We have seen what's happening in Iran time and again, in Belarus, in Myanmar etc... if the common people are not armed, these dictators can easily crush any uprising. There is only 1 solution, common people must be armed and have some basic military training to avoid being killed by these dictators. There is NO OTHER WAY. Even in a democratic state, people must be allowed to own guns so that they can fight back. Following is my attempt to preempt the common anti-gun arguments: - Mass shootings will become more common: Despite a ban on guns, bad guys will eventually get guns easily and gun down common folks, this just happened in Australia. Banning guns does not prevent bad people from acquiring guns and killing people - Common people cannot fight the military might of their country: We have seen countless times where ragtag militia have defeated armies. Armed populace means more chance of people from the military to defect. Most people in military would definitely want to avoid killing their own people, and if the other side is armed, they would think twice before killing, and it's easier to defect. An armed populace can overcome the military as it's not a conventional residential fight where the military can utilize it's full force. Therefore, there is only 1 solution to this... general populace must have the right to possess arms to avoid what happened to my dear Iranian revolutionaries in recent weeks. I know it's easier said than done, but it must be done. I am willing to listen to more counter arguments on why this position could be wrong...

As reports begin to surface about the upcoming Iran operation, it is critical for the public to pause, breathe, and remember one enduring truth of conflict: the fog of war is real, unavoidable, and often misleading—especially in the earliest stages. In moments like these, information moves faster than understanding. Social media fills gaps before facts are confirmed, analysts speculate in real time, and emotionally charged narratives take hold long before reality has a chance to emerge. This is precisely when caution matters most. What Is the “Fog of War”? The term fog of war refers to the uncertainty, confusion, and incomplete information that surrounds military operations and conflicts. Coined by military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, it describes the reality that no participant—commanders, governments, journalists, or the public—has a complete or perfectly accurate picture while events are unfolding. Even those directly involved often operate with fragmented intelligence. For outside observers, the fog is exponentially thicker. Take Everything With a Grain of Salt In the opening hours and days of any operation, nearly all information should be treated as provisional, not definitive. Early reports may be: - Incorrect - Incomplete - Out of context - Intentionally misleading - Based on assumptions rather than confirmation This does not mean journalists, analysts, or observers are acting in bad faith—it means they are working inside the fog. Accuracy tends to improve with time, corroboration, and declassification, not immediacy. Factors That Will Increase the Fog in This Conflict Several elements are likely to intensify confusion and misinformation surrounding this operation: 1. Language Barriers Primary-source information may emerge in Persian (Farsi), Arabic, Hebrew, or regional dialects. Nuance can be lost or distorted in translation, especially when rushed for headlines or social media. 2. Interpreters and Secondary Sources Much of what the public receives will be filtered through interpreters, stringers, or intermediaries. Each layer adds the potential for misunderstanding or emphasis shifts.