Be Wary of Slick videos

watty

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8189231.stm

Some slick highly viewed videos may just be racist lies rather than a basis for CTs.

Kernel

My favourite recent propaganda has to be Nera. Genius.

Edit: Typo.. It's Neda of course, you know the Iranian doll.

indough

do you mean the propaganda by the iranian state?

Kernel

indough wrote: »

do you mean the propaganda by the iranian state?

No mate, she's obviously being used as propaganda against the existing regime. Stir things up a bit.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

No mate, she's obviously being used as propaganda against the existing regime. Stir things up a bit.

Yes because it's outrageous that people are upset by the state murdering a young woman, and denying her family a proper burial.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes because it's outrageous that people are upset by the state murdering a young woman, and denying her family a proper burial.

One woman. Used as propaganda obviously. Milked.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

One woman. Used as propaganda obviously. Milked.

Certain images and events become iconic symbolising the atrocity. Think the man with the tank at Tiananmen Square. Or the children running covered with Naplam in Vietnam. It's not propaganda.

watty

Well in a sense it's Propaganda. But doesn't mean it's not true. Some things are valid Iconic images or events to highlight injustice.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

One woman. Used as propaganda obviously. Milked.

Wow classy.

If this happened in America you'd be putting forward as proof positive of an oppressive regime.
Just look at the fella who died at the protests in England.

But since it shows the regime in Iran in a bad light, it's propaganda for some reason.
Why is that exactly?
Is everything bad said against it American propaganda?

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Wow classy.

If this happened in America you'd be putting forward as proof positive of an oppressive regime.
Just look at the fella who died at the protests in England.

Why would you assume that? People get shot every day in America. Ruby Ridge and Bill Cooper. Waco. I think I've only mentioned Bill Cooper previously here, but that was due to people discussing him. Don't think I ever put his shooting forward as proof positive of an oppressive regime. I'm far more balanced than might fit your stereotype of a CTer.

King Mob wrote: »

But since it shows the regime in Iran in a bad light, it's propaganda for some reason.
Why is that exactly?
Is everything bad said against it American propaganda?

Well, if you look at the political events in Iran, and it's political friction with the US and Israel, and look at the CIA and Mossad actively engaging in operations to destabilise political regimes they don't like (in the past), then you look at the huge protests and explosive growth of an anti-establishment movement in Iran. This happened seemingly out of the blue, as far as I could see.

Then this unfortunate woman happens to be followed around by a camera crew and shot dead during a protest, camera zooming in on her dying eyes etc. Broadcast everywhere, posters appear, emotions inflame. Smells like propaganda to me, and it wouldn't be an absolutely baseless conclusion, would it? Just to completely wind everyone up here, I'll go a step further and say that I wouldn't be at all surprised if CIA/Mossad were in some way involved in her death.

Kernel

watty wrote: »

Well in a sense it's Propaganda. But doesn't mean it's not true. Some things are valid Iconic images or events to highlight injustice.

Watty, I've enjoyed reading your posts here. I'd love to hear your opinions on certain conspiracy related electronics theories put forward, another thread maybe. Anyway, on topic:

Don't you think that while the image may be iconic, but does it really have such relevance or impact on us here in the west to justify the amount of media coverage? Even ATS, to my disappointed, was largely dragged into the whole 'these islamic barbarians killed a beautiful woman during a protest - let's bomb bomb bomb' kind of mentality. Effective propaganda. The amount of anti-Iranian propaganda out there is actually amusing when you are aware of it. Every month there's a new outrage posted by government shills on ATS about abuses of human rights in Iran.

indough

i dont suppose that could be because they actually do have poor human rights there?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Why would you assume that? People get shot every day in America. Ruby Ridge and Bill Cooper. Waco. I think I've only mentioned Bill Cooper previously here, but that was due to people discussing him. Don't think I ever put his shooting forward as proof positive of an oppressive regime. I'm far more balanced than might fit your stereotype of a CTer.

But you seem so ready to blame this on a conspiracy based on zero facts.
Why is that?

Kernel wrote: »

Well, if you look at the political events in Iran, and it's political friction with the US and Israel, and look at the CIA and Mossad actively engaging in operations to destabilise political regimes they don't like (in the past), then you look at the huge protests and explosive growth of an anti-establishment movement in Iran. This happened seemingly out of the blue, as far as I could see.

So you where following the political climate in Iran for the last few years then? Was this the western media or the Iranian media?
Is it so impossible that a large number of people have been dissatisfied with the regime?
Is it possible that the "explosive growth" was only because the western media was covering it more?
Is it possible that the protests kicked off at a time when political tensions were high, say like an election or something?

Kernel wrote: »

Then this unfortunate woman happens to be followed around by a camera crew and shot dead during a protest, camera zooming in on her dying eyes etc. Broadcast everywhere, posters appear, emotions inflame. Smells like propaganda to me, and it wouldn't be an absolutely baseless conclusion, would it? Just to completely wind everyone up here, I'll go a step further and say that I wouldn't be at all surprised if CIA/Mossad were in some way involved in her death.

Your right if it seems to be suspicious to you it must be a staged event.
Not like your biased or anything.

And yes without any evidence it would be a baseless conclusion.

King Mob

indough wrote: »

i dont suppose that could be because they actually do have poor human rights there?

No, there's no human rights abuses in Iran.
That's all western lies. :pac:

Kernel

indough wrote: »

i dont suppose that could be because they actually do have poor human rights there?

Maybe they do, but I'm fairly sure there are many other countries with equally bad or even worse human rights abuses that don't result in propaganda spamming of the worlds greatest conspiracy site.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Is it so impossible that a large number of people have been dissatisfied with the regime?
Is it possible that the "explosive growth" was only because the western media was covering it more?
Is it possible that the protests kicked off at a time when political tensions were high, say like an election or something?

All of those questions can be easily dissected and explained in the context of the conspiracy theory. But it will take me ages. Why don't you re-read what you have posted and see if you can put the pieces together yourself mob? I just don't think you understand counter-intelligence, or subversive operations. Ah go on, let me give you clues as per your questions, I have some free time:

Q1: why did the large group suddenly become dissatisfied. Is the objective of a propaganda operation or covert destabalising operation to make people suddenly dissatisfied?
Q2: why were the western media covering it more? Does that not fit in with their role in a propaganda operation?
Q3: Would the best time to launch such an operation or heighten tensions to breaking point be just before an election?

And of course, you should recognise the convenient timing of the whole affair. And you also realise that the CIA have been funding anti-Ayatollah regime programs and individuals for some time don't you??

King Mob wrote: »

Your right if it seems to be suspicious to you it must be a staged event.
Not like your biased or anything.

Exactly, I'm not biased. Don't give two hoots about Iran. Oh wait, you were being facetious of course. How helpful.

King Mob wrote: »

And yes without any evidence it would be a baseless conclusion.

But I've given you evidence. Circumstantial evidence. Remember I've told you in the past that if a successful covert operation is completed, there is no proof-positive evidence (otherwise it's a failed operation). You must try to remember that in future.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Q1: why did the large group suddenly become dissatisfied. Is the objective of a propaganda operation or covert destabalising operation to make people suddenly dissatisfied?

Where exactly is this "suddenly" coming from exactly?
How do you know it was suddenly? It's probable that they've been dissatified for a long while, they just haven't had the media attention.
Do you not think there's enough about the Iranian Government to be dissatisfied about?
What about the recent small scale protests here? They were sudden. It must be a CIA plot.

Kernel wrote: »

Q2: why were the western media covering it more? Does that not fit in with their role in a propaganda operation?

Because the western media like to cover big stories?
You realise that on top of the protests there was the fact that they were using new technologies like twitter and facebook to organise. This novel fact gained the initial interest. Public and online interest in the cause afterwards sustained it.
How exactly is the media reporting on something in anyway strange?

Kernel wrote: »

Q3: Would the best time to launch such an operation or heighten tensions to breaking point be just before an election?

But you said that this dissatisfaction was sudden.
How could there be tension if it wasn't there till the CIA or whatever put it there?
Is it not possible that this could happen without a conspiracy?

Kernel wrote: »

And of course, you should recognise the convenient timing of the whole affair. And you also realise that the CIA have been funding anti-Ayatollah regime programs and individuals for some time don't you??

Yes they probably are. (would still love some evidence to back that up BTW)

But you were claiming that Neda Agha-Soltan's death was staged.
Have you any evidence to show that the CIA was actually involved in that?

Kernel wrote: »

Exactly, I'm not biased. Don't give two hoots about Iran. Oh wait, you were being facetious of course. How helpful.

You have said on several occasions that the media is controlled and should not be trusted. That not seem biased?

Kernel wrote: »

But I've given you evidence. Circumstantial evidence. Remember I've told you in the past that if a successful covert operation is completed, there is no proof-positive evidence (otherwise it's a failed operation). You must try to remember that in future.

No you've not provided any evidence of anything.
Just a lot of baseless conjecture.

But if there isn't any evidence how can you conclude that it was a covert operation at all?

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Where exactly is this "suddenly" coming from exactly?

Well, last I had heard people in Iran were behind the government. Ergo: suddenly. Can you prove that this is not the case? You seem to think the protests are not sudden, so can you back this up?

King Mob wrote: »

How do you know it was suddenly? It's probable that they've been dissatified for a long while, they just haven't had the media attention.

Probable schmobable. I don't remember any protests such as these in Iran under the current regime.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you not think there's enough about the Iranian Government to be dissatisfied about?

Not if you want to live in an Islamic Republic under Sharia law, no. It's the government the people wanted, and it's a government that other muslims are campaigning for. To westerners, of course it's a 'bad' government.

King Mob wrote: »

What about the recent small scale protests here? They were sudden. It must be a CIA plot.

No, we can see government ineptitude and actions leading up to the protests, and as you say, they were very very small scale. Hardly an uprising capable of overthrowing our gub'ment.

King Mob wrote: »

You realise that on top of the protests there was the fact that they were using new technologies like twitter and facebook to organise. This novel fact gained the initial interest. Public and online interest in the cause afterwards sustained it.
How exactly is the media reporting on something in anyway strange?

The fact that the protests were so organised and were using these new technologies like twitter is further circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy.

King Mob wrote: »

But you said that this dissatisfaction was sudden.
How could there be tension if it wasn't there till the CIA or whatever put it there?
Is it not possible that this could happen without a conspiracy?

Yes, it was sudden. The widespread public protestation. I put it to you again that you do not understand what a covert intelligence program is, and has been in the past. It's about destabalising a regime you don't like, and toppling it through careful planning and manipulation. These things happen and have happened for a very long time in history. As to whether it's possible to happen without a conspiracy, of course it is possible, it's just more plausible that given the timing, and the political situation, it was 'helped' to happen.

King Mob wrote: »

Yes they probably are. (would still love some evidence to back that up BTW)

Have you googled 'iran covert operations' or so forth? There's loads of good information out there about past and present ops.

King Mob wrote: »

But you were claiming that Neda Agha-Soltan's death was staged.
Have you any evidence to show that the CIA was actually involved in that?

I'm claiming that it was very possible that it was. And there is no concrete evidence at the moment, as it would be a covert op, by definition nobody is supposed to realise the hand behind it.

King Mob wrote: »

No you've not provided any evidence of anything.
Just a lot of baseless conjecture.

But if there isn't any evidence how can you conclude that it was a covert operation at all?

There is loads of circumstantial evidence I've just pointed out. Not baseless conjecture, since that is how such operations are conducted and have been conducted in the past. It is logical to conclude given the circumstances surrounding the entire affair that it could easily be a covert operation and propaganda. That's what the non-CT believers (and I mean those of you who don't believe conspiracies occur at all) never seem to get. The connect the dots approach.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Well, last I had heard people in Iran were behind the government. Ergo: suddenly. Can you prove that this is not the case? You seem to think the protests are not sudden, so can you back this up?

Ok so you made the claim that they were sudden but I have to back it up?
I don't actually know how sudden this was. I'm asking you why you believe it was sudden.

So what is you claim backed up by exactly?
The fact you weren't paying attention to the political sitution?

Kernel wrote: »

Probable schmobable. I don't remember any protests such as these in Iran under the current regime.

Well if you don't remember it, it didn't happen.

But two seconds on wikipedia says otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_student_protests,_July_1999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_reform_movement

Kernel wrote: »

Not if you want to live in an Islamic Republic under Sharia law, no. It's the government the people wanted, and it's a government that other muslims are campaigning for. To westerners, of course it's a 'bad' government.

Well Bush was what the people wanted (for one of his terms at least).
I'm not saying that all Iranians are against the regime. No one is claiming that.

Just like there was a large number of people dissatisfied with the Bush administration, there is a sizeable amount of people in Iran similarly dissatisfied.

Kernel wrote: »

No, we can see government ineptitude and actions leading up to the protests, and as you say, they were very very small scale. Hardly an uprising capable of overthrowing our gub'ment.

Oh so you mean that there were diverse and complex reasons for even these small protests?
Shock.
But the bigger the protests the simpler the explanation right?

Kernel wrote: »

The fact that the protests were so organised and were using these new technologies like twitter is further circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy.

You're joking right?
What exactly about people using these sites to organise points to a conspiracy?

Let's see.
People wanted to protest.
People needed to organise quickly and to large group of people.
People had access to Twitter and Facebook which let's them do that.
The fact these are accessible on mobiles means that it was easy and quick to relay new information.
This resulted in well organised protests.

Where exactly does the CIA come in?

Kernel wrote: »

Yes, it was sudden. The widespread public protestation. I put it to you again that you do not understand what a covert intelligence program is, and has been in the past. It's about destabalising a regime you don't like, and toppling it through careful planning and manipulation. These things happen and have happened for a very long time in history. As to whether it's possible to happen without a conspiracy, of course it is possible, it's just more plausible that given the timing, and the political situation, it was 'helped' to happen.

Ok then do you have any evidence that this was in play during this election.
And while you're getting that maybe some evidence that this shooting was staged.

Kernel wrote: »

Have you googled 'iran covert operations' or so forth? There's loads of good information out there about past and present ops.

You mean the operation that leave no evidence?

Kernel wrote: »

I'm claiming that it was very possible that it was. And there is no concrete evidence at the moment, as it would be a covert op, by definition nobody is supposed to realise the hand behind it.

It's also possible that she was shot by an overzealous militia isn't it?
Which explanation has more evidence and require less leaps of logic do you think?

Kernel wrote: »

There is loads of circumstantial evidence I've just pointed out. Not baseless conjecture, since that is how such operations are conducted and have been conducted in the past. It is logical to conclude given the circumstances surrounding the entire affair that it could easily be a covert operation and propaganda. That's what the non-CT believers (and I mean those of you who don't believe conspiracies occur at all) never seem to get. The connect the dots approach.

It's not circumstantial evidence it's conjecture.

But why base your beliefs on verifiable evidence when you can connect the dots?
Not like you could be wrong or anything.

indough

Kernel wrote: »

Maybe they do

there's no maybe about it