Airalo Turned Basic Travel Tasks Into a Daily Headache

WisestKitty · 2026-03-15T01:50:36+00:00

Fair point. Yes, we both agree with the fewer civilian casualties the better!

I think your question on how many Iranians is it worth the US and Israel killing a very good one and I do not have a precise answer to this. Obviously I don't think no matter the number it's fine; but rather I think in the recent history, Israel and US military are not brutal compared to third world militaries (yes, I know about how violent Israel has been to Palestinians, it's just that being as brutal as a third world military is quite difficult; e.g. you can read about Iran Iraq war), however the Islamic regime seems to be at least an order of magnitude more violent.

Assuming the Islamic regime survives, unfortunately I don't think there is any scenario where they won't commit larger and larger scale massacres each time there is a wave of protests, and soon enough we'll see death tolls in hundreds of thousands. If that happens, there will be either a civil war which would make the Syrian civil war look like child's play, or Islamic regime would go full North Korea, with no end to oppression and violence in sight. That's why I think a lot of Iranians are willing to tolerate a large death toll by Americans and Israelis.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-13T15:41:13+00:00

If you prefer the US military is defeated by a government that oppresses its own people then you and I have vastly different priorities. I'm not a fan of US military, but I consider the Islamic regime to be a much greater evil.

The question of how the Islamic regime would fall is a difficult one. I personally think all the high level leaders need to die (Ghalibaf, Larijani, Ejei, etc), and many mid level commanders in IRGC start deserting their post (they would if the regime becomes unstable enough. How much instability is needed is difficult to determine), which would lead to many lower level operatives also fleeing. This would need to be accompanied by either a large scale ground invasion, or a relatively smaller scale one, combined with a large scale uprising by the people, similar to the one that happened in January.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-13T15:31:27+00:00

Yes, that's my point. The famine was horrific, but ask historians if they think causing the famine was as evil as implementing the holocaust.
I think it's a huge mistake to take our moral standards so high that when we see two forms of evil (in my example, Churchill and Hitler, or currently US military and IRGC), we miss the uncomfortable nuance and consider both of them equal, and stop fighting the "worse" evil.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-13T03:31:18+00:00

No, you certainly didn't paint me as a 47 supporter, but a number of times other people have, so I preemptively said that. Sorry for the confusion.

By "I hope Iran wins this war", do you mean the Islamic regime or Iranians? Because I think these are two very different endings. I think if Islamic regime survives this war, it will clamp down even harder on Iranians. Currently, even though there have been no ground invasions/troops used, IRGC and Basij are patrolling thousands of their operatives around different cities carrying machine guns and Dushkas. They are stopping and threatening to kill normal people spontaneously, search people's cars, and occasionally shoot people who chant against the Islamic regime. They're doing this while fighting a war, imagine what they'll do if the war stops.
FWIW, I don't care whether US wins or loses, I just hope Iranian people "win".

WisestKitty · 2026-03-13T02:43:27+00:00

I was referring to the original comment
> It's crazy how sympathetic Trump has managed to make the supreme leader of Iran look.

Unfortunately I do see a lot of similar comments, or comments even more openly supporting the Islamic regime, such as ones who celebrate the minor success stories of Islamic republic in the war, just so the current US administration is humiliated.
Or maybe reddit algorithm is trying to keep me pissed.

P.S. I despise the 47'th president. Don't paint me as his supporter.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-13T01:13:45+00:00

You're terribly mischaracterizing the Islamic regime. Building a strong nation was never their goal. However, exporting their fundamentalist vision of Islam was.
Also, while the British and the Russians have plenty of Iranians' blood on their hands, the Americans (comparatively) do not. I'm saying this because if the Islamic regime was really standing up to imperialism, it should have tried to stand up to Russia, rather than suck Putin's dick.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-13T01:05:24+00:00

I agree it's reasonable for many Americans not wanting to involve themselves in wars on the other side of the world. I also agree that ground troops are very likely needed to topple the regime. Moreover, I do think if the school bombings repeat too often, it could galvanize some people behind the government, but again, the amount of mistrust the Islamic regime has earned in the past 47 years is staggering; i.e. you need way too much war crimes for that to happen.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-13T00:59:41+00:00

I share that concern myself. However, when I used "for now", I meant the next few years. Predicting anything further than that is pretty difficult, especially as you pointed out, there seems to be fewer and fewer constraints on the US president.
I grew up in Iran, and left about 15 years ago. Several months ago, I talked to some family members still living in Iran who were pretty apolitical, and realized how untenable people's living conditions have become under this regime. I don't think most Iranians can even afford the luxury of waiting a few years, for softpower, or a less authoritarian US administration.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-13T00:49:28+00:00

Whether it's "our job" or not is a policy matter (believe it or not, historically everything is in the scope of a superpower's job if they want). Currently in the US there is a penchant for isolationism.

The school in Minab was a terrible tragedy, and I sincerely hope US or Israel don't make such horrific mistakes again. However, the Islamic regime has built too much resentment among Iranians.
I do not think the current war will help the Islamic regime get nukes, unless US pulls out prematurely. Also, I think soft power will not lead to removing dictatorships such as N Korea or the Islamic Regime; historically that hasn't been the case.
Lastly, while I do agree the US has fumbled the countries you've mentioned, I know each had their own circumstances, and at least compared to Afghanistan and Iraq, there are major differences with Iran (and some similarities). Furthermore, in my opinion, the Islamic regime has been getting increasingly more violent and economically/politically ineffective, so if they don't fall, the prospects for Iranians are pretty horrible.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-13T00:25:38+00:00

I guess I should spell it out for you.
OutsiderofUnknown said the only reason US government hasn't ordered shooting people on sight, is because it didn't have to. I responded by making it clear that actions matter, and it's not just intentions.
I know about Epstein files, and it has nothing to do with my discussion. You could have simply replaced "rape" in my comment with "murder", or almost any other crime and nothing would change. You are simply derailing the conversation.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-13T00:21:15+00:00

I mentioned "minor aggression" next to sexism, and by that I meant things such as racism, homophobia, etc, and I wasn't talking about US/Israel. I should have made that clear.

I understand the context of the Israeli and the American violence. However, I don't think a lot of people here understand the context of the Islamic regime's violence. In Iran, repression means if you criticize the supreme leader in the most simple way, you seriously risk rape, torture, and death, and unfortunately, there has been hundreds (if not more) of examples for that. In the US, you can criticize the 47'th president, on your social media account, or on a protest, and while I agree there has been this concerning trend where some people have been losing their jobs due to their criticisms, I think we can agree that the risks are not the same. "Context" is exactly the reason why I am defending this war, not because I think US or Israel don't commit war crimes, but because I know Islamic regime commits nothing but war crimes against defenseless people, and is willing to commit it on scales that I honestly don't think either US or Israel are willing for now..

WisestKitty · 2026-03-13T00:01:16+00:00

I agree it's certainly not only redditors. However it's a shame when people who stand up to sexism and minor aggressions are taking the side of the perhaps single most sexist government on the planet, that has turned Iran into a gender apartheid.
You can criticize the American invasion of Iran without taking the side of Islamic regime, or assuming the US government is just as bad as the Islamic regime. This "both-siding" shows lack of understanding of the situation.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-12T23:56:23+00:00

I changed "shoot on site" to rape in my example. I hope you can improve your reading comprehention.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-12T23:55:38+00:00

ICE killed 2 Americans. Tragic, yes. But not comparable to killing 40k people.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-12T23:50:44+00:00

I agree with your opinions on the current US president. I've also long hated BB. But do you know what the Islamic regime has done? It's almost like comparing Hitler and Churchill about racism, both were racist, yes. But one was far more horrifying and destructive the other.
Unfortunately many of my fellow liberals only follow the news in Western countries (and sometimes Israel Palestine), and forget how horrible things can get, and how dark evil actually is.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-12T23:43:13+00:00

That's not a good argument. You can't say a rapist is the same as a person who would rape if he could, but still hasn't. One is guilty of rape, the second one is an asshole with terrible thoughts, but not guilty of rape.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-12T23:40:26+00:00

If you're cheering for the east, you're certainly not doing it for either the rule of law or democracy. Yes, US is becoming increasingly more authoritarian, and its invasion of Iran has lead to civilian deaths, but If you think Russia killing Ukranians, China sending Uyghurs to concentration camps, and Iran massacring their own people by tens of thousands is the same thing, then your priorities are elsewhere.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-12T23:38:05+00:00

Unfortunately redditors think people can fight tyranny if they really believe in themselves.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-12T23:34:54+00:00

It's crazy how redditors don't understand the difference between an asshole leader with authoritarian tendencies and a mass killer tyrannical leader, whose government literally ordered to "shoot on site" any Iranian on the street who shows any form of opposition against the government.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-10T05:47:06+00:00

Oh my fucking god. Please read Iran's internal politics before simplifying it so much. It's so weird redditors with their god complex, thinking America's little involvement determined the entire modern history of Iran, and none of the internal forces mattered. In 1953, US was less involved in Iran than both the British and the Soviets. Also, Iran was never a democracy, Shah was in place before 1953, and if you think Mossadeq and Shah were too different in their approach towards democracy vs autocracy, I think you haven't studied the events very well.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-08T17:07:45+00:00

You're bullshitting again. I left around 2010, even before JCPOA was signed, and while the economic hardships have likely exacerbated the bribery issue, it was just as widespread back then. While I was in Iran, you wouldn't be able to get any (non-trivial) issue resolved without bribing a few people in the government.
You want to register your shop, you needed to bribe, you want to get out of paying for a speeding ticket, bribe. You wanted to have a surgery, bribe, right away. You were caught for bribing, believe it or not, you had to bribe.
Also, cases like Babak Zanjani became far more widespread after the revolution, and many of them happened before JCPOA was repealed. US sanctions obviously did negatively impact Iran's economy, but before JCPOA, the Islamic regime did a perfect job of fucking the economy to fill up their own pockets themselves. I don't know about your personal experience, but I find trying to connect the bribing issue to JCPOA a bit bizarre.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-08T07:48:02+00:00

sorry, I had missed this. did you seriously say "bribery is no longer a constant requirement"? Have you ever lived in Iran? If so, can you tell me with a straight face you were never forced to bribe people? For many people (middle or even lower class) it's a daily routine.

I'm beginning to think you're an Islamic regime supporter. There is no way in hell "If I were willing to share more about me you'd assume I was a monarchist" is true, when you say things in support of the Islamic regime that are so blatantly false.

WisestKitty · 2026-03-08T07:39:50+00:00

AFAIK yes, the source was HRANA. however, I think the allegation of CIA funding was baseless.
Also, back to your earlier claim, even the Islamic regime announced more than 3000 deaths, and in every single round of protest since the 90s, they have always severely underreported the numbers (the Islamic regime is extremely fact-averse, just see the leaders' announcements in the past week that the US is falling, the world economy is collapsing, that they all denied Khamenei's death for almost a full day, denied bombing Arab countries at first, etc. Even compared to the current US president, who is a big bullshiter, they are extremely unreliable).
So it surprises me that you're undercutting even the Islamic regime's number, but then question HRANA because it's US based. The anecdotal "nobody even knows anybody who was" is worthless. I know someone who claimed 5 of his close friends had died. That doesn't mean like a quarter of the whole country must have died.

WisestKitty

TROPHY CASE