this post was submitted on 31 May 2026
985 points (99.2% liked)

Political Memes

11914 readers
2747 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

1) Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

2) No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

3) Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

4) No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

5) No AI generated content.Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 75 points 3 days ago (5 children)

In November 2023, after the October 7 attacks, Snider was asked if he agreed with Israel soldiers using "We're Not Gonna Take It" as a battle cry. He replied, "Oh, hell yeah. You know what? Israelis, the assault on the Israelis, people are losing sight of something. People saying that, 'Oh, the response is gonna be too intense for what happened.' Well, you don't get to decide on the response when you do heinous things to civilians. You don't get to say, 'Oh, that's enough, that's enough retaliation.' No, it doesn't work like that. When you cross that line, you're burning people, you're slaughtering people, you're raping people, you're just killing people, after what happened at that festival you don't get to say, 'Okay, your revenge can be this much.' No. Payback's a mothereffer. And I come from that school. You cross that line, you know... shit's gonna happen. Sing it out, boys."

Everyone's problematic

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.world 19 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Valid criticism, but how does he feel today? Because on October 7, I was pretty supportive of strong retaliation, too.

Then I saw what Israel actually did, which was far beyond a military response on military targets. It wasn't long after they started that they lost my support. I can support the concept of justice, I can't support genocide.

I don't know how he feels about that today, but it is possible that his feelings in November, immediately following the attack, changed after the atrocious response. I think a lot of peoples' did.

[–] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Yeah I agree for the most part. I can't find anything about him retracting this comment in the aftermath though. Maybe he did.

[–] volore@scribe.disroot.org 74 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Playing devils advocate for Snider, November 2023 was right after October 7th and I don't think there were nearly as many people pointing out and shouting about the ethnic cleansing Israel was using the attack as an excuse to partake in until we got into 2024.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Indeed.

I know "Well, you don’t get to decide on the response" certainly aged like milk, but I think folks in 2023 could be forgiven to be thinking "IDF is going to strike Hamas and Hamas brought them on themselves" as the wanton collateral harm largely wasn't on folks radar at the time. Some folks with more nuanced understandings sounded alarms and were dismissed, but having to respond to that situation mere weeks after October 7th... That's going to be a tough scenario for most people to come out looking ok.

[–] CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Only naive people and people who had no clue what they were talking about. In 2023, israel had been a settler colonialist genocidal ethnostate for half a century already

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 11 points 2 days ago

Naive is right. I knew straight up anarchists that somehow didn't know the score RE Palestine until they started digging after 2023.

[–] takeda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

Honestly that was me too, I was also for squashing Hamas until I saw that this turned into genocide.

[–] Lemming6969@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (4 children)

But his implied question is deep, what amount of retaliation is the correct or maximum amount? Not just in this case, but any case.

[–] FrChazzz@lemmus.org 3 points 2 days ago

Well, for Israel, they have a deep-seated teaching of their culture that straight up tells them what is the appropriate amount of retaliation: it's called the Torah. All these "ultra-Orthodox" people in the Kinesset should know what their Bible says about retaliation. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." This law actually is intended to place limits on retaliation in that one is only owed what has been taken--with many rabbis seeing it as a means for financial compensation. As I understand it, in places like Egypt (where, according to tradition, Israel's forebears were exploited workers, basically slaves) had an unbalanced legal system that allowed for disproportionate retaliation ("you took my eye? Well now your family is dead"), especially as applied for aristocratic types. But the Torah was presented as universally applicable to every Jew.

So, leveling Gaza is disproportionate retaliation according to the very law they claim God Himself gave them.

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 day ago

in that case, the same thing from.the other side though. That attack was just retaliation. How long do you continue with an eye for an ~~eye~~ face? Blowback...

The only sane outcomes is to say doing more of the same will lead to worse atrocities and do something different. All this is retaliation is going to do is make it worse.

look at the Iran thing, lot of conservatives say they're worried Iran will build a nuke and sail it into Manhattan.. why are they worried about that ? what is it they've done to Iran over many decades that they think that's a possible retaliatory outcome ?

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

That's the eternal question. Too much retaliation isn't just immoral, it's tactically foolish. You horrify your allies and incite revenge. Too little on the other hand and you don't deter.

While I think we should have gone harder in punishment to the active members of the axis governments, I think the post WW2 rebuilding is probably best. Leaders and propagandists are targeted and punished and there's a period of hardship, but you help them rebuild while pressing them towards a less destructive attitude towards you.

The only way to kill your way to peace is to kill everyone. Real peace requires creating an environment where enough of both sides want peace and violence isn't worth it.

[–] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago

It's pretty obvious innit? Targeted counter terror operations. Use the considerable power and expertise available to the government to bring those responsible to justice without demolishing the whole country. Like America should've done (and eventually did) with bin Laden, instead of invading the countries next door for over a decade.
I mean that's what I would do, but to answer more broadly, I think the maximum amount should definitely be constrained to what is legal.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Oh fuck. I thought I liked him. Turns out he's a hypocrite :(

[–] BeardededSquidward@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There's a long list of people. He's nowhere near the top. He has time to realize his mistakes, apologize, and get on board in a genuine fashion.

Here's hoping he does realize. But somehow I haven't seen that with anyone so far who was defending the Israeli crimes against humanity in Gaza and elsewhere. Everyone decent so far has been able to both condemn Hamas AND the genocide of the Palestinians.