If you’re an actual car guy, you’re probably driving some absolute piece of shit that you’ve been continuously breathing life into for the last ten years.
The folks with the real high end luxury stuff just end up leaving their vehicles in the shop for half the year.
“Al-Awsa flood was a fully legitimate and legal attack against an occupying force”
Citing the attacks on October 7th, which targeted civilians, as legitimate and legal against an ‘occupying force’.
“Innocent civilians are not an occupying force”
Giving the opportunity, here, to dispute that they were innocent civilians - by specifying innocent civilians not being an occupying force, they are necessarily narrowing the scope of the discussion to civilians in the context of the October 7th attacks and whether they were legitimate.
“When they’re the people who’ve stolen your homes and land, they are”
That innocent civilians were targeted is not disputed. Instead, it is asserted that as the civilians were “the people who’ve stolen your homes and land”, they are in some way legitimate targets. What other reasonable interpretation is left in context?
lemmy.world
Oldest