WaxedWookie @ WaxedWookie @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,078

Joined

2 yr. ago

Did you read what whas said in that article, or...?

Yep - the IDF said they killed them, so you'll be falling back from that dumb position to the next one - they were Hamas (like all those kids) I'll let you point out the evidence that's the case.

Also, you highlighted perfectly, perfectly how videos like this have no merit. One side says they're civilians, the other - terrorists.

When 60%+ of the people you're killing are children and you're spouting openly genocidal rhetoric while making unsubstantiated claims those you're killing are terrorists, it's responsible to ask for evidence from the perspective of the rule of law (remember when you got all salty about that) and assessing warcrimes. You don't get to bomb someone, just say they're a terrorist, and walk free.

it's absolutely will not be known until this is investigated properly, not by keyboard warriors and facebook

Ah yes - kill 'em all and (fail to) find the evidence to justify killing them later.

...but you care about genocide the rule of law, right?

So I'll throw you a bone - here's the most Israel-friendly source possible - The Times of Israel reporting on the IDF admitting it was them..

Again, clearly civilians - we'll need evidence to the contrary - particularly when 60%-70% of the Palestinians killed have been children. Guess they were Hamas too, right?

Edit: Most of this is way off topic in response to an entirely different dipshit.

Do you mean baseless assumptions?

No - I mean obvious conclusions - you know, like seeing HD footage of the IDF drone striking obvious unarmed civilians and concluding they're drone striking obvious unarmed civilians. Never mind the rhetoric of their government or the IDF, or the track record of either. Baseless is pretending it's plausible they're Hamas.

This is your reaction to me saying it's not surprising that a young adult is awkward and doesn't handle unexpected confrontation well.

Nope - this is in response to you seeing clear, entirely unambiguous evidence of warcrimes and saying we can't possibly know what's happening. I know how old I am, and some genocide denying dipshit telling me otherwise isn't going to change that.

Just to drive the point home, I'll ask the question we know you can't answer one final time - where's your evidence these civilians are Hamas?

And I say the $454m is payable to me personally.

...but the legal system doesn't work on dumb assertions, does it?

I couldn't agree more.

Yep, there is no context for this and heavy framing in the article. I agree with both of your Disclamers, but this is just propaganda.

Dismissing HD footage of people that are clearly civilians being bombed, as propaganda.

You've presumably seen my evidence at this point - where's the evidence justifying the execution of these people? Or is it Hamas (and a death sentence) until proven innocent?

Are you implying keyboard activism when there might be none in order to bolster your weak argument?

Trot on, you weird hypocritical defender of genocide deniers.

You forgot that alternative explanation you insist exists, champ.

The guy is certainly far from perfect, but I think he's pretty reasonable overall, and that the complains above are nonsense.

He certainly slowed up on the debate prep over time, but he's also basically stopped debating. From what I understand, his rationale was that you can't get across all statistics, and that the people he was debating weren't meaningfully backed by the data in any case so it's fairly easy to find and debunk those syats/studies on the fly, which he frequently did. I don't think it negatively affected his performance all that much.

It's a valid complaint to make, though I don't personally think it's particularly material, and certainly has nothing to do with the nonsense complaints that were made above.

Everyone does that - unlike you, most people are also capable of progressing to conclusions from straightforward situations or answering simple questions.

This has strong neo-Nazi-style "just asking questions" energy. If you're capable of drawing conclusions, own them. If you're not, you've got nothing to contribute here.

I guess I'll link this and ask for specifics, because I've observed quite the opposite.

Given you seem to have taken your quote about personally getting Biden into office seriously, I think it's pretty reasonable for anyone to be questioning your take here.

Do you consistently defend people that you admit are unqualified for their job and incapable of doing it - even when it's as essential as bragging about crossing state lines to procure a gun and manufacture a flimsy legal pretext to kill your political opponents, or is this an outlier for you?

It's also a hell of a lot easier than explaining your political position from first principles. There's a good, simple reason we have and use labels - they're useful.

By all means, tell me what their position is. Failing that, what's the charitable assumption to make here?

As far as I can see, the likely options are:

• They support the genocide
• They don't care about the rule of law

The former is more common in this context, but it's both weird and worthless of you to insert yourself into the conversation to defend someone's positions that (unless you can confidently answer this question) you don't understand. Just like that, you've derailed the conversation into this irrelevant shit - what was your complaint again? Oh...

By pointing to evidence to back my claim and asking for consistent standards and something vaguely resembling the rule of law?

How do you propose we make the conversation better?

If this is too much for the community, the community can go fuck itself.

Believe it or not, genocide bad.

Why would anyone want the cybertruck? Yet at present, it'll take them over a year to clear their backlog.

Some people are just dumb - that applies doubly for those that love Musk because he speaks the Nazi conspiracism Truth™.

The context is the HD video footage of the IDF drone striking obvious unarmed civilians.

Where's the context showing these people were enemy combatants deserving a death sentence by drone strike? Do you always take the "guilty until proven innocent" line, or is this a race thing?

It's literally his job - he's a paid spokesperson on a speaking tour.

Rittenhouse isn't some random dipshit that got cornered (ironically, a favourite of the likes of Crowder and Shapiro until they realised even students embarrass them) - he's the Daily Wire's spokesperson for crossing state lines to manufacture a situation to murder your political opponents. He chose to speak in front of that crowd, chose to field questions, and chose to run (presumably because he didn't have a gun to kill those he disagrees with).