Mastodawn

‘Our classrooms are empty because the graveyards are full’: Iran’s students on why they are protesting again

https://lemmy.world/post/43485627

‘Our classrooms are empty because the graveyards are full’: Iran’s students on why they are protesting again - Lemmy.World

As details of the death toll for January’s protests continue to emerge, three students explain why they are resisting a return to normality More than 45 days after a brutal January crackdown that left thousands of Iranian protesters dead, students across several universities are protesting again. As Iran’s new academic term began on Saturday, students in Tehran gathered on campus, chanting anti-government slogans, despite a heavy security presence and plainclothes officers stationed outside university gates. The Guardian spoke to protesting students about why they were rallying despite the fact that thousands had been killed and tens of thousands arrested in the January demonstrations. “Our classrooms are empty because the graveyards are full,” said Hossein*, 21, a student at the University of Tehran. “It’s for them – our friends, classmates and compatriots, who were gunned down in front of our eyes, that we decided to boycott the classes.”

TrackinDaKraken Feb 23

After 40 days, as expected. Trump now has his public excuse to attack. I don’t know what to think of all this.

William Spaniel, Lines on Maps on YouTube, tried to break it down in a couple of videos.

couldhavebeenyou Feb 23

Recently asked some Triad lemmings whether it would be preferable to let the Iranian people remain surpressed or give them a chance through US (and Israeli) attacks against the regime

Why is it the responsibility of the US? I’m old enough to remember being (rightfully) shunned for doing the same fucking shit in Iraq and Afghanistan.

couldhavebeenyou Feb 23

Why did the US invade Afghanistan? Why did they invade Iraq?

Do you believe the US is considering a ground invasion of Iran?

(ps I don’t advocate it’s their responsibility, mainly arguing about opposing any intervention)

because of lies and oil as always. there wasnt any us intervention in the middle east in history that left the country better. evil fucking empire.

perestroika Feb 24

Please don’t lump Afghanistan and Iraq together.

Afghanistan had no oil. The US invaded because it was attacked by a group based in Afghanistan. The end was a mess, but the invasion was justified. This has been the only time NATO article 5 has been activated, by the way.

Iraq has oil. The US has invaded twice. Once because the UN authorized restoring the independence of Kuwait, after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. The second time because emperor Bush II lied to everyone about weapons of mass destruction. The end was a mess, of course.

Does this have any predictive value for Iran?

I can only tell this:

I see no preparations for a land war
regimes may sometimes fall after suffering a military defeat
only one regime has fallen recently because of an air intervention (Gaddafi in Libya, but the Libyan civil war had already started at this time)

As a result, I am not convinced of any outcome, I do not support and do not oppose, I observe and try to understand.

group based in Afghanistan

bankrolled by the US to further their nefarious interests in the region. when they turned against the empire by attacking the wtc, the us responded by… genociding it’s people.

none of this was justified at all.

perestroika Feb 25

bankrolled by the US to further their nefarious interests in the region.

A long time ago. In response to the USSR couping and occupying Afghanistan. Which was, of course, also not justified.

If Afghanistan had been left alone, things would very likely be better in several countries…

captainlezbian Feb 23

As an American I’ve long supported assisting rebels, but going to war is just as likely to backfire as it is to succeed.

couldhavebeenyou Feb 23

Well you can give the small arms but then they’re up against an advanced military. They basically don’t stand a chance without at least air support

If you let them get nukes it’s basically game over

The US does that when it wants to create a civil war where previously there was no civil war. Civil wars are great for neocolonial intervention. You pump arms into the weaker side. They start killing. The whole defense complex now has to manage its existing counter-intelligence program against the US but now they also have an active hot conflict domestically. Lots of military-capable people die. Then the neocolonial empire comes in once the chaos has weakened everyone and they save the day!

couldhavebeenyou Feb 23

There’s no civil war because the Iranian regime kills everyone that poses a threat. People are taking to the streets to demand basic rights and they get shot in the head by the thousands.

How do you suggest the Iranian people get out of this situation?

Again, I ask, why does the responsibility always default to the US? Why?

itslilith Feb 23

The protests are good and justified, all power to the Iranian people. Iran deserves a second revolution, after the first one was taken over by the Mullahs for their own goals.

But it’s genuinely disheartening how readily nominally progressive spaces are jumping abord the manufactured consent for an imperialist military intervention by Israel and the US.

How, exactly, will bombing Iranian cities help their liberation? Or even if they succeed with deposing the Mullah regime, is anyone really expecting self determination by the Iranian people afterwards? We’re seen how the Shar’s son is pushed as the next US puppet government by US- and Israeli media (and their European allies).

The Iranian people, not just the current regime, are supportive of Palestine, and Israel and the US absolutely cannot accept that. Don’t cheer for imperialist intervention.

CyberEgg Feb 23

But it’s genuinely disheartening how readily nominally progressive spaces are jumping abord the manufactured consent for an imperialist military intervention by Israel and the US.

Please provide evidence where this generally left-of-centre british reporting is “manufacturing consent”. Which text lines do you think are trying to make us readers agree to that kind of action by these two states?

Riverside Feb 24

From the Wikipedia article of Atrocity Propaganda (I added emphasis):

Atrocity propaganda is the spreading of information about the crimes committed by an enemy, which can be factual, but often includes or features deliberate fabrications or exaggerations. This can involve photographs, videos, illustrations, interviews, and other forms of information presentation or reporting

“The inherently violent nature of war means that exaggeration and invention of atrocities often becomes the main staple of propaganda. Patriotism is often not enough to make people hate the enemy, and propaganda is also necessary”

The application of atrocity propaganda is not limited to times of conflict but can be implemented to sway public opinion and create a casus belli to declare war

Atrocity propaganda - Wikipedia

CyberEgg Feb 24

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

Riverside Feb 24

From the text in the post, I’ve added emphasis:

‘Our classrooms are empty because the graveyards are full’: Iran’s students on why they are protesting again

As details of the death toll for January’s protests continue to emerge, three students explain why they are resisting a return to normality

More than 45 days after a brutal January crackdown that left thousands of Iranian protesters dead, students across several universities are protesting again. As Iran’s new academic term began on Saturday, students in Tehran gathered on campus, chanting anti-government slogans, despite a heavy security presence and plainclothes officers stationed outside university gates.

The Guardian spoke to protesting students about why they were rallying despite the fact that thousands had been killed and tens of thousands arrested in the January demonstrations.

“Our classrooms are empty because the graveyards are full,” said Hossein*, 21, a student at the University of Tehran. “It’s for them – our friends, classmates and compatriots, who were gunned down in front of our eyes, that we decided to boycott the classes.”

There is literally not one paragraph in the post text without atrocity propaganda, some paragraphs with several cases. Are you being purposefully obtuse?

They are spreading details about the crimes committed by the enemy, whether factual or not, and this can serve to justify a casus belli. It’s literally the definition of atrocity propaganda.

CyberEgg Feb 24

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.

Riverside Feb 24

Reporting ICE crimes is also atrocity propaganda. Propaganda doesn’t mean it’s bad, it just means you’re swaying public opinion. I believe that spreading anti-ICE propaganda is good because ICE are a bunch of fascist pigs, I believe that propagating anti-Iran propaganda in the context of the military buildup against Iran is bad because it serves to justify the casus belli and the upcoming military invasion.

CyberEgg Feb 24

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?

Riverside Feb 24

so the audience does not come to a rational conclusion but a fabricated one

That’s not how propaganda works, propaganda explicitly can be true information as explained to you before using the Wikipedia article. I literally quoted it to you, it can be factual information.

Mentioning atrocities in every single paragraph is the biggest case of atrocity propaganda, and if you are purposefully obtuse enough not to see it, just drop this conversation.

CyberEgg Feb 24

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.

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.

CyberEgg Feb 24

Who is, according to you?

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

CyberEgg Feb 24

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

430k Guardian subscribers are American, compared to 529k from the UK. A significant number of their articles are produced specifically for a US audience.

Having some basic media literacy and asking why a story is being told and who it’s for doesn’t make me a tankie or whatever box you’ve likely already put me in. I’m not even disputing the facts in the article. Propaganda can be truthful and still be propaganda. Atrocity propaganda often is, and even when it is exaggerated tends to be based on a kernel of truth.

CyberEgg Feb 24

So? US-based subscribers make up sixty percent compared to european readers, but this is definitely targeting US-americans and no way I, as a european, am part of the target audience?

You are, like the others I had the dubious pleasure to discuss under this post, not providing any evidence for all the bogus claims you are making.

Obviously you’re part of the target audience - the entire western world is - but the primary target demographic is US Americans. There has been an increase in selective reporting on the political situation in Iran in order to manufacture consent for military intervention and ultimately regime change by the US. Western media has been known to do this in the past such as during the leadup to the Iraq war, and they’re doing the same thing now with Iran. They make certain editorial choices to play up the emotional impact and imply that US intervention is justified or even invited by Iranians, and because they don’t (usually) outright lie about what’s happening they have plausible deniability about their intent, which is why it can’t be proven.

Gorillazrule Feb 24

Are they even accusing the article itself of manufacturing consent? The way I read that, it was talking about online spaces and communities falling for the manufactured consent. Which is not coming from the reporting, but from propagandists, who use the reporting to help them manufacture consent.

CyberEgg Feb 24

No, I don’t think so. But that also comes from arguments I had with the user before and other users in this thread claming this article was manufacturing consent.

weapons of mass destruction ass consent manufacturing excuse. they meaning to tell me more people died in iran rn than gaza.

i don’t believe a word from murderous us media or their nazi leadership.

CyberEgg Feb 23

The Guardian is british.

and manufacturing consent for a us invasion of iran, yes.

CyberEgg Feb 23

That’s a claim you’d need to provide evidence for. Really, really good evidence.

no, you are the one who has to stop inventing shit to invade countries in your fascist crusade.

CyberEgg Feb 23

I am doing nothing. You are claiming bullshit and don’t even know jackshit about the news outlets you’re making up shit about.

Also, I’m not even from the US.

you are literally inventing shit to justify another genocide. burden of proof rests on you.

we are very aware of the guardian’s propaganda AND us terror campaigns (that begin with exactly this sort of lie).

CyberEgg Feb 23

What did I invent, exactly?

we are very aware of the guardian’s propaganda

Evidence or GTFO.

again, you are the one corroborating the claim iran is killing its people and the us must bomb it to kill more. you give us evidence, fascist scum.

CyberEgg Feb 24

you are the one corroborating the claim iran is killing its people

Do you know what (to) corroborate means?

Will you accept evidence? Or will you downvote and call me a Russian bot?

Treating invasion as a morally acceptable “option” (“lesser evil”) The Guardian explicitly described military intervention in Iraq as potentially justified: “We argued that it would be justified as a ‘lesser evil’…”

www.theguardian.com/news/2003/…/letters.iraq1

That’s a classic consent-making move: the debate becomes when invasion is justified, not whether the West has the right to invade at all.

Amplifying government “humanitarian” justification after the fact (Libya) On Libya, the Guardian reported (without challenging the premise in the headline or framing) the UK government defending Nato’s intervention as life-saving:

“the government argued its actions ‘undoubtedly’ saved civilian lives in Libya.” “required decisive and collective international action”

theguardian.com/…/british-government-intervention…

Even when the article notes criticism, this kind of repetition of official justification is exactly what sourcing/agenda-setting critiques focus on.

Making war plans sound like “policy tools” (Syria no-fly zone)

A no-fly zone is an act of war (you enforce it with force). But it’s often discussed as a humanitarian “measure.” The Guardian’s reporting frames it that way:

“a potential no-fly zone over Syria to protect civilians”

theguardian.com/…/may-questions-syria-no-fly-zone…

And then the debate becomes technocratic (“who enforces it?”) rather than moral/anti-imperial (“who gets to control Syrian airspace?”). Example of that framing inside the piece: “Who would enforce that safe area?”

“All sides / cycle of violence” symmetry (Gaza) A common liberal-media pattern is treating a radically unequal situation as a tragic “both sides” spiral. In a Gaza editorial the Guardian writes:

“All sides should contribute to halting the cycle of violence”

theguardian.com/…/guardian-view-conflict-in-gaza

Same editorial also uses the legitimacy gateway line: “Israel has a right to defend itself”

And frames it in a way to not directly endorse it, but still assert it by not stating the objectively moral rebuttal: Gaza has the right to defend itself.

Here they outright assert it: “Israel has a right to defend itself and a duty to protect its citizens.” theguardian.com/…/the-guardian-view-on-gazas-casu…

This is a very strong legitimising phrasing because it implies the violence is mainly a matter of proper execution rather than structural injustice / siege / occupation: “Israel has a right to defend itself by all legitimate means.” theguardian.com/…/observer-view-only-ceasefire-sa…

This is exactly the kind of moral language that can slide into collective punishment logic (even if the editorial later adds caveats): “Hamas had to be punished severely and forcibly dislodged from its perch in Gaza.” theguardian.com/…/the-observer-view-on-the-middle…

This rhetorical move invites readers to inhabit the state’s mindset. another common consent mechanism: “Confronted by all this, Israelis ask, reasonably enough: what would you do?” theguardian.com/…/the-observer-view-on-the-middle…

Not genocide, guardian. You shouldn’t do genocide.

Even when labelled “alleged,” this piece foregrounds the IDF narrative and evidence drops in a way that can function as justification-for-bombing context:

“alleged evidence released by the IDF to support its claims that Hamas uses… Gaza as human shields” theguardian.com/…/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas…

“Israel has cited what it says are numerous examples of Hamas using human shields” theguardian.com/…/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas…

“It claims Hamas has placed… command network under… al-Shifa hospital.” theguardian.com/…/human-shield-israel-claim-hamas…

you can believe Hamas uses civilian cover and still see how this repeated framing becomes a ready-made moral alibi for mass civilian killing. We know Israel uses Palestinians as human shields, they’ll literally strap children to the windshield of jeeps to shield them, why don’t they cite that as rebuttal? Why don’t they cite that as justification for attacking IDF?

On their funding: Guardian Media Group says it runs a “diverse revenue model” including “reader revenues, advertising… licensing and philanthropic funding.” www.theguardian.com/about/organisation

And it says “Revenue from readers now accounts for over 50%” which also means a large share is still non-reader money (ads, licensing, etc.)

Their own annual reporting stresses growth in reader revenue, but they’re still operating in the same media ecosystem: big audience incentives, elite access journalism, reliance on official sources, and the kinds of “respectable” foreign policy frames that dominate UK/US politics. (That’s exactly what “manufacturing consent” critiques are about: structures, not cartoon villain owners.)

Read Manufacturing Consent, then come back and tell me they don’t.

Or downvote and maybe throw an insult my way, that works too.

What you say about our stand on Iraq

Last Sunday, in an editorial comment, we published our view of possible military intervention in Iraq. We received hundreds of letters and emails supporting and opposing the paper's position. We publish some of them here.

The Guardian

CyberEgg Feb 25

Will you accept evidence? Or will you downvote and call me a Russian bot?
[…] Or downvote and maybe throw an insult my way, that works too.

Really? You could not do it without weird and undounded assumptions? C’mon, grow up.

Anyway, I appriciate you provide actual reasoning for your arguments. I’ll read into it.

It’s cute when British people think they’re not just a colony of US imperialism. I know I know. You have your royal pedophiles the same way we have our pedophile billionaires. It makes you feel independent and sovereign.

Maybe you’re not British. But I hope you are. Even American hogs know the Brits are dogs to whatever American rulers want.

CyberEgg Feb 25

I’m not. And you are nothing but insulting.

trongod_requiem0432 Feb 23

Why do these idiots in authoritarian dictatorships always think that protesting the government will remove it? No, they’ll kill you. Learn your lesson. And by that I don’t mean giving up.

perestroika Feb 24

I will try to explain. Protesting allows to determine how many are generally “on board” with an idea. If you protest and you see that you have a supermajority (e.g. 90%) the point is moot, then the armed services are likely also on your side (e.g. USSR in 1991).

The next step, changing the government, usually requires a bit of force. It can take two typical forms:

a) people overcome cops while the army does nothing

b) units of the army rebel and overcome cops

c) units of the army fight each other in a civil war

Now, as you may guess, option C is pretty bad - weaponry made for international defense gets unleashed internally with no clear lines of conflict. But option A is pretty tame and B can be reasonably quick and bloodless.

It all starts with a show of hands, and an evaluation of how many are OK with a plan - inside a group and between groups. If too few show up, one knows the time is wrong. If a modest amount show up, one knows to be careful. And so forth.

Riverside Feb 24

How is OP not banned? 18k posts which exclusively seem to be news, 5 comments, it’s literally a propaganda bot, what the fuck!

insight06 Feb 24

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:

@[email protected] 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.

@MicroWave - Lemmy.World

I’m a bit of a news junkie.

MicroWave Feb 24

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