I don't see you crying over those girls, but you're crying over some imaginary protesters the likewise imaginary communist mullahs weren't polite with in your fake msm reports, degenerate duplicitous f**k, and yes, it was the petroleum but not for the Iranian people, for the greedy US .
At last count, your Khazar masters had annihilated more than 70,000 unarmed people in Gaza (mostly women and kids). So lets not be all hypocritical and sh!t.Just think how nice it would be if asshats like you stopped supporting and enabling mass murderous regimes.
Following excerpts from nearly two months ago, Jan. 13, 2026;
Over 12,000 feared dead after Iran protests, as video shows bodies lined up at morgue
...
Information trickling out of Iran on Tuesday suggests that a crackdown by authorities to end more than two weeks of widespread anti-government protests has likely been far more deadly than activists outside the country have reported. With phone lines opening back up for calls from inside the Islamic Republic, two sources, including one inside Iran, told CBS News on Tuesday that at least 12,000, and possibly as many as 20,000 people have been killed.
...
The protests — which drew warnings of a U.S. military intervention by President Trump — were sparked in late December by anger over a new spike in the cost of living in Iran's sanctions-hobbled economy. They quickly grew into mass rallies in all of Iran's 31 provinces, with tens of thousands of people chanting for the downfall of the country's Islamic rulers.
Even the lower death toll reported by Cooper in Britain on Tuesday, if confirmed, would surpass any officially reported casualty figure from past anti-regime protests in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which brought the current government to power.
When Mr. Trump was asked Tuesday how many people have been killed in the protests in Iran, he responded, "Nobody's been able to give me an accurate number."
Mr. Trump warned multiple times as the protests escalated last week that if the Iranian regime killed protesters, the U.S. would take action, without ever specifying a red line that might prompt a response, or what the response might be.
...
President Trump tells Iranian protesters help is on the way
"Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING — TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!! Save the names of the killers and abusers. They will pay a big price. I have cancelled all meetings with Iranian Officials until the senseless killing of protesters STOPS. HELP IS ON ITS WAY," Mr. Trump said in a social media post on Tuesday.
Again he offered no details about what help the U.S. might provide to Iran's long-stifled domestic opposition.
The president's national security team was scheduled to hold a meeting at the White House on Tuesday to discuss his options, according to several sources familiar with the matter. It was unclear whether the president himself would attend. He has been briefed on a wide array of military and covert tools that could be used against Iran, well beyond conventional airstrikes, according to two Pentagon officials who spoke to CBS News on the condition of anonymity to discuss national security matters.
...
Iranians want "anyone who can remove the Islamic Republic"
Amiry-Moghaddan told CBS News many Iranians wouldn't believe that narrative from their leaders.
"Iranian people are so fed up with the regime, and so desperate to come out of this system," he said. "I remember that I used to ask many people, with different backgrounds, 'Who would you support?' And all of them basically say that we would support anyone who can remove the Islamic Republic. Iran is a country with a lot of different kinds of people, different opinions. Some would like to have monarchies, some are opposed to monarchy, but I think the priority is to remove this regime."
Pahlavi has said he's ready to return to lead Iran, despite not having been there since his father, the U.S.-backed shah, fled almost 50 years ago amid intense public outrage over his rule. He told CBS News' Norah O'Donnell on Monday that the Iranian people "need action to be taken."
"The best way to ensure that there will be less people killed in Iran is to intervene sooner, so this regime finally collapses and puts an end to all the problems that we are facing," he said.
Pahlavi said he has communicated with the Trump administration, but he didn't reveal any details of those conversations.
Amiry-Moghaddan said an "absolute majority" of Iranians "don't want the regime, like more than 80%."
But he said that 80% was "roughly divided into three groups, those who would like to have [the] shah's son, those who oppose a monarchy, and those who haven't made up their minds."
....
Over 12,000 feared dead after Iran protests, as video shows bodies lined up at morgue
Information trickling out of Iran suggests a far deadlier crackdown on protesters than previously reported.www.cbsnews.com
Orange highlighting my doing.
Sort of lies I'd expect from a neo-nazi.
Sort of lies I'd expect from a neo-nazi.
Read this. You're a Yankee after all, aren't you?
This is like a full circle. How shall I explain in easy-to-understand terms for the West (Yankees in particular)?
1). The Anglo-American troupe controlled Iran's natural resource ... i.e. their oil. The Iranians themselves got doodly squat.
2). Iran decided that Democracy was a "good thing" and so they installed a Democratic government for, by, and of the people - you know Democratic principles.
3). Iran's government realised that democracy demands that the population be given the right to self-determination and prosperity afforded their own resources so those resources were given to the Iranian population. Obviously, this meant that the Anglo-Americans would no longer skim the cream and keep the Iranians in poverty.
4). In 1953 the Anglo-Americans [who had now become Tyrants] set the CIA to work in overthrowing the democratically-elected government in what was called "Operation TP Ajax" and installed the puppet Dictator Shah.
5). The Iranians suffered tremendously during this anti-Democratic period until 1979 when the Islamic Revolution threw the Americans out of the country.
6). Unfortunately, it did not reinstate a truly Democratic government because they didn't want a repeat of the 1950s but it did kick the US in the ass and bring Iran's resources back to the Iranian people.
7). The Yankees have been bitching and moaning about it ever since. They want to get their grubby hands on Iran’s oil again ..... and so, I refer to your statement above.
Ps. History isn't taught in US schools so the Americans know nothing about any of this.
What did I say that was a lie?
It's not the complete story nor accurate.Read this. You're a Yankee after all, aren't you?
Stupid !
Hmm, I was a commie, a homophobe, a comrade, an Ivan, a Boris, what else, ah yeah, a hate crimer and now this? Man, you're hurting me hard this time.
Please try using all 5 of your brain cells. It'll give you a better chance of understanding the big picture. First of all ... 1948 is when the Khazars invaded Palestine and literally started the war. Prior to that, the Khazar Zionists were still in their home towns scattered across eastern Europe. Quit being such a dunce.
You know what pravda means in Russian? It's the truth. Don't you trust the truth, do you?
And you believe the Soviets were telling the truth/pravda.
The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion: Unpacking the Notorious Antisemitic Forgery
As a deluded liar filled with ignorance you qualify for many negative epitaphs.Hmm, I was a commie, a homophobe, a comrade, an Ivan, a Boris, what else, ah yeah, a hate crimer and now this? Man, you're hurting me hard this time.
Iran says it aimed at military and dual-use infrastructure to degrade adversary capabilities and pressure governments; civilian sites were hit mainly because they were co-located with, supported, or indistinguishable from military or strategic targets — not because Iran publicly said its intent was to kill civilians. Summary of what reputable reporting and verified open sources confirm (based on multiple international outlets, satellite-image providers and OSINT groups):
Of course they did. Who won the war after all? Weren't those the Soviets, were they? But son, let's stop a-fussing and a-fueding for a sec and segway to this: are they telling the truth this time? Just asking.And you believe the Soviets were telling the truth/pravda.
Fair logic.
Yes, that's what I assumed and [despite what the idiots in the peanut gallery who must be illiterate imagine], that's what I said up front.
Good post!
I award it an additional lol.Edit : Should the world trust a major US organization that has consistently failed its audits? lol.
