And kill the firstborn (who are my children, whom I love) of every tribe member (who are my children, whom I love) because the tribe's leaders (who are my children, whom I love) were big meanies to my chosen children (whom I love the mostest)!
Let me put it this way - there's no justification for what Israel is doing or our continued support of Israel. There's also no justification for welcoming fascism into the US.
This whole shitshow is a stain on our souls, collectively and individually. It's all we can do to make the least bad choice, and then work towards it not being forced on us again.
Then we can enjoy some entirely new and unforeseen shitshow to torment us.
Welcome to democracy - where the ignorance and malice of the politically uneducated majority force the politically educated minority to make shitty and immoral choices.
It's better than the alternative, of course - the ignorance and malice of a politically uneducated minority forcing everyone else to support one shitty and immoral choice.
Surprisingly, yes. as AIPAC said, they got a 100% ousting of all candidates who were "anti-Israel"(translated to normal speak: against slaughtering Palestinians because Israel embraced the 14 words), this is a very clear democratic mandate to support the slaughter of innocents, so the land can be used for more settlements.
This isn't democracy. If ending genocide was actually a choice on the ballot instead of two ghouls who both support genocide, I bet most would vote to end genocide. What we actually have is a representative system where we're told that we vote in politicians who represent us, but in reality they represent the plutocracy and the plutocracy wants genocide.
Considering that most Americans currently support continued aid to Israel, yes. Not that facts matter to you, considering how badly you want fascism in the US.
I remember pointing out this poll to you before months ago, but you decided to ignore it because you're like a republican who loves projection. Turns out you're the one who spends their time spreading misinformation. You're also defending genocide with your misinformation while calling me a fascist. 🤪
Oh, would you look at that, only right-wing conservatives and republicans edge out in favor of giving aid to israel's campaign of genocide. For some reason you think we should be catering to republican fascists. Are you sure you're not the one who is the fascist? You love using projection like they do and you insist that "most Americans" support fascist policies.
It's amazing that you post the screenshot and STILL don't read it correctly. Here, let me remind you of what you originally said:
If ending genocide was actually a choice on the ballot instead of two ghouls who both support genocide, I bet most would vote to end genocide.
Thinking most people would be against genocide is spreading misinformation?
But fascists aren't well-known for their stunning memory of what they said in the past ten minutes either, so that's not a surprise.
Of course, the fact that you explicitly advocate for voting for a genocide of American minorities makes this position, in context, utterly unsurprising.
As I pointed out months ago, your poll is from february (older than my poll) and more people have been turning against israel as their campaign of genocide drags on. Even disregarding that, it's interesting that you're trying to paint a one percent difference between the favors and opposes as "majority of Americans", giving more importance to fascist opinion even though this is a difference within a margin of error and, again, this is a poll from february when israel has been losing support. You really shouldn't be lobbing accusations of others being fascist when you elevate fascist opinions like this.
I didn't realize "Your poll is older!" is a response to "Your poll literally doesn't say what you claim it does".
Even disregarding that, it’s interesting that you’re trying to paint a one percent difference between the favors and opposes as “majority of Americans”,
Funny, if you go back through our comments, the only person claiming that a majority of Americans would be voting for or against something is... you.
Huh. Weird. Almost like projection is one of the few tools you have.
But sure, 36% is a majority. Great math you have there. Like the math the Italian fascists used to 'make the trains run on time'.
"Your poll is from February!" he says, as he posts a poll from February. "Your poll is within the margin of error, just 1%!" he says, as posts a poll within the margin of error, literally just 1%. But hey, opting for no "Unsure" or "Neither" option really makes your 'majority support' of 48% 'more likely to vote for' (and notably not an actual policy position) that much more convincing.
lmao
Fascist hypocrisy is so predictable. More than their trains, that's for sure.
The poll I posted is later in february, showing the trend away from supporting israel's campaign of genocide, so good job missing the point. Tell me more about how I'm supposedly the fascist even though you're trying so hard to elevate support for genocide. Tell us all why we must support genocide because republicans overwhelmingly favor it.
The first poll I posted is from march and showed a big difference with most people not approving of israel's campaign of genocide. You went and posted a poll from february with a 1% more in favor of israel in the total category. I posted a slightly later poll than yours showing a 1% difference with more not in favor of israel to show the trend. Hopefully this is laid out simply enough for you to understand, but it seems like you're trying your hardest to twist yourself into a pretzel so that you can elevate support for genocide.
"Majority in U.S. Now Disapprove of Israeli Action in Gaza"
Israeli action in Gaza is genocide.
Therefore majority in the US disapprove of genocide.
Seems pretty straightforward, right? But to PugJesus over here, this somehow doesn't mean that and instead means that a majority of Americans support genocide. How? Hard to tell, but PugJesus over here is fighting really hard to claim that most people love genocide for some reason.
Therefore majority in the US disapprove of genocide.
In the same way that Joe Biden disapproves of genocide, ie by shaking their finger but explicitly continuing to support aid for the genocide, you know, what you initially claimed they would vote against. Sorry that you think Joe Biden's position is anti-genocide, but I'm afraid I just can't agree with that. :)
You literally JUST admitted that most Americans would not be in favor of suspending aid to Israel.
Which is a separate question, especially to the ones who mistakenly think that Israel isn't to blame for the genocide or that they're not the only ones perpetuating it.
Are you even trying?
To get through your thick skull that some people have a favorable opinion of Israel in spite of being against their genocide? Yeah. That it's not working is entirely due to your seemingly willful resistance to simple logic.
The fuck do you think a Trump victory is
An unmitigated disaster. One that the person you were addressing didn't advocate for at any point of this conversation.
Which is a separate question, especially to the ones who mistakenly think that Israel isn’t to blame for the genocide or that they’re not the only ones perpetuating it.
Then how the ever-loving fuck is it a relevant question to the issue of Biden's policy of continuing aid?
To get through your thick skull that some people have a favorable opinion of Israel in spite of being against their genocide? Yeah. That it’s not working is entirely due to your seemingly willful resistance to simple logic.
So... people like, say... Joe Biden?
An unmitigated disaster. One that the person you were addressing didn’t advocate for at any point of this conversation.
Why don't you go ahead and ask them who they're voting for? I've had enough encounters with Hark to know their song and dance.
some people have a favorable opinion of Israel in spite of being against their genocide
So... people like, say... Joe Biden?
No, not people who are active participants in the genocide who have vowed not to stop no matter what.
A civilian who still instinctively supports Israel in general can simultaneously oppose the genocide. It's misguided, but it's the case of many voters.
In contrast, a PRESIDENT who sometimes says "hey, please cool it, guys!" but also IS AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN THE GENOCIDE WHO HAS VOWED NOT TO STOP can not in any way be said to be against the genocide that he's taking part in.
No, not people who are active participants in the genocide who have vowed not to stop no matter what.
Just people who SUPPORT active participation in the genocide by sending aid and are determined not to stop regardless of the ongoing genocide. So literally the only difference is voting for this policy vs. carrying it out. Cool.
Let me put it this way - these people you're talking about, in the same position as Joe Biden, if they were suddenly appointed speaker and then Harris and Biden both resigned - what exactly would the difference considering their positions as stated by you to Biden's current approach?
If you can't understand that, then I can't help you.
Wait, wait, let me take a crack at it "They're still more moral than Biden because they aren't participating in the genocide YET, they just support the continuation of supporting the genocide as it is currently and would follow the exact same policy if they were given the power to decide our next course of action", as if that was a distinction with a difference in the context of a discussion of what people would vote for.
In what universe isn't disapproval of Israels actions opposition to genocide?? That's literally what they're doing that people disapprove of!
At most, people want to continue aid to Israel in SPITE of disapproving of the genocide.
Some people still incorrectly think that Israel isn't inherently a genocidal apartheid state, so they want to support them in general, but want the genocide to stop.
Yes. Most people want to vote for the outcomes that they prefer and most people want the genocide to end. Ergo most people would vote for an end to the genocide if given the opportunity.
In the minds of these people aiding Israel will either stop the genocide or not necessarily have an effect on it. They're wrong, but still against the genocide.
It's simple logic that REALLY shouldn't be so hard for you to understand.
Yes. Most people want to vote for the outcomes that they prefer and most people want the genocide to end. Ergo most people would vote for an end to the genocide if given the opportunity.
In the minds of these people aiding Israel will either stop the genocide or not necessarily have an effect on it. They’re wrong, but still against the genocide.
So under that logic, Biden, who has expressed opposition to the ongoing operations but continued funding it, is also anti-genocide in the same vein that these voters are.
You'll have to forgive me for not finding that a very 'anti-genocide' or 'changing what we're currently doing' stance.
Wagging his finger once in a while when an especially horrific atrocity becomes public does nothing when he's simultaneously sending them the weapons used to commit the atrocities and saying that he'll be on their side no matter what.
the ongoing operations
Holy minimizing language, Batman! Committing genocide and other crimes against humanity on a daily basis is not your standard "operations". Implying as much makes you sound like you're in favor of it or at the very least don't think it's anywhere near as bad as it is.
[Biden] is also anti-genocide
Nope. He's literally an active participant in the genocide who has vowed not to stop.
You'll have to forgive me for not finding that a very 'anti-genocide' or 'changing what we're currently doing' stance.
Sure, I'll forgive you for being as dense as a neutron star if you stop demonstrating over and over that you're suffering from a very severe case of the Dunning Kruger effect.
Wagging his finger once in a while when an especially horrific atrocity becomes public does nothing when he’s simultaneously sending them the weapons used to commit the atrocities and saying that he’ll be on their side no matter what.
Okay, so literally JUST like the people you're saying are opposed to genocide but support continuing aid.
Are you voting for time travel so you can travel back to the 1940s, become supreme leader of Israel, and change the 70 years of Israeli domestic policy that has led us to this point?
This isn't totally true, but it's partially true. If Trump wins the American election, he will double down support for Israel and completely write off all those who oppose them as terrorists.
Biden is just kind of apologetically supporting them because he's a weak leader that can't afford to rock the boat. He does weakly push back often, it's just nowhere near what we want or need.
If Biden actually wins the election, he may actually end American support. I'm of the opinion he's afraid of offending democrats and independents that support Israel, thus losing him the election (since he's barely ahead in the polls.) Most of us are still going to vote for him despite this, because Trump is far worse... You can't say that about the people who support Isreal.
Biden is just kind of apologetically supporting them because he’s a weak leader that can’t afford to rock the boat ... If Biden actually wins the election, he may actually end American support
No, he is ideologically committed to supporting Israel. He has said this multiple times and I see no reason to disbelieve him. I think it's equally likely Trump would stop supporting Israel because of America First/antisemitism, which is to say, so unlikely as to be impossible.
Yeah, Trump himself has no policy commitments. He'll say whatever he thinks is popular biased on the last thing he's seen on television. In office, he delivers bog-standard republican policy because that's who his cabinet gets filled with.
I don't see Biden changing his stance on arming Israel. Trump could, but the question is whether would it last long enough to actually affect policy.
I'm on your side, man. I'm on here bitching on "BOTH SIDES" types all day long. I'm voting for Biden (or, on the off-chance he's replaced, whoever the fuck is put up as a viable alternative to Trump). Voting to intensify genocide, as with a vote for Trump or a failure to oppose Trump with one's vote, is never acceptable.
It's just that we also must accept, as citizens, that we bear a part of the responsibility of this mess, and at no point can we look back at this and say "Well, as the American people, our choice to tepidly support genocide wasn't THAT bad, or geopolitical concerns justified it"
Our choice is dogshit. Even if it was 100% reversed now, it would remain dogshit, albeit much less dogshit than continuing or intensifying it. And we have to square with that on our souls.
Yep, this is definitely Ten Forward. It's a bullshit dogwhistle designed to help Donald Trump get elected and do more genocide, so it can't be from Risa, it must be from the crappy one.
Despite the trolls accusing people here of justifying it- I do t see anyone here is doing that. I’m pretty sure they know this, and this is what makes it hard to call them out for what they are doing. It’s like arguing with Christians.
They just misinterpret your words, rewrite them using their English-to-Troll filter, and shout them back at you once they say essentially the opposite of what you’re saying.
Example:
ME: “of course I don’t support genocide. But not voting for Biden isn’t going to stop it, and Donald ‘finish the job’ Trump is going to be far worse on Palestine than Biden could ever be!”
TROLL: “See! You support gEnOciDe!”
Now, you could accuse me of doing exactly what I’m accusing them of, but I’d urge you to look through my recent comment history. Somewhere between yesterday and today- you can see this exact thing happening.
The point is. From what I can see, NO ONE here is supporting genocide. The ones in other communities that do, get banned pretty quickly. And anyone that is accusing people of it, are proving to everyone that they aren’t here to discuss things rationally- because they’re starting from a complete and total lack of rationale.
In a perfect world, that option would be viable. However, if you look around- and pay attention, it’s not. And it’s not even remotely close.
I’d be all over a third party option if there was even a small chance they’d succeed. But they can’t. And this isn’t an opinion. Vote third party and yeah- hate to say it but you are throwing away a vote. And it’s not a big stretch to understand how a non vote or a third party vote FACTUALLY benefits Trump.
I fucking hate that this is how it is, but I’d rather live in the real world than believe in my own reality.
You lost me when you lied about non-votes “fAcTuAlLy” benefitting trump. That is a blatant falsehood that assumes people would automatically vote for Biden instead. Your fear mongering and dishonesty won’t win over a single vote.
Nope, that isn’t how math works. A vote for the Green Party is equivalent to not voting at all. Lying about it and stamping your feet won’t change anyone’s opinion. Also you guys always assume the GP voters are a subset of democrats when in reality most of them are not. Most would not vote for democrats if their first choice were taken away.
They’re just a convenient excuse for you whenever Dems lose because it’s easier to blame them than to hold dem leadership accountable for their very obvious and repeated failures. And it’s surely easier than holding yourself accountable for constantly nominating weak candidates. I mean you all got handed fucking Obama and still fought tooth and nail against him in the primary because you’re so scared of even slightly rocking the boat. Dem voters are gigantic cowards and enablers
You will not shame people into voting for Biden, it’s actually insane to see you all trot out this failed tactic yet again
It’s pretty easy to tell by the way they write. The sort of pseudo-clever, meme-y, derivative Twitch-speak you’d hear among gamers and mgtow types, mixed with a feeble attempt to sound like a tankie
Yeah no one should take them seriously. I just feel bad for the real person I dismiss by accident who has legitimate criticisms and thinks the moral thing is to vote for who they like even if that person has 0% to win.
There are just too many trolls though to endlessly engage all of them though just in case some of them are engaging in good faith.
I have no idea how you could possibly think this supports your position on things.
If Major Kira was living under a government that offered no alternative to genocide, she'd take up a phaser and start killing government officials, you know, like she literally did, in the show. She'd never condone someone who supported genocide, even if it meant resorting to violent opposition instead.
"Justifying genocide is when you oppose genocide, and the more you oppose it, the more you justify it" - Very Serious Lemmings
Alternatively, "The prospect of an eventual violent revolution justifies genocide" - Very Serious Lemmings
Or more realistically, "I think that the prospect of virtue signaling without affecting government policy justifies genocide, because that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside" - Very Serious Lemmings
“Justifying genocide is when you oppose genocide, and the more you oppose it, the more you justify it” - Very Serious Lemmings
"Opposing genocide is when you vote for someone doing a genocide and the harder you post about supporting them the more you oppose it" - Very Serious Lemmings 🤡
It's very funny to me that you received friendly fire because people on your side saw a simple "genocide is bad" meme and just assumed it was about them. You'd think that would lead to introspection but what do I know lol.
It's very funny to me that you received friendly fire because people on your side saw a simple "genocide is bad" meme and just assumed it was about them.
I think it's more that OP has made numerous comments in this thread arguing that we should vote for Biden.
OP's vibe seems to be "Yes, I really really really do oppose genocide... but the responsible thing is to vote for Biden, and people who won't support him are the true genocide enablers."
“Opposing genocide is when you vote for someone doing a genocide and the harder you post about supporting them the more you oppose it” - Very Serious Lemmings 🤡
Ah, the good old "Thoughts and prayers to LGBT folk who are going to be genocided in the US under a Trump regime", how classy. You're literally just endorsing fascism with extra steps, but I'm sure we'll have great fun in the camps together when you say "AT LEAST I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS"
The democrats aren't going to coerce me into voting for genocide no matter how many far-right politicians they fund and support to threaten me. After all:
Yes, obviously. I’m not voting for either of the options that intensify genocide.
The classic "I'm going to uproot the tracks!" answer to the trolley problem, while sitting by and doing nothing of the sort. A fascist's best friend. :)
The trolley problem is a thought experiment, intentionally contrived to remove any alternatives to the two options. It isn’t applicable to real life.
Yes, as we all know, in real life, all outcomes are possible, which is why the only possible moral route is to Thoughts And Prayers your way to a total and untarnished victory.
I've seen two interesting spins on the trolley problem recently.
"Just blow up the trolley." This is actually a very apt description of accelerationism. Blowing up the trolley doesn't stop the forward momentum -- it just turns the trolley barrelling towards the trapped people into a fiery wreckage barreling towards the trapped people. Plus if there's people on the trolley... Yeah.
"Untie the trapped people while other people push back and stop the trolley". This is once again rather emblematic, this time of blind idealism. The idea that if we get enough people, then we can stop the trolley,
sounds good on paper and makes you feel nice. But it ignores the reality that people cannot hold back a trolley like that. It just isn't possible for the necessary number of people to simultaneously push back against it.
Not to mention, the whole point of the trolley problem is that the trolley is a metaphor for an unstoppable event that is impossible to avoid. It's nice to think we could dismantle it, but we can't.
The trolley problem is a philosophy 101 thought experiment. It's not an absolute guideline for philosophy.
As a side note, even if it was, there are many people who disagree with pulling the lever, like the whole branch of Deontology, for example. It's bizarre that everyone on here assumes that everyone else on here has to be operating under the exact same moral framework, and if you disagree you're either an idiot or a Russian bot. The idea that anyone could ever draw a red line against a particular action just, you know, organically is treated as totally alien.
In real life, things are never as simple as in a philosophical thought experiment. There's incomplete information, there's multiple actors, there's long term factors affecting cause and effect. Let's look at some ways in which an individual's choice on who to vote for in an election differ from the trolley problem:
You don't have full control of the trolley. Instead, there are millions of other people who collectively decide which track the trolley will go down.
There are more than two tracks. Some of them might be unlikely to be chosen, but they still exist.
There are people who have engineered the situation to be the way it is, who have the ability to change it, and who can benefit depending on what choice you make.
The trolley problem will be repeated, over and over again, indefinitely. Depending on which track it goes down, it could influence the number of people on the tracks in the future.
There's uncertainty involved in everything. You don't know the exact number of people on each track, you don't know what all the other actors are going to do, you don't know how the people engineering the situation will behave, etc.
If you make the necessary changes to the hypothetical to make it actually reflect reality, it is so convoluted that it's no longer recognizable as a trolley problem and the choice becomes a lot less clear. There are plenty of Consequentialists who would agree with pulling the lever in the context of the hypothetical, because of all the constraints imposed in the hypothetical, but who would, in real life, say that you should consider every possible alternative and carefully consider the consequences before condemning one person to death to save five.
Don't derive your moral philosophy, or political philosophy, from random memes and thought experiments. Read.
Oh, look. Another hopeful leader for the resistance when the red hats take over. Like we ain't got a million of those lying around somewhere. Have fun getting caught and thrown in a camp.
That's the part these fucks don't understand. Accusing me of supporting genocide because I'm voting against a fascist doesn't make me question if I'm secretly pro-genocide and I don't even know it, it makes me question if they are a real person engaging me seriously or just more bad faith online accounts.
I'm not accusing you of supporting genocide for voting against a fascist, I'm also voting against a fascist. I'm accusing you of supporting genocide for voting for a candidate that supports genocide. There's nothing "secret" about it, it's your openly expressed position.
And do you understand that under the current American electoral system, any action other than voting for Biden will directly assist Trump in getting into power?
No, because that's not true. The only thing that assists Trump getting into power is voting for Trump. Voting third party provides the exact same assistance to Trump as it does to Biden: 0.
But I'll tell you what - if not voting for someone counts as assisting them, then you can rest assured that Biden will have my assistance.
it's not controversial, what is controversial is what is being defined as genocide. Classic mischaracterization.
Now i'm not going to get into the immediate debate about whether or not this is an active genocide or not, because frankly, not my fucking problem.
what i will get into is the commonly accepted definition of genocide, which is in past tense. It's also commonly used to specifically denote a certain ethnicity, which considering that israel is indiscriminately bombing, i'm not sure how much that applies. I feel like considering palestinian an ethnicity would be like considering a US state to be an ethnicity as well. Though i'm sure there is historical merit to that statement, the complexities of it are not something i'm intimately familiar with so i won't say much on it.
Regardless, I think palestine is realistically entitled to it's own nation, i see no reason for it not to be. Israel, arguably is also entitled to it's own nation, i see no reason for it not to be either.
It'd be cool if israel and hamas stopped committing war crimes, but considering that this is a war in the middle east, i don't know when that will happen.
Outside of shitty Israeli propaganda, no-one thinks Israel is under the threat of genocide.
And who think that Israel is committing one? The rest of the fucking world.
If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality. We may be surprised at the people we find in heaven.
"What the fuck are you smoking" is an ad hominem designed to distract from my undeniably true point, specifically: that both sides are similar in using unfair allegations of defending genocide to dismiss more nuanced beliefs of the other side.
Outside of shitty Israeli propaganda, no-one thinks Israel is under the threat of genocide.
This is called a motte-and-bailey fallacy. You're taking my point implying that both sides accuse the other of defending genocide and then wanna say I'm suggesting Israel is under threat of genocide. These are different things. You use a different thing because if you were to address the actual point, which again is undeniably true, you would have a very hard time.
To be clear, the "genocide" Israel supporters (unfairly) accuse others of defending is the Hamas attack on Israel, where Hamas killed unarmed civilians at close range, proudly recording it on video. I don't mean to imply you can't figure that out on your own, but you kinda forced me to point it out.
And if you say "but people who are protesting Israel aren't defending Hamas attacking Israeli civilians, but are defending the right of the Palestinian civilians to remain alive", then you understand completely. Now try swapping the relevant ethno-religious tribes.
You don't understand what tbe words "ad hominem" or "genocide"
Mean.
You're a little kid larping a philosopher. Badly.
To be clear, the "genocide" Israel supporters (unfairly) accuse others of defending is the Hamas attack on Israel, where Hamas killed unarmed civilians at close range, proudly recording it on video
In a highly charged ruling in January, the court ordered Israel to do everything in its power to prevent genocidal acts in Gaza
Again, you don't seem to understand what "genocide" means.
It's not "both sides". "Both sides" do not have cases in the ICC about being accused of genocide. Both sides do not have convictions from the ICC that they need to do all the can to stop genocidal actions being undertaken.
You genocide defenders make me fucking sick. Grow some balls and question your brainwashing.
Ad hominem = attacking the person rather than the argument. Like "you're a little kid..." The fact that you feel the need to accuse someone you've never seen of being a kid instead of pointing out what's actually wrong with what I'm saying should be seen as evidence that you are desperately flailing, pathetically grasping for straws to build an argument from when you clearly have nothing. Instead, it's getting upvoted, for some reason.
Everything else you say is completely and absolutely non-responsive, internet tropes in place of argument. You completely ignore the whole point of my argument, which is that you replaced my argument with another argument and argued against that instead, and proceeded to argue against an argument that was never made in the exact way I described.
Forget Israel and Palestine, the fact that this illogical Trumpian debate tactic shit is getting upvoted is the new thing that disturbs me. We're truly fucked as a species.
Yes, "rather than". Do you know what those words mean?
It doesn't mean the same as "in addition to", does it?
"Everything else you say is completely..."
You are the one pulling an ad hominem, not me. You ignore my answer to your "argument" and go on to attack my person. Your entire argument is "without the context of the site we're on, no-one could know what this is referring to", as if this was some sort of "both sides" bullshit, which you claim to despise.
It's not. Everyone knows Israel is genociding Palestine and not a single reasonable person would argue that Palestine is trying to genocide Israel.
During the day-long discussion, speakers were near-unanimous in demanding an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and warning against the catastrophic consequences of Israel’s assault on Rafah, where more than 1.5 million have congregated. Many underscored that while the adopted resolution represents the first step towards fulfilling the international community’s obligations to Palestine, ensuring its full UN membership is imperative.
Israel's assault on Rafah.
Fuck your equivocating teenage propaganda bullshit.
You are the one pulling an ad hominem, not me. You ignore my answer to your “argument” and go on to attack my person.
No I didn't, everything was specific to your argument. I said nothing about you. As for your argument, well I guess I'm glad that I'm promoted to teenager now.
Your entire argument is “without the context of the site we’re on, no-one could know what this is referring to”, as if this was some sort of “both sides” bullshit, which you claim to despise.
But the argument I'm making is that both sides are guilty of claiming the other side is defending genocide not that both sides are guilty of committing genocide right now. The argument that one side is defending genocide is bad faith, as other than a few extremists nobody on either side is actually defending genocide.
“I have ordered a complete siege on the Gaza Strip. There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” Gallant says following an assessment at the IDF Southern Command in Beersheba.
“We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly,” he adds.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — Accused of committing genocide against Palestinians, Israel insisted at the United Nations' highest court Friday that its war in Gaza was a legitimate defense of its people and that it was Hamas militants who were guilty of genocide.
More than 23,000 people in Gaza have been killed during Israel’s military campaign, according to the Health Ministry in the Hamas-run territory. That toll does not distinguish between civilians and combatants. Nearly 85% of Gaza’s people have been driven their homes, a quarter of the enclave’s residents face starvation, and much of northern Gaza has been reduced to rubble.
... this amounts to genocide and is part of decades of Israeli oppression of Palestinians.
“The scale of destruction in Gaza, the targeting of family homes and civilians, the war being a war on children, all make clear that genocidal intent is both understood and has been put into practice. The articulated intent is the destruction of Palestinian life,” said lawyer Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, adding that several leading politicians had made dehumanizing comments about people in Gaza.
You still aren't addressing the point they were making. They weren't claiming either side to be ethically, morally, or objectively correct. They were simply stating that both sides of the conflict have claimed the other is attempting a genocide of their own side.
You are trying to argue the objective facts of the situation, poorly at that, not the propaganda. They were commenting on the propaganda, not the facts.
The point is that him demanding there's "both sides" to this is true as much as it would be true that "both sides claim the other has false science" when arguing Flat Earthers.
It's disingenious and bad faith to pretend there are "both sides" to this. There aren't.
I can show you thousands of pages and people talking about Israel committing genocide on Palestine.
Can you show me a single page where anyone says that PALESTINE is committing trying to commit genocide?
Hint: google "palestine genocide" and "israel genocide" and tell me just how many links concern Palestinians being the victims of a genocide and how many there are saying they're committing one?
Yes, Israel loves to yell about "Hamas is trying to kill us" but Hamas isn't Palestine and an attack on a country doesn't qualify as genocide. Not to even mention how hypocritical it is of Israel to accuse Hamas of a genocide in the current situation when they're fervently trying to deny the genocide they're committing in broad daylight. Almost as ironic as you saying my arguing is poor. Thanks for the laughs, lol.
You acting that childish — proudly — is honestly making me sad in real life.
The implication of the first comment of this thread is that there are "both sides" to this. There aren't. Who exactly is saying "Palestine is committing a genocide on Israelis?"
Trying to pretend both sides are in any way "as bad" is exactly the type of shitty propaganda Israel keeps pushing. The same type of rhetoric the Nazis used. It's so fucking ironic that Jewish people are now committing the heinous crimes they were the victims of 100 years ago.
