Not even a little bit. You don't know what you're fucking talking about. In fact, the Ayatollah, being the dictator of a theocratic regime, is far more right-wing and "conservative" than even the most centrist western neoliberals (which I'm not even that, by the way).
Have you forgotten about Mahsa Amini, who was murdered in police custody in 2021 for being a woman and not wearing her hijab "properly"?
By the way, is this the same The Guardian that you're calling "western imperialist propaganda"?
That's the problem with the DNC putting identity politics over matters of policy. And I don't even use that term in the same sense as the right-wing anti-DEI psychosis.
DEI is a matter of policy. Choosing a milquetoast establishment neoliberal solely because she's a woman of color is identity politics.
It's better to nominate a progressive regardless of race, gender, or sexuality, than it is to nominate the most intersectional minority who panders to the right-wing "moderates."
The Dems lost in 2016 because they forced Hillary on everyone when they wanted Bernie. Clearly they still haven't learned their lesson...
Where did I say anything about 40K deaths? The highest estimate I saw in any of those links was 20K, and the highest confirmed body count was less than 10K. Are you just making shit up to make it sound easier to discredit?
I've said before they I have no doubt they killed a lot of civilians
Then what the fuck are you even arguing? Because you seem to keep calling me an imperialist propagandist for stating facts like the iranian regime viciously suppressing protesters.
but I don't justify imperialism and even more destructive and deadly wars as a response
Don't just cherry pick footage that justifies your war lust
They didn't kill 40k+ people, and you will not provide footage that demonstrates they did anything near that because it's a made up lie.
but you can't wrap your head around the fact that you're not the heroes of the world and America doesn't have an obligation to interfere with every country however it deems fit.
I never said anything even close to any of that. You're fucking psychotic, dude.
go ahead and watch the videos of counter protesters burning Israeli and US flags.
Those aren't counter-protesters. It's all the same protest. I know you find this impossible to comprehend, but it's entirely possible to oppose the mullah and US/Israeli colonialism.
Called what, exactly? That it's possible to have a nuanced take that doesn't perfectly align with yours without being the most completely diabolical and unthinking shill that you can imagine?
Sometimes the official charges are determined more by what's easiest to prove in court rather than what everyone knows is the most egregious of the crimes.
Court procedures aren't about public opinion, and it's easier to prove someone shared government secrets than it is to prove they did stuff that's so heinous that they obviously hid most of the real evidence. Like it or not, a couple of creepy emails ridden with thinly-veiled euphemisms isn't enough for the courts.
Edit: I'm not suggesting the British government particularly cares about the egregious crimes, just that this is sometimes why it seems like someone is charged for reasons that aren't quite the right ones...
It's so funny how instead of returning to their roots and implementing leftist policy, Labour just keeps doubling down on becoming tory-lite even though it's obvious that it'll cost them the elections for years to come.
Like,
"Oh my my, what ever can we do?"
"Urm, try actually being pro-labor for once?"
"Oh, heavens no, not that! Anything but that! Oh dear, oh my..."
Not to mention from a human rights perspective, it's not just easier to obtain sodium than lithium but also more humane.
There is an industry for ethically-sourced materials, and even if this doesn't completely replace lithium it can still significantly reduce the amount needed to meet demand, which can also encourage more ethical practices in that supply chain too, such as sourcing it from areas with stronger labor laws.
I've never seen it before, but in this context the post is about someone making a superlative claim. So it's entirely possible and reasonable to leave a genuine reminder that there have been other atrocities that shouldn't be swept to the wayside just to crown one as the singular worst.
I wouldn't have picked the Arab slave trade as an example. Seems strange to mention one from a millennium ago when there are plenty to choose from in the past few centuries. Maybe the holocaust, the holodomor, or the genocide of Native Americans. But I saw other commenters calling those dogwhistles too.
I just don't think those and the African slave trade need to compete for the title of "biggest crime against humanity." They were all really bad, and there's no need to pit the victims of each against each other. That's the only thing being accomplished by making a superlative claim in this context.
You're calling it western propaganda because you either refuse to believe it or you're actively peddling pro-mullah propaganda. Either way, I'm not wasting any more time on you.
I didn't say they control all the social media feeds, but if your social media feeds are mostly tankie content then you're not gonna see the stuff they aren't posting.
The guardian isn't western propaganda, ffs. It's independent journalism. You're here peddling pro-mullah propaganda, because the facts are the regime murdered thousands of protesters in the span of a couple weeks and you're trying to say "nuh uh, western lies!"
How's that a fucking dogwhistle? The article is about a superlative claim. Superlatives by nature invite what people are referring to as "whataboutism."
It's like if you say your chili is the best chili ever, and someone else says "well I don't know, my neighbor makes pretty good chili." You wouldn't be like "shut the fuck up you fucking asshole, nobody asked for your opinion." Um, no, you invited everyone else's opinion when you claimed yours is the best.
That's how superlatives work and why they're unnecessary and inappropriate in this context. There have been lots of atrocities in the world, but picking one to declare the absolute worst ever is not fair to the victims of all the other atrocities.
If someone said "the holocaust was the biggest crime against humanity ever" and someone else said "what about the african slave trade?" You wouldn't call that an antisemitic dogwhistle, would you?
It should be possible to talk about multiple atrocities without getting into slap fights about which one is the singular worst. There's no prize for "first place."
So let's govern like they govern on the discovery channel