feddit.org

-5 points

2 months ago

Sorry, maybe I’m unfamiliar: how are they involved in Israel’s genocide…? Or is that off-topic?

But funny you should mention three of the most sanctioned countries in the world as examples, because what I’m advocating for is just a bit of consistency

report

[ - ]

goat@sh.itjust.worksOPM

8 points

2 months ago

Should they also get punishment for their crimes against Palestine? Such as Iran aiding Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah, effectively instigating more war? And China and Russia’s support of Iran and their mutual exchange of military equipment, intelligence, as well as their extensive propaganda networks?

Or is that off-topic?

Vaguely off-topic, yes, the post is related more to the tankies wishing more Charlie Hebdo massacres, which I’m glad you’ve disavowed. However, their calls for violence are in reaction to Israel-Palestine. For some reason, they believe France, of all countries, deserves massacres for their stance. Rather funny really, shows their ignorance.

Do you believe this is off-topic? If you think it is, we can drop it.

report

[ - ]

-6 points

2 months ago

Should they also get punishment for their crimes against Palestine? Such as Iran aiding Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah, effectively instigating more war?

They are already being sanctioned for this. Meanwhile, the parties currently committing genocide and all of their collaborators have yet to see any repercussions for their contributions. Hell, as long as we’re talking about Iran and the funding of terrorists, would you like to talk about the US funding and providing arms during the Kurdish-genocide? I wonder who (if anyone) was sanctioned for that conflict

Do you believe this is off-topic?

I believe your mention of Iran, China, and Russia is off-topic from the OP, which was about France and the openly racist/islamaphobic cartoon depicting the famine in Gaza. I can only imagine why you might be actively avoiding that topic, even going so far as to clip out the main post and obfuscate the context, including describing the french OP as “anti-Islam”.

I can only assume that omission was an innocent mistake and not in any way motivated by a personal bias against Islam.

report

[ - ]

goat@sh.itjust.worksOPM

6 points

2 months ago

They are already being sanctioned for this.

These countries have also sanctioned the US, though not in response to the conflict. Sanctions work both ways, you see. However, multiple countries have called for sanctions against Israel and multiple countries have placed tariffs on Israel, Turkey being the most prominent. So there we go, then, justice solved, there’s sanctions and tariffs.

I can only imagine why you might be actively avoiding that topic, even going so far as to clip out the main post and obfuscate the context, including describing the french OP as “anti-Islam”.

No context justifies calls for violence.

report

[ - ]

-5 points

2 months ago

These countries have also sanctioned the US, though not in response to the conflict.

I’ll wait for you to tell me which of the sanctions you’re referencing prevent the US from conducting business or financial transactions with major trade partners and that have the weight of the UN Security Council behind them, such as the ones for Iran, China, and Russia, and which have the adherence of the UN and its member states.

A council who’s mission is to promote world peace through unity should be able to pass sanctions against member states that are egregiously culpable for war crimes against civilian populations and genocide. Yet here we are still waiting

No context justifies calls for violence.

Still waiting for your opinion on the cartoon you decided wasn’t worthy of inclusion. I’d settle for your opinion on Islam as a whole, since you seem keen on highlighting islamic terrorism but loath to mention christian, jewish, and secular terrorism.

report

[ - ]

goat@sh.itjust.worksOPM

7 points

2 months ago

Oh, so now you’re changing what kind of theoretical sanctions you want. That’s convenient because there are none, and likely won’t ever be any. Good job, you’ve won, you just needed to change your point – Twice. Maybe you should threaten me with being off-topic again? It’ll save you from this embarrassment.

Embarrassment, such as believing the UN stands for peace. The UN has never stood for peace. It has stood for legal means of warfare and applying a coat of paint on bloodshed, so it’s official bloodshed instead of your standard bloodshed. Got an issue with this? I do too, but it’s the best the world has and will most likely be the best we will ever have: flimsy laws and stern letters.

It can be fixed, though. All it requires is for Hamas to declare itself government and surrender. And for the PLO and Hamas (and the many different militant factions) to come to conclusions if Gaza and the West Bank are the same Palestine. Hamas won’t do this, though, because then they’ll be like the Taliban. It turns out terrorist tactics and forces don’t function when there are annoying rules you must follow and an appearance of lawfulness you need to keep, as per the UN. Governing is hard. Turns out using civilian infrastructure and targeting civilians is a war crime (I need to mention that this is also a jab at Israel, because I know for certain that you try to use this comment as a gotcha, lol)

Still waiting for your opinion on the cartoon you decided wasn’t worthy of inclusion.

I don’t care about it. Nothing justifies violence. Why do you struggle to comprehend this?

I’d settle for your opinion on Islam as a whole, since you seem keen on highlighting islamic terrorism but loath to mention christian, jewish, and secular terrorism.

Oh god forbid I highlight Islamic Terrorism about a conflict between Israel and Islamic Terrorists, deary me. You want me to mention the Christian Terrorists, too? What, all one of them? He threw a stone into a window when he was drunk.

This is a lot of waffle as you try steering yourself away from admitting you were insinuating France deserves violence. If I was you, I’d just drop the whole thing and hope people forget this blunder–Works for me.

report

[ - ]

-5 points

2 months ago

Oh, so now you’re changing what kind of theoretical sanctions you want.

I’ve not changed anything, except put a finer point on what i’ve been saying from the outset - that Isreal, the US, and the other genocide collaborators should face justice for the terror and suffering they’ve caused in Palestine. Whatever sanctions already in place have not changed Israel’s ability or motivation to continue their genocide, so more and stronger punitive action is needed. One “official” route - a minimum standard of justice - would be UN sanctions supported and adhered to by western UN member states. The UN’s refusal/reluctance to do so is kind of the broader analytical point that I don’t feel you’re ready to discuss.

The UN has never stood for peace. It has stood for legal means of warfare and applying a coat of paint on bloodshed, so it’s official bloodshed instead of your standard bloodshed.

Finally a point of agreement. The UN and NATO were both created to legitimize the violence and statecraft of western-allied nations against a shared ‘enemy’. Perhaps i’ve been too tongue-in-cheek for you - the sanctions and punitive actions taken by the western world through the UN have always been against the US’s preferred enemies, and have always selectively ignored actions taken by the US and others, even when the evidence of war crimes and genocide are overwhelming. And yet it would be foolish to deny that the UN is the only collective body with any real weight, and there are certainly none that stand meaningfully opposed to western hegemony.

It’s important context for someone on the left, because to those who stand opposed to western crimes then have no “official” path to justice. You can take from that whatever conclusion you like.

All it requires is for Hamas to declare itself government and surrender.

Look at how selective you’re being with your condemnation.

I don’t care about it. Nothing justifies violence. Why do you struggle to comprehend this?

Clearly not “nothing”, if you stand in support of Israel’s war and occupation of Gaza. There are some forms of violence that you clearly recognize as legitimate. I don’t struggle to understand what you’ve said, I struggle only to show you the contradiction in your omissions.

Oh god forbid I highlight Islamic Terrorism about a conflict between Israel and Islamic Terrorists

A true “neutral” liberal would say that it is a war between jewish terrorists and islamic terrorists. I don’t even care that your sympathies lie on one side of the conflict or the other, but I do take issue with your cowardice to acknowledge it. There are no good guys in this conflict, and there’s a choice you’ve made here that is consistent with all of your other comments on the topic that shares a striking resemblance with the sentiment expressed in the cartoon you refuse to acknowledge.

As the moderator of a community nominally dedicated to opposing hate speech, you sure do seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Muslims.

report

Show more comments

[ - ]

-4 points

2 months ago

It just occurred to me that ‘[a christian terrorist] threw a stone into a window when he was drunk’ appears like a reference to Kristallnacht… If it is, then holy fuck is that a crazy euphemistic way of recalling one of the most famous antisemitic Nazi riots in history (if you’re thinking of Nazi’s being motivated by their christian beliefs then why stop at Kristallnacht, why not include the entire Holocaust?). If that isn’t a reference to the November Pogroms, then I have absolutely no idea who you’re talking about. Either way, you seem to have conveniently left out a couple millennia of violence conducted in the name of Christianity…

report