There is no good guy in this war.
Frankly, there is rarely a good guy in any war.
837
Mikkel655 days ago
+511
There's Ukraine
511
DaSemicolon5 days ago
+170
Inb4 Ruzzia copers come in here
170
mschuster915 days ago
+7
Nah they don’t dare step foot in here
7
Aurorion5 days ago
+74
The bad guys are the ones who start the war.
Ukraine didn't.
74
-r4zi3l-5 days ago
+115
I'd rephrase: the bad guys are who attack without provocation. Iran attacked countries that didn't attack them. Ukraine wouldn't be a good guy if they decided to bomb Poland.
115
oopsallhuckleberries5 days ago
+27
Last time I checked, Poland wasn't being used as a staging by Russia to attack Ukraine. Gulf nations air fields and ports are being used by the US to attack Iran.
A better analogy would be, "Ukraine wouldn't be a good guy if they decided to bomb Belarus." Since Belarus was used as a staging ground to invade Ukraine, Russia has launched long range attacks from their territory, and they regularly use their air space to send drones/missiles into western Ukraine. And honestly, if Ukraine bombed Belarus, most people would completely understand based on what they allowed their country to be used for. If Belarus hadn't allowed Russia to use their territory, then there would have been no Bucha massacre, just like the gulf nations hadn't allowed the US to use its territory, that girls school likely wouldn't have been bombed.
27
lifesanrpg5 days ago
+3
Well when most of the countries around you are actively arming themselves and protecting themselves, it’s likely because you’re the bad guy.
3
oopsallhuckleberries4 days ago
+9
You can literally say that about any nation and you also completely ignore my point. Most nations have a military budget, a standing military, and they regularly spend to update/upgrade their weapons/munitions. Does that make every country's neighbor a bad guy because every country spends on their military? Of course not.
9
Wide-Attorney56335 days ago
+38
Yes, however there are some guys who are worst than others.
38
G00b3rb0y5 days ago
+34
Uhhh Ukraine?
34
LowEmergencyCaptain5 days ago
+39
Slava Ukraine.
39
TeamLaw5 days ago
+129
No one needs to be the good guy when the bad guy sponsors terrorists.
129
jisookenobi24165 days ago
+75
Yeah uh…pretty sure that doesn’t just go for one side :P
75
HKEY_LOVE_MACHINE5 days ago
+19
Actually, you do.
When fighting enemy forces committing war crimes, you still need to minimize the amount and frequency of war crimes you are committing, to not become like your enemies.
If the morality of your society and nation crumbles and disappears at the first challenging situation, it is worthless: when your morality was needed the most, it disappeared.
This is like the US forces facing the NVA/Vietcong forces committing perfidy and massacring entire villages (for daring to cooperate or tolerate US forces) - then doing that themselves by massacring any village suspected of cooperating or tolerating VC/NVA forces.
It doesn't provide any proper tactical advantages (the US still lost), while it liquidates any moral and legitimacy advantage you may have got at that point, greatly reducing the cooperation of the rest of the population.
Another example would be WW2: the Allies forces on the West were known for committing much less atrocities to prisoners than the Soviet forces. This resulted in a lot more Axis forces surrendering to western Allies than on the Eastern Front, saving countless american and british lives.
It also allowed western societies to grow into welfare-state societies valuing life and individual rights, resulting in a massive economic boom and the growth of the middle-class. On the Soviet side, the mass atrocities on prisoners and civilians could only be followed by authoritarian regimes crushing any sign of liberty and individual rights: from the secret services disappearing people to tanks rolling in to crush any popular uprising.
So even if it is foolish and immature to look for any "good" guys in a war, this doesn't mean you should commit every atrocity possible as soon as your adversaries are certified criminals.
19
yonedaneda5 days ago
+13
> the Allies forces on the West were known for committing much less atrocities to prisoners than the Soviet forces.
This is true, but it's also the case that allied forces deliberately targetted residential neighborhoods in both Germany and Japan killing around one million civilians in both countries. And this strategy was *successful* in pressuring the defeat and surrender of both nations. One of the problems with moralizing about war online is that it neglects the unfortunate fact that these kinds of attrocities are often successful, which is the entire reason they're routinely committed in war. What winds up actually happening is that people just gloss over civilian attacks for the side they sympathize with, and highlight them for the side that they don't. It's doubly useless in that is also ignores that in wars for survival, generally the only thing you get to decide is whether your civilians or their civilians die, and your own civilians (i.e. voters) are not going to choose leaders who get them killed them to make a moral stand.
13
Old_Ladies5 days ago
+7
Bombing German civilians did not whatsoever quicken the end of the war. It was not successful in fact it had the opposite effect. It hardens your enemy resolve to fight you. Germany only surrendered after Hitler killed himself and Berlin was pretty much completely taken and most of Germany also.
Japan was a different case. The US killed more civilians in bombing Japanese cities than the 2 atom bombs did. Japan did not surrender when hundreds of thousands of their citizens were being firebombed even though Japan was losing in every sector of the war. Japan only surrendered because they faced a new kind of weapon that destroys cities and they didn't know how many the US had. Japan was hoping to surrender through Soviet mediation but shortly before the US dropped the 2 atom bombs the Soviets invaded Manchuria killing or capturing about 700,000 Japanese, Manchukuo and Mengjiang troops in less than a month. Japan already had most of their cities destroyed by the US firebombings and the island nation was blockaded by the US causing severe food and resource shortages yet they still did not surrender till 2 atomic bombs were dropped on them. Japanese leadership was divided on surrendering but Hirohito intervened because he feared the annihilation of the nation if they didn't surrender.
So no Japan and Germany did not surrender because of civilian bombings.
7
yonedaneda5 days ago
+12
> It was not successful in fact it had the opposite effect. It hardens your enemy resolve to fight you.
Resolve doesn't matter when you have no economy and no infrastructure. Wars cost money, and when large sectors of your civilian economy cease to function, it severely impairs your ability to fight a war.
> Japan was a different case. The US killed more civilians in bombing Japanese cities than the 2 atom bombs did. Japan did not surrender when hundreds of thousands of their citizens were being firebombed even though Japan was losing in every sector of the war.
Both the prime minister and nearly every single military official cited the firebombing campaigns as a major factor in motivating the surrender.
> So no Japan and Germany did not surrender because of civilian bombings.
Japan did; but in any case the purpose of the attacks is not only to directly force surrender, but to damage the economy and infrastructure of a hostile nation to the extent that they can no longer meaningfully fight a war.
12
Feliz_Desdichado5 days ago
+5
Let's check oh look there's a ["united states and state sponsored terrorism"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponsored_terrorism) and a ["iran and state sponsored terrorism"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism)
So who's the bad guy in this case?
5
EcstaticBerry12205 days ago
+48
Erm I think the family run dictatorship that murdered 20000 of its civilians for protesting is worse
48
ZuAusHierDa5 days ago
+13
The pope, according to Trump.
13
therealallpro5 days ago
+14
Funny how I heard for weeks how horrible the US was for the school bombing but now it’s well “ you know both sides”
14
BrokenManOfSamarkand5 days ago
+16
The U.S. accidentally bombing that school (which was horrible) was pretty much all a certain section needed to gloss over the regime gunning down possibly 100x the number of victims intentionally. There were reports of the gunmen tracking down protesters they wounded in hospitals and killing them there.
16
KenUsimi5 days ago
+468
Wait wait wait, you’re telling me the murderous zealots who execute teenagers for disagreeing with them are also war criminals?!
Hold on a sec, I think I might need to sit down, this is just so unexpected. I’m sure there must be some mistake, surely the kind and nuturing souls of the IRGC would never do something so horrible as that, they only slaughter their own innocent civilians!
468
Schmarsten13065 days ago
+109
Yeah wasn't it super obvious from day 1 they just try to deal as much damage to the area as they can? Dragging the whole region down, crippling civilian infrastructure while impacting oil supplies worldwide is the only way for them not to be completely isolated with Israel and the us.
How is anyone surprised by this?
109
J_NonServiam4 days ago
+4
I'm just happy they either did not possess nukes or weren't dumb enough to try to use one in that whole "show of force" on the region. Once that cat is out of the bag, things get real nasty real fast.
4
darkshark214 days ago
+5
If Iran had nukes, there would be no war.
Same with Ukraine.
5
-r4zi3l-5 days ago
+16
The countries they attacked, bar one, are all kind of surprised. Else they would've all pitched in and slapped Iran together. This situation would be very different if every country Iran hit with a missile/rocket attacked full scale since day one.
16
InoreSantaTeresa5 days ago
+35
Yeah, i dont get it, how the f*** is this news a gotcha moment? Crazy regime killing people left and right
35
therealallpro5 days ago
+28
Sarcasm won’t work on this app because ppl were honest to god saying our allies in the Middle East were going to leave us for Iran
28
Impressive-Weird-9085 days ago
+22
Can’t tell if those people are bots or just listnookors who get their world political news from scrolling 15 second video clips.
22
Polytechnika5 days ago
+70
They sponsor terrorist groups all over the region. Targeting civilians is their forte.
70
K0TEM5 days ago
+107
The largest exporter of terror in the middle east targeted civilians while being at war?
Surprise surprise
107
ChineseCracker5 days ago
+2
This is a CIA talking point, just so you know.
Have you never noticed that everybody uses the same "the biggest state sponsor of terror" phrase verbatim? nobody ever talks about what it means.
What do you think it means?
- The biggest amount of money spent on terrorism? (no, that's the US)
- The most amount of people converted to their cause? (nobody has converted more people in the post ww2-era than the US propaganda machine. Especially when you consider the endless list of coups the US have supported)
- The most amount of people killed via the terror that they're sponsoring? (that's also undeniably the US)
The CIA made that claim a while ago without ever without ever revealing the methodology they used to come to that conclusion. it's just a completely made up propaganda statement.
2
NoVax-Djocovid5 days ago
+887
Interesting to see how the pro Iran bots handle this
887
FeistyGate87845 days ago
+236
Iran sucks. Still don’t want to be in this war.
236
andruszko5 days ago
+488
"Well the US attacked first so it's their fault" is the typical response.
488
Intrepid_Egg_77225 days ago
+302
"Iran is employing a brilliant, never before seen strategy of attacking civilian ships and infrastructure which is their right because the US attacked them. So Iran gets to bomb Indian vessels and it's not economic terrorism, it's a tactical genius move that will defeat the US empire."
302
Middle-Accountant-495 days ago
+118
Of course it's economic terrorism.
Its just there aren't really morals in war. Legitimate targets, and all that jazz is just c*** people tell themselves to feel better.
Their goal is to punish american allies economically. Just like it was the IRA's goal to cause economic damage to the british state. Its a classic underdog tactic.
118
greenskinmarch5 days ago
+56
> Its just there aren't really morals in war. Legitimate targets, and all that jazz is just c*** people tell themselves to feel better.
Well remember there is the PR war as well as the physical war.
Attacking civilians is generally bad for your position in the PR war.
Paradoxically, defenses like Iron Dome which protect Israeli civilians, benefit Iran because many of its attacks on civilians fail. Without Iron Dome, there would be a lot more pictures of dead Israeli kids to use against Iran.
56
OGGriftimus5 days ago
+21
The PR war is what scares me. The whole series of Lego AI videos online are just growing in numbers and they, along with a catchy tune, are sharing what I feel is Iran's view and outlook on this war. The other thing i see happening is the world is watching and the very thing the US has tried to do (promote Israeli interests in the region) is backfiring and drumming up support for Iran and overall Muslim peoples. It's a strange world when the US is seen as the untrustworthy bad guy on the room and Germany is the one saying "Let's not round up people k?"
21
greenskinmarch5 days ago
+47
The Iranian regime takes propaganda seriously, they spend a lot of money on it (even while their capital city is running out of water).
Meanwhile a lot of Americans (justifiably) hate Trump for his domestic policies, and mistakenly extend that to "Iran is fighting Trump therefore Iran is good"
47
CrayZ_Squirrel5 days ago
+28
I don't think many people think the Iranian regime is good. They just see America and Isreal are also bad. You mention people hate Trump's domestic policies, but it's America who just started a war of aggression in the middle east. Its not just the domestic policy people hate.
28
nemofbaby20145 days ago
+2
America foreign police has been terrible since forever
2
mhornberger5 days ago
+39
> Its just there aren't really morals in war
Except for every single bad action by every individual Israeli soldier. Those will be taken as indicative of the moral essence of Zionism. Whereas actions by Iran, Hamas, the IRGC, and other Islamist forces will be seen in a purely pragmatic sense of what they were forced to do by their oppressors.
39
Middle-Accountant-495 days ago
+6
I mean not by me.
I do think their tactics are going to kind of backfire and are more to do with Netanyahu's legal problems than strategy.. but they are just doing shitty stuff that countries have done forever. I apply the same logic to them.
6
sofixa115 days ago
+29
That's a dumb straw man.
Iran is employing a classic asymmetric strategy. They can't fight the US 1:1, so they're doing everything they can to make the US and its allies hurt, so that they back off.
>it's not economic terrorism, it's a tactical genius move that will defeat the US empire
It's both. It's genius because the US will have to back off at some point due to domestic and international pressure. The Iranian regime doesn't care, they only want to survive.
29
Own_Worldliness_92975 days ago
+26
until the same strat was used on them
26
Maniactver5 days ago
+25
It was already used though?
25
Kiiaru5 days ago
+50
This. Iran strikes desalination plants and power plants in UAE and it's called "smart asymmetric warfare" but when America targets power plants and bridges it's called a war crime.
Everyone saying "this war would be over if America went home" is boldly sweeping all the damage Iran has done before this. Everyone should just forgive Iran for all the bombings, and the funding of Hezbollah, and the funding of the Houthis, and the washing of Russia's sanctioned oil.
50
Corpus764 days ago
+3
People hold (allegedly functioning) democracies to higher standards than authoritarian theocracies. Nobody thinks the IRGC are the "good guys", but at least their actions make sense in context.
Iran is like a mobster killing a witness. Trump is like a policeman high on cocaine blowing up an apartment complex with C4 because the aforementioned mobsters are using it as a hideout. There's a process to these things.
3
sofixa115 days ago
+4
> Iran strikes desalination plants and power plants in UAE and it's called "smart asymmetric warfare" but when America targets power plants and bridges it's called a war
Something can be a smart strategy and a war crime. And last I checked, the US isn't a terrorist regime, so they're held to a standard, supposedly.
4
ManchurianMango5 days ago
+3
Iran didnt strike desalination plants though. They said they would if US did it first. Im not defending the iranian regime cause they (well, thanks to the US) turned Iran into an extremist hellhole, but Iran kinda just went tit for tat with the US and its allies. Fact of the matter is, none of this would have happened if the US didnt attack Iran out of the blue.
As for Hesbollah and Hamas, I agree, but lets not pretend all the other gulf states arent sponsoring terrorism who are said to be US allies. Or that what the US is doing currently and in the past is anything different.
Again, dont get me wrong, Im not defending Iran, i just think it was incredibly stupid to attack a nation that literally doesnt give a f***.
3
Aurorion5 days ago
+20
Well, that's an undisputable fact.
Secondly, this is a UAE official's statement. Of course they would say that. And it's not verifiable either way about the intercepted drones and missiles.
But we do know the following:
- _Some_ civilian sites were hit directly.
- A lot of the damage to civilian sites was also due to interceptions of drones and missiles, which otherwise would have gone elsewhere.
- A lot of critical and expensive American military infrastructure in these countries were also hit, which proves that Iran definitely targeted such sites.
20
NoVax-Djocovid5 days ago
+91
Yeah. Even though Iran is attacking countries that have nothing to do with this war. Fine if they’re American military targets but they aren’t.
IRGC is the real terrorist organisation here
91
sofixa115 days ago
+101
>IRGC is the real terrorist organisation here
They *literally* are, this isn't some sort of gotcha.
And that's why it was absurdly dumb to attack Iran. Everyone with any knowledge of the situation knew that they would be impossible to dislodge (millions of loyal to the regime fanatical men, atrocious terrain) and that they would respond asymmetrically with attacks wherever they can. They can hit the Gulf to make things suck for everyone else to apply pressure to the US to back off, and why wouldn't they?
101
UpDownLeftRightABLoL5 days ago
+25
I for one, blame Israel and Trump for being so gullible to listen to Bibi over his own VP, generals, and advisors. Everything Iran that has done from attacking all their neighbors to closing the strait was already anticipated decades ago. To just ignore all this foresight just makes the US look stupid and weak. Big and strong doesn't matter when no brain, else we'd not be the Apex predator of this planet.
25
NoVax-Djocovid5 days ago
+13
Agreed. It’s more that it has to be spelt out for people here.
13
philosophyofblonde5 days ago
-14
Those countries have US bases. The objective is to make it clear that the “protection” of allowing those bases was always a fig leaf. Those bases exist because of civilian support. It’s absolutely rational for Iran to try to collapse that support.
-14
SnooHedgehogs87655 days ago
+70
Why is it always cool for iran to target civilians? There needs to be a derogatory name for these types of people.
70
AntonioH025 days ago
+41
We should call them Listnookors
41
philosophyofblonde5 days ago
+3
No, no. You call them Listnookors when they think that some obvious thing being pointed out qualifies as a moral endorsement.
Iran is behaving in the only rational and strategic way they can and no amount of “but the IRCG is mean” changes that.
3
flippydude5 days ago
+2
The laws of armed conflict get a little more vague when a country sees itself as being under existential threat
2
Sandviscerate5 days ago
+3
It definitely isn't cool, but it was very foreseeable that this would happen and the US poked the bear anyway.
3
Intrepid_Egg_77225 days ago
+42
Those US bases were hosted specifically because those countries feared Iranian attacks and interference. Bombing civilian infrastructure doesn't diminish the case for hosting US bases in the region, it actually improves the case.
You're spouting the same kind of logic employed by Russia-stans when they invaded Ukraine. "This is what happens when you align with the West and join NATO, so fewer people will want to join NATO now that they see the folly of joining!"
42
Middle-Accountant-495 days ago
+8
I mean its tough to make that argument when Iran didn't attack first in this chapter.
Like, if Ukraine had attacked Russia, their arguments would make some sense.
8
chompah995 days ago
+20
The real problem here is that too many people think in absolutes. They cant understand that both Iran and the USA are bad actors. They need someone to be good and someone to be bad. Since you arent saying Iran is bad, then you must be saying theyre good, which means youre simultaneously saying USA is bad, which is a problem for them.
20
myWeedAccountMaaaaan5 days ago
+8
This seems to be the case across every discussion over every topic and it’s destroying discourse.
8
NoLime73845 days ago
+3
it happens for a variety of reasons, but for the most part it's bc people won't tell their friends/peers that what they're saying is wrong. Remember when feminists told men the biggest thing they could do on a day to day basis is to call-out their friends and family who say sexist things?
It's like that. When a campist says campist shit nobody who agrees with him acknowledges or let's him know he's being a dumbass. society at large is complicit on this kind of behavior
3
chompah995 days ago
+6
Nothing is black and white. It's all gray. People are too dualistic in their thinking. Especially in the USA.
6
Zenki955 days ago
+16
Except it was literally iran that funded the attack on israel on October 7th, and the subsequent barrage of missiles and drones from hezbollah, not to mention the missiles flying from the houthis.
So... sure, iran didn't start this, if you look at it from a very narrow point of view.
But they have been building up to it for years.
16
SilverJacked5 days ago
+11
Do you think targeting civilian infrastructure in surrounding countries that have Iranian military presence is fair game? Should UAE and Saudi destroy power and airports in Yemen, Iraq, and Lebanon?
11
NoVax-Djocovid5 days ago
+19
Didn’t realise that DXBs fuel fields (for example) was an American military base. But go off king.
19
Kind_Silver_19215 days ago
+7
Then why don't they just shoot us bases? It says 90% civilian targets.
Should the US hit 90% of Iranian schools instead of just 1 because Iran has Iranian bases therefore it's OK?
7
capnwally145 days ago
+8
You’re spelling war crime incorrectly
8
Throwaway54321543225 days ago
+14
Very cool, still means Iran is attacking most of its neighbors’ territory when those countries themselves haven’t attacked Iran
14
tropango5 days ago
+1
That's tenuous at best. Why aren't they hitting the military bases themselves then? Why hit say, oil refineries that have nothing to do with the US? A bigger statement than "the US military base can't protect you" is "the US military base can't even protect itself"
1
Abbx5 days ago
+4
It's already happening in this very thread lol
4
Nights_Harvest5 days ago
+4
Except this issue is heavily manufactured by the USA, Trump in particular.
Overthrowing Iran democratically elected government by USA and UK in 1953
Withdrawal by Trump in 2018 from JCPOA along with a wide range of new sanctions aimed at cutting Iran off from the world's economy.
No one is saying Iran is a good guy, but they sure have good reasons to be the way they are.
Tehran could just hold democratic elections to fix everything. Based on what happened in Venesuela, how the USA handled Iran so far. I would not be surprised if USA went to iran anyway at the first whisper of nationalising their oil.
4
ThePickleConnoisseur5 days ago
+3
Funny how the were screaming civilian infrastructure just a week or two ago about Trump saying he’ll strike power plants and other critical infrastructure
3
DSA3005 days ago
+61
Most people just don't trust the current administration to do the right thing. Afterall, are we saving protesters lives?
Iran is a piece of shit but this ain't the way to go. New wars and raising prices won't do anything.
61
NoVax-Djocovid5 days ago
+5
Yep, I wouldn’t either.
5
ringtail_catz5 days ago
+20
They’ll say terrorism is justified because the U.S. and Israel are the most evil forces in the world, just like they have been every day since the Islamic Republic was formed in 1979, lol.
20
NoVax-Djocovid5 days ago
+8
Pretty much nailed it if you scroll down lol
8
[deleted]5 days ago
+22
[deleted]
22
rotomangler5 days ago
Iran has been throwing rockets for literally years.
0
jamieT975 days ago
+83
Iran is horrible, so is Israel. Like is it that hard for both sides to be bad in this instance
83
EMP_Pusheen5 days ago
+22
This is Listnook so yes. All sides are bad, but that's not black and white enough.
22
Timey165 days ago
+44
UAE calls their oil infrastructure civilian infrastructure so putting it level with school and hospitals to muddy the waters.
Ukraine also attacks Russia's oil infrastructure which everyone is fine with.
If you host military bases of an attacker, which also plan and conduct attacks, then that makes your nation a war-party whether you like it or not.
So if you are against Iran attacking oil infrastructure of the attacking war-parties then you must also be against Ukraine attacking Russian oil infrastructure (same for the opposite).
I think doing that is a good strategy on Ukraine's part so I'd be a hypocrite to deny Iran that same assessment.
Destroying the enemy's means to fund their wars has always been a viable and legitimate strategy as long as you don't make civilians suffer too much.
Also don't forget that Politico is also owned by Axel Springer corp. Which has a shitload of investments in fossil fuels.
44
NoVax-Djocovid5 days ago
+24
Ukraine attacking Russian infrastructure, a country that is actively invading them, is a little different than Iran attacking UAE, a country that hasn’t fired anything Irans way, don’t you think?
If they were worried about the US military bases on UAE soil, then surely they’d attack…the US military bases…located in the UAE…no?
Seems like you’re stretching this a long way to support terrorism.
24
[deleted]5 days ago
+11
[deleted]
11
psyon5 days ago
+1
Iran isn't some innocent country either. They've been funding wars too. Sounds like justification for attacking them right?
1
penialito5 days ago
+4
So it's all justified, boom. You lose
4
Aurorion5 days ago
+9
> If they were worried about the US military bases on UAE soil, then surely they’d attack…the US military bases…located in the UAE…no?
That they did.
If you think it's completely unjustified for Iran to carry out limited targeted attacks on countries that host the US bases - just look at how America treated Afghanistan after 9/11, or what Israel is doing in Lebanon now.
9
jamesbideaux5 days ago
+4
are the cargo vessels also hosting US bases?
4
Arsalanred5 days ago
+9
No, the cargo vessels are about creating economic instability in the global market to dissuade from a prolonged conflict.
9
SnooHedgehogs87655 days ago
+32
>Interesting to see how the pro Iran bots handle this
You mean listnook in general?
32
NoVax-Djocovid5 days ago
+42
Primarily the pro Iran bots as they were insistent that Iran was attacking US military targets on other countries soil. That has now been confirmed to be very much not the case.
42
Just-Sale-70155 days ago
+2
Did anyone expect the UAE gov to claim otherwise? It's not like this 'confirmation' came from Amnesty or some remotely neutral party.
The UAE also imprisoned [lots](https://time.com/article/2026/03/20/uae-arrests-more-than-100-as-crackdown-on-filming-iran-s-attacks-ramps-up/) of people who filmed any incidents, so hard to get any 3rd party confirmation as well.
2
Aurorion5 days ago
+1
😂
It has been confirmed that Iran was _not_ attacking US military targets on other countries' soil?
1
katalysis5 days ago
+28
I feel like there are a lot of these bots. They're very similar to the legions of Twitter accounts that very conspicuously spread Iranian propaganda.
28
kilobitch5 days ago
+25
Same way they justified Oct 7.
25
Thami155 days ago
+6
I'm not pro-Iran, but I genuinely am curious how you would ethically win a war where you're outgunned, have no allies, and have the leader of the free world posting you should get ready to to be ethnically cleansed every few days.
6
greenskinmarch5 days ago
+3
A dictatorship fighting to continue oppressing its people and funding terrorism, is inherently unethical. The ethical thing would be to negotiate a treaty that involves the Iranian regime making concessions on not oppressing its people and not funding terrorism in exchange for peace. Even more ethical would be for the regime to transition to a true democracy although that's obviously not happening.
3
VesaAwesaka5 days ago
+11
The excuse im seeing is that the US dispersed military personnel into civilian housing and infrastructure which made it legitimate targets.
11
GundalfTheCamo5 days ago
+21
Does that explanation make any sense? The Fairmont hotel that was damaged was on the Palm Jumeirah, far away from any base and only close to tourist attractions.
Also expensive, but I guess that wouldn't matter.
Just saying, it would be an impractical hotel to house American troops.
21
Aurorion5 days ago
+3
This whole war has been proven to be heavily impractical, but here we are.
And yes, the US did move personnel to hotels (as confirmed by multiple independent reports). Whether _this_ particular hotel was one of them - nobody is going to tell us. But Iran's intelligence network is quite strong on the ground in these countries.
3
Definitelynotasloth5 days ago
+2
That excuse works for America and Israel most of the time.
2
FourthLife5 days ago
+2
When they can’t defend something’s morality, they just zoom way out and claim it was “merely inevitable backlash to the imperialistic policies of the west”
2
Kalmer15 days ago
+6
Iran sucks.
US sucks.
War sucks.
Not everything is black and white.
6
andoooooo5 days ago
+5
ha - do you not realise the irony of your very black and white comment?
5
Kalmer15 days ago
+7
A black and white statement in terms of war is "X is the bad guy" and "X is the good guy"
I'm saying there's no good guys here.
7
Alive_Internet5 days ago
+9
I hope people don’t take the bots seriously. In real life, most people side with the US/Israel not because they are the “good guys”, but because they’re nowhere near as bad as the IRGC.
9
nockeenockee5 days ago
-13
More interesting to see what the US/Israel shills have to say.
-13
Alive_Internet5 days ago
+23
Nobody is shilling for the US or Israel. Real people acknowledge that while there is legitimate criticism for all sides, the US and Israel are nowhere near as bad as the IRGC. What’s concerning is all the Iranian bots defending the IRGC or deflecting.
23
krayniac5 days ago
+11
Surprise of the century
11
fitandhealthyguy5 days ago
+38
Where are the cries of war crimes?
38
yeetis125 days ago
+143
Ok but understand that if a US soldier happened to be within a 50 mile radius of that infrastructure it makes them a valid target /s
143
Ambitious-Wind98385 days ago
+34
Fix. 50000 mile
34
Street_Anon5 days ago
+188
Remember and somehow, they are Israeli targets in the UAE, according to Iran.
188
Scagnettio5 days ago
+59
Wait what, Iran was attacked by the United States of America. The US has bases in the UAE that it used in their preparation and strike on Iran.
You act like this is some Operation Menu or Operation Barrel Roll but the UAE knowingly hosts and support US troops that attacked another country in the region unprovoked
59
jataba1155 days ago
+12
I refuse to believe you’re a human being typing this comment
12
HSBillyMays5 days ago
+41
Iran's "*strategy*" is so disorganized that I feel like if they *actually* had a nuke, Antarctica could end up being their top target through some kind of backwards convoluted "*logic*."
41
danamesjrupin5 days ago
+44
Well if the ice melts it becomes juice which makes it a valid target /s
44
flippydude5 days ago
+34
Their strategy is not disorganised. They're applying as much economic pressure as they can to make this war of choice politically unsustainable.
34
Street_Anon5 days ago
+8
Maybe some secret Israeli base at a Russian station there. LOL!.
8
EMP_Pusheen5 days ago
+5
They're just targeting the United States and Israel's secret nuclear penguin weapons program. The nukes are stored in something that looks shockingly like a yarmulke.
5
Uvtha-5 days ago
+3
They are attacking US allies in the region, and gulf energy production to try to induce economic pain, seems pretty straight forward.
3
nukacola125 days ago
+14
I'm so unbelievably shocked that a country that doesn't respect their civilians' rights to live would strike civilian targets
14
Mac629615 days ago
+20
Duh. They are led by IRGC They are terrorists
20
CBT7commander5 days ago
+9
Iran doesn’t even pretend otherwise. They have been very open about civilians and civilian infrastructure being their main targets in this war
9
mastercafe74 days ago
+3
They shouldn't have been using civilians as human shield then
3
tempestwolf15 days ago
+15
Meanwhile, Iran probably:
"Hey, what's the error margin on our missiles' precision?"
" 'bout 100 miles"
15
[deleted]5 days ago
+22
[removed]
22
GundalfTheCamo5 days ago
+21
One surprise was how quickly Iran turned on Qatar, the only friendly regime they had among the gcc. Qatar even housed the Hamas leadership.
Remember how much shit israel got for attacking them in Qatar? What iran did was 100 x worse.
21
greenskinmarch5 days ago
+14
Deep down, Iran is Shia supremacist and views all the Sunni countries with suspicion - that's why they prop up Shia minorities to oppress Sunni majorities in Yemen (Houthis), Lebanon (Hezbollah) and used to do the same in Syria (dictatorship of Alawites who are an offshoot of Shia).
14
[deleted]5 days ago
+7
[removed]
7
84Cressida5 days ago
+4
They just think that if Trump stops tomorrow, Iran will just peacefully stop. And that all their neighbors will suddenly love them.
4
kitolz5 days ago
+4
This doesn't change the calculus and strategy for Iran. Their primary leverage was that they're going to make things as painful for the US and allies economically as possible because trying to go for military targets only is a certain loss.
The reason everybody is clowning on the US is that this is what every military planner in the past 40+ years have pointed out as the problem. This administration went in without a plan to counteract this scenario against the recommendation of their own intelligence apparatus.
4
Olddirtybelgium5 days ago
+35
The UAE is funding the civil war in Sudan. How many of those targets involve civilians?
35
FrostedSki5 days ago
+16
Does the UAE being wrong make Iran right?
16
Ok-Opposite23095 days ago
+3
Same UAE that is asking for US funding?
[https://m.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/uae-seeks-us-financial-backstop-amid-iran-war-concerns-wsj-93CH-4622299?ampMode=1](https://m.investing.com/news/stock-market-news/uae-seeks-us-financial-backstop-amid-iran-war-concerns-wsj-93CH-4622299?ampMode=1)
3
Bitter-Train-59615 days ago
+22
What ??? But I thought that Iranians were the good guys and it's bloody americans who were bombing everywhere except millitary infrastructure
22
junkiexxl5 days ago
+45
you've got the childish 1 dimensional worldview that when someone criticizes the US and Israel, that must mean they are rooting for the other team. The world isnt team blue vs team red. Grow up
Nobody likes Iran. Nobody expects any kind of good from Iran. Iran is a terrible state doing terrible things, and the US and Israel went in without a plan and kicked the hornets nests, and now the whole damn world must bear the consequenses of these two groups of lunatics.
If Trump didnt start the war he promised not to start, then we all wouldnt be in this shit now. He started it, achieved nothing, and now he can't end it.
45
theoceansknow5 days ago
+9
I want to add -- Project 2025 outlines the wars we'd start with 'a favorable executive' in place.
I don't think this is Trump reneging on any sort of promises. The 2024 election was a decision to follow the Conservative's stated policy goals or not. People who voted for Trump voted for P2025.
9
Drunken_HR5 days ago
+3
It's funny how many people can't grasp that both sides are complete garbage. Moden infant mentality of "if one side is good the other is bad!” and then arguing about which one is the "good guy" and attacking people who say the US is shit by saying they must support Iran.
3
FrostedCereal5 days ago
+72
Nobody thinks Iran are good guys. Iran, USA, Israel, Russia are all bad guys.
But USA and Israel are the aggressor here. They started this war. They are the ones that need to cut their war mongering shit out.
72
NoLime73845 days ago
+25
Bro even Iran admits the Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah are their proxies. Iran started this shitshow years ago.
if someone hires a hitman to try and kill a guy, is he not guilty of plotting a murder? do you think bc someone else pulled the trigger first their hands are clean?
25
metaliving5 days ago
+30
How far back are you willing to go when deciding who started this shitshow? Because if you go further back, the answer keeps changing depending on your cut-off date.
30
EttinTerrorPacts5 days ago
+4
Between Israel and Iran, the answer is definitively Iran as the aggressor
4
jibij5 days ago
+3
Well that's true which means it's only fair if we go back to beggining, or least until you get the point where you've traced every geopolitical grievance back to some a****** in prehistoric Africa. This is nice because it means no can be blamed for anything today and yet every war is morally justified so really we get the best both worlds.
3
metaliving5 days ago
+10
Exactly. So let's look at the current situation: the US has struck Iran arguing they intend to get nuclear weapons. Geopolitical experts argue this is not the case, and there was a deal in place from Obama's administration that culled the possible developments and was working until Trump undid it.
So, the US has attacked Iran and killed all their top officials based on an unverifiable claim of nuclear development that wouldn't even be a possibility had the pre-existing accords been kept.
I don't know about you, but it seems to me in this case the US really is the aggressor (reminder, this doesn't make Iran the good guys).
10
SporksInjected5 days ago
+6
I have yet to hear from anyone why Iran needed highly enriched uranium. Geopolitical experts are saying they didn’t intend to attack but I don’t think anyone can argue the intent of having 60%+ uranium.
6
Maniactver5 days ago
+3
Because more and more it looks like that only having atomic weapons is an effective deterrent from being invaded if you disagree with USA for some reason?
3
SowingSalt5 days ago
+5
I'd argue that trying to get a nuke gets you bombed and invaded. That's what it did to Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and now Iran.
5
SporksInjected5 days ago
+7
Paradoxically it’s the primary reason why the USA attacked.
7
Arsalanred5 days ago
+3
If sponsoring proxies justifies total war I gotta tell you as a US citizen I'm concerned for my safety in that case.
3
nu1stunna5 days ago
+9
By all means, do diplomacy with them. Dumbasses.
9
Allaplgy5 days ago
+27
Wait, which "them"? There are no adults at this table.
27
HumansNeedNotApply15 days ago
Well, yeah, most of the targets in the UAE were hotels/buildings hosting US troops/assets and the oil, gas and port facilities as retaliation for allowing US troops to target Iran from their soil and airspace.
There were images of US HIMARS system being used to strike Iran near Dubai.
Also, if we follow this math, the strikes US/israel did in Iran are probably close to that too, plenty of residential buildings, Hospitals, Police Stations, energy facilities and bridges were hit, don't see many people crying about and talking ill of the US/Israel, but hey, evil goverment and all that justifies all wrong doing.
0
EMP_Pusheen5 days ago
+86
When the US does it, it's war crimes. When Israel does it, it's war crimes. When Iran does it, it is shockingly also war crimes.
If you want to look like the victim in a war and garner public support, don't commit war crimes.
86
HumansNeedNotApply15 days ago
+9
Good luck defending yourself against a superior foe by refusing to play the same game.
If the powerful and mighty don't do it, why should the small ones even try it? Just to lose with morals? Who cares when you're dead and buried and the victors shape the narrative.
9
EMP_Pusheen5 days ago
+8
You could look at the other war going on to see how you fight a war as the defender while not doing things that lose support. The Ukrainians could do the same things that Russia does, but they don't because the support of the EU is more important than committing war crimes to hurt the Russians. It still happens, but they clearly are not prioritizing hurting Russian civilians in Russia despite being able to strike targets in Russia for years.
The powerful and mighty don't have to care about what they do because they are powerful and mighty and don't need much global support.
Israel only needs the US and the US seems to be adamant in supporting them for strategic reasons.
The US doesn't really need anyone. The only opinions that matter to Trump and Hegseth are the ones in America.
8
Maniactver5 days ago
+24
Ukraine hits plenty of energy infrastructure targets though?
24
Doons1245 days ago
+30
Complete BS about the Himars. No evidence to suggest any attacks launches from the UAE. And your claim about Himars is even more dumb because the lo gest range ammo a Himars can launch is 500km. You would barely make it to Iran's coats, let alone Tehran or somewhere actually important.
30
fury4205 days ago
+3
They did reportedly use a HIMARS using the new PRSM missile to strike some targets in Iran, but I've not actually seen any specific mention of which country they launched from.
https://www.twz.com/land/americas-new-prsm-ballistic-missile-just-made-its-combat-debut-in-iran-strikes
3
GuaSukaStarfruit5 days ago
+10
Burj kalifa as well? The troops also go on vacation you know?
10
UnTides5 days ago
+2
Yeah exactly, its UAE why bother to build a military when you can just throw billions at the Kushners and the US (American taxpayer funded) military fights your wars for you.
2
_Zyr5 days ago
+2
I don't think anyone expected Iran to care about civilian populations after it gunned it's own civilians down, in the thousands, when they protested peacefully.
2
New-History79715 days ago
+4
They acting like ruzzia. Both Ruzzia and Irran is a state of a murderers!
4
championchilli5 days ago
+3
Now do Israel in Lebanon. Oh no, they're all magically Hezbollah apartment blocks.
171 Comments