Iran's supreme leader tweets attack threat to golfing Trump | Hacker News Reader

Iran's supreme leader tweets attack threat to golfing Trump

bbc.com

14 pointsstunt20 comments

Can world leaders stop using Twitter to say shit? How did we even get here?

I don't believe Iran has really stopped calling "Death to America" for the last 20 years. (Woah, I just looked up the history: its closer to 40 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America) So this really is just a continuation of the status quo.

If not on Twitter, they'd send the message out through different means. Twitter is cheap and easy, so why not?

Of course the only aggressor nation that has actually killed an Iranian military leader is the USA - an act of war. So try looking closer at home before taking offense on twitter.

A military leader that planned, funded, and supplied attacks against U.S. bases. Less an act of war and more of a restrained quid pro quo.

Who told the US to setup bases in the middle east? It's not your land, get fucked.

I know the history between the two countries, and have taken an interest into studying it.

I'm also literally younger than the events which spawned the "Death to America" meme... and I recognize that my similarly aged peers don't give a crap about history.

At this point, the saber-rattling on both sides is just typical American / Iranian foreign policy. It gets crazy because nukes are involved now, but that's life.

Hopefully, my knowledge of history will better inform me over whether or not the actions of my country (and leaders) are doing the right thing. But... I'm not expecting any of the saber-rattling to end in my lifetime.

Dang, that was an, erm, interesting link. I can't imagine living somewhere where "death to $otherCountries" is so popular. Which is really too bad; I'm of the impression that pre-revolution Iran was a really cool place/time, and I'm sure Iran is a very beautiful country.

Its weird.

I had an Iranian teacher, here in USA. Despite the calls to violence, its clear that we hate each other's countries, but not each other's peoples.

Well... by and large anyway. I'm sure there are assholes who actually wish death personally on both sides. But there's an understanding of the global political stage. There's still a way to communicate. I think there's a path forward for diplomacy even in these tense times.

----------

Knowing these things really helps put ideas into context. Ex: Iranians got really pissed off at the movie 300 for example (after all: Iranians see themselves as the Persians. So seeing a bunch of Persians get slaughtered by the "Western-world Greeks" on a big Hollywood movie is not exactly nice to them either...)

These sorts of things are just accepted. Iranians know that the Persians are by-and-large demonized by the history books that our culture teaches, and we know the same for their side. These conflicts and tensions have been around for literally centuries and millennia.

Thunderbolt on Its Trial[1][2] is a recent post that mentioned some of this split, with a story of a german waiter serving allied soldiers after the war. It talked about the soldiers returning home, finding a nation which had radicalized it's hate, a hate they demonstrably did not have. Good article in other ways, talking about "being under a spell", & judgment based on the extreme events that eventually boil (thunderbolt) over from longer situations (heavy weather). I feel this article will stick with me for a long time.

[1] https://unintendedconsequenc.es/thunderbolt-on-its-trial/

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25838341

It sounds like "marg" in Farsi is a linguistic swiss army knife like "fuck" is in English.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25658778

FWIW, it does drive engagement. Like many things, you can enumerate risks a priori and never act, or you can act boldly, see how things go, and introduce limitations a postiori to prevent further egregious harm.

During the Arab Spring, it looked like doing this stuff online was a net positive for human rights. We've seen the other side, too... and now it seems that Twitter doesn't want to facilitate the escalation of national conflict.

I mean, Iran's Supreme Leader has always been saying outrageous, hateful shit. That's part and parcel of its regressive revolution, although no doubt social media isn't helping. In America, we have divisive leaders on social media because social media created a divisive culture that tends to choose divisive leaders.

What is the point of using a social platform, if not to be a place to connect with people?

Ostracism.

Clicks.

The image in the article is cropped, here is the full version: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EsSCa10XEAQxm5i?format=jpg&name=...

The text roughly says: "Those who ordered the murder of General Soleimani as well as those who carried this out should be punished"

Twitter has suspended the account for violating Twitter's rules.

Instead of bringing their respective countries into it can they fight it out thunderdome style I realize he's a little older at 81 but he is probably not quite as unhealthy.

I find it odd they suspended an account for this, and not for twitting his vaccine conspiracy theory, while banning use of US/British/French made vaccines. The Supreme Leader's banning of vaccines has and will have far more deadly consequences than his idle threats against Trump.

It was before the election.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com