Look, if it were up to me I'd love to help you out. I have to think of this way though... My wife and kids would be awfully sore at me if I came home unemployed for breaking company policy like that.
The white people as gods myth likely comes from Australia where pale people were thought of as ghosts and treated well and given things they’d need on their trip to the aboriginal afterlife of sorts.
I’m from Asia and honestly it’s really tiring to hear people keep making fun of Americans.
It was never funny to bring up shit like children fucking dying from school shootings in a snarky comment, and I think any reasonable person with actual, genuine concern for the world’s problems understands that if all we had to do was give, everyone would well have fucking received already.
As an American, we can laugh at tragedy sometimes.
For example, that my 7yos phone was probably made by people younger than him. And one of those kids probably killed themselves jumping off a factory building so my kid could be safe from a school shooting.
But we didn’t start a world war that killed millions of people, that we’re still digging up unexploded munitions from, and that gave us the ability to fix some of our governmental systems and implement social and societal change (at least for white European folks).
Well ya, it’s absolutely pathetic for Americans to strut around acting like they’re an authority on how society should operate when theirs is an absolute dumpster fire unless you’re making 500k/yr+.
Does it hurt when this is pointed out or something? If you’re tired of it, maybe stop trying to swing your tiny little dick around and people won’t have to constantly tell you to put it back in your pants.
You mean like the US installed puppet regimes all over the world 24/7 since ww2? Or the constant wars you are involved in? Or do you just mean the civil war n? Or perhaps it’s easier to controll the land after the genocide perhaps? Really? USAian talking about authoritan States and widespread war… Not like Europe got a good track record but it’s kind of lacking on the imperialism front compared.
The degradation of American freedoms and the abuse of our election system is definitely a both sides, where many things aren’t. Neither party wants to lose power by opening up ranked choice or modern election systems and both parties prefer the power of the state over the power of the people.
The US hasn’t had a domestic war since the civil war. How many wars has Europe had domestically since then? Hmmm.
US citizens are powerless to the machine that was built generations ago. We vote between corporate funded warhawks or more liberal corporate funded warhawks. Personally I like the idea of not helping Europe much in future wars, we have more than enough problems of our own. But as much as Europeans hate America for their military prowess, I hate us for it too because we’re all paying for it in human suffering.
We’re policing the world and neglecting our people and it isn’t sustainable. If you need to fight for freedom, start your own military dominance. But fuck war. Americans mostly just want to live peaceful lives but bring a land war here and it’ll get lit.
The US hasn’t had a domestic war since the civil war. How many wars has Europe had domestically since then? Hmmm.
The US is a country, Europe is not, so “domestic” is a misnomer and the comparison doesn’t hold up. The issues Europe had with wars are a result of complex regional and historical issues, those things don’t really exist in the US because it is too homogenous on one side and too much of a military might to challenge on the other, not to mention geographically isolated.
You really need to reach to make Europe look like the bad guy when it comes to wars, not in the least because the US takes other countries to war all the time to throw it’s weight around and establish dominance.
It’s a legal argument because South Africa is raising the case. Painting it as a silly conspiracy theory by saying that Israel identifies any criticism as Hamas is reductive - a common trend here. You may not agree with Lior but he is doing his job in defending Israel to the UN.
Israel is innocent of genocide (of course this is the standpoint of a lawyer defending Israel against accusations of genocide).
If the court decides against Israel, it will make provisions which will make it more difficult for Israel to freely execute its military strategies against Hamas (because the argument is that all of the military operations so far have had the sole objective of wiping out Hamas)
South Africa is therefore attempting to make it harder for Israel to pursue Hamas
South Africa is assisting Hamas, indirectly.
I think that’s right?
So there are a few problems here, firstly the claim that South Africa is the legal arm of Hamas is clearly propagandising. It attempts to paint South Africa and Hamas as collaborators without evidence and it is a stretch to say this from the logic above.
Secondly, there is a fallacy present, it seems to me, in the assumption that if Israel were to be found guilty of genocide, then that would be aiding Hamas, which is unacceptable. This is a fundamentally flawed assumption: censuring Israel for genocide is a goal in itself regardless the consequences; crimes cannot be allowed even if they are perpetrated in pursuit of the goal of stopping other crime; Israel should be able to pursue Hamas without committing genocide.
It’s also an unsound tactic because it does fit so well with the narrative that Israel blames Hamas for everything. When interrogated about questionable Israeli military actions, on many occasions, their representatives have publicly blamed Hamas, often to the point of absurdity. This argument therefore seems like an extension of that tactic.
That this is his chosen, and presumably best available strategy belies the shakiness of the ground he is on, and does not bode well for Israel’s defence. The consensus among impartial academics is hat Israel is guilty of this crime, or is imperceptibly close to it.
It’ll be interesting to see how things unfold, and I stand ready to have my mind changed from my current interpretation of the facts on the ground and the legal definition of genocide which are pointing to Israel’s being guilty.
You misused the word belies, which really sums up the very issue with your argument - at its core is a fundamental misunderstanding of the courts, language and the nature of what’s at play here. South Africa is doing what its financiers want - to destabilise the region and in particular that of the US and its partners . They had the opportunity to arrest Putin for war crimes last year and bent over backwards to avoid doing so while also inviting a delegation of the some of the worst of Hamas to visit the country seeking funding. ZA cares about war crimes when it suits them to grab some distraction from their own political woes.
I’ll overlook what appears to be a baseless insult about me fundamentally misunderstanding language for the moment.
It is irrelevant that South Africa might have tried a different case, it’s irrelevant that they may care about some war crimes and not others, irrelevant where the funding might be coming from, what their motivation may be for trying this case and it’s irrelevant that may be experiencing political woe. None of these have any bearing on the credibility of the legal arguments being made. Discrediting the character of the source of an argument does not change the veracity of the argument; it stands or falls on its own merits. While you’ve raised a lot of interesting questions, they are separate and distinct from the question “is Israel committing/has Israel recently committed war crimes”, which is what the court is hearing.
P.s. his confident, yet flawed rhetoric belies the shaky legal ground he stands upon. I thought that would be implicit.
Hang on, were you misunderstanding my reference to “the court”? Had you forgotten that we’re discussing a court case? You did mention it in your reply.
Yet you thought I was referring to this forum as a court, is that what you were saying here?
Have another read of it, and take your time by all means.
Thats not the definition of a genocide… Germany killed 1 % of the french population in WW2 and its wasn’t a genocide.
A genocide is characterized by the intention to annihilate a people. And while the far right in Israel is voicing support for a genocide, the current offensive is definitely not a genocide. This doesn’t mean that its not against international law or just. But it simply doesnt fit the definition of a genocide – no matter how often you call it that way.
That is what he says, it’s time to look into the intentions. And saying that it is just far right fringe figures that are making genocidal statements is a nice way to play with the facts, because the far right is currently in power in Israel. The SA case at the ICJ contains a long segment of quotes from Israeli officials and ministers making genocidal statements on the record.
To add to this, western governments are fully aware that Israel is breaking international law (and proud of it), because they refuse to answer any questions on this topic. For example David Cameron called on Israel to allow for fresh water to enter Gaza, implying that Israel is currently blocking this. Blocking access to drinking water is in violation of international law, when pressed on this Cameron said he was quote “not a lawyer”, and said he could not remember if he has been shown any evidence of violations of international law by Israel (as if that is something you would forget).
The west is showing that a rules based international order only applies for the global south, many people in the west might be too stupid or ignorant to see this but outside of the west this is doing irreparable damage to the credibility of the west.
That’s how our government is. The majority of the people here are like sheep. Completely oblivious to what our military is doing to places around the world.
And not even improving the lives of its own citizens. Literally just causing as much death and destruction all over the world as possible just to profit a couple of military and oil corporations and their owners.
and completely unfunny, never done anything in his entire career except gape at the camera in mock surprise-- you could throw a rock in Antarctica and hit someone with more talent
memes
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.