Kinda sounds like the time when they magically got to decide the elections because they waited until there was no time left instead of actually forcing florida to properly count their votes
(Preface: I am team genocide. I also live in Germany. Germany’s politics are a disgrace, but I digress.)
What annoys me about this is that this discussion gets so much media attention and focus, while it doesn’t matter in this very moment. I understand that there are implications if it will be defined as a genocide. But right now people are being killed every day en masse and they frankly give a crap about whether they died in a mass murder or terrorist attack or a genocide.
It reminds me of the early days of the Ukraine war when everyone was so obsessed with comparing Putin to Hitler (Putler is still a popular term) and the discussion was high on whether Putins actions amount to fascism or not, with a lot of internet laymen but also experts on that subject chiming in. When I asked a half Russian, half Ukrainian what their opinion was, their reply was something like “who the fuck cares? Call it a chicken pea pie, nobody cares, people are being killed, I don’t give a crap. Somewhen in the future people will be looking back and asking the same question, but it doesn’t matter right now.” And it stuck with me.
If I understand correctly, the ICJ will rule again on the case in a couple of years (?), which obviously isn’t relevant right now. It seems like the ruling would have an aftermath in retrospect but even if they ruled it were a genocide today, nothing much would change directly - but please correct me if I am wrong here.
But what definitely doesn’t matter is what we think. What matters is what is happening. And it doesn’t need a name to be evil and detrimental.
I dunno, can we trust them? Agree tho; people are dying and it needs to stop no matter what we call it, even if there were no larger implications; its fucking pointless and needs to stop.
Germany has supplied 30% of Israel s weapons, and has continued to do so during this ongoing genocide. If Germany or the US were to acknowledge the ongoing genocide, they’d have to stop supplying those arms immediately, hence stopping the annihilation of Gaza. So it’s of immense importance to keep repeating what most of the world already acknowledges: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes. History will not judge Germany kindly, but I guess that’s not exactly a new thing for a veteran perpetrator of genocide.
Ok, this sounds valid. But what would oblige them to stop them from delivering weapons if the ICJ rules it is a genocide? Is there any legal obligation, can they denounce the ruling?
If you mean acknowledge in a sense of civilian/political acknowledgement, then my issue with it is that it shouldn’t be necessary to be this anal about some definition. It’s splitting hairs on cut off heads. Supporting mass murder is wrong in the context of genocide as well as outside of it. It shouldn’t be necessary to convince the governments that it is a genocide to convince them to stop supplying weapons.
The US and Germany are both signatories of the UN arms trade treaty . This is article 6 (3):
“A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party”
Mass murder is the name of the game in war. So arming other militaries is always in support of mass murder. But in the eyes of international law some mass murder is acceptable as part of war. Genocide and the other crimes recounted above however, have been deemed to cross the threshold of acceptability in international law, and therefore are meant to stop the transfer of arms immediately. If the US and Germany were to acknowledge that these crimes are being perpetrated by Israel, they’d have to stop transferring arms. Mass murder in itself is admittedly wrong, but that alone is not sufficient to trigger a halt to arms exports. Therefore, it is of great importance to keep repeating: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes.
crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements
Why do we then seem to hear only about the genocide controversy? Wouldn’t it be easier/faster/more obvious to argue for all the other crimes mentioned above?
That’s because the crime of genocide tends to contain within it multiple instances of crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva convention, attacks against civilians and so on. It’s basically the ultimate crime containing all the other crimes within it. And the highest authority on international law in the World, the ICJ, has said that it is plausible that what Israel is doing amounts to a genocide. It really is very clear and simple, if you’re willing to see things as they are.
What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide? Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion? (I’m genuienly curious, couldnt really find anything specific on this)
Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion?
Here’s South Africa’s 84 page indictment with details and receipts on how the genocide Convention is being violated, assuming a good faith and genuine question on your part.
American companies allegedly kept on working with Nazi Germany after the US entered the war. Therefore, unless Israel gets on the UN stand and says, “Yes, we’re committing genocide and y’all’s are next” no one will let non-white deaths affect the bottom line.
An otherwise healthy person can take care of a candida problem by eating a tbsp of coconut oil a day for a week, fyi. It’ll cause a big die off of the infection so you’ll feel like shit for a couple days while the dead yeast bits flood your waste management system though. Cut back sugar during so you’re not feeding the little fuckers while trying to kill them also.
TLOU was cordyceps, the same fungus that makes zombie ants. Thankfully not the same thing.
Okay - I’m not going to take this further because I know what candida people are like, but even the title of that paper means it’s not relevant to a living human. Orange juice will kill cancer cells in vitro, it’s meaningless to extrapolate from that. Maybe a coconut oil massage is in order next time I’m feeling a little thrushy, but that’s about it.
You’re laboring under the mistaken impression that I care what you do. The way you started your book of a reply though, I’m gonna go ahead and block you now. Have a nice day.
Edit: A couple more blocked now, +2 noise reduction.
If you eat a spoon of coconut oil the stuff in it won’t magically appear only in the places in your body that are infected, let alone somehow find the yeast cell and cover it in a nice toxic film, all while avoiding being digested in any way. You’re thinking of some pre programmed, intelligent coconut oil or, well, science fiction indeed.
“But we don’t want people who watched ‘The Last of Us’ to think we’re all going to die,” Javaid said. “This is an infection that occurs in extremely ill individuals who are usually sick with a lot of other issues.”
As a younger millenial I gotta say some of these are ours. We were calling things “extra” since like '06. Vibe is as old as the hippies, and mid is weed slang from like the early 2000s.
lemmyshitpost
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.