| |
| ▲ | n2j3 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We are expecting Iran to honour an International Convention when US and Israel have squarely shat on every convention's face, so to speak. | | |
| ▲ | bz_bz_bz 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The person you’re replying to is very explicitly not expecting them to honor the International Convention… | | |
| ▲ | n2j3 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The funny thing is that I am, even if that puts me in the naive minority in this thread. | | |
| ▲ | cestith 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | As a matter of fact, if Iran comes out of the war having not committed war crimes they’ll have a huge worldwide moral and public image victory over the United States and Israel. | | |
| ▲ | losvedir 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How am I reading this? Wasn't the regime mowing down tens of thousands of its own citizens prior to this war? I mean, not a "war" crime, I guess, but it seems ludicrous to give them any "moral victories". | |
| ▲ | unyttigfjelltol 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Iran has for nearly fifty years pursued unilateral hostilities against the US and Israel, including funding numerous terrorist groups and militias to wage war on them. It can’t negotiate its way out of this quagmire because the IRGC’s core ideology and mission is hatred (and hostage-taking). In addition to waging continuous offensive militia operations, it’s been cultivating a conventional and nuclear offensive option which it most definitely would use if it had it, because again, the IRGC’s reason for existence is to “resist” Israel and the US, by which they mean obliterate those nations. What Trump recently has been saying about Iran is exactly what Iran has been saying for decades about the US and Israel. One of those militias went all Leroy Jenkins in 2023 and prematurely initiated the current hot war, which Iran is losing. In frustration, Iran has embarked on a terror campaign of bombing neutral neighbors to punish them for … friendly diplomacy with the US I guess, and bombing civilians in Israel. And annexing an international waterway. What Trump and folks on this board don’t seem to realize is that war with Iran is more like fighting a bunch of lawyers. You hurt them kinetically and they make you feel like you hurt yourself, get all confused. They slaughter 35k of their own people and shut off the Internet; the US mixes up the boundaries of an IRGC naval base in a much more constrained horror and the UN starts strutting around. Narratives do matter for winning wars and between Trump derangement syndrome and the IRGC’s natural cleverness at permanent victimhood, it’s the narrative that’s at risk in a war between great nations that, unfortunately, sadly has been perfectly inevitable for decades. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not unilateral, the US have been deeply involved in Iran since the 50´s and the overthrow of the democratic government in order to allow the US companies to continue to steal Iran's oil. Then of course they had to deal with Irak who invaded them using US weapons and intel. Including use of sarin gas, thanks to US intel. The argument about democracy in Iran is hypocritical given that neither Trump or Israelis care about it at all. They just want weak client States. The Iranians didn't wake up hating the USA one day and a little techouva would be healthy if we want this conflict to end. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you're saying, as soon as a party does something serious against you, say taking your embassy staff hostage (just to select a random thing one might do), then ANY future and continued hostilities, no matter how immoral the means used, are justified, even 50+ years later? I mean, you're singing the praises of long-term revenge. Oh and the 1979 revolution was a socialist revolution that even had support from the KGB. So that's great. Then, of course, anything the US does against Iran's islamist regime is justified according to you! Excellent news, that. Strange, I got a different impression from your tone. P.S. you are now supposed to say that it merely means "you understand why" they act like this, not if it's justified. Even though you absolutely won't understand the US killing a few hundred Iranians in revenge. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm saying that violence between the two countries wasn't unilateral and that the US have a long history of aggression against Iran, culminating now. My post is quite clear. Ending a cycle of violence also requires to accept where you did wrong (i.e "techouva"). The US have been bombing the world since 1943, with for the most part, little effect aside on the suffering of the civilians under fire. The only intelligent move to stop the cycle of violence with Iran was the nuclear deal framework made by Obama. It was of course was terminated by Trump, which worked very well as the current war shows. Bombing Iran during negociations, killing their supreme leader and negociators, commiting war crimes, won't clearly solve anything. When I read such post, I feel that many people supporting the war in the US just have a sadistic instinct that needs to be expressed, whatever the consequences. Hurting (or, as the Trump aides say "fucking") other people won't fix the emptiness of your lives. | | |
| ▲ | unyttigfjelltol 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Trump’s bargaining position has been: stop raising foreign armies to attack Israel; stop trying to sneak into the nuclear club, because we know what you’re going to do. Translated to human terms: stop threatening the US and its allies. The US position is not sadism, it’s how every nation except Iran tolerates one another, live and let live. Russia and the US— they competed strongly with one another during the Cold War but generally respected red lines. Russia withdrew its kinetic threat from Cuba, the US knew circa 1998 that expanding NATO through the old Warsaw Pact would make no friends in Moscow. Strong, rules-based brinksmanship all the way around. Iran is just about ideological extremism. Sometimes there are rules, or used to be, but the IRGC signed up a bunch of unprofessional clowns to wage total war on its behalf and, at core, talks like “mutually assured destruction” would be a total “win”, provided Israel was on the other side. If either superpower exposed that kind of philosophy in the Cold War can you imagine the calamity? It’s inherently destabilizing. | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 42 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Trump's position is to do what the Israelis ask him. Nothing else. Iran doesn't threaten the US. On the other hand, the US has multiple times helped Iran's enemies (Irak) commit atrocities[0] or enforced a coup to continue stealing its oil. As stated by Tulsi Gabbard, there was no imminent threat to the US before the war. Few things: - Please don't talk about “rules-based brinksmanship” when the US commits bombing and decapitation strikes during negotiations. Or when they send real estate developers to discuss nuclear programs[1]. - Iran had agreed to limit its enrichment and allow inspectors in to verify it. Of course, it was too much for Israelis who didn't want another competing power in the region. The end of the agreement led Iran to restart enriching its uranium at higher rates, having the (expected) complete opposite effect than what was wanted. Who's the clown here? Trump. - The US' “ally”, Israel, currently has a far-right religious Zionist government that ticks all the boxes for ideological extremism. It also has a MAD doctrine regarding its illegal nukes. [2] - Hezbollah was born after the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. While it was structured by Iran, its ranks are made of Lebanese citizens. Many non-Shia Lebanese will agree that it's the main defense against the invasion of their country, which is desired by the Zionist right to achieve their “greater Israel” project[3]. While Hezbollah is problematic now, its removal should be accompanied by a commitment by Israel not to invade its neighbors and to stop the illegal colonization of the West Bank. In general, it's a recurrent strategy by Israel: favor frictions, violence, and fuel the most extremist of your opponents, to justify retaliation, and then allow you to extend your position. For instance, Israel was helping Gulf States to fund Hamas before the recent war started.[4] The US is an accomplice, as Israeli money heavily funds its politicians. It's not an ally. [0]: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/cia-files-prove-america-... [1]: https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2026-03-11/us-negotiators-w... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option [3]: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/2/26/what-is-greater-isr... [4]: https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/2020-02-24/ty-artic... |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | watwut 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | They already targetted civilian infrastructure, so they already commited war crime. They also threatened to attack universities wh8ch is war crime on itself (after attack on their universities). |
| |
| ▲ | hackable_sand 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's not naive to have adult expectations for adults |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nemomarx 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Prisoner exchanges are a pretty strong motivator for any group, even hardline ones. If the Taliban was up for exchanges I think the IRGC is pretty likely to want to keep prisoners for that too. | | |
| ▲ | craftkiller 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Does the US have any prisoners to exchange? Wouldn't we need boots-on-the-ground to capture enemy combatants? | | |
| ▲ | nemomarx 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Israel probably has some prisoners that Iran might want released, is my thinking? |
| |
| ▲ | mothballed 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I would note ISIS put out some high res, professionally edited video of burning a (Jordanian?) pilot to death while inside a cage. Quite savage, but the propaganda effect is more profound than about anything else I've seen. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, after that video it was clear that Daesh and everyone in their little caliphate would be hunted down. And it was, they were. They were attacked everywhere they tried to return to. From minor girls returning to the Netherlands to 45 year old men (trying to) return to South Africa, all were persecuted, and that one video had a lot to do with that happening. After that video, even muslim nations started hunting these people. | | |
| ▲ | potatototoo99 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | And yet, they are still around, made famous and split into separate groups, still actively fighting on multiple fronts all over Africa. And if the Iranian government falls for sure they will be coming back with a vengeance in the area. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tenthirtyam 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They're going back to the stone age, remember? The Geneva convention wasn't around then AFAICR. | |
| ▲ | nprz 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What has Iran done to show it would not uphold Geneva conventions? | | |
| ▲ | hajile 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | When they struck desalination plants in Bahrain would be an easy example. You can say that they are retaliatory strikes, but they are certainly against the Geneva Conventions. Iran's use of cluster munitions to attack swaths of Israeli cities is also against the Geneva Convention (though I'd again point out that we started hitting civilian targets in Iran first). Both sides have violated the conventions, but the US and Israel have violated them to a much greater degree (especially Israel and all their attacks on Lebanese civilians not to mention razing Gaza). |
| |
| ▲ | thinkingtoilet 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The US doesn't hold itself to the conventions, why should the country it started a war of aggression with? | | |
| ▲ | rbanffy 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you throw away your principles because you are fighting an unprincipled enemy, you are no better than them. | | |
| ▲ | kelnos 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | That's a lovely thing to say, but if your existence is being threatened by an aggressor, I wouldn't blame you for throwing out the rulebook. In my view, if someone invades your territory and starts attacking you, you have no obligation to follow any sort of "principles" or "rules" when it comes to how you fight back. Anything you need to do to the attackers in order to defend yourself and your people is, by definition, morally defensible. (Do note that I said "need". Doing arbitrary messed-up things that don't actually further the goal of driving back the attackers is not ok.) | | |
| ▲ | decimalenough 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | FWIW, during the Iran-Iraq war (where Iraq invaded Iran), Iran used a bunch of pretty questionable tactics like suicide squads of child soldiers. |
| |
| ▲ | saimiam 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It’s such a shock to the system to realise that “unprincipled enemy” referenced here is the US. | |
| ▲ | thinkingtoilet 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is no if. We've already done that. So yes, we are no better than them. So answer the question. Why would Iran follow conventions it's enemy that started a war of aggression is not following? | | |
| ▲ | ofrzeta 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Becaus two wrongs don't make right. If they are smart they will stick to the convention. |
|
| |
| ▲ | epolanski 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | America has never played by the rules. US exceptionalism is a prominent feature of every republican and democratic president since decades. It's sad, because if US did, and led by example, it could've pulled serious weight internationally on plenty of matters. Instead it can only do so by economic or military leverage, which, at the end of the day is not enough of a leverage to avoid confrontation. |
| |
| ▲ | Tadpole9181 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Especially after the double-tap on civilians and first responders the US just did on that bridge. Or the threat for no quarters from the secretary of defense. Or the threats to destroy critical civilian infrastructure for water or power. | | | |
| ▲ | surgical_fire 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maybe Iran is more civilized than the Barbarians attacking them. We have to wait and see if Iran is fighting a woke war. | |
| ▲ | rbanffy 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Hegseth explicitly ordered to give the enemy “no quarter”. | |
| ▲ | tjpnz 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Why wouldn't they? | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | First: count the responses to my thread of people suggesting Iran cannot/should not be held to the Geneva convention: 4,5 (I'm counting the Hegseth comment as 0.5) The point is there are a great deal of people, even in the US, who advocate that it is unreasonable to hold people fighting the west in general and US in particular to the Geneva conventions. I don't know where this idea comes from, because morally it is of course indefensible, but there you go. I would expect the number to be bigger in Iran. I would expect the number among IRGC extremists to be even higher than in Iran in general. Second: war crimes have 2 interpretations. First as violations of the Rome treaty which require that the state where the warcrimes happen has signed the Rome treaty. Iran hasn't. The second interpretation of warcrimes is that they are violations of the Geneva conventions, and the reaction would be that the UN security council intervenes. Well, the UNSC has preemptively declared they will not hold Iran to account for warcrimes (to be exact: France, Russia and China have declared they will veto). So at minimum you can say that Iranian warcrimes will not have any "official" consequences. The world and the UN have decided that warcrimes "don't count". As in there will not be any consequences unless the government of the country where they happened implements those consequences. Third: Iran has already kidnapped a US civilian (a reporter, Shelly Kittleson) and are holding her hostage. This is already a violation of the Geneva convention. They have also kidnapped hundreds of foreign nationals of other nations and are also holding them for ransom, which is also a violation of human rights, ie. a warcrime. So those are my three reasons Iran won't hold itself to human rights standards. | | |
| ▲ | watwut 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | France vetoed proposal about opening the straight by force. France and Europe in general dont want to dragged into this war. Also, I dont see UN punishing Israel or American war crimes either ... so it makes sense to not apply "whatever goes" standard to aggressors and different one to the defender. | |
| ▲ | hvb2 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Iran has already kidnapped a US civilian (a reporter, Shelly Kittleson) and are holding her hostage. Expect there to be a lot of operatives of the US in Iran. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it wouldn't be the first time a CIA or something operative is caught and this is the cover. In war the first victim is always the truth | |
| ▲ | sokitsip 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Iranians have dignity. Something American top brass doesn’t even know the meaning of. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | You mean the army shooting 40.000 protestors just 2 months ago including 1000+ children, then executed a child that won an international wrestling competition, now accusing everyone else of warcrimes? I think I'll need some reeducation on this concept of "dignity" you speak. Could you explain further? | | |
| ▲ | Saline9515 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So how is bombing schools, dessalination plants and hospitals helping Iranians exactly? If that's what the US is really looking for? | |
| ▲ | sokitsip 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Right. Go watch CNN. “Back to the Stone Age” will surely save so many of the lives spared. Come on US media tell us the truth, you want to save people by killing them or to just kill them? | |
| ▲ | g8oz 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | None of those numbers are verifiable. The opposition has every incentive to lie. And let's not forget there was a lot of armed agitators amongst those protesters. Mike Huckabee let the cat out of the bag with a tweet boasting of how a mossad agent walks beside every protester. | | |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | RobotToaster 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Reprisals are legally permitted to a limited extent if you're a victim of war crimes, as Iran is. |
|
|
