Over 12,000 feared dead after Iran protests

[Twiglets1]

Report by CBS News:

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.

Britain's Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said in Parliament on Tuesday that the U.K. government believed there "may have been 2,000 people killed, there have been more. My fear is that the number may prove to be significantly higher."

The truth has been incredibly difficult to piece together due to Iran's hardline rulers cutting off internet access and phone service in the country for the last five days. While a complete internet shutdown in Iran remained in place for a fifth day, some Iranians were able to make phone calls out of the country on Tuesday, though it was still not possible to call into Iran from outside.

A source inside Iran who was able to call out told CBS News on Tuesday that activist groups working to compile a full death toll from the protests, based on reports from medical officials across the country, believed the toll was at least 12,000, and possibly as high as 20,000.

CBS News has not been able to independently verify the massive death toll indicated by the source, which is some many times larger than the numbers reported by most activist groups independently in recent days — though those groups have always made it clear that their tallies are likely underestimated.

The opposition Iran International television network said Tuesday that its information suggested about 12,000 people were killed. A source in Washington with contacts in Iran told CBS News on Tuesday that a credible source had told him the toll was likely between 10,000 and 12,000.

www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-protest-death-toll-over-12000-feared-higher-video-bodies-at-morgue/

Omg really? How pathetic.

Interesting… where can I get one of those tin foil hats? I find this only too believable unfortunately.

I don't think for one minute they can likely hit the likes of the Abraham Lincoln but if this turns into a hot conflict and the regime decides to go down fighting we need to be aware there's the potential for Iran forces to cause a lot of destruction in the region.

They still have a significant stock of Medium range ballistic missiles and long range drones that could prove mighty troublesome.

That's almost certainly why amongst other measures the US has been upping the number of surface to air missile systems in the area, both land based and maritime...

Must be a different BBC website, this article is 17hours old, updated 6 hours ago....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20gypw8enjo

On the massacres, i would not want a BBC correspondent to end up in an Iranian jail for many years, nor any proxy correspondent either but they have covered it, its been prominent across many BBC news outlets.

On time scales, i doubt for the Iranians nor the Palestinians it matters much id their deaths happened over 2 years or 2 weeks.

Regimes will always justify murder, whether its in Gaza, in Iran or even in Minnesotta.

This is about the EU proscribing them. I think pp’s point was about BBC not (yet) mentioning that the UK has now also followed suit.

@Alexandra2001 that article is about the EU. I was talking about the UK. In that article it says 'On Wednesday, UK Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy condemned Iran's "brutal oppression of peaceful protesters" but said it was long-standing government policy "not to comment on whether a specific organisation is being considered for proscription".'

Noone want a BBC correspondent to end up in jail. There are alternatives to journalists being there, as regularly evidenced in Gaza.

It matters enourmously whether 30,000 people are killed in 2 days or over a period of months or years. The circumstances in which they were killed and tbe motivations for their killing also matter enormously. As any lawyer would tell you.

Yes that's right.

The issue of timescales @Alexandra2001 is that if the Iranian regime has murdered that many of their own citizens in just a few weeks, how many more lives could they take if this carries on?

And re the BBC website we were saying the BBC hadn’t yet reported that the UK would be joining the EU in adding Irans Revolutionary Guard to their list of terrorist organisations.

Iran are acting in a way far beyond that of the Israelis or the IDF, who did not chuck foreign journalists in jail, though it is alleged they have targeted local ones within Gaza.
I also know that many posters on here poo hoo'd the death toll in Gaza & the targeted sniper fire as Hamas propaganda but take as fact that 30k Iranians have been killed.

I don't know the state of talks between the UK and Iran over the British couple jailed there (if any) this "may" explain why the IRGC isn't yet banned

However, 3rd January.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64156965

Omg. That article is from 2023. They still haven't done it.

If you have problems with other posters do take it up with them. I don't think anyone takes any figures coming out of Iran 'as fact'. Anyone who cares is trying to piece tigether the evidence and anyone who looks and listens can see that what has happened is on an enormous and horrifying scale and anyone with any sens knows new information will come out. What is essential is that the eyes of the world are on Iran to prevent them covering things up and to support the Iranian people.

I believe what we said is that the numbers coming out of Gaza are unreliable because of the source - a terrorist organisation. And indeed the numbers were questionable because the way Hamas presented them, people could easily have assumed that they were all civilians, which of course they weren't. Or people could have assumed that all the deaths were caused by the IDF which again they weren't as Hamas also needs to be held responsible for many of them.

Speaking for myself, I don't take it as "fact" that any particular number of Iranians have been killed. You will see the title of this thread is 12k "feared dead" not definitely dead at the point I created the thread. The reality is that it is impossible to be factual about the numbers of deaths in Iran due to the internet blackout and poor internet coverage even now. But we know it is in the thousands within a few weeks, even Iran have admitted that.

Fair point, on the dates..... i missed that, apologises, i need another coffee!
though it does highlight inaction over many years.
Perhaps its not done because of UK citizens held in their jails?

I don't get the "problems with other posters" thats ridiculous, read what i posted not what you read into....

@Twiglets1

Yes 12k feared dead, there is no reliable reporting into the death toll BUT its utterly horrific, even if less.

Trump may well make even 30k seem like chicken feed, the last time someone tried to invade Iran, over 1m died.

I sincerely hope his posturing is a negotiation, Iran is not Venezuela.

I sincerely hope his posturing is a negotiation, Iran is not Venezuela.

The only way I can see this can ending by negotiation and the killing of protesters stopping is if the leaders of the regime, plus all their family and acolytes, get given an off ramp...i.e. somewhere safe to live forever and access to all their funds...

And even then I'm not sure the real zealots would take the offer.

I'm not hopeful.

His posturing could of course be nothing more than a technique to help the US negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran.

I definitely feel and hope that if Trump does end up taking military action, it will be with a view to minimising civilian casualties.

Maybe targeted strikes against high-profile sites, such as the Thar-Allah headquarters in Tehran, a central command unit for the IRGC.

Or broader strikes targeting air defences, ballistic-missile launchers, communications infrastructure, energy facilities and IRGC installations.

Well the UAE and Saudi have both said they won’t allow the US to use their airspace to attack Iran. So, what happens next?

Trump doesn't need their airspace, a map will show other options are available.

From the south east carrier group aircraft (oh, ETA and anything coming out of Diego Garcia) can ingress/egress Iranian airspace via the Gulf of Oman.

There may well be other options from the west.

Are you sure Oman will agree? Why?

Oman doesn't need to agree.

Muscat ATC coordinates civilian flights over the southern chunk of the Gulf and out into the Arabian Sea but Oman's actual sovereign, national airspace only goes out to 12 nautical miles off shore (same as most of the world).

Beyond that 12 mile limit it's international airspace and anyone is free to operate...the mouth of the Gulf itself is plenty wide enough to give the USAF and/or the USN access to Iranian airspace from the south east without treading on Oman's toes.

Well the Straits of Hormuz is pretty narrow. I’m not sure Oman will agree to this, especially as they border the UAE.

I reread, doesn’t need to agree.

Pretty drastic move by US, to piss off their alleged allies.

The stupidest thing to do would be to attack Iran, and with Trump in the White House it could well happen.

Not sure why the Straits of Hormuz are that relevant TBH.

If you're arriving by air from the Bay of Bengal/Diego Garcia direction heading for central Iran, maybe even Tehran itself you'd possibly/probably coast in well east of the Straits...you wouldn't track up the Gulf centreline.

..and TBH the reality is a lot of the US kit that might get used in early attacks is so low vis (stealthy in old language ) it's possible Oman wouldn't even see the traffic......

Because one of the articles I read in the BBC was that Iran could put mines into the Strait. Which would fuck up all the shipping. And the oil….

Ah OK...that makes sense.

I was picking up on the discussion about (I thought) airspace closures..

Shipping/mines/the Straits, agree, not good.