Comment by _DeadFred_ | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _DeadFred_ | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

When the Islamic Republic fo Iran calls for 'death to America, death to Israel' do they also not mean for death to Israel/Israelis? Do they simply want Israel to not do anything nefarious to Iran and they will stop chanting it? They seem very clear they want Israel gone. Their proxies thought Iran meant 'kill grandma' on Oct 7th. They videod it and shared it with the world.

It would be odd if half of the chant 'death to America, death to Israel' meant something other than death for America, while the other half meant death to Israel, would it not?

If I was to write 'death to Iran' here would you give me the such a benefit of the doubt? If the Pope was to chant it every weekend?

Where did I say Iran/Iran's Timmy didn't matter? I said it didn't invalidate my lived experience. I said calling for revenge killing against entire societies is wrong, I said Iran's acts were also wrong. I gave their impact on me as a child and how it has shaped my views. I never said Iran's Timmy didn't matter. I never denied Iran Timmy's lived experience. I (unlike others here) never said a childhood lived experience is invalidated because reasons or historical context.

Yes, they all can be evil and have deep impact, on all sides. What happened on Oct 7? Wrong. What happened in Gaza afterwards? Wrong. They can all be wrong. Do you agree? Oct 7th was wrong? What Israel did in Gaza was wrong? And calling for death to a country by anothers leaders/religious leaders, also wrong?

Childhood lived experience is not wrong, is not evil on the child's part, it simply is. However religious leaders calling for death is ALWAYS wrong, yet no one here will agree to that, they simply give context for why it is ok.

> Do you agree? Oct 7th was wrong? What Israel did in Gaza was wrong? And calling for death to a country by anothers leaders/religious leaders, also wrong?

Yes. I agree.

But I care way more about actions than words. There is way more Iranian blood on the hands of the US/Israel partners and allies (including Saddam Hussein and ISIS) than vice versa. Iran doesn’t have bases or any presence near US borders. Western powers have been playing puppet-master with Iran since the world wars.

You keep talking about your childhood experience. It doesn’t move me.

You can think of Iran having a disease, a recurrent infection of Islamism; I’m saying the medicine has caused more problems than anything else, strengthening resistance to antibiotics. And then you go back to “when I was little I was scared of getting sick.” Write that in your diary if you want but it’s not useful in our little debate.

The mullahs use anti-American rhetoric because it is popular, and it is popular because it is justified if you take a hard look at history.

You seem to think that if Iran’s government became secular they would automatically change their stance towards the US and Israel, and I disagree (assuming the secular government is a representative democracy).

In fact the 2026 Iran war probably made sure of this for the next 30 years.

You should find this interesting: https://x.com/tiberiusfiles/status/1926906215763693754?s=46

Iran doesn’t have bases or any presence near US borders but Iran does have proxies (with IRG advisors) surrounding Israel. Like the USA Iran is not above using proxies/strategically placing forces outside of Iran's borders or exerting violence outside of their borders to achieve political ends. Iran's proxies bombed multiple American bases and killed many American troops greatly changing American perception of Iran from when Khomeini stepped off the plane and he was flanked by a US ambassador and a rabbi. It doesn't matter that the clash was not near US borders, Iran and US forces have physically clashed, with some of the attacks started by Iran.

The mullahs call for 'death to Israel' because they want Israel destroyed. They are public about it. When the chant is 'death to America, death to Israel' it would be weird to say 'the first part is just rhetoric' especially considering Iran calls the USA the big satan and Israel the little satan. Why would the same words mean 'just rhetoric' when applied to the big satan? That you think 'death to America' is justified again doesn't change that people here are wrong when the try to deflect that 'death to America' doesn't mean death... to America. That you just waive away the call for death to my country with 'but it's justified' doesn't change what Iran wants and has called for for 40+ years.

And Iran's calling for that has shaped US policy. You might not care, I don't care if you do, but Iran has shaped US policy towards it. Like you said, when Khomeini stepped off the plane he was flanked by a US ambassador and a rabbi, US policy was once different. Iran's actions may not be as evil as what the US has done to Iran, but in a discussion on a topic (especially geopolitical) it's worth understanding motivations of people on both sides. The US will always see Iran as an enemy as long as Iran calls for the death of America and Americans and wages a proxy war against American interests. Just like Iran have included protecting their interests in Lebanon and their proxy Hizballah into the current peace negotiations, because extra border interests are often of national interest. Iran included.

A random X post not related to Iran or our current discussion is weird as hell to add at the end.

> it's worth understanding motivations of people on both sides.

100% agree.

> Iran doesn’t have bases or any presence near US borders but Iran does have proxies (with IRG advisors) surrounding Israel

That's the way you see it but the way Iran sees it is that Israel is a proxy of the US. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2HZs-v0PR44

The US also chose to fight Taliban alone and lost, rather than continuing their post-9/11 collaboration with Iran - Iran being local to the region would have been a great asset, as they were right up until Bush's "axis of evil" doctrine.

> Like you said, when Khomeini stepped off the plane he was flanked by a US ambassador and a rabbi, US policy was once different.

You mean to say that the US read Khomeini's book which talks about implementing Sharia law, violence against "corrupt people", destruction of non-Islamic religious centers, the West wanting to steal Iran's resources, etc.. but were willing to take the risk because they were so afraid of the left taking power in Iran.

Then they tried to fix their mistake by having Saddam attack Iran, which backfired and created another 50 years worth of resentment towards the US. And they likely ensured another 20+ years of distrust with their recent actions.

> Iran's actions may not be as evil as what the US has done to Iran

Glad to hear you say this - wish you said this earlier as I would not have guessed it from your previous comments. If you truly think that then I'm not sure why you're surprised at the slogans and Iran's defensive measures.

> The US will always see Iran as an enemy as long as Iran calls for the death of America and Americans and wages a proxy war against American interests

And Iran will always be aggressive towards countries that commit unprovoked horrors against them while calling them evil and strangling them economically. And mullahs will always use these convenient facts to their advantage to rile up domestic support.

> Like the USA Iran is not above using proxies/strategically placing forces outside of Iran's borders or exerting violence outside of their borders to achieve political ends

Right, Iran learned from the US on how to use proxy forces, but it turns out being Muslim has certain advantages when you are supporting Muslim proxies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com