1574
what are they bombing yemen for?
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
1574 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
7250 readers
2951 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Zero surprise.
The dems have always supported genocide very openly.
These memes about the "leak" represent the only principles that they have - violent support for the procedures of the status quo.
So, exactly how far does Trump have to go for you to admit that "BoTh siDEs Are ThE samE" didn't work?
So, you're willing to kill 8 billion people and not actually save any?
By that logic, no one should have worked with the racist Americans and or imperialistic British to stop Hitler. We'd have all died under the Nazis, but you'd be able to boast of how pure you were.
You have entirely invented this comment.
Literally the comment I was responding to. If you know how to turn the world into a cloud of waste without killing anyone, please let us all know.
They said the actions of the Trump don't give justification for Biden's actions. You said they are willing to kill 8 billion people. Do you see how you've projected a view onto them?
No.
This is what they said.
Trump could turn the earth into a cloud of nuclear waste and it still wouldn’t be a justification for dems warcrime, idiot.
If you think they meant something different, comment to them, not me.
Where do they say they want or would support turning earth into a cloud of nuclear waste?
Which letter in the previous response confused you?
They said 'Trump could do a bad thing and it wouldn't forgive Dems', you said 'so you're willing to do bad thing?'
I simply don't know how to make this point any more clear.
Republicans put national secrets at risk while bombing Yemen.
You: The important thing to say about this is that Democrats support genocide.
lol the dems have always supported genocide?? Can you cite a single source for that bold af claim?
Okay, I’m not going to claim that US democrats are perfect but saying that they openly support genocide is extremely hyperbolic and undermines your argument.
The US has done a LOT of terrible things and both parties had a hand in it. I wouldn’t say either of them support genocide.
The democratic party under Biden almost uniformly supported to the tune of billions of dollars in weapons, the ethnic cleansing, of Gaza. This is with knowledge of Israel using systemic sexual violence, collective punishment, school and hospital bombings, killing journalists and humanitarian aid workers, utilizing medical aid outfits as disguises for secret operations, and targeting civilian infrastructure.
It is not at all hyperbolic to state the plain fact they openly support genocide, as openly supporting the actions in Gaza is openly supporting a genocide.
I think you can make a strong case that the US foreign policy in this region is garbage, and I agree with you, they’ve done terrible things.
But I still don’t think that they would openly support genocide. If they had, I think you would’ve been able to find a source for that.
Just so you don’t get the wrong idea here: I agree with what you’re saying but I disagree with the language you’re using. I think it undermines your point.
If you openly support, both verbally and functionally, an on-going genocide, you openly support genocide.
Just because they didn't say "We want to genocide the Palestinians." at a press meeting, doesn't mean that they don't openly support the genocide they were funding, blocking criticism for, and suppressing protest of.
Eh, I think id call it covert or something like that. Saying “openly” implies they like/enjoy genocide or something.
I guess at a point we have to ask what is the purpose of drawing that line. If China says it's begrudgingly purging the Uyghurs due to their cultural beliefs and the land they ingenious to, are they not openly supporting genocide? Does it matter if they say they like it in press briefings when the only actions they take is to further violence and propagate the ongoing genocide?
Why is the hypothetical cruelty in their soul the deciding factor, when they are opening doing the work that supports a genocide?
It’s worth something that they at least try to lie about it, no? Like we’re not really at “openly” yet.
I’m just making a point about the language used to try to help you be more convincing. When you say stuff like the dems openly support genocide, I imagine a clip of Biden gleefully cheering on the deaths of innocents.
I get it’s semantics, and you’re correct in a way it is “openly” supporting that, but it just sounds a bit hyperbolic to me.
Don’t forget, we ultimately agree.
I understand and respect optics arguments, but I think this is why I don't know that we agree to the degree you think we do.
It seems that you think we should be cautious of the optics of unjustly invoking phasing that you don't feel is justified for the democratic party. To put it a bit more plainly it seems that you are quicker to try and reframe it in such a way that the criticism is not applicable for democrats. To me it seems utterly vital that we use language that is both true and harsh. Openly means without the secret channels governments often use, and nothing about the dems support of Israel is obtuse.
I think this is vital because I don't think we can let slip the genocidal support of the previous administration be forgotten in the haze of the terrors of the current one.
The democratic party is a vicious and evil group that in the face of massive mounting evidence, continued to defend, and fund an on going genocide. In an age of perpetual wars and bombings, our 'progressive' party claimed they would ensure we would have "the most lethal military in the world."
I don't want to shy away from this because I think they are blood thirsty people, and should be portrayed as such, especially when it's literally true.
If you imagine (fantasize, really) about a pragmatic person with liberal ideas, what party would they join? I think Democrat. I just don’t want to classify all those people as evil.
Clearly we disagree on somethings but the important things are:
That’s a fair point, and I accept your argument. Honestly, I’ll think on it more.
My point isn't so much about the party they should 'join'. I know we are having this conversation in the context of a country that largely aware of the different parties and broadly what they feel about them. Be seeing as this a time of necessary reflection for the democratic party, and in turn reflection for their base, I think it's worth looking harshly at what they really were before the currently administration. That a party that was offered as pro-worker, anti-war, pro-immigration, pro-trans issues, has become a party of, 'strike breaking', 'most lethal military', 'tough on illegals', and 'following the law'.
I think it's valid to classify many in the party as evil because they are either doing evil or capitulating to it, and we need to have a conversation about how much about them needs to change.
Fair enough.
Full disclosure: I’m not American.
Good to know, I am sorry our politics are such a fucking problem for everyone!
Hopefully, us rational people will get through this! Hope you have a nice day!
You as well!
Biden said he knew Israel was carpet bombing Gaza.
Checks out.
Hi 👋 go absolutely fuck yourself!