It appears personal devices were also impacted by this via Microsoft Intune. That app is presented to employees as a way to get their email/slack on their personal device without giving IT systems access to it.
IT systems around the country say that they have no access to your personal data and there they can only block access to Intune apps.
But the linked reddit thread[1] in this article notes personal devices getting wiped and locked out.
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) MDM profiles typically don't allow personal data access outside of their sandbox, but they almost always include remote wipe capabilities.
iOS at least displays a very clear warning when you import the profile telling you exactly what it can do.
Not that this isn't awful, but it's good to be clear on what this can do when used within normal expectations.
Knowing InTune MDM setup, it has two modes, control a few apps or control entire phone. iOS will tell you during setup what's happening and I've been at plenty of companies where employees are told "It's just for our apps" but it's really full Device Control. $TwoCompaniesAgo tried that "It's just for our applications" but when I went to install it, iOS went "This is 100% full device control" and I rejected it.
If Intune wiped personal devices that’s a serious failure. BYOD setups are supposed to wipe only the work container, not the whole phone. Either those devices were fully enrolled in MDM without people realizing or someone pushed the wrong wipe policy during incident response. Would be good to see confirmation from affected employees.
Isn't it a weird coincidence that soon after the US and Israel started an unprovoked and unnecessary war (that billionaires will profit handsomely from, as an aside) that we get stories like this to manufacture consent?
I belive that US tech firms have increasingly become valid military targets. There was a post about this yesterday [1]. BUT I don't think that extends to hospitals and medical supplies, regardless of who owns them or if they treat soldiers or not.
But, as best as I can tell, the company has been inconvenienced, possibly massively. Let's put this in context. The US launched a Tomahawk missile at a school and killed 160 school girls.
And I bet that if you look into pretty much any company hit by a hack, you'll find cost-cutting on IT to increase executive pay and bonuses.
Between the Iran-Iraq war, which the US was responsible for, and decades of sanctions, the US has by this point killed millions of Iranians. The real problem here is the general ignorance of the average American of America's 70+ years of war crimes against Iran [2].
I mean this as analysis, not justification. But at some point the incredulity at blowback rings hollow.
If you make justifications for non-military targets like that ("tech firms"), then it just becomes a matter of opinion on where we draw the line. _You_ don't think that extends to hospitals and medical supplies, but _they_ might, and you're moral compass is just as righteous as theirs.
There was a time when there was less restraint with what prosecuting a war looked like. The Mongols famously wiped out the Khwarazmian Empire after the Sultan killed their traders.
But given the growth in destructive power, particularly with the advent of the nuclear age, it became necessary to establish some rules or norms for war and I'm referring specifically to the Geneva Conventions [1]. Conventions here cover that wounded people and civilians aren't military targets. So it's not my opinion or Iran's opinion that matters.
The question then is do we live in an interntional rules-based order or not? The US and Israel have ignored the rules-based order in favor of "might is right" politics.
As for tech firms, I'm sorry but a company like Palantir has made itself a valid military target [2][3]. And if you work there, you are really no different from the Reaper Drone pilot who fires Hellfire missiles at, say, a wedding procession [4].
Is there a reason to believe this is false flag per your first sentence? Iran is an advanced technological civilization and very much capable. They would be considered a first world western like nation if they didn’t have a repressive theocracy.
>Isn't it a weird coincidence that soon after the US and Israel started an unprovoked and unnecessary war (that billionaires will profit handsomely from, as an aside) that we get stories like this to manufacture consent?
Are you suggesting that's an inside job and/or false flag attack? If it's not a false flag attack, why imply that the reporting must be to "manufacture consent"? Shouldn't you expect major hacks to be reported?
I'm saying that the media suddenly covering stories like this isn't a coincidence. The media is a tool of the state to manufacture consent. Media literacy goes beyond just looking at the facts in a story. It's also what's not mentioned, how is it presented, what stories are written, what stories aren't and, most importantly, why.
All social media companies manufacture consent for American foreign policy. Pretty much all American media does the same.
I find all this particularly funny because our media does the exact thing we accuse the likes of Chinese media doing it. We just pretend it doesn't happen here or are oblivious to it.
>I'm saying that the media suddenly covering stories like this isn't a coincidence. The media is a tool of the state to manufacture consent [...]
What do you mean "suddenly"? Per the reddit thread, they just got hacked yesterday. It's not like they were sitting on the story until the war broke out. Moreover I see hacks covered in the media all the time, even if there's no obvious russia/iran/north korea "manufacture consent" angle.
>Media literacy goes beyond just looking at the facts in a story. It's also what's not mentioned, how is it presented, what stories are written, what stories aren't and, most importantly, why.
There's a huge gulf between "taking every story at face value" and what you're doing which is seemingly assuming every story must be part of some sinister conspiracy to "manufacture consent".
> Per the reddit thread, they just got hacked yesterday.
There are constant hacks of companies. Most of them don't get covered. So there's that. But it's also how it's framed. It's an "Iranian cyberattack". Interesting.
Couldn't an equally valid headline be "Lax security results in Stryker getting hacked"? Probably (just guessing).
It's a bit like all the stories about the Chinese stealing IP and jobs. Ok, let's assume those claims are true and have been for decades. So why do companies keep offshoring there knowing this will happen? At what point do you blame short-term cost-cutting by bonus-hunting executives?
My point is that the media is playing along and you're going to get a lot of "Iran = bad" stories because of it.
>There are constant hacks of companies. Most of them don't get covered. So there's that.
Source? You can't just be like "some hacks don't get covered, this hack got covered, therefore there must be some ulterior motive behind this". If the baseline rate for reporting hacks is like 50% (random number), then the fact that it got reported doesn't tell us much. Moreover Stryker Corporation is a S&P 500 company, and this hack had major impact on their business. It's not just some data that got leaked, all their laptops/phones got wiped. It's exactly the type of hack that I'd expect to not get swept under the rug.
>It's an "Iranian cyberattack". Interesting.
Again, unless you're going for the false flag or inside job excuse, the hacker's note makes it pretty clear that it's Iranian backed, or at least by Iranian sympathizers.
>Couldn't an equally valid headline be "Lax security results in Stryker getting hacked"? Probably (just guessing).
>It's a bit like all the stories about the Chinese stealing IP and jobs. Ok, let's assume those claims are true and have been for decades. So why do companies keep offshoring there knowing this will happen? At what point do you blame short-term cost-cutting by bonus-hunting executives?
Same reason we don't put out headlines saying "women going to seedy club results in rape".
Please stop with the '35k', you have no idea where that number comes from, it's not even good propaganda anymore. OSINT groups say 15k, human rights activists said they confirmed 7000 death (6400 protesters) and have 11k more to investigate so at most it's 18k.
Iran executed 1500 people in 2025, and usually execute between 50 and 500 every year. They arrested 50 000 protesters, a huge part of which will be put to death. You can say a lot against the Mollahs, and you'd be right , they're horrible but please don't lie, it makes the argument weaker, and seems like slopaganda.
Still, Saddam Hussein chemical bombs donated by the US killed way more Iranians than the regime killed over 50 years, so I think the 'just war' propaganda need to stop. Saudis killed at least 53k slaves over the past 10 years, and ordered some of those executed by their police, I don't see anybody in the US taking down the regime.
> I do believe President Trump stated it was an Iranian Tomahawk missile.
If Trump said that, it is propaganda aimed at the amazingly ignorant; Tomahawks are US-made and only used by the US, UK, and Australia, with the Netherlands and Japan having recently entered into agreements to deploy them.
But the coalition (is two nations really a coalition?) hasn't state regime change is the purpose of the war. Well, they did, and then changed their minds. Several times.
And, as I'm sure you're aware, knocking off the head of state in Iran doesn't necessarily move the needle on regime change. Dismantling the IRGC and removing the hardliners will be a long, dangerous operation and I doubt the US has the stomach for that. And Israel has already moved on to bombing Lebanon again.
What are the US politic for regime changing another Middle Eastern country, one that's bigger than Iraq? Is there a coherent US plan for this war? I have yet to hear one.
And? The statement was pretty clear they think current Iranian regime should go but no indication of what comes behind it which is ultimate question. Their status as Iranian does not get them off the hook of answering "Regime change, how and what will next regime look like?"
I am asking Iranians what’s next. It’s always the most important question. There will be some other guys with weapons taking over. Or should we expect peaceful elections coming like it was in Germany after defeating Nazis? But wait, Germany was conquered and divided by Allies to make it happen.
They were explaining US politics, not Middle East politics. Whether or not you see a first-world project to liberate Iran as legitimate, fundamentally the Trump government is too mercurial to see it through.
While the Bush-era invasion of Iraq was indefensible (if it was defensible they wouldn't have needed to push the WMD lie to justify it) and their initial projections were as ridiculously optimistic as the Trump government's, the Bush crew were clearly ideologically committed to the project and willing to see it through to the end.
Trump's people are not. This is "move fast and break things" and "strong opinions weakly held" in geopolitical form.
I'm afraid the coalition has no idea what to do with the islamic regime in question. Unless it will be toppled from inside, the best the coalition can offer is more bombs (until it becomes too much of a strain for the budget).
Idk, this didn't happen in Iran. Literally not a single bit of evidence to prove these claims of violence of the state of Iran against its citizens.. Your consent has been completely manufactured. You people are trying to wash the sins of the genocide you just committed on the people of Gaza by creating a fake one in Iran, to justify your thirst for blood.
While I'm sure that it did happen, it certainly wasn't 30k people. There's tons of videos of provocateurs shooting shotguns at police... What happens anywhere in the world when you start shooting at police?
But in the case of Israel, land of the religious ethno-state that has been literally committing acts of terror for 3 years straight in 4k, on video.. they were allowed continue governing themselves after killing or wounding 30k innocent children...
So, if you want your argument stronger: 7k deaths confirmed, 6400 protesters, 200 regime officers, and 400 bystanders.
Plus 11k unconfirmed dead, according to HRANA, so at most 18k dead during the Iranian protests. They also jailed 50k people, and before the war, it seemed a third of those were destined to be executed if the trend continued.
Iran also execute between 50 and 500 people a year, every year, and in the last 5, it was closer to 500, culminating in 2025 where 1500 person got the death penalty.
A regime that has to kill that much is weak, and would probably have fallen on itself if the US hadn't launched any strikes.
I absolutely think there should be ramifications for such acts.
What I find bizarre, is that China and Russia do this daily, and "oh well". If such states sent over people to, you know, do damage using a bomb instead of a hack, there'd be trouble. As in, two towers were damaged, and it set off 20 years of war ... mostly against the wrong states.
Yet if you cause death via subtle means, such as reducing hospital infra, or attack and destroy infra via hacking, meh. Oh well!
This sort of falls inline with all other compute issues that appear before all elected bodies on the planet. An immense lack of understanding and comprehension, coupled with an inability to act.
And one wonders why Iran wants a nuke. It's not to wipe out Israel and the US as some hawks in Congress falsely claim. It's the same reason North Korea developed nukes. Terrible regimes, but they understand countries with nukes don't get bombed or invaded. That's Ukraine's tragedy.
yeah, if there's one clear takeaway from the US-involved conflicts of the past several decades, it's that nukes are the key to making the U.S. keep its hands to itself
Ramifications include firing more security engineers and replacing them with shoddy AI tools, pencil whipping any issues that cost time and money to fix immediately, or just ignoring the problem entirely until it happens a few more times.
A problem with this line of reasoning is that the people killed by your hypothetical bombs are likely not the ones responsible for the previous attack, even if they do live in the same country. Warfare is in general a very poor system of justice and probably shouldn't be considered as such.
The only reason the US government doesn't make a big deal about hacking is because they dont want blowback from their own intelligence collection operations.
It's like how every country knows embassies are full of spies but they let them operate as diplomats anyway because they do the same thing.
What a ridiculous comparison. This Iranian regime is responsible for the direct deaths of civilians, on purpose, due to both funding and direct acts of violence around the world. And yes, that includes countless children.
Not to mention its own citizens, Iranian death squads, killing of women, there is literally no comparison between the purposeful, lack of any care or concern for life exhibited by Iran, and a literal accident with a missile.
To highlight that point, the US cares enough to investigate and discover just how such an unfortunate act happened.
I'm not quite getting your point. Are you saying that when Iran kills children, we should get angry and bomb them, and when the US kills children, other countries shouldn't get angry and bomb the US?
There absolutely is a comparison. Both acts are evil. Just because Iran's regime has a history of even more heinous evil acts doesn't absolve the United States and Israel of their own evil acts.
So, since the Iranian regime killed protesters, it's OK for the US regime to obliterate a girl's school? And then lie about it? I'm having trouble following your reasoning.
Tell me again why was this war necessary for the US? What sort of threat did Iran pose? Wasn't their nuclear program "obliterated" when we bombed them last year? Every time someone from the Trump administration talks, it's a different reason.
The commenter you replied to seems to be oblivious to the fact that this act, described in the article, is merely a consequence of the war they started.
Iranian hackers have been at place for quite some time beforehand.
And it's not a war started, its a "war" responding to decades of heinous, vicious, deadly funding of terrorist organizations, and bombing of innocent civilians.
Defending Iran is akin to defending a serial murderer. Or complaining that the serial murdered got shot while resisting arrest. Ridiculous.
I sincerely hope the decent people of Iran do get rid of this ridiculous, religiously ran and controlled state.
The US killed many, many more civilians accross the world that Iran ever did. Yet you don't seem to care about that, why?
> And it's not a war started, its a "war" responding to decades of heinous, vicious, deadly funding of terrorist organizations, and bombing of innocent civilians.
As if the US hadn't been antagonizing Iran for decades. Trump broke the nuclear agreements (which Iran had been following), then refused to negotiate new ones, then joined Israel in their bloodlust for muslim blood. This war is aimless, and only serves to radicalize the Iranian people against Israel and the US. Which will inevitably result in even more bloodshed down the line.
> Trump broke the nuclear agreements (which Iran had been following), then refused to negotiate new ones
This is the most head-slapping part of this whole situation. We had a nuclear deal and he pulled the US out of it for no good reason (my read: because he just hates Obama that much that anything he did he wanted to undo). This situation is 100% on this president.
I don't see why this matters, there are accidental civilian casualties in every war. This was unintentional, unlike Iran killing 30,000 of their own citizens, which was entirely deliberate.
If you can find evidence the United States directly targeted a school with the intent of killing children and not just due to outdated intel (and somebody setting up a school in what was once part of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval base), maybe I'd change my mind.
30000 is nothing compared to the civilians the US has killed all over the world, all "accidentally" of course. Since 2023 Israel has killed 57000 civilians in Gaza. Shouldn't you be calling for an invasion of Israel on humanitarian grounds then?
> If such states sent over people to, you know, do damage using a bomb instead of a hack, there'd be trouble.
Russia have been running assassinations and sabotage programme using poison, bombs, small arms and radioactive material in the West for years with no real repercussions.
I didn't downvote you, but you probably were because your comment is an impertinent strawman. The faces of your downvoters are normal people who care about the quality of the discussion.
It appears personal devices were also impacted by this via Microsoft Intune. That app is presented to employees as a way to get their email/slack on their personal device without giving IT systems access to it.
IT systems around the country say that they have no access to your personal data and there they can only block access to Intune apps.
But the linked reddit thread[1] in this article notes personal devices getting wiped and locked out.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/1rqopq0/stry...
Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) MDM profiles typically don't allow personal data access outside of their sandbox, but they almost always include remote wipe capabilities.
iOS at least displays a very clear warning when you import the profile telling you exactly what it can do.
Not that this isn't awful, but it's good to be clear on what this can do when used within normal expectations.
Knowing InTune MDM setup, it has two modes, control a few apps or control entire phone. iOS will tell you during setup what's happening and I've been at plenty of companies where employees are told "It's just for our apps" but it's really full Device Control. $TwoCompaniesAgo tried that "It's just for our applications" but when I went to install it, iOS went "This is 100% full device control" and I rejected it.
MDM enrollment has colloquially meant your device could be wiped for the security|incompetency of your firm for quite some time.
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47346091
If Intune wiped personal devices that’s a serious failure. BYOD setups are supposed to wipe only the work container, not the whole phone. Either those devices were fully enrolled in MDM without people realizing or someone pushed the wrong wipe policy during incident response. Would be good to see confirmation from affected employees.
This isn't true for iOS at least. You can include device erase capabilities in the MDM profile without enrolling as a managed device.
Hacktivists? Looks more like state actors.
Astounding amount of censorship in these comments.
Isn't it a weird coincidence that soon after the US and Israel started an unprovoked and unnecessary war (that billionaires will profit handsomely from, as an aside) that we get stories like this to manufacture consent?
I belive that US tech firms have increasingly become valid military targets. There was a post about this yesterday [1]. BUT I don't think that extends to hospitals and medical supplies, regardless of who owns them or if they treat soldiers or not.
But, as best as I can tell, the company has been inconvenienced, possibly massively. Let's put this in context. The US launched a Tomahawk missile at a school and killed 160 school girls.
And I bet that if you look into pretty much any company hit by a hack, you'll find cost-cutting on IT to increase executive pay and bonuses.
Between the Iran-Iraq war, which the US was responsible for, and decades of sanctions, the US has by this point killed millions of Iranians. The real problem here is the general ignorance of the average American of America's 70+ years of war crimes against Iran [2].
I mean this as analysis, not justification. But at some point the incredulity at blowback rings hollow.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47341007
[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342791
If you make justifications for non-military targets like that ("tech firms"), then it just becomes a matter of opinion on where we draw the line. _You_ don't think that extends to hospitals and medical supplies, but _they_ might, and you're moral compass is just as righteous as theirs.
There was a time when there was less restraint with what prosecuting a war looked like. The Mongols famously wiped out the Khwarazmian Empire after the Sultan killed their traders.
But given the growth in destructive power, particularly with the advent of the nuclear age, it became necessary to establish some rules or norms for war and I'm referring specifically to the Geneva Conventions [1]. Conventions here cover that wounded people and civilians aren't military targets. So it's not my opinion or Iran's opinion that matters.
The question then is do we live in an interntional rules-based order or not? The US and Israel have ignored the rules-based order in favor of "might is right" politics.
As for tech firms, I'm sorry but a company like Palantir has made itself a valid military target [2][3]. And if you work there, you are really no different from the Reaper Drone pilot who fires Hellfire missiles at, say, a wedding procession [4].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
[2]: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
[3]: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/palantir...
[4]: https://aoav.org.uk/2014/drone-strike-yemen/
Is there a reason to believe this is false flag per your first sentence? Iran is an advanced technological civilization and very much capable. They would be considered a first world western like nation if they didn’t have a repressive theocracy.
>Isn't it a weird coincidence that soon after the US and Israel started an unprovoked and unnecessary war (that billionaires will profit handsomely from, as an aside) that we get stories like this to manufacture consent?
Are you suggesting that's an inside job and/or false flag attack? If it's not a false flag attack, why imply that the reporting must be to "manufacture consent"? Shouldn't you expect major hacks to be reported?
No.
I'm saying that the media suddenly covering stories like this isn't a coincidence. The media is a tool of the state to manufacture consent. Media literacy goes beyond just looking at the facts in a story. It's also what's not mentioned, how is it presented, what stories are written, what stories aren't and, most importantly, why.
All social media companies manufacture consent for American foreign policy. Pretty much all American media does the same.
I find all this particularly funny because our media does the exact thing we accuse the likes of Chinese media doing it. We just pretend it doesn't happen here or are oblivious to it.
>I'm saying that the media suddenly covering stories like this isn't a coincidence. The media is a tool of the state to manufacture consent [...]
What do you mean "suddenly"? Per the reddit thread, they just got hacked yesterday. It's not like they were sitting on the story until the war broke out. Moreover I see hacks covered in the media all the time, even if there's no obvious russia/iran/north korea "manufacture consent" angle.
>Media literacy goes beyond just looking at the facts in a story. It's also what's not mentioned, how is it presented, what stories are written, what stories aren't and, most importantly, why.
There's a huge gulf between "taking every story at face value" and what you're doing which is seemingly assuming every story must be part of some sinister conspiracy to "manufacture consent".
> Per the reddit thread, they just got hacked yesterday.
There are constant hacks of companies. Most of them don't get covered. So there's that. But it's also how it's framed. It's an "Iranian cyberattack". Interesting.
Couldn't an equally valid headline be "Lax security results in Stryker getting hacked"? Probably (just guessing).
It's a bit like all the stories about the Chinese stealing IP and jobs. Ok, let's assume those claims are true and have been for decades. So why do companies keep offshoring there knowing this will happen? At what point do you blame short-term cost-cutting by bonus-hunting executives?
My point is that the media is playing along and you're going to get a lot of "Iran = bad" stories because of it.
>There are constant hacks of companies. Most of them don't get covered. So there's that.
Source? You can't just be like "some hacks don't get covered, this hack got covered, therefore there must be some ulterior motive behind this". If the baseline rate for reporting hacks is like 50% (random number), then the fact that it got reported doesn't tell us much. Moreover Stryker Corporation is a S&P 500 company, and this hack had major impact on their business. It's not just some data that got leaked, all their laptops/phones got wiped. It's exactly the type of hack that I'd expect to not get swept under the rug.
>It's an "Iranian cyberattack". Interesting.
Again, unless you're going for the false flag or inside job excuse, the hacker's note makes it pretty clear that it's Iranian backed, or at least by Iranian sympathizers.
>Couldn't an equally valid headline be "Lax security results in Stryker getting hacked"? Probably (just guessing).
>It's a bit like all the stories about the Chinese stealing IP and jobs. Ok, let's assume those claims are true and have been for decades. So why do companies keep offshoring there knowing this will happen? At what point do you blame short-term cost-cutting by bonus-hunting executives?
Same reason we don't put out headlines saying "women going to seedy club results in rape".
[dead]
[flagged]
Please stop with the '35k', you have no idea where that number comes from, it's not even good propaganda anymore. OSINT groups say 15k, human rights activists said they confirmed 7000 death (6400 protesters) and have 11k more to investigate so at most it's 18k.
Iran executed 1500 people in 2025, and usually execute between 50 and 500 every year. They arrested 50 000 protesters, a huge part of which will be put to death. You can say a lot against the Mollahs, and you'd be right , they're horrible but please don't lie, it makes the argument weaker, and seems like slopaganda.
Still, Saddam Hussein chemical bombs donated by the US killed way more Iranians than the regime killed over 50 years, so I think the 'just war' propaganda need to stop. Saudis killed at least 53k slaves over the past 10 years, and ordered some of those executed by their police, I don't see anybody in the US taking down the regime.
Why stop there? The 1953 coup backed by the USA and UK overthrew the last democratically elected leader of Iran, because he was nationalising the oil.
[flagged]
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/11/us/politics/iran-school-m...
> I do believe President Trump stated it was an Iranian Tomahawk missile.
If Trump said that, it is propaganda aimed at the amazingly ignorant; Tomahawks are US-made and only used by the US, UK, and Australia, with the Netherlands and Japan having recently entered into agreements to deploy them.
[dead]
[flagged]
I'm glad there's finally a coalition
But the coalition (is two nations really a coalition?) hasn't state regime change is the purpose of the war. Well, they did, and then changed their minds. Several times.
And, as I'm sure you're aware, knocking off the head of state in Iran doesn't necessarily move the needle on regime change. Dismantling the IRGC and removing the hardliners will be a long, dangerous operation and I doubt the US has the stomach for that. And Israel has already moved on to bombing Lebanon again.
[flagged]
What are the US politic for regime changing another Middle Eastern country, one that's bigger than Iraq? Is there a coherent US plan for this war? I have yet to hear one.
And? The statement was pretty clear they think current Iranian regime should go but no indication of what comes behind it which is ultimate question. Their status as Iranian does not get them off the hook of answering "Regime change, how and what will next regime look like?"
I am asking Iranians what’s next. It’s always the most important question. There will be some other guys with weapons taking over. Or should we expect peaceful elections coming like it was in Germany after defeating Nazis? But wait, Germany was conquered and divided by Allies to make it happen.
They were explaining US politics, not Middle East politics. Whether or not you see a first-world project to liberate Iran as legitimate, fundamentally the Trump government is too mercurial to see it through.
While the Bush-era invasion of Iraq was indefensible (if it was defensible they wouldn't have needed to push the WMD lie to justify it) and their initial projections were as ridiculously optimistic as the Trump government's, the Bush crew were clearly ideologically committed to the project and willing to see it through to the end.
Trump's people are not. This is "move fast and break things" and "strong opinions weakly held" in geopolitical form.
I'm afraid the coalition has no idea what to do with the islamic regime in question. Unless it will be toppled from inside, the best the coalition can offer is more bombs (until it becomes too much of a strain for the budget).
Interesting. Is it desirable to have civil infrastructure destroyed by a foreign power?
More importantly, was having civil infrastructure destroyed ever, in any place in history, a catalyst for a "regime change"?
I really don't think Israel and the US care much about your people. Be careful with what you wish for. You just might get it.
[flagged]
[flagged]
What happens when you murder 30,000 protestors?
Idk, this didn't happen in Iran. Literally not a single bit of evidence to prove these claims of violence of the state of Iran against its citizens.. Your consent has been completely manufactured. You people are trying to wash the sins of the genocide you just committed on the people of Gaza by creating a fake one in Iran, to justify your thirst for blood.
While I'm sure that it did happen, it certainly wasn't 30k people. There's tons of videos of provocateurs shooting shotguns at police... What happens anywhere in the world when you start shooting at police?
But in the case of Israel, land of the religious ethno-state that has been literally committing acts of terror for 3 years straight in 4k, on video.. they were allowed continue governing themselves after killing or wounding 30k innocent children...
So you tell me what happens?
So, if you want your argument stronger: 7k deaths confirmed, 6400 protesters, 200 regime officers, and 400 bystanders.
Plus 11k unconfirmed dead, according to HRANA, so at most 18k dead during the Iranian protests. They also jailed 50k people, and before the war, it seemed a third of those were destined to be executed if the trend continued.
Iran also execute between 50 and 500 people a year, every year, and in the last 5, it was closer to 500, culminating in 2025 where 1500 person got the death penalty.
A regime that has to kill that much is weak, and would probably have fallen on itself if the US hadn't launched any strikes.
[dead]
I absolutely think there should be ramifications for such acts.
What I find bizarre, is that China and Russia do this daily, and "oh well". If such states sent over people to, you know, do damage using a bomb instead of a hack, there'd be trouble. As in, two towers were damaged, and it set off 20 years of war ... mostly against the wrong states.
Yet if you cause death via subtle means, such as reducing hospital infra, or attack and destroy infra via hacking, meh. Oh well!
This sort of falls inline with all other compute issues that appear before all elected bodies on the planet. An immense lack of understanding and comprehension, coupled with an inability to act.
Well their country is currently being bombed, curious what additional ramifications you’d like to see?
I think he's pointing out that we're not bombing China or Russia or North Korea, or any other states, over similar attacks.
Because they have nukes unlike Iran.
And one wonders why Iran wants a nuke. It's not to wipe out Israel and the US as some hawks in Congress falsely claim. It's the same reason North Korea developed nukes. Terrible regimes, but they understand countries with nukes don't get bombed or invaded. That's Ukraine's tragedy.
yeah, if there's one clear takeaway from the US-involved conflicts of the past several decades, it's that nukes are the key to making the U.S. keep its hands to itself
Well they're not... um... what was it that Iran was doing to make us bomb them again?
plainly: they're being punished for not having nuclear weapons already
Ramifications include firing more security engineers and replacing them with shoddy AI tools, pencil whipping any issues that cost time and money to fix immediately, or just ignoring the problem entirely until it happens a few more times.
A problem with this line of reasoning is that the people killed by your hypothetical bombs are likely not the ones responsible for the previous attack, even if they do live in the same country. Warfare is in general a very poor system of justice and probably shouldn't be considered as such.
The only reason the US government doesn't make a big deal about hacking is because they dont want blowback from their own intelligence collection operations.
It's like how every country knows embassies are full of spies but they let them operate as diplomats anyway because they do the same thing.
> It's like how every country knows embassies are full of spies but they let them operate as diplomats anyway
Or in Iran’s case, they don’t.
What does Israel gain by instigating war between USA and China right now?
Or we could see this as a ramification for US bombing their country and DIRECTLY killing people, including many non-combatants.
Like children, at school
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/11/nx-s1-5744981/pentagon-iran-m...
What a ridiculous comparison. This Iranian regime is responsible for the direct deaths of civilians, on purpose, due to both funding and direct acts of violence around the world. And yes, that includes countless children.
Not to mention its own citizens, Iranian death squads, killing of women, there is literally no comparison between the purposeful, lack of any care or concern for life exhibited by Iran, and a literal accident with a missile.
To highlight that point, the US cares enough to investigate and discover just how such an unfortunate act happened.
I'm not quite getting your point. Are you saying that when Iran kills children, we should get angry and bomb them, and when the US kills children, other countries shouldn't get angry and bomb the US?
> there is literally no comparison
There absolutely is a comparison. Both acts are evil. Just because Iran's regime has a history of even more heinous evil acts doesn't absolve the United States and Israel of their own evil acts.
> To highlight that point, the US cares enough to investigate and discover just how such an unfortunate act happened.
I trust the US as much as Iran or North Korea to investigate themselves and find no fault.
So, since the Iranian regime killed protesters, it's OK for the US regime to obliterate a girl's school? And then lie about it? I'm having trouble following your reasoning.
Tell me again why was this war necessary for the US? What sort of threat did Iran pose? Wasn't their nuclear program "obliterated" when we bombed them last year? Every time someone from the Trump administration talks, it's a different reason.
The commenter you replied to seems to be oblivious to the fact that this act, described in the article, is merely a consequence of the war they started.
Iranian hackers have been at place for quite some time beforehand.
And it's not a war started, its a "war" responding to decades of heinous, vicious, deadly funding of terrorist organizations, and bombing of innocent civilians.
Defending Iran is akin to defending a serial murderer. Or complaining that the serial murdered got shot while resisting arrest. Ridiculous.
I sincerely hope the decent people of Iran do get rid of this ridiculous, religiously ran and controlled state.
Didn't the US kill more people than Iran did, in any time period?
Iran may have killed more people on January 12.
Assuming the killings weren't instigated by American or Israeli operatives
The US killed many, many more civilians accross the world that Iran ever did. Yet you don't seem to care about that, why?
> And it's not a war started, its a "war" responding to decades of heinous, vicious, deadly funding of terrorist organizations, and bombing of innocent civilians.
As if the US hadn't been antagonizing Iran for decades. Trump broke the nuclear agreements (which Iran had been following), then refused to negotiate new ones, then joined Israel in their bloodlust for muslim blood. This war is aimless, and only serves to radicalize the Iranian people against Israel and the US. Which will inevitably result in even more bloodshed down the line.
> Trump broke the nuclear agreements (which Iran had been following), then refused to negotiate new ones
This is the most head-slapping part of this whole situation. We had a nuclear deal and he pulled the US out of it for no good reason (my read: because he just hates Obama that much that anything he did he wanted to undo). This situation is 100% on this president.
I don't see why this matters, there are accidental civilian casualties in every war. This was unintentional, unlike Iran killing 30,000 of their own citizens, which was entirely deliberate.
If you can find evidence the United States directly targeted a school with the intent of killing children and not just due to outdated intel (and somebody setting up a school in what was once part of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval base), maybe I'd change my mind.
30000 is nothing compared to the civilians the US has killed all over the world, all "accidentally" of course. Since 2023 Israel has killed 57000 civilians in Gaza. Shouldn't you be calling for an invasion of Israel on humanitarian grounds then?
Is it an "oh well" situation in this case though?
There seem to be actual people getting killed, in an actual war (by another name, but we all know it's a war, with missiles and airplanes and bombs).
> If such states sent over people to, you know, do damage using a bomb instead of a hack, there'd be trouble.
Russia have been running assassinations and sabotage programme using poison, bombs, small arms and radioactive material in the West for years with no real repercussions.
Their country is being attacked. They are the aggressed party.
What ramifications you think is going to happen? They already have their country being bombed.
Yep, the US should kill another 170 kids in a school, for example, right?
Edit: this is one of those case where I would really love to see the face of the one who downvoted this comment.
I didn't downvote you, but you probably were because your comment is an impertinent strawman. The faces of your downvoters are normal people who care about the quality of the discussion.
[dead]