|
Judgy Fucker posted:Speaking honestly, and this isn't directed at merely or necessarily you, but I think the frustration comes from people wanting to dissect just how awful and wrong Hamas is and what they've done when the scope of what Israel is doing and has done is so, so, so much greater than whatever Hamas has done, or is even accused of doing, but not as much attention is given to Israel's crimes by some of the posters who want to talk about Hamas being raping baby-cookers or whatever. You're absolutely right, condemning Hamas for its crimes is not necessarily an endorsement of Israel, but if a given poster only talks about Hamas' crimes but not Israel's, it's kinda hard to see it any other way. I have not seen endorsement of Israel in this thread. Maybe it was earlier, maybe I missed it. It certainly isn't common. I have seen people make blatantly false statements in order to deny Hamas fighters have committed sexual assault: applying the description of one video to another. I have seen people literally defend taking a 10 month old as a hostage. So I have mostly posted in response to discussion of Hamas because that's where I see the whitewashing of atrocities. If you think that somehow means I support Israel, that's on you.
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2023 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
punishedkissinger posted:still waiting on evidence for this that isnt an IDF statement You can go back and read the BBC article. I found it convincing. If you don't think so, you can go ahead and wait. The BBC article cites a video from Hamas, not just Israeli sources. I also don't think that sexual assault in a conflict like this is particularly surprising, so I see the reflexive denial and in criticism of sources that look valid to me as people putting on blinders because it's the side they support.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
National Parks posted:This is such bullshit. The past few days have involved discussions about why Israeli government sources about allegations about mass organized rape are suspect, don't come back in a day later about how people are making false statements about it. As soon as you see people saying that it's justified, or okay somehow, you'll see me posting about it. I don't have anything to add to those posts beyond commenting on how hosed up it is. Posting like that would be white noise. Nucleic Acids posted:A view that has not been subject to independent verification. The BBC is neither Israel nor Hamas. They are independent enough for me. Pentecoastal Elites posted:you maintain that you've not made any posts explicitly in support of israel or their genocidal campaign If you think I have, go find those posts. I haven't. I've called what they are doing genocide, because it is. You are attacking me for a position I do not hold. Judgy Fucker posted:Why so defensive, making my post about you? Kalit asked a question, I answered earnestly, they responded in kind. People having a discussion and trying to see eye-to-eye, in DnD?! I responded because of the part where you said " this isn't directed at merely or necessarily you" made me think that you were addressing the thread beyond Kalit. I am trying to have an earnest discussion so I'm not sure where the hostility you're expressing is coming from. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Dec 8, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2023 18:18
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I did not say you made those posts. Please read what I've actually written instead of the post you imagine I'm writing. This is nonsensical word gaming. You said "you maintain that you've not made any posts explicitly in support of israel or their genocidal campaign" I do maintain that, because it's true. Which is why I said "If you think I have, go find those posts." I said that, because "you maintain" implies distrust. I am saying that if you don't believe me, go ahead and look. Now you're coming back with "I did not say you made those posts". You certainly implied it. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Dec 8, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:my point, in that post, was that it is happening because you seem to have -- or at least make posts that evince -- an implicit trust of israel sources, at least if they're laundered through eg. the BBC No. That's a misreading of my position. When the BBC says "videos filmed by Hamas" I am taking them at their word. You and some of the other posters in this thread seem to be reading it as something closer to "videos that the BBC acquired from the IDF propaganda department which they say were filmed by Hamas". Maybe rather than try and puzzle out some implied meaning, ask a question, like "do you implicitly trust Israeli sources?" because the answer is a resounding "no" and it would've saved you a lot of keystrokes. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Dec 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2023 00:38
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Did you read the article? Because the only footage "filmed by Hamas" (according to whom is never mentioned, presumedly the IDF) shows zero evidence of rape. I'm not sure if you're trying to split a hair on "evidence of rape" vs. sexual assault, but yes, I read the article. Here's the paragraph I am referring to. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181 posted:Videos of naked and bloodied women filmed by Hamas on the day of the attack, and photographs of bodies taken at the sites afterwards, suggest that women were sexually targeted by their attackers. There is also this one: quote:Videos filmed by Hamas include footage of one woman, handcuffed and taken hostage with cuts to her arms and a large patch of blood staining the seat of her trousers. The article also cites accounts from volunteer organizations collecting bodies, with the caveat that the BBC was not been able to independently verify them. I do not think the assumption that the BBC's sources are entirely the Israeli government, or even that they are entirely Israeli at all is a valid one. The article would be worth a read yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Even if everything everyone in this article said was 100% true, it still would not justify the ongoing genocide the zionists are currently carrying out. Who is saying that it does? I'm certainly not, so why bring this up? We can argue back and forth about what's a valid source or "direct evidence" or how much we trust the BBC, or what about the videos suggests sexual assault vs actually showing sexual assault but I think the part of your post that I've quoted above really indicates that that's not what you're actually arguing against. You paint your stance as the moral one, but I don't think so. I think you're willing to excuse or explain away crimes by the side that is overall in the right. It's no different from an American denying that Japanese soldiers were mutilated for war trophies or that there was widespread rape by Allied armies in WW2. Pointing out those things and saying that they were wrong doesn't mean that those soldiers were on the wrong side of the war. So, intentionally or not, when you are bringing up the fact that Israel is committing genocide in this discussion you're attacking a strawman. I agree. They are commiting genocide. Pentecoastal Elites posted:If you want to be especially upset that they kidnapped the baby, by all means, but if the testimony of the mother of the recently released child is anything to go off of it seems that they might just try to teach the baby some table manners. With statements like this I have a hard time believing you'd care about sexual assault by Hamas fighters given any amount of evidence. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Dec 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
Edit: nm
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2023 04:16
|
|
|
And there we have it. Some people believe literally any act committed by Hamas, no matter how horrific is acceptable because Israel is committing genocide. Some people do not think so.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Here's my overall point: if you truly oppose genocide, then it is not morally appropriate to highlight the alleged crimes of the people being genocided. That's just helping to justify the genocide, whether you're aware of it or not. Fister Roboto posted:I'll ask you the same question I asked Kalit, who was kind enough to respond in earnest: what do you think should be the appropriate response to Hamas's alleged crimes? I don't think the ends justify any means. Your stance not only excuses but justifies literally anything, which I find incredibly immoral. It's a little bit of an aside, but I also think Hamas's actions that we were discussing do not help end the genocide. I do not think taking 10 month olds hostage and sexually assaulting people helps them win their struggle. I don't think Allied armies raping women or mutilating the dead in WW2 helped them win their struggle either, or resistance fighters committing the same crimes, to use your example. In my opinion the appropriate, moral, response to Hamas fighters committing crimes/atrocities would be for the leadership of Hamas or whatever passes for a chain of command to hold the people who commit these crimes responsible for them. I see no sign of that, or any indication that if Hamas were to somehow come out on top that this would be the case. I genuinely question the ethics of someone who would not only refuse to contemn those actions but would refuse to even talk about them. I answered your question, so please answer mine: is there anywhere that you would actually draw the line? is there any crime a Hamas fighter could do that could be so terrible that it should actually be highlighted? Madkal posted:I don't know why you find this so shocking. No-one here is really trying to hide how much they approve of everything Hamas has done. I'm not expressing shock, I'm just pointing out the impasse.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:It's kind of hard to engage with you in good faith when you're clearly taking the least charitable interpretation of my words possible. But let's give it a shot. Likewise! I am required by forum rules to engage you in good faith. I am not required to actually believe you have it. Fister Roboto posted:Yes, I believe that in the specific case of resisting genocide, that the ends justify the means. Because what is the alternative? You can't subject people to oppression and genocide and then expect them to fight by the rules that are amenable to the oppressor. It's literally a fight for survival, and the alternative is laying down and dying quietly. As I keep having to point out, the responsibility is on Israel to end the genocide. Do you think that any other resistance to genocide in the history of humanity has been clean and free of acts that would otherwise be deemed heinous? This is a liberal fantasy. No, I don't believe this and in fact my previous post used the hypothetical of such cases as examples. Thank you for answering the question. Fister Roboto posted:You didn't fully answer my question because that's not really a response to Hamas's actions, that's just what you think Hamas should do. Let me be more specific: what do you think should be the appropriate response from Israel to Hamas's actions? Furthermore, what do you think should be the appropriate response from the rest of the word to Hamas's actions? I think sexual assault and taking babies prisoner should be condemned by absolutely everyone. I think the appropriate response is to condemn these things rather than ignore them as you've advocated, and continue to focus on ending Israel's genocide. I think it is possible to do more than one thing at a time. Fister Roboto posted:Your question kind of cuts to the heart of the matter to me, and there's an implication there that is open to interpretation, so let me first ask you a question of clarification: what should be the result of "crossing the line"? It's a question that I keep asking, and I haven't gotten a coherent answer yet. What opinions of mine should be changed if Hamas crosses the line? What should I believe is justified if Hamas crosses the line? The more charitable interpretation would be that you simply want me to acknowledge that Hamas has committed crimes. If that's all it takes, and we can move on from there, then yes, I acknowledge that Hamas has committed crimes. I would also point out that I have never denied that they have, nor have I said that they are acceptable in the absolute - only that they should not be the focus of anyone's ire while a literal genocide is ongoing. You cannot remove Hamas's actions from the context of an ongoing genocide no matter what. I told you what a moral response would be in my opinion, and why I think your stance of not talking about it at all is immoral. I'm not sure which part you think is incoherent, or why you're jumping to eradicating Hamas.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
Grem posted:Yup, Biden is Zionists brained to the max which is why he's going to lose and Israel will be the downfall of the United States. He's also out of sync with his own party. I was pleasantly surprised to see more Democrats sympathizing with Palestinians than Israelis in this WSJ poll, but almost half sympathize with "both equally" which I find hard to understand.  Strong Republican support for Israel, but that shouldn't be a huge surprise. WSJ article is here but paywalled: https://www.wsj.com/politics/majority-of-americans-back-israel-as-democrats-split-over-war-with-hamas-wsj-poll-finds-030f22c2?page=1 I can post it if people would like, didn't want to spam the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:I'm sorry but it is astoundingly naive to believe anything coming from any israeli source at this point. They have lied constantly and consistently about everything, and no one should have any reason to trust anything coming from any israeli source that's not independently verified. You do realize that *you* posted the Israeli source, right? Then someone pointed out an issue with your summary, and now you're attacking the validity of anything coming from any Israeli source. Seems backwards to me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
BRJurgis posted:Not finding much outrage in my personal interactions unfortunately. I've found the recent hostage shootings to be a good way to make the point that Israel is just shooting everyone and everything that moves rather than targeting Hamas. They were shirtless, waving a white flag, shouting in Hebrew and they got shot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2023 19:17
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Wall Street Journal, AFP If the WSJ and AFP are making these claims can you post those instead of a Twitter rando?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 05:04
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:I'm pointing out that the Palestinian "genocide" claims are based on unreliable numbers from a single unreliable source, the complete opposite situation. This claim is only true if the genocide claim is based on the deaths at the hospital, but it isn't. As Atahualpa pointed out it's based on far more than that, but you seem to be ignoring that. It's not at all contradictory for Israel to be committing genocide and for the deaths at the hospital to be exaggerated (I'm not saying they are). Mischievous Mink posted:Israel itself is run by a nazi apologist holocaust denier Wait... what? I knew he was a piece of poo poo but this is a wild claim.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 09:22
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:it's been heavily insinuated and outright stated a few times in this thread that the Houthis have consistently practiced piracy for years (?), and that their naval actions recently have not been attempts to help force international hands to stop the genocide of Palestinians, but merely a cover for the opportunistic self-serving piracy that they want to do and have been doing anyway. So, I went to look up Houthi piracy over the years and this is what I found: Here's one from 2014 that came up in the USCE thread: https://thearabweekly.com/tensions-...6-0-gaNycGzNDWU
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2024 03:17
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Did you post the wrong one? This is the 2022 cargo ship I mentioned. Yes I did, my bad. I was trying to post this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/us/politics/us-houthi-missile-strikes.html It's an article from this year but mentions that the US attacked Houthis in 2106 after they had attacked military and civilian ships. Not 2014. Mia culpa, I was phone posting and not reading things as closely as I should have. So it's some evidence of Houthis attacking ships before 2018, but it's incredibly light on details. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Jan 13, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2024 05:17
|
|
|
Pentecoastal Elites posted:Can you point out where you see that in the article? I don't see that or any mention of 2016. It's the last paragraph NYT posted:Thursday night’s strikes were the biggest U.S. attack against the Houthis in nearly a decade. In 2016, the United States struck three Houthi missile sites with Tomahawk cruise missiles after the Houthis fired on Navy and commercial vessels. The Houthis’ attacks stopped afterward.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2024 06:05
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:ABC News is confirming the strikes on the Consulate... That source says "near", and does not confirm that the consulate was hit.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2024 23:24
|
|
|
Esran posted:I don't know guy, I feel like those two aren't really the same thing. I think the user in question is moths, not Civilized Fishbot, unless I misread the post you're responding to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2024 22:55
|
|
|
Chemtrailologist posted:I did read the article. It was unclear. In the spoiler you posted it uses the word "testified", meaning the info came from some government source. It says the witness said it to the New York Times in an interview. It also says that the person who testified to seeing sexual assaults was a different witness hiding in the same location. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Feb 26, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 01:40
|
|
|
AlliedBiscuit posted:Israeli acquaintance shared this post. I’d really like to hear perspectives on it. I’m very much against Israel’s actions and want to push back tactfully. I'd ask how long ago an ancestral linkage to a place can be to still allow the descendants to "re-"colonize it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2024 23:08
|
|
|
Esran posted:Making a temporary port to access territory you're being kept out of by a nominal ally you're currently both funding and arming, because you can't be bothered to tell that ally to let you cross the border, or the money faucet turns off. There were posts in this thread about Israelis bringing their kids to protest and block aid trucks. Bringing in ships and simply going around that nonsense seems like a path that is far more likely to be successful than trying to get through protestors in the ground and an Israeli government that agrees with those protestors, and is actually an option that could bring in significant amounts of aid, unlike air drops which are a feel good measure. A ship can carry *far* more than a plane can. We'll see.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 02:50
|
|
|
Esran posted:Sure, I guess you can just make up some secret negotiations that happened and fell through, which both Hamas and Israel didn't mention, and assume Joe Biden has a heart of gold and cannot tell a lie, and everything's gravy. You don't have to make anything up. The poster you're responding to posted this: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-news-03-05-2024-a13c5fa6e23fedbda42e3028a96ca14e So Biden says a deal is eminent, and a week later Egypt says a ceasefire deal fell through. Do you think Egypt is lying too?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 17:00
|
|
|
Esran posted:The orange man is not currently president, and this type of counterfactual is white noise, because it's very hard or impossible to argue for or against them in a convincing manner. He will be the Republican candidate in a presidential election this year. Talking about what Trump would do is not white noise in that context.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 00:10
|
|
|
Marenghi posted:He's not the president currently. When and if the conflict is going on later this year maybe that would be the time to discuss how Trump would handle it. Right now it's just pointless theory-crafting. He's also a former president. Trump came up in the first place because of a post about how Biden was uniquely bad on Israel, and worse than previous presidents on this issue. If that's going to be a topic of discussion, I'm not sure how Trump isn't relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 00:28
|
|
|
National Parks posted:Because "Biden is uniquely bad in regards to Israel" is a historical discussion, while "Trump would be worse, at this moment in time" is hypothetical guesswork. If you are trying to compare which president is worse on a topic then discussing how two of them would handle the same scenario seems more valuable than refusing to do so. The second half of your post is conspiracy theorism. If you think someone in this thread is trying to run interference on the Biden administration's accountability with regards to the Genocide then make an argument for it rather than just tar people with that broad brush. socialsecurity posted:Maybe if you don't want Trump to be brought up stop bringing up how Biden is worse than him because that is a prompt for a discussion. This seems like a reasonable approach to the issue, I would not have discussed him here were it not for that prompt.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 00:47
|
|
|
My point is that this kind of statement:Esran posted:Were previous presidents also bad? Yes. Joe Biden is much worse. *invites* comparison to previous presidents and if they were worse or not. Not if their accomplishments were worse, you're talking about the person. "Joe Biden has done more damage to the Palestinian people than any previous US president" is a statement looking at the president in their historical context. "Joe Biden is much worse than previous presidents" is not. If you don't want to talk about it, don't invite the discussion. But, this isn't the election thread, and I am happy to stop talking about Trump here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2024 01:25
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Yes trying to explain even things like the settlements to people I know is a rough, up-hill battle. I've had really good luck using settlements as an example of how Israel is actively sabotaging a two state solution.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 03:46
|
|
|
rscott posted:I gotta say it's pretty funny that like a day after the idea that Hasbara trolls don't come here to drop off their propaganda was floated that we get a fresh rereg to do exactly that Yeah. Might be worth ignoring them until they come back and actually respond to the replies they're getting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 17:55
|
|
|
I haven't seen any discussion about Chuck Schumer's speech a few days ago. I found the video worth watching. Transcript: https://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-of-senator-chuck-schumers-speech-israeli-elections-are-the-only-way/ Video: https://www.youtube.com/live/9VgXMcm_9l0?si=HfbjXI6eQANOlrE7 I thought it was interesting to see the most senior Jewish elected official in the US, who (in my opinion anyway) is incredibly biased towards Israel, identify right wing Israelis and Benjamin Netanyahu as major obstacles towards peace. He listed four obstacles to peace. The first and third shouldn't be a surprise given the speaker, but the other two were interesting to hear: 1. Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate them. (He called it "their evil ways"  )2. Radical right-wing Israelis in government and society. 3. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. 4. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He went into detail on all four. This has mostly shown up in the news as Schumer calling for Netanyahu's ouster and for new elections, and there's been some push back from Netanyahu about it, and it highlights the Democrat/Republican split on Israel: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/20/us/politics/netanyahu-schumer-israel.html It's also kind of darkly amusing to see Netanyahu complain about interfering in Israeli politics while inserting himself into American politics so deeply.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2024 04:01
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:This is not obvious at all Agreed. They may have killed those civilians without orders. I'm curious if we have any insight into the instructions they were given.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2024 23:55
|
|
|
Your Brain on Hugs posted:The reality is that Netanyahu will never accept a deal in which Hamas keep power, and Hamas will never accept a deal which results in them being taken out of power. The vast majority of Palestinians in both the west bank and Gaza stand with Hamas in resistance to the genocide, so unless Israel is forced by internal pressure to accept a deal they don't want, it isn't going to happen. Netanyahu also doesn't want the hostages to be rescued, as that would take out the main justification for continuing the genocide, and his goal is to prolong it at all costs You can safely ignore anything except the words of Hamas officials at this point in regards to any kind of deal. Citation needed on the underlined bit. I don't think Netanyahu's primary goal is genocide, I think his primary goal is to stay in power and out of jail and he will do literally anything in order to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 03:45
|
|
|
Your Brain on Hugs posted:That's true, I could have said continuing the war instead. It amounts to the same thing though. He needs to keep the fight against Hamas going as a goal, as it's the only reason the people who want his head won't make any moves yet. If the hostages get exchanged for a removal of IDF forces in Gaza, he's in big trouble. As long as IDF forces are in Gaza, they'll be carrying out the genocide. Agreed. If the hostages get exchanged for a removal of IDF forces in Gaza and he ends up in big trouble, that would be the best possible option.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 05:20
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:The distinction is subtle but important. Wordings that the US has previously rejected would potentially hold Israel at fault if a ceasefire is not reached, while this one supports the idea of a ceasefire in principle but would not hold Israel responsible if/when negotiations fail to produce one. That still doesn't explain the vetos though. If what ot does is necessary but not sufficient, why not approve it and keep working? It isn't like this precludes any future resolution. Paladinus posted:Because it's by America, their geopolitical adversary. This seems like a far more likely explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 17:22
|
|
|
Esran posted:This reasoning is idiotic, and is basically circular: Russia and China must have rejected the deal for a bad reason, and we think this explanation holds water because we know these countries are Bad, so let's just terminate thought here. It's idiotic to think that the geopolitical rivalry better Russia, China, and the US is not a factor in vetoing security council resolutions. You seem to be under the assumption that the US is the sole bad faith actor and that other members of the security council are motivated entirely by heartfelt concern for the Palestinian people and nothing else. The argument that it's indirectly approving an offensive in Rafah seems tortured to me, but I need to go through and read it in detail. Maybe the draft resolution they might vote on soon will be better and pass. I certainly hope so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 23:05
|
|
|
Esran posted:That is not what I claimed, nor the assumption I made, so you can put the strawman away. I did not say that geopolitical rivalry was not a factor at all. Here's the train of comments: Paladinus posted:Because it's by America, their geopolitical adversary. DeadlyMuffin posted:This seems like a far more likely explanation. Esran posted:This reasoning is idiotic, and is basically circular: Russia and China must have rejected the deal for a bad reason, and we think this explanation holds water because we know these countries are Bad, so let's just terminate thought here. I was referring to the geopolitical rivalry, that's what I was responding to. You called it idiotic. It isn't like it's a bunch of long comments to follow.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
suck my woke dick posted:Why not both? The US backed resolution is toothless, but China and Russia aren't exactly selflessly advocating for the lives of Palestinians (lol at actually believing that, lmao even). The uselessness of the US resolution is a convenient reason to shoot it down, and potentially a step to tabling a more effective one yourself to look good. Yes, precisely. I'm not sure why that's incredibly controversial, but tensions in this thread are quite high.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2024 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:Fortunately it is much more productive to this thread about Israel/Palestine to take the tiktok rage at face value and talk about that instead of the people chained to tank hulls. Because otherwise I'd be tempted to think it was a reasonably successful suicide bombing of the nascent conversation of evidence of Israel doing something viscerally grotesque and war crimey. And, of course, that suspicion would be bad for the discourse. I find video links without context really unhelpful because I mostly read SA on my phone and watching a video, especially with audio, isn't something I can do. It's a part of the conversation that I can no longer follow. If I wanted to/was able to get content in that format I'd be on TikTok not SA. Implying that the people who have this preference on a loving forum are *actually* trying to cover for war crimes is a dumb and toxic thing to do, and part of why this thread is such a pit. If you want to accuse posters of downplaying genocide or war crimes, quote them and do it rather than this pathetic vague poo poo. DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Mar 28, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2024 20:22
|
|