In what way? I am trying to start a discussion both about why you believe this man's death should be celebrated, the premises of what you think about the government in iran, and what the reality of a collapsing state looks like, what kind of world we would really live in if mccain's dream of nuking iran were realized, the intersection of the president's death with geopolitics, the western instrumentalization of orgs like HRW to go soft on israel and hard on targets we want to exploit & enclose or push out of competition, regional politics

you are free to step out and come back later but it's clear you don't want to talk about the differences between this guy, bin laden, and hitler. it's actually far more interesting than "bad man die is good. me very smart no explain"

Because internet commentators want to pass off their uninformed xenophobia as advocacy for democracy and the people of countries they despise and want to undermine the national interest of. For instance Ken Klippenstein referred to the Iranian President as an authoritarian dictator.

Because you started a discussion with other people and made unfounded claims, you should anticipate a response. You shouldn't just misapply made up debate rules to act smug without backing up anything you said. This is assuming you're interested in exchanging information with other people and learning. 🤠

You too. While you're out there, don't go implying people who aren't cheering on an elected leader's death are opposed to reform of the system that elected them, implicitly. Especially when that leader has done more than you ever will for Palestine.

See, and there you go acting cute about it. We all know what you're implying in this discussion of the guy dying in a fireball. Get outta here

Why are you incapable of actually arguing about these points? Can you do anything other than this metatextual shit about how people are misreading you? How about actually discuss Iran or geopolitics?

and here you see the bailey of the motte and bailey strategy to defend regime change talking points. he's no longer a leader he's an "authoritarian dictator" a completely meaningless term which is only used to paint targets on the enemies of the west

you are just playing the good cop.

you didn't even know this guy was elected, did you?

hitler and raeisi and bin laden are so different they would make good candidates for some kind of tripartite "types of loamy soil" diagram. you're making a horrible analogy and you should feel bad

Yeah, if anyone wants to do an effortpost explaining why I'm wrong to be uneasy about the death of a major leader of one of the few countries materially supporting the anti-imperialist struggle and a key partner for china and russia in the middle east, a country which has tenuous political gains being made with saudi arabia that further minimize the possibility of normalization with israel, i'm open to it. haven't seen anything like that in that thread

personally my default reaction ranges from yikes to check the helicopter dept for CIA

probably best reddit debunker-tier take is sanctions killed him via shitty helicopter parts. there are concrete steps that iran can take there to prevent this.

i'm guessing this helicopter flight was the only practical way to get to some mountain location and not just a joyride. they even have uber for helicopters here and in LA which is so stupid

• not white enough

• muslim

• peripheral country

• muh dictators

• arab spring essentialism

• ignorance of geopolitical struggle

lol protecting the rich from jet tracking... of course