Being anti-war is a legitimate position. I grew up with a father who was deeply anti-war, and I understand that perspective. But there's a difference between arguing against military action and repeating an adversary's canned propaganda.
When people uncritically amplify IRGC talking points, just as we've seen many amplify Hamas narratives in the past, or even Taliban and Al-Qaeda messaging, they aren't just expressing an opinion. Whether they realize it or not, they're aiding and abetting those organizations achieve one of their objectives: shaping public perception in their favor.
What do I mean by "enemy talking points"?
I'm referring to narratives that are deliberately crafted or amplified by hostile actors to achieve strategic effects. Information operations are designed to influence perceptions, manipulate emotions, obscure facts, and drive audiences toward conclusions that benefit an adversary's objectives. The goal isn't necessarily to convince everyone the enemy is right. Often it's to create enough doubt, division, and confusion that they gain an advantage without firing another shot.
You don't have to work for them to become a vehicle for their messaging.
Question everything. Verify claims. Be skeptical of every side. But don't mistake information operations for independent analysis. You know when something stinks. If you don’t want to call it out, fine, but no need to amplify it either.
You can oppose war without becoming an amplifier for those that use propaganda as another weapon.
We have “freedom of religion” in the US, not “freedom of law.”
Any attempts to replace our law, constitution, etc with another form should be strictly viewed as an act of war. @DeptofWar@SecWar
@NotWW18 He’s such a rude, heartless ass. How do these women stand his moods and the dialog is always the same..one way with William doing the lecturing about respect and rudeness.