Racism is not a diverse voice that needs to be heard.

Should there be a KKK member to ensure a diverse moderation team?

In recent history there have been three apartheid countries.

Apartheid South Africa (interestingly enough at the end they were ONLY supported by Israel which even then recognized they were an apartheid country) which peacefully gave equal rights to all citizens, even though they described the citizens with unequal rights as terrorists.

Rhodesia, with delusions of grandeur of their own martial skill (huh, the metaphor is even better than I thought. I mean, who the fuck thought it was a smart to have a tank heavy army in an urban setting without screening infantry.) That fought against giving their unequal citizens rights militarily until they were defeated.

And Israel. Whom every black person that lived through apartheid South Africa and has visited the West Bank or Gaza has described as being far worse in terms of humiliation and lack of rights.

And you wonder why I bring up Rhodesia?

At this point, defenders of Israel are as morally repugnant as every white person in the eighties that defended apartheid South Africa or Rhodesia.

And no, a racist (which is a required attribute to defend apartheid) is not a diverse voice that should be represented.

Oh and that racist country is currently trying to do everything in it’s power to start a war with Iran, and drag my country into it. Also, all the weapons that racist country uses is paid for with my tax dollars, so every one of the twenty thousand or more children it has blown up is someone that is dead through my money. So yeah, it’s very relevant. I’m sick of paying for Israel to murder children of a people whose land it wants.

Just out of curiosity, how do you believe blockades are enforced?

What do you think happens(ed) to ships approaching Gaza BEFORE the war?

Did the ICJ find China guilty of apartheid? Serious question not sarcastic. I can’t find an ICJ court case that did.

There are quite a few from Nevatim.

And yeah, the tactics of these launches are obvious. You launch far more cheaper missiles that will still have to be intercepted so that the big ones get through.

This and cheap as dirt drones are the future of warfare. Your response is the stereotypical response to a new technology that threatens the status quo because there is a social construct around the alternative technology.

Like how heavy cavalry were all nobility, but a team of three longbow archers could take them out with ease.

You went to a lot of trouble to answer a question no one asked.

I ask again, did Rhodesia have a right to exist?

I will remind you that the Europeans in Rhodesia also viewed their existence as an existential fight against barbarism.

Apartheid countries always do.

Ah yes, the mod of News that supports a genocidal apartheid government.

Just out of curiosity, do you think Rhodesia had a right to exist?

Do you think Rhodesian citizens deserved to sleep peacefully?

Also, how is dropping 85 2000lb bombs on 6 apartment blocks to kill 1 person not terrorism?

How is a mass indiscriminate bombing campaign using every day items that would have been envied by the Unabomber not terrorism?

EDIT: It’s also been leaked by Israel that they assassinated Nasrallah cause he wouldn’t decouple a ceasefire deal with Lebanon with a ceasefire deal with Gaza.

Huh, yeah, not accurate I guess.

Remember, Israel has extreme censorship over damage caused by the missile attack right now.

There is only one apartheid nation actively committing genocide right now, and they’re the ones with nukes.

Spoken like someone who hasn’t been paying attention or actively supports genocide.

Huh, kinda like how Israel supported South Africa.

Apartheid nations gotta stick together, right?

Did Israel try stopping their genocide.

Some problems are very easy to solve.

The only response that deserves your previous sarcasm is this one. There is a difference between federally funded news programs like NPR, and outright propaganda outlet with no journalistic standards like the VOA, but I can’t believe you actually believe most people know that.

But hey, I guess informing people of that deserves an asshole amount of sarcasm.

Our?

You would be surprised how few people are aware that VOA is propaganda. They think it is something like NPR.

It is not.

Good job in knowing something most people don’t?

What’s with the sarcastic tone, again?

Amazing how few people know that VOA is literal US propaganda and are down voting you.

I’m literally going to this talk tomorrow:

30% of the area and 70% of the population.

So, follow with me here: They believe incorrectly that Ansarallah controls 30% of the land that contains 70% of the population.

Except, and I know math can be hard, if I wanted to talk about the land that the above believes Ansarallah doesn’t control, I’d have to take the total land, 100% in this and all cases, and subtract the land the above thinks Ansarallah does control, 30% in this case.

So… What does 100 - 30 equal?

And you’re in support of a genocide.

Arguing is easy when you put words in other peoples mouths.

30% of the area and 70% of the population. Ongoing combat has killed thousands in the past year alone. But sure, whatever you can do to simp for murderers, right?

Was there a UN brokered peace deal? Yes. Did it end in 2022? Yes. Has there been any fighting since then? Not significantly, no. I don’t know where your thousands dead comes from. Or the 30% figure, considering that the vast majority of that 70% you’re presumably talking about is arid desert that doesn’t have people, of any denomination, in it.

Me: “Killing random civilians of various nations in the hopes that one or two might be Israeli is bad, and clearly has not impacted the ongoing Israeli genocide, which has only intensified since. Even if they were killing Israeli civilians only, supporting that would still make you a piece of shit.”

According to @PugJesus@lemmy.world, this is evil, and results in killing civilians:

I’d ask for you to come back once you’re capable of honesty, but honestly, I wouldn’t want to speak to someone like you again. I mean, simping for the murder of civilians to do absolutely nothing of value, because the murderous oppressive group says it’s definitely to stop genocide, despite not even meeting their own criteria? That’s some deeply immoral stuff. That’s not the kind of thing you look back on sheepishly, it’s reflective of deeply broken values. Not the kind of people I’d sit at a table with. 9 Nazis and all.

I wouldn’t want to speak to someone that explicitly lies to back a genocide.

I have never said the murder of civilians is okay. I do not believe it. You seem to be perfectly fine with the murder of Palestinians, even using articles from the country committing genocide to justify being against the people trying to do something against it.

Enforcing a blockade is an acceptable act of war that is not considered the murder of civilians. If a boat runs a blockade, how does the country enforcing the blockade enforce it?

Do you think it was wrong for the USN to enforce a blockade against the southern traitor states? Was that deeply immoral even though it was a major component of the end of slavery?

You are a shitlib that is against genocide, not because it is wrong, but because it makes you feel icky. As does all of the effective measures against it, so you are against them, too. Ickiness isn’t a good measure of morality.

What percentage of Yemen does Ansarallah hold?

What do you call a civil war when one side holds no territory or power?

I would also say that someone that claims a blockade doesn’t economically hurt the people being blockaded should get help.