The explanation you’ve quoted is partially accurate, but it also includes loaded language and some misleading framing. Here’s a breakdown of what’s true and what’s not:

⸻

✅ What’s true:

• Idiomatic meaning:

The Farsi phrase “Marg bar [X]” literally translates to “Death to [X],” but it’s often used idiomatically to mean “Down with [X]” or to express strong opposition. It doesn’t always imply a literal call for physical death.

• Cultural context:

Farsi is a highly expressive language. Phrases like “I would die for you” (“Joonam barat”) are common expressions of love or affection, not literal intentions. This dramatic flair carries into political slogans as well.

⸻

⚠️ What’s misleading or problematic:

• “Zionist trick”:

Blaming the translation or interpretation on a deliberate “Zionist trick” is a conspiratorial and inflammatory claim. Western media, including non-Zionist outlets, have long translated “Marg bar Amrika” as “Death to America” because that’s the literal and most shocking phrasing — and that’s how it’s chanted.

• Intent and tone matter:

Even if the idiomatic meaning is softer, the tone and context of these chants (e.g., at rallies, during times of political tension) are often highly aggressive and anti-American. They are meant to provoke, not just to express nuanced dissent.

• Equivalence to “I love you”:

While the comparison to familial phrases is linguistically interesting, equating a protest chant aimed at a country or government with a grandmother saying “I would die for you” is not a direct or fair analogy.

⸻

✅ Summary:

• “Marg bar Amrika” is idiomatically closer to “Down with America” than “Kill Americans.”

• However, it is still intentionally provocative and hostile in political contexts.

• The claim that “Zionists” created the mistranslation is not credible and veers into conspiracy theory.

• Farsi is indeed a lyrical and dramatic language, but context matters more than literal phrasing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743074&forum_id=2:#49048591)

The explanation captures some truth but oversimplifies and contains inaccuracies. In Farsi, the phrase often translated as “death to” (e.g., “marg bar Amrika”) is idiomatic and doesn’t always imply a literal call for death. It can mean “down with” or express strong opposition, akin to protest slogans. This aligns with the explanation’s point about linguistic nuance and Farsi’s dramatic, poetic nature. For example, Iranians might use hyperbolic expressions in everyday speech, like a mother saying “I would die for you” to express love, as noted.

However, the explanation ignores context. The chant “death to America” emerged during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, rooted in anti-U.S. sentiment over historical grievances like the 1953 CIA-backed coup and U.S. support for the Shah. While not always a literal call to violence, it often carries hostile intent in political contexts, especially when state-sponsored. Dismissing it as a “Zionist trick” oversimplifies and implies a conspiracy, ignoring the chant’s organic origins and varied usage. The “swarthy Muslims” phrase also introduces an unnecessary, potentially offensive stereotype.

In short, the explanation is partly correct about linguistic nuance but misleadingly downplays the chant’s political weight and context. Farsi’s lyrical nature softens some translations, but “death to America” can still convey strong animosity, depending on the setting.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743074&forum_id=2:#49048676)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5743074&forum_id=2:#49048592)