He added that physical and psychological damages “inflicted on each individual of the Iranian nation in the 2nd and 3rd imposed wars, from child killings and war crimes in Minab and Lamerd to attacks on medical centres, is each a legal file that must be pursued in both domestic and international courts.”
He further stated that from the “murder” of newborns and the elderly to the assassination of his father and predecessor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “each is a file among thousands of major legal cases that must be earnestly pursued in domestic and international courts”.
“What is definite is that these criminals must be seized by the collar and brought to justice for their criminal deeds,” he asserted.
Never in my life could I have expected to agree with the Iranian government. But, on this specific issue? I do. There needs to be accountability for this.
People hate whataboutism until it’s used to cast shade on the enemies of America’s oligarchs.
I don’t get how people can hate billionaires, then spout rhetoric that directly helps their genocidal programs. Iran is the lesser evil in this fight, and in fact one of the only countries standing up to the world’s biggest threat- American/western imperialism. You don’t have to like them, but you also don’t have to carry water for the oppressors.
You’re allowed to not like both of them
If every time Iran calls out the warcrimes and genocide of the US, you answer with a criticism of Iran, all you are doing is saying that the US is right to do warcrimes. That it’s justified because Iran mistreats some of its citizens.
Iran is literally fighting to stop its schoolgirls from being bombed, and you’re out here saying, “Maybe if you hadn’t forced the little girls to wear burkas they’d still be alive.”
Again, you don’t have to like them, but maybe just shut up about it for a second so we can all focus on the bigger issue. It’s called critical support.
They both suck but you’re right that Iran is more right about this than the US. It doesn’t make them good though.
The comment said he agreed with the post.
It’s definitely not how it read, and it’s not its intention.
If it was not his intention, why would he start with I agree? He could have only kept the whataboutsim part. Can you consider he may be against both, or is that too far fetched for your intention guessing ability?
I’m not racist but…
Same energy.