from the outside it seems getting bombed is more antagonizing than propaganda.

Weird, from the outside it seems like bombing civilians and infrastructure is more inflammatory and antagonizing than some words/propaganda.

Let me summarize the argument more cleanly:

Words are violence!!! Hearing death to America hurt me badly!!

vs actual invasions and bombings of your mainland from two hyperviolent countries with a long history of the same

Who's argument are you summarizing? Is this about the repeat comment?

The persons you were talking to.

The were arguing the opposite of what you said if anything. You sure you didn't respond to the wrong comment?

Big scary words are not violence. They can't hurt you. Bombings and invasions that killed people are violence.

I agree, I'm just confused where that fits in this thread.

Actual violence is much more antagonizing than mere hurt feelings.

I wouldn't classify full scale war as "antagonizing," but, if you want to downplay it, be my guest.

Ask the same dumb question, get the same answer.

I only asked one question about repeat comments. Is that what you're referring to?

No. You made the same argument twice and got the same response twice.

I didn't make any argument twice. I only responded with an argument once. What did I argue twice?

Sorry but US has created this b roll since the 50s.

The US creates "death to America" b-roll?

The US creates "Red Menace", "Terrorist", "Axis of Evil" or "whatever the imperialist excuse of the day" b-roll.

So you think "Death to America" and "Death to terrorists and evil" are the same? Do you think saying "criminals should be punished" is similarly wrong to say? Honest question, as I'm confused about your moral boundaries.

To the Iranians, America is "The Great Satan".

To the Americans, Iranians are "Terrorists".

To a bystander they're both deranged warmongers using transparent excuses.

There is plenty of evidence Iran funds terrorism. I don't know of any evidence that Americans are biblical monsters, but I'm open to new information.

"Terrorism" is inherently a subjective, ideological label, just a vaguely threatening name for the Big Other. A classic in the genre, along with "Red Menace", "Yellow Peril", "Rogue State" etc etc.

The Iranian version of this propaganda technique is the "Great Satan".

They're all just big scary terms to throw around and justify ones deeds.

To the Iranians, the Americans are the terrorists blowing up their bridges. Now what?

> "Terrorism" is inherently a subjective, ideological label

If the US started calling Iran "Satan" would you see that as an escalation of rhetoric, or business as usual?

Business as usual. It's all just scary terms to dehumanize. No different from "Yellow Peril".

Fair enough. If you think terrorist and satan have equal grounding in reality then we'll just have to chalk the disagreement up to a difference in priors.

Terrorism or resistance against western imperialism and colonization?

That is a question one could ask. A little beyond me to answer.

Do you also believe that 9/11 happened because they hate your freedom?

No, I think that had a lot to do with post WW2 imperialism in the middle east, along with religious motivations.

>The US creates "death to America" b-roll?

>No, I think that had a lot to do with post WW2 imperialism in the middle east, along with religious motivations.

And these are not related?

How can a thing that doesn't exist relate to history?

So 9/11 happened due to US imperialism. And there's no incident ever in Iran related to US imperialism?

> So 9/11 happened due to US imperialism.

I said that was part of the reason, not all of it.

> And there's no incident ever in Iran related to US imperialism?

I'm not sure what you're asking or why. There have probably been things that have happened inside Iran due to US imperialism. Not sure how that relates to the idea of the US creating self-deprecating propaganda?

Their actions create it?

The US's actions caused the US to create anti-US propaganda? I'm getting lost here.