[Wytwwww]

So there are no circumstances where armed rebellion is justifiable and the only legitimate type of resistance to state violence is literally trying to drown the state forces in bodies of non-violent protestors?

At a certain point there ceases to be a middle path between violent resistance and complete surrender.

> Protesters which foreign states (China or Russia)

This type of relativism is dishonest. Of course US is speed running the path to authoritarianism but its not quite there. e.g. morally it would be perfectly acceptable to support weapons to protestors in Russia and not the other way around.

The Iranian regime is objectively evil, period. Regardless of what honest or dishonest motives foreign actors might or might not have.

[pydry]

>So there are no circumstances where armed rebellion is justifiable

What circumstances has Iran created that demand armed rebellion?

[weatherlite]

How about killing 30k people (vast majority unarmed as far as I can tell) in a week or two?

[mupuff1234]

Economic collapse, failed infrastructure, lack of human rights, ruthless religious dictatorship? All while spending 25% of their budget on military ventures.

Just to name a few.

[reliabilityguy]

I think beating women on the streets for refusal to wear hijab contributes to dissatisfaction of the populace with the government.

[don_esteban]

Uh, sorry, no. At the moment you start arguing by 'The Iranian regime is objectively evil, period', you have totally lost the plot.

The statement 'The USA regime is objectively evil, period' is much more justifiable. Measured, e.g. by the number of people it has killed (both directly, and indirectly by sanctions and support for brutal dictators - e.g. Pinochet, but also Saddam while he was waging war with Iran).

Meddling in internal affairs of other countries has a terrible track record, the world would be so much better off without it.

Armed resistance most often leads to a damn bloody affair in which everybody is worse off, unless the state is already so rotten that it has no will to fight for itself. Supporting such resistance just means more life losses, both on the resistance and on the state side (typically, much more on the resistance side). Hence, the true aim is not to help the resistance, but to weaken the state. No consideration for the life of the local people, the show (the grand game) must go on!

[JumpCrisscross]

> Meddling in internal affairs of other countries has a terrible track record, the world would be so much better off without it

Wishing away "meddling" is on par with wishing away war. Nice in theory. Practically impossible in practice. (Sovereignty has a Schrödinger's element to it. You really only know you have it when you test its boundaries. And the only test of sovereignty is against another sovereign. The world is littered with sovereigns meddling in each others' affairs and those who aren't sovereign.)

[AnimalMuppet]

The US is evil because it meddles in the affairs of other countries? Uh huh. Tell me about Iran.

The US is evil because of who it supports? Tell me about Iran.

And at least the US didn't murder thousands of anti-government demonstrators so far this year.

You're right in this: The US is not the shining example of goodness and purity that we wish it to be. But when you condemn the US compared to Iran, using those metrics, it looks suspiciously like motivated reasoning.