this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
68 points (80.4% liked)
World News
39671 readers
888 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
She literally says "war" nine times in the statement.
Yes, but unless she uses the exact words whatever shitposter would, she too is a bad person, and doing nothing but shitposting is justifiable.
Does she use the term "illegal war of aggresion"?
I understand most people aren't aware of how politics works but hacks like AOC know how to spam the term "illegal war of aggresion" when it comes to Russia invading Ukraine. But for Israel they spontaneously forget them.
Did she say those exact words in this one statement? No. Has she condemned bombing iran as illegal in the past? yes.
She didn't say the the exact phrase in this release, possibly because what you're demanding was word-for-word already said by Mamdani in his condemnation. She describes it as illegal and repeatedly calls it a war, both in no uncertain terms, and has almost nailed the same phrase in the past the last time this happened.
I'm not seeing this post on Twitter. Maybe I'm not looking through the timeline correctly. Could you link it to me please?
https://x.com/AOC/status/1937525272594595993
Oh the one from the 12 day war. Yeah that doesn't apply anymore.
Say do you think AOC could find bad words to describe Hamas on oct7?
It's an example of her using the specific language you're criticizing her for not using in reference to actions of the US government in attacking Iran. How on earth does that "not apply anymore"?
I didn't criticize her for her word usage during the 12 day war? I criticized her for her word useage NOW.
Politicians know extremely well what their words mean and are very selective in how they use them.
AOC used softball terms here. She didn't even condemn the US-Israeli attack. And the term "combat operations" cmon bruh
No you criticized her for her word usage in general, please do not try and present this like I said you were criticizing her for what she said during the 12 day war. She used the same terms used by trump to emphasize what she was responding to - and then repeatedly clarified in the body of the statement what it actually was. That's a completely reasonable choice to make.
I criticized her for her word usage in this post which is her statement on this war. I don't care about a year ago.
You also did that, yes. However in the section I quoted, which I responded to with the above example, you criticized her and those like her for her word usage in general within this context.
She's a politician. War is a definitive term in politics. I don't know how US laws exactly dictate it, but I'd guess it needs to be somehow declared and it has legal consequences and whatever else it includes. However, as there's no congress approval for it then it, by definition, can't be a war. So it's a 'combat operation'. Just like Russia claimed their attack was 'special operation' instead of 'war'.
So, she's, for all intents and purposes, saying that it's illegal war operation, but keeping it politically/legally truthful, which is a pretty big deal on her job.
Trump proved you can just say shit and there aren't consequences.
Just call it a war. What are they gonna do about it?
No, that's not how this works at all.
It's excactly how it works. USA has not been, from their legal point of view, in war since second world war. Their 'special operation' equivalent is (based on a very quick search) 'armed conflict' or 'prolonged period of sustained combat involving U.S. Armed Forces'.
If you insist on the term 'illegal war' the proper legal equivalent would be 'act of war'. In politics correct use of terms at least used to be pretty important, but obviously today, and specially in the USA, that goal has been flushed down the golden toilet multiple times. But that doesn't change the fact that she condemned the attacks while defending their constitution and that fact doesn't change even if you try to twist that to something else.
Saying words confidently doesn't mean you understand how politics works.
Also AOC didn't condemn the attacks at all
Dude. I'm sorry she's imperfect for your particular criteria. She can still be the best for America's evolution while not being perfect. Maybe the libel of marking someone before their trial date is just a bridge too far; but we all got it from context clues.
I'm actually glad this is the best issue today you could come up with: the amount of hair-splitting is almost a good sign.
She supported coups in Latin America, she's just as imperialist as the rest, so no, not good enough if you see us as people
Scenario's like these show who will support and initiate imperialist wars when they are in power in the future. For you they are meaningless because you don't understand how politics works.