600
Biden said to call Netanyahu 'a f**king liar' after Israeli troops entered Rafah | The Times of Israel
(www-timesofisrael-com.cdn.ampproject.org)
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2024
600 points (95.9% liked)
World News
39142 readers
2670 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Man… I’m really done wasting my time trying to explain simple concepts to far leftists. What a fucking waste of time.
You really think China and Russia would give billions of free weapons to Israel?
I really think they’d go to someone, and negotiates would ensue. I can’t predict the outcome because I’m not an idiot that makes assumptions.
And again, I am not the one making these decisions. I’m simply offering an example of how it would be incredibly difficult to just simply- stop.
Which is more than anyone that’s countering the argument.
“It’s so easy! Just stop sending weapons! Break a trade agreement! No consequences at all because Israel is so well know as a nice and understanding nation!”
Genuinely, who in the world has the capacity to give the level of aid the US gives to Israel. You say they would go to someone and don't want to predict who it would be, then give a list. What countries would be able and remotely willing to even a 10th of what the US gives to Israel?
I don’t get to make that assumption. The point you’re missing here is that it’s COMPLICATED. I gave a simple example of what might stall the “simple” decision to do as the leftists think would be so easy. (Bad auto-correct decision here, hope it fixed before read)
They’ve come up with zero ideas or concepts of how it can be done, but my feet are held to the fire to illustrate why it’s complicated?
That’s where we are now.
Armchair geopolitical edgelords on the internet get to claim simplicity in ending trade policies, whereas someone who suggest it isn’t that easy is held to the task to explain it to people that are just going to brush it off with ad hominem attacks nay say.
I’m done dude. I said what I felt needed be said. I’m not here to change kids as that’s fucking impossible. I knew this before I started and did it anyway.
You cannot reason with a leftist.
I’m just going to point and laugh from now on like everyone else does.
The point is you can say "it's complicated" about anything in the real world, yet things still happen. So the question, I'm still asking:
If the group that is currently giving all the of weapons used stopped, where else could their weapons come from? What are some possibilities that would be even remotely close? And if at the end of all the considerations it's a drastic reduction in how much violence they can do, or their ability to expand their violence in the region, isn't that still better?
So because someone doesn’t have all the answers to a hypothetical question, it’s full steam ahead with whatever the hive mind thinks should happen despite their ignorance on the topic?
I’m on the side with the leading experts that suggest that it’s not an easy thing to do, and it isn’t simplified just because it’s the right thing to do. You’re on the side of fellow internet randoms that disagree with the experts.
I am not asking for all the answers, I am asking where could they get a fraction of the support they currently have?
I will grant you some things are complicated. "How do we get enough bombs to commit genocide" is a complicated question, and Israel currently has a single and seemingly endless answer in the US. So the one question I continue to have is where else would they go to replace what the US does for them? If it would make it more difficult and reduce the ability to commit a genocide, isn't that better?
I find it interesting that you were so confident before saying 'they would just go to China or Russia', but instantly fall to nebulous "negotiations would ensue" and cries of the complicated nature when getting any push back.
The lone question you still seem so adverse to considering: If they didn't get billions in bombs from the US, how else could Israel do this? Because you seem to believe with such certainty they could.
I am still confident that they would go to china and/or Russia. I’m just not foolish enough to base an entire argument on something that I hold a strong opinion on. It was an EXAMPLE of what makes it complicated.
Israel is hell-bent on this. If the US backs out, someone else will fill in that gap. This is experts saying this. This is THEIR concern. I just happen to agree with it. Unless you’re part of an administration that works in geopolitics and international diplomacy, back off the armchair simplification of it all.
And before you think to call me out for refusing to answer- know that I have explained myself time after time ALL FUCKING MORNING to everyone that has challenged my statements.
Yet… Not a single one of you have explained a plan that illustrates how easy it is to just break the agreement. And the few that tried- failed to issue any statement on how to deal with the repercussions of breaking those agreements.
This is how it is here. Put people on the defensive, so you never have to own your own points. Because when challenged to explain their side with logic, the left has nothing.
Now I’m done with this discussion. I’ve been on the ropes the entire time, and even after explanation after explanation- you’re all still coming at me to define my stance.
I have. Thoroughly.
Who is "this expert?"
The idea that China and Russia have such a great interest in the state of Israel that the would collectively give even half of what the US gives is utterly insane. You're being challenged because what your saying is nonsense. Again, even if they could cobble together enough support to find trade deals would pale in to what the US gives for free. The idea that the commitments the US has to Israel are so ironclad that we have to keep sending more bombs to a state committing genocide, shows how absurd your view is.
It's clear you have some significant cognitive dissidence over the reality of what the US is doing to aid an active genocide by a rogue state that committing acts of terror and escalating tensions in an unstable region. With that you've picked some number of experts that support your delusion, and harp on how impossible it would be to stop, on how they would find some other way. There is nothing that would be comparable to what the US gives to Israel, and the US has no obligation to give weapons to those committing war crimes. Stop lying to yourself and admit that this blood is on America's hands.
So, I pretty clearly said:
“I’m done with this discussion.”
Now… for my own edification, could you point to what part of that you’re having difficulty understanding? I’d like to know for future reference how to be more clear to people that wish to rewrite my statements and simultaneously think I won’t notice
It’s insulting.
I suppose my difficulty is in understanding why you're still replying and/or not blocking me. You have no obligation to reply, I am not obliged to ignore yours because you've said you're done. I still have yet to have a meaningful answer from you, so I continue to ask; if not freely given by America, how would Israel get hundreds of billions of dollars in bombs?
Aah.. so it seems you lack the responsibly for your own actions to the point where you just ignore the impulse to continue a discussion when people tell you they’re done, thereby making the onus entirely on them to shut you up?
It’s good to know that I was right in my assumption that you appear to lack the maturity to continue this conversation.
I generally don’t like blocking people because I think it’s a pretty immature response to what should be a mature discussion between two adults, but I’m going to make an exception in your case.
You know… since you asked.
Insulting me won't change what the US does and it seems like you still struggle with the actual question. How do you justify the US continuing to send bombs to Israel to enact a genocide?