since Soleimani was a general and not a terrorist, this guy must clearly be a Trump apologist spreading lies about the late, departed most revered military leader. Clearly propaganda.
I think @Sweet Lou 4 2 would have been better off saying those things aren't "disinformation." Maybe stereotypes and prejudice in reporting are "misinformation" which probably goes in the propaganda bucket, but the disinformation it looked to me like this thread was supposed to be about are intentional and malicious lies. These examples people are posting with loaded vocabulary or lazy assumptions are just clutter. Intentionally editing video to make it sound like a politician is saying something abhorrent that they didn't mean is a whole lot different than assuming Joe Farmer is a dumb redneck or calling a certain general a terrorist or a freedom fighter.
more Federalist propaganda against Biden. "As VP, Joe Biden Assisted Terrorist Soleimani, Warned Against Killing Bin Laden": https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/0...t-soleimani-warned-against-killing-bin-laden/
"Soleimani’s rise to power in the Middle East was aided by the Obama administration’s disastrous “Iran Nuclear Deal,” " Not a single piece of contextual evidence for this.
CNN going after the Babylon Bee for disinformation (propaganda): https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/attacks-on-the-babylon-bee-are-attacks-on-free-expression/ Attacks on the Babylon Bee Are Attacks on Free Expression The satirical website is being charged with “disinformation” for attacking all the wrong people. By David Harsanyi January 6, 2020 2:25 PM Did you know that CNN has a reporter on the “disinformation” beat? I’ll skip the cheap joke about his never having to leave the office, and note that the network is now grousing about the Christian conservative satire site the Babylon Bee, which has earned the ire of a number of liberals for making jokes at their expense. The story drawing CNN’s outrage — “Democrats Call For Flags To Be Flown At Half-Mast To Grieve Death Of Soleimani” — is good satire. It slightly exaggerates the reaction many on the left have had to the killing of the Iranian mass murderer. Anyone who read the Washington Post’s headline calling Soleimani a “most revered military leader,” watched ABC’s Martha Raddatz offering adulatory treatment of the terrorist from Iran, or listened to Elizabeth Warren struggle to call him a murderer after her initial statement is in on the joke. That some people believe the Babylon Bee piece is also a sign that it is good satire. How many Americans, after all, still believe that Sarah Palin, rather than Tina Fey, said, “I can see Russia from my house?” Satire relies on a level of plausibility. If the only brand of political humor permitted is vapid enough for even the dumbest or most humorless person to comprehend, we’re going to end up in a world with a lot more Andy Borowitzes. CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan offers only three examples of gullible conservatives buying the satire — the Babylon Bee piece has over 500,000 shares on Facebook — but he’s alarmed that too many Americans have been hoodwinked. “To put this in perspective,” he writes, “this is the same number of engagements the top NY Times and CNN stories on Facebook had over the past week. A lot of people sharing this ‘satirical’ story on Facebook don’t know it is satire. There will always be chumps who fall for bogus news stories — in particular, bogus news stories that comport with their preconceived notions about the world. Yet media coverage of “disinformation” is a highly specialized concern. In 2006, more than half of Democrats still thought it likely, or somewhat likely, that George W. Bush had had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks. I don’t remember panicky reporters signing up for the disinformation beat back then. Last I looked, 67 percent of Democrats believed it was “definitely true” or “probably true” that the Russkies had altered votes to get Donald Trump elected. Why no concern over this dangerous falsehood? Perhaps because the call is coming from inside the house. You might recall the decade-long love affair with The Daily Show. If not, a recent piece in the Washington Post — headlined “Jon Stewart’s ‘Daily Show’ changed how we consume news. His political influence still endures” — is here to remind you that the show Years ago, a producer from The Daily Show called me to discuss the possibility of being interviewed about a book I’d written. In this case, the producer claimed to be supportive of my positions. One thing was certain, though: If The Daily Show disagreed with you, producers were going to edit the interview to make you look like a simpering idiot. Why? Because Stewart’s satirical show, often funny, featured jokes almost exclusively mocking conservatives. The widely celebrated Colbert Report’s satirical conceit was to paint conservatives as cartoonishly irrational buffoons. Stewart was the most trusted source of political news for Millennials. How many young liberals had their worldview formed by these “selectively edited” segments? The Babylon Bee’s real crime, of course, is that it mocks all the wrong people. Many of the people it mocks, incidentally, are now part of a concerted effort to inhibit political speech — or to shame tech companies into inhibiting political speech. As always, a lot of this effort is nothing but cynical partisanship. But some of it taps into a longstanding anxiety about conservative susceptibility to deception. I mean, how else could these people possibly believe the dumb things they do — right? “Having a disclaimer buried somewhere on your site that says it’s ‘satire’ seems like a good way to get around a lot of the changes Facebook has made to reduce the spread of clickbait and misinformation,” O’Sullivan notes. I’m certain there was a good reason that Juvenal didn’t slap a “THIS IS SATIRE” warning on his poems. Notifying people of impending satire is the most effective way to kill the mood. The gravest contention O’Sullivan makes — and he’s not the only one — is that the Babylon Bee isn’t merely in the business of being a funny conservative site, but that it also exists to spread misinformation about Democrats. Where is his evidence? Did the Babylon Bee once put “satire” on all its headlines, and change that policy to circumvent Facebook’s ridiculous policing of speech? What’s most annoying about all this situational and insincere freakout about the veracity of social-media news feeds is that the people who claim to be most concerned about it have done far more damage to the public’s trust than has any satirical site — not only by spreading half-truths and stoking political hysteria, but by undermining their reputation and leaving millions of Americans without any reliable mainstream news organizations to count on.
Perhaps this one is a pretty clear example. Its from the guy that ran for congress and his only family did a campaign ad AGAINST him. When confronted...
clearly another Trumper working on the Orange Man's wag-the-dog reelection campaign: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-iranian-propaganda-about-mourning-soleimani/ Don’t believe Iranian propaganda about the mourning for Soleimani Mourners carry images of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani and Iranian national flags during a funeral ceremony in Tehran on Monday. (Ali Mohammadi/Bloomberg) By Masih Alinejad Jan. 6, 2020 at 2:09 p.m. EST Masih Alinejad is an Iranian journalist, author and women’s rights campaigner. Over the next few days, it will be hard to escape footage of huge crowds gathering in Iranian cities to mourn the death of Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general killed by a U.S. drone strike. For anyone watching, I have one piece of advice: Don’t take what you’re seeing at face value. This past November, thousands of Iranians took to the streets across the country to protest against the regime, in the biggest challenge to the clerical rule in 40 years. According to Reuters, more than 1,500 people were killed by security forces, including units of Soleimani’s Revolutionary Guard, and at least 7,000 have been arrested. The Internet was shut down for five days. Tehran has yet to release official figures of its own, which suggests the death toll may have been even higher. The protesters had harsh words for Soleimani and his foreign adventures, chanting against Iran’s involvement in Syria and its support of Hezbollah. That came as a shock to the regime, which portrays Soleimani as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s adopted son. Of course, people across the political divide are concerned about war. Nobody wants President Trump to bomb Iran’s cultural or historical sites as he threatened in a tweet on Saturday. I myself denounced the tweet on Fox News on Sunday. But what to make of the crowds of flag-waving mourners streaming across TV screens? Without doubt, Soleimani had support among hard-liners and regime loyalists. The regime is not taking any chances, though. In the city of Ahvaz, where large numbers of people turned out to mourn Soleimani, the government has forced students and officials to attend. It provided free transport and ordered shops to shut down. According to videos sent to me by people inside the country, the authorities are making little kids write essays praising the fallen commander. First-graders who didn’t know how to write were encouraged to cry for Soleimani. Some Iranians have compared the funeral services for Soleimani to those held for the Nazi leader Reinhard Heydrich, the Butcher of Prague, killed by Allied agents during World War II. Soleimani was not a benign official. In 1999, he was among the Revolutionary Guard leaders who demanded that then-President Mohammad Khatami crush university student demonstrations or face the consequences. Current Supreme Leader Khamenei praised Soleimani for his staunch defense of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad, who has killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. Few Syrians are mourning him. The media in the Islamic Republic is heavily controlled. Public gatherings are allowed only if they are pro-regime. Critics are jailed or shot. (Even I, living outside the country, have received a death threat on Iranian national TV for my coverage of Soleimani’s killing.) So it’s not hard to use all the tools and resources of the state to stage a funeral procession. I have more than 4 million followers on various social media networks, and I have received thousands of messages, voice mails and videos from Iranians in cities such as Shiraz, Isfahan, Tehran and even Ahvaz, who are happy about Soleimani’s death. Some complain of the pressure to attend services for him. There are many Iranian voices who think Soleimani was a war criminal, but Western journalists rarely reach out to them. Ironically, the Western media is more skeptical of such state-organized events in other countries, such as Russia or North Korea, but seems to leave its critical sense at the border when it comes to the Islamic Republic. While it’s true that Western correspondents face daunting conditions when it comes to reporting the truth from Iran, that shouldn’t excuse the many times they’ve shown unwarranted gullibility toward the official version of events. Remember all the articles that predicted how Iranians were going to unite in resistance to President Trump’s sanctions? The same analysts who missed November’s protests are now predicting Iranians will rally around the flag. This sorely underestimates the anger and resentment over the crackdown. The authorities forced many families to pay blood money in order to receive the body of their loved ones from the morgue. Some even had to sign official forms waiving the right to hold a public funeral as a condition of getting bodies returned. Two weeks ago, the parents and nine other family members of Pouya Bakhtiari, a 27-year-old engineer who was killed during the protests, were arrested to stop them from having funeral services. Two days later, on Dec. 26, thousands of security forces using armored cars, water cannons and even helicopters were deployed to stop mourning ceremonies for some of the victims. These families of those killed are not mourning Soleimani. In 2009, the Revolutionary Guards led the crackdown on the so-called Green Movement protests against the disputed presidential election. Many of the mothers of those killed in 2009, in 2017 and in 2019 are rejoicing about Soleimani’s death. How do I know? Because they’ve sent me videos of themselves, speaking to the camera, dancing, or even sharing cakes and sweets. I and others have been saying for years that the current repressive conditions in the country are not tenable and that more protests would break out. We were right. And I’ll say it again: Don’t be fooled. Iran will see more anti-regime protests.
He usually post something that can be tangentially tied to the topic, but this is truly just spamming and trolling. I beginning to think he is the real poster getting paid for this stuff. How is he getting all of this stuff from different sources and we know he does not read them. Since impeachment he has been in overdrive.
You do bring up fair rebuttals and good contrarian points at time. This is not one of them. Soleimani may not be universally mourned in Iran but he is far from universally hated. Political figures are divisive all over the world. Pelosi is divisive and many hate her guts and many are big fans. But if Iran assassinated her, I'd hope most of the country would unite behind her and mourn her just like people did with McCain when he passed from cancer. And why can't Soleimani be both a general and a terrorist? Because he is actually both, it's not one or the other. The issue with his assassination wasn't that he was not a terrorist, it was that there is no evidence that there was an imminent threat, that generally you don't have directed killings against senior members of a foreign gov't, and that there wasn't any kind of congressional authorization in an act that was a de facto declaration of war. I created this thread to highlight the propaganda (disinformation) of election year campaign politics. Totally respect that there is bs from both sides, but can't you stick to posting actual campaign bs being pushed out there?
pretty sure Trump had Soleimani killed to distract from the impeachment and to help with his re-election campaign. Hence anything painting the most revered military leader in a bad light is disinformation (propaganda). https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...arren-trump-wag-the-dog-qassem-suleimani-iran Elizabeth Warren has suggested Donald Trump ordered the drone assassination of Iranian general Qassem Suleimani to distract the American public from his own impeachment, taking the country “to the edge of war” for his own political purposes. “We know Donald Trump is very upset about this upcoming impeachment trial,” the Massachusetts senator and candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination told NBC’s Meet the Press. “But look what he’s doing now. He is taking us to the edge of war.” Observers were quick to say Warren was accusing Trump of “wag the dog” tactics, meaning an attempt to distract public attention by launching a military strike. As Joe Biden would say, "C'mon man" . . . it's ALL about the campaign.
Warren is entitled to her opinion, but she isn't manufacturing information in an effort to deceive people. It's entirely plausible that Trump is engaging in wag-the-dog tactics as he has been known to do.
