speech, Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, said “thousands of people” were killed. Since then, on 21January, Iran’s Supreme Council of National Security issued a statement that 3,117 people were killed during the uprising. However, on 16 January 2026, the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, Mai Sato, said in a media interview that at least 5,000 people had been killed, noting that according to information she received from medical sources, the death toll might be as high as 20,000
The only way for someone to read that as “likely 3000 people have died” is if one takes the Iranian numbers as fact. For those whose experience is that authoritarian states crushing protests provide accurate numbers this might be somewhat convincing. To say nothing of the fact that this is a stupendous number of people.
I found it convincing of the opposite: that this is not a neutral summary of the context.
> The US simply can't operate there. Israel can. Israel is made up of many ethnic groups, including people who are ethnically Persian and speak perfect Farsi.
The US has hundreds of thousands of ethnic Iranian immigrants, not sure where you got the idea that it's not made up of many ethnic groups.
> It seems likely that at least 3000 died but were these protestors brutally crushed by the government or a the government quashing a foreign-backed uprising? We've established the foreign powers armed some of these groups;
I am myself someone who rabidly hates US imperialism but when you use US imperialism to justify slaughtering thousands of civilians you lose all credibility and will not be able to convince anyone who disagrees with you of anything, no matter how many sources you link. Even if the US instigated the protests, and even if it were "only" 3000 dead, killing 3000 protestors is Very Bad and you don't need to go out of your way to justify it. It is possible for both US imperialism to be bad and for an authoritarian religious regime killing innocent people to be bad. One's thinking should be more nuanced than a struct with a single bool.
I have little doubt the US armed Kurds to add to Iran's woes, however
> Trump openly admiited it [2].
isn't a credible source, as the linked article admits:
Iran analyst Neil Quilliam of the United Kingdom’s Chatham House think tank, told Al Jazeera that it’s hard to assign much weight to Trump’s statements because of the claims and counterclaims often coming from him and his administration.
The current POTUS contradicts himself from one day to the next and frequently waffles for hours spouting factually incorrect material.
So in court there's the concept of hearsay, which generally makes certain statements inadmissble as evidence. The classic example is me testifying "Alice said Bob told her he did it".
One of the exceptions to hearsay is called the admission against interest. That means that if you say something that hurts your case or hurts you in some other way (eg implicating you in a crime) then you will generally be allowed to testify to that.
So this isn't a court of law obviously but I still find this analogy useful. Yes, Trump says some crazy stuff and even openly lies. All of that's true. But that doesn't mean you should ignore everything he says. What he says can be corroborated (or contradicted) but it also carries weight if it's an admission against interest.
In this case, Trump claiming to have armed "protesters" is absolutely an admission against interest. It undercuts American propaganda that the Iranian regime brutally crushed an organic protest by ordinary citizens. As such, at least for me, the statement carries more weight. You can still look at the statement and see if other evidence contradicts or suports it of course.
Trump is still a 100% unreliable witness to almost anything, more so in recent years as he's cognitively wobbling all over the clock.
Again, I'm not opposed to your thesis here, just pointing out Trump's words count for nothing; he's a frequent traveller on the path of "admissions against interest" - arming rebels, shooting people in Times Square, war crimes on the open seas, staring directly into the sun .. he's down for all of that and it seemingly slides right off.
None of your points changes anything: The Iranian government and the IRGC are still a despicable, oppressive, and brutal regime, holding both the People of Iran hostage in their own country, and also coordinating violence against Israel in the entire Middle East.
the logistics of killing 30000 people in 2 days is absurd. visit the killing fields in cambodia to understand what a butchering of this magnitude would entail.
their lies dont even pass the sniff test.
but still this comment gets downvoted because the whole internet is flooded with israeli bots to manufacture consent for this bs
in my view israel needs to be sanctioned until it gives up its nuclear weapons. it is a shame for humanity that this pariah apartheid state is allowed to exist, stoke conflicts everywhere and murder people in neighboring countries
"the logistics of killing 30000 people in 2 days is absurd. "
The Nazis managed to murder 35000 people within 2 days at Babiy Yar, in one single region of Ukraine, with no prepared specialized infrastructure, just bussing them to a ravine and shooting them.
Back then Kiev region had about 2 million people. The entire Iran has 90 million, 45 times more.
> The commander of the Einsatzkommando reported two days later:
> > The difficulties resulting from such a large scale action—in particular concerning the seizure—were overcome in Kiev by requesting the Jewish population through wall posters to move. Although only a participation of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 Jews had been expected at first, more than 30,000 Jews arrived who, until the very moment of their execution, still believed in their resettlement, thanks to an extremely clever organization.
"no prepared specialized infrastructure, just bussing them to a ravine and shooting them" ... yet "extremely clever organization", a special order posted 3 days prior, which the victims followed. How do you envision such a scenario playing out in Iran?
And why not simply show the evidence? Whoever makes the claim, unless they're lying, is basing the claim on something. So where is it?
I clicked through to the source for Amnesty International scrutinizing the claims and that likely 3000 people have died and it reads:
> On 17 January, in a public speech, Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, said “thousands of people” were killed. Since then, on 21January, Iran’s Supreme Council of National Security issued a statement that 3,117 people were killed during the uprising. However, on 16 January 2026, the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, Mai Sato, said in a media interview that at least 5,000 people had been killed, noting that according to information she received from medical sources, the death toll might be as high as 20,000
The only way for someone to read that as “likely 3000 people have died” is if one takes the Iranian numbers as fact. For those whose experience is that authoritarian states crushing protests provide accurate numbers this might be somewhat convincing. To say nothing of the fact that this is a stupendous number of people.
I found it convincing of the opposite: that this is not a neutral summary of the context.
> this is not a neutral summary of the context
Where do you prefer to get neutral summaries from?
> The US simply can't operate there. Israel can. Israel is made up of many ethnic groups, including people who are ethnically Persian and speak perfect Farsi.
The US has hundreds of thousands of ethnic Iranian immigrants, not sure where you got the idea that it's not made up of many ethnic groups.
> It seems likely that at least 3000 died but were these protestors brutally crushed by the government or a the government quashing a foreign-backed uprising? We've established the foreign powers armed some of these groups;
I am myself someone who rabidly hates US imperialism but when you use US imperialism to justify slaughtering thousands of civilians you lose all credibility and will not be able to convince anyone who disagrees with you of anything, no matter how many sources you link. Even if the US instigated the protests, and even if it were "only" 3000 dead, killing 3000 protestors is Very Bad and you don't need to go out of your way to justify it. It is possible for both US imperialism to be bad and for an authoritarian religious regime killing innocent people to be bad. One's thinking should be more nuanced than a struct with a single bool.
Also to point out that the U.S actively censors us too. It blocks Iranian government websites, and a whole list of sites that supports it.
I have little doubt the US armed Kurds to add to Iran's woes, however
> Trump openly admiited it [2].
isn't a credible source, as the linked article admits:
The current POTUS contradicts himself from one day to the next and frequently waffles for hours spouting factually incorrect material.
So in court there's the concept of hearsay, which generally makes certain statements inadmissble as evidence. The classic example is me testifying "Alice said Bob told her he did it".
One of the exceptions to hearsay is called the admission against interest. That means that if you say something that hurts your case or hurts you in some other way (eg implicating you in a crime) then you will generally be allowed to testify to that.
So this isn't a court of law obviously but I still find this analogy useful. Yes, Trump says some crazy stuff and even openly lies. All of that's true. But that doesn't mean you should ignore everything he says. What he says can be corroborated (or contradicted) but it also carries weight if it's an admission against interest.
In this case, Trump claiming to have armed "protesters" is absolutely an admission against interest. It undercuts American propaganda that the Iranian regime brutally crushed an organic protest by ordinary citizens. As such, at least for me, the statement carries more weight. You can still look at the statement and see if other evidence contradicts or suports it of course.
Sure. Understood.
Makes sense for any normal person.
Trump is still a 100% unreliable witness to almost anything, more so in recent years as he's cognitively wobbling all over the clock.
Again, I'm not opposed to your thesis here, just pointing out Trump's words count for nothing; he's a frequent traveller on the path of "admissions against interest" - arming rebels, shooting people in Times Square, war crimes on the open seas, staring directly into the sun .. he's down for all of that and it seemingly slides right off.
None of your points changes anything: The Iranian government and the IRGC are still a despicable, oppressive, and brutal regime, holding both the People of Iran hostage in their own country, and also coordinating violence against Israel in the entire Middle East.
[flagged]
the logistics of killing 30000 people in 2 days is absurd. visit the killing fields in cambodia to understand what a butchering of this magnitude would entail.
their lies dont even pass the sniff test.
but still this comment gets downvoted because the whole internet is flooded with israeli bots to manufacture consent for this bs
in my view israel needs to be sanctioned until it gives up its nuclear weapons. it is a shame for humanity that this pariah apartheid state is allowed to exist, stoke conflicts everywhere and murder people in neighboring countries
"the logistics of killing 30000 people in 2 days is absurd. "
The Nazis managed to murder 35000 people within 2 days at Babiy Yar, in one single region of Ukraine, with no prepared specialized infrastructure, just bussing them to a ravine and shooting them.
Back then Kiev region had about 2 million people. The entire Iran has 90 million, 45 times more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar
> The commander of the Einsatzkommando reported two days later:
> > The difficulties resulting from such a large scale action—in particular concerning the seizure—were overcome in Kiev by requesting the Jewish population through wall posters to move. Although only a participation of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 Jews had been expected at first, more than 30,000 Jews arrived who, until the very moment of their execution, still believed in their resettlement, thanks to an extremely clever organization.
"no prepared specialized infrastructure, just bussing them to a ravine and shooting them" ... yet "extremely clever organization", a special order posted 3 days prior, which the victims followed. How do you envision such a scenario playing out in Iran?
And why not simply show the evidence? Whoever makes the claim, unless they're lying, is basing the claim on something. So where is it?
1 reply →