Wouldn’t you rather be dead than oppressed.

This is The Guardian, a left leaning paper or left of centre at least.

https://wagingnonviolence.org/2025/01/can-nonviolent-struggle-defeat-a-dictator-this-database-emphatically-says-yes/

Nice wiki quote. Now show me, where this applies to the article.

You'd need to show how this is more than simply reporting events and the POV of participants. You'd have to show how the intention is propaganda, how the article manipulates the reader, etc. You'd need to show how this differs from the reporting of ICE crimes, for example.

And then you'd need to show how the article tries to convince me that a US military intervention would be something I as a european should support.

it just means you're swaying public opinion.

How exactly is this article doing this?

Propaganda is communication that is primaroly used to influence or persuade an audience to further an agenda. Methods to do so would be using selective facts, loaded language, etc so the audience does not come to a rational conclusion but a fabricated one.
Which facts does the article leave out, where does the article use loaded language, which effects do these parts have and how does that make me, a european, want the US go to war on Iran?

Yawn more Western propaganda to justify war against Iran.

300 cops were killed by these "peaceful protesters".

TheGuardian claimed to have seen video and pictures of Hamas raping women on October 7.

Those videos and pictures later turned out to not exist.

Where did I state the information used for propaganda can't be true? In the sentence you quoted I talk about the audience's conclusion, not the presented information.

You repeatedly fail to show where the concepts you present are applicable to the article. You keep deflecting, moving goalposts around and dodging the actual questions.

I applaud your patience. "obtuse" is such a mild term to what's deserving.

Oh well that's a relief. British newspaper. The people that called bin Laden a freedom fighter. Totally not a mouth piece for war in the middle east.

OP actually has hundreds (thousands?) of comments over the past few years, but all but the most recent are listed as deleted by creator. I won't speculate as to the reason for this, but just note that their current comment count doesn't reflect their historical contributions.

I'll also just leave this quote from one of the comment chains they've recently commented on:

@MicroWave@lemmy.world I just want to say thanks for posting quality links so frequently. You're one of the few who isn't posting click bait junk like Raw Story and Daily Beast.

I don’t personally keep track, but it seems some others do feel they make valuable contributions. I for one don't want to see anyone too quick to torch the relative few individuals putting content on Lemmy.

Thanks for this comment. News about Iran seems to bring out extreme personalities lately it seems like.

Reddit/NewIran

with source... just a post on twitter

It was bull shit and every single outlet that printed it has modified their reports since.

If this claim is correct it'd indeed be easy to prove using the Internet Archive. If you're watching NewsMax and telling us it's proof we shouldn't trust the press then... yeah

Looks to me like you've been duped by Khamenei's alt account on twitter and concluded you should look away and go back to sleep

Well you're partly correct, in that you seem to agree that it is, indeed, possible to limit yourself to target military targets... Instead of it being a cover for 'bombing cities' which is what was claimed here.

But that's separate from what happens in the vacuum later.

You can look at the support for the Kurds in Syria as a good counter example - arming them and giving them intel and air support helped them defeat IS. Or working together with the résistance in WW2 to defeat the nazi's.

Iran literally sentencing kids to death and you're saying this shit? You're getting paid or smt?

Well no. The biggest death toll in the Iraq Adventure (r) came from the civil war that erupted between (mainly) Sunni and Shia militias. Instead of singing kumbaya and rebuilding the country together they started murdering eachother to settle old scores and try to grab power. Which is to be expected, and was expected, actually.

But that doesn't mean that should be the final argument in the question of how you help a people liberate themselves from their oppressors, as that would just mean you accept the status quo and the fact the oppressors won.

Syria? The country currently controlled by terrorists massacring minorities is a good example of what you want? Also the USSR did 90% of the work of defeating the Nazis while America continued to trade with and fund them through ford IBM and other enterprises. I think the US should just stop intervening but they never will as the massive violence and immiseration is necessary to sustain their empire.

Propaganda bot for posting The Guardian? You're ok?

Why not use sanctions? What universal law is there that we cannot, under any circumstances, block economic interaction? Governments unable to block trade might be the ultimate capitalist dream but there's no reason sane people should be forced into it.

Yes. That was literally my point mate. That news outlets lie and print shit that isn't confirmed. Thanks for understanding my initial comment this deep into the thread.

I wasn't "duped". I was literally pointing out the bull shit coverage in my first comment.

I never once said I thought that number was real or that I believed the outlets that spread it.

Also it's owned by a non-profit trust. As peak as you can really get when it comes journalistic integrity structures.

OK then be this way

I think you don't have the slightest idea of what life would be like under the boot of IS (pretty comparable to Iran in most regards, imo) or even what life was like under Assad. Can you let me know how the current Syrian government is 'massacring minorities'? Because that seems like quite the overstatement. Sure they're islamists but Turkey seems to have the leash on pretty tight.

Funny tangent you're going on in the second half. USSR kickstarted German conquests allying with them at the start of WW2. And when they were inevitably stabbed in the back they had to call on the US to supply them so they had a bit more than their bare hands to fight back. I'm sure you can't see the resemblance to the situation the Iranian people find themselves in.

And then you'd need to show how the article tries to convince me that a US military intervention would be something I as a european should support.

You, as a european, are not the target demographic.

USSR kickstarted German conquests allying with them at the start of WW2

Ah you're one of these people. Ok conversation with you will not be productive. Continue believing what you want all the best.

Who is, according to you?

Good book on this if you actually want to know why it's good to protest even in authoritarian countries https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/453761/when-everyone-knows-that-everyone-knows-by-pinker-steven/9780241618820

Footage did get out of Iran, you just haven't looked for it because then you'd have to reconsider your belief in the mullah's moral pedestal

Frequencies can be jammed, you know...

For starters: the absolute vagueness of it

Say that I'm doing some genocides and you decide you don't want to trade with me anymore because of it. If that means I run out of money and my baby starves, would you have remorse?

(This is a simplified allegory of the situation, but I hope you care enough about the world to understand the comparison)

It should be obvious that the target demographic for atrocity propaganda about an enemy of the US is US Americans.

Why should US citizens be the target audience for a british medium?

Your point was that you backed someone saying we shouldn't trust the reporting for The Guardian on on this issue by saying "It's insane. I saw a report saying 80k. How can anyone print that number"

When in reality what you saw was... a twitter post.

Do you think it's fair to sow distrust for the credibility of the article in the OP because you read something on twitter by someone else?

I'm sure you'll continue to try to twist this away from that initial post towards how what you really meant is that you didn't believe "all the [other] outlets that spread it!" (which you conveniently don't have time for to dig up lol). The best thing I can hope for is that you look away from your screen for a minute and ask yourself the question why you felt compelled to 'massage the message'

Hey as I'm currently enjoying some WW2 flight sim, here's a relevant fun fact to close with :-)

What plane did the top USSR ace use to kill most of his nazi's?

Do you think the plane would have been able to do it without him in it?

But in all the cities where it matters