I mean he does need those israeli anti missile shields so I get where he’s coming from. But this is straight up hilarious. Israel is occupying Palestinian terriroties ilegally just like Russia is doing in Ukraine.
How many terrorists have to be at the table? Itamar Ben-Gvir is a convicted terrorist. Should the cabinet adjourn every time a Kehanist or two shows up? Or does it require a 5/6 ratio before guilt by association kicks in?
Don’t let terrorists live in your home. Leave if you have to.
I’m sure that would have been very easy for the well over 10,000 children who have been killed. Especially the babies.
I have said this multiple times and I will continue to say it- if you have to kill thousands of children in the name of protecting your nation, maybe your nation isn’t worth protecting.
On one hand I can sympathize with that sentiment, on the other hand, I can’t imagine the horrors that would have occurred if the Axis powers had been allowed to conquer the world.
Ah, mostly that the Allied forces were fighting to protect their own nations, not just against the Axis powers. In doing so, they also caused death and destruction to innocents.
Again, doesn’t change what I said- if you have to kill thousands of children based on the claim that you’re protecting your nation- something the Axis powers themselves did- then maybe your nation isn’t worth protecting.
if you have to kill thousands of children based on the claim that you’re protecting your nation
My point is that this was something the Allied powers did as well, and they were the only thing that stopped the Axis powers. The scale and intent could be argued, but even though military conflicts are extremely horrific, I don’t always see a viable alternative.
To be clear, I’m also not saying that the specifics of the Israel-Palestine conflict are the same as WWII.
Those kids have parents who are making that choice.
Every country who has gone to war in the last century has killed children. The US, Canada, the UK, Germany, France, even Australia…
Civilian casualties are not possible to avoid unless both sides are willing to fight in a completely separate space, and that doesn’t happen in modern warfare.
Hamas isn’t using civilians as human shields. At least, not at scale. Israel and its western co-conspirators manufacture evidence to use to justify the genocide, but none of that evidence is concrete. It’s just intelligence people making baseless claims.
Tell that to the mods of this community who suggest we use it. Just because it marks your pet site low you’re gonna attack. That is par for the course.
Okay, I’ll make my own site for “factual” checks and say the articles I don’t like are fake.
See the problem here? They literally rated an article as “not trustworthy” and as a justification it said “we never found posting not factual information, but they are Palestinian and that lowers the score”. Fuck this system.
It’s owned by a dude called Dave van Zandt and there’s been plenty of posts on here showcasing their hypocrisy. The fact that “Times of israel” holds a rating above “low credibility” while consistently posting IDF propaganda and using heavily biased language is enough evidence.
Go dig through my comment history if you want to find more examples.
I can’t speak for the rest, but personally I’m downvoting BECAUSE you’re saying that Times of Israel is a good source.
It’s an extremely pro-Netanyahu and anti-Palestinian rag with no credibility with regards to anything to do with Palestinians.
That MBFC rates it highly is probably because MBFC itself is mostly the hobby of one right wing person with huge pro-Israel bias himself. Sure, some of the ratings are by volunteers or paid freelancers (with no real transparency as to who did what), but it’s mostly just a dude named Dave pretending to be an authority on credibility and bias.
Did you and the people upvoting your comment read the article? The article is about Israel destroying an illegal Jewish outpost that was built on Palestinian land. So it seems like Israel does care in this case and helped Palestinians against criminal Jews. Your comment doesn’t make any sense in this context.
How many Palestinian settlements have been illegally destroyed compared to Jewish ones?
My point stands, and Israel is myopic in their actions. The only change is that they accept hamas is an ideology, yet they continue. That doesn’t make sense.
I don’t agree with saying anything but voting for joe biden is totally equivalent to voting for trump, which is being said a lot… I don’t see why.
Not voting or voting 3rd party can cause a spoiler effect. But obviously that effect is less than directly voting for the worse guy. Mathematically they aren’t the same.
It is causing a lot of conflict to try and place a moral obligation on strategic voting specifically.
Everyone who is about to yell at me: I’ll probably vote strategically, that is my plan. I just don’t agree with all this hatred for 3rd parties.
3rd parties aren’t bad, but our system punishes people for supporting them. It would be best if we could say “I’d like the 3rd party to be in charge, but if not them, then at least Biden.” In that case, I would totally support 3rd party candidates.
But if we ever want ranked choice voting, it’s going to be implemented by democrats, not republicans.
I agree with all that. Your point about ranked choice is why I personally think state elections are more important than presidential at the moment, and is one of the major reasons I have for still voting democrat.
I think when it comes to telling other people how to vote, people should be more careful to not accidentally encourage hopelessness and voter apathy by the way they phrase it.
You’re right, but the people beating their chests all over the internet about taking some kind of moral high ground or voting with their conscience also should be mindful that many of us will be the first people strung up on the wall if Trump’s fascist vision comes to pass, so we’re more than a little uneasy at how cavalier they are about the dangerous situation we’re currently in. People should place whatever vote they think will keep Trump as far away from power as physically possible. Right now all signs are pointing to his counterpart from the other major party, because none of the 3rd party candidates have either the campaign infrastructure or the policy chops to carry them through to the finish line. So if it turns out that best option is Joe Biden, so be it. If it’s not, so be it. But in either case the singular goal should be to keep Trump away from DC. Everything else is just white noise.
I heard that same song and dance 20 years ago. Just replace “Trump” with “Bush”. At the end of the day, no Democrat is ever going to say “Hey, you know what? This election actually isn’t very important, so vote for whoever you want!”
If Biden wants my vote, he has to earn it, and that starts with not endorsing genocide.
I’m not going to argue against what you think you heard 20 years ago, except to say that if you don’t believe Trump is the single most dangerous candidate to ever run for the presidency, then you go into 2024 more optimistic than me. I pray for our health and safety in 2025, and if his next coup attempt succeeds where the last one failed, I pray that we’ll survive the bloodshed after the fall.
You can rest in the knowledge that if Trump either wins or there’s a successful coup he likely won’t control the entire country for very long because it will escalate to a civil war very quickly when California, Michigan, New York, Washington, and the other blue states tell him to fuck off
Don’t get me wrong it will still be horrific for all of us, but i dont think most blue states will be willing to fall in line so readily after his first term and the dictatorial shit he’s been mask off about recently
Yeah, remember when how the people who voted for Nader got us Bush, who ignored reports of a terror attack before 9/11 and got us into an unnecessary 10-year war in Iraq causing hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars in expenses for the US government, which was then translated into "We don't have money to stop veterans from freezing to death in their homes, stop complaining"?
Definitely not a big deal, definitely just a nice little politics as usual moment. Who cares about Red Team or Blue Team, Both Sides Bad!
And if you don't think Trump, who attempted an outright autocoup, is worse, I have a bridge in fucking Brooklyn to sell you.
You’re right, that the net impact is exactly half of voting for trump instead - in that you only reduce biden’s vote, as opposed to increasing trump’s.
In less consequential elections, I absolute agree that voting for the candidate you want is key. But the risk here of a bad candidate is not just a shit period of government, but a genuinely significant risk of incurring a coup.
If you assume a default vote of “any viable candidate other than trump”, you still move in the same direction as voting for trump instead if you vote for a 3rd party candidate.
In countries with a healthier (not two party) system, this is typically the point where the centrist and left parties tend to form an electoral alliance to avoid the disaster candidate. That doesn’t really work for presidential elections though, so individual votes need to take on that same role to minimise the risk.
I can only accept that as an argument for why strategic voting is smart. It doesn’t make sense to me as an argument for saying voting for the candidate you want is morally wrong in contexts where it could cause a spoiler effect. This is where people are blurring the line that bothers me.
I’m not sure why anyone would expect trump to not also fund the genocide of Palestinians.
Bluntly, the policy differences between the two are insufficient, but the behavior of trump supporters themselves is part of my considerations. Having trump as president for 4 years inspired incredibly fucked up behavior from conservatives.
First of all, Hamas is as bad as IDF. No more no less. I stand with innocent people killed around the world regardless of their ethnicity, religion, etc…
Second, there’s a difference between journalism and propaganda. This community is for world news.
Sure, but it’s such a small amount of fuel for a hospital that it makes no sense to even do it.
Should Hamas give them all the fuel they could use? Sure! But I’m wondering how vulnerable they’ll be if they also have no fuel to fight back against the indiscriminate killings from the IDF…
timesofisrael.com
Top