War Hawk becomes Peace Hawk : ManufacturingConsent

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 10 points 19 hours ago

I see posts about a small percentage of MAGAts saying they made a terrible mistake and we say leopards ate their face; but somehow I don't see likewise with "former" Zionists admitting their support for Israel was a bad idea or owning up to it.

Either they still support genocide or they think they can wash their hands of their mistaken views just because Zionist Dems lost 2024 (which was like, 40% or higher!) and thus somehow are absolved of responsibility. I would like if at least someone would admit their views in 2024 were a result of propaganda and misguided.

[–] zewm@lemmy.world 20 points 23 hours ago

Oooooh. Another strongly worded scold with zero action behind it. Gotta love it.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

War crimes don't tend to be considered options.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 day ago

Maybe if you're completely unfamiliar with US military history

[+] Avicenna@programming.dev -7 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

The war is not of his own making, it is Netanyahu getting his favourite dog to commit some of the atrocities for him.

[+] JoeMontayna@lemmy.ml -17 points 22 hours ago

You see, there's this concept of time. And as time passes, variables change. It can explain a lot if you understand it.

[+] rafoix@lemmy.zip -12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That article conflates Zionist with Jewish.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No Harris did that.

[–] rafoix@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Pretty much all major American politicians and media conflates Zionist with Jewish.

[–] Lenins_Dumbbell@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

And all of that is deliberate. Israel is far more important to US interests than half of its own states.

[–] rafoix@lemmy.zip 7 points 21 hours ago

Keeping a gun pointed at all the oil rich states is good for US economic interests since it built so much on its economy to be dependent on oil.

The reason right wingers and capitalists created the anti-renewable energy propaganda was to protect their investments and keep us all dependent on that oil.

[–] OrganicMustard@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Thanks to Israel. When they call any criticism antisemitism and parroted by all media this is what happens.

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (5 children)

I'm no fan of Kamala, but vague gesturing towards stopping nuclear armament (it even says in that picture "diplomatic solution still preferable") is different from a full mask-off declaration that they're going to commit warcrimes.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 20 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Iran never seeked a nuclear weapon and why would a nuclear iran be a threat only to jews. It is pretty clear she conflate jews with israel

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 13 points 20 hours ago

Considering newly bombed synagogue in Tehran, during passover no less, i would say entirely another state is a threat to Jews.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Well have I got great news for you: Trump said he wouldn't start any wars before the election and not bomb Iran at all!

[+] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works -14 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (6 children)

There's a difference between known liar Trump, who contradicts himself from one sentence to the next, and Kamala, who is a bog-standard politician. This is just a hypothetical of course, but I think it'd be incredibly likely that Kamala would have continued economically suppressing Iran via sanctions, maybe some half-hearted attempts at another nuclear deal, but would have had advisors presenting what military aggression would mean for the region (including the economic damage of them blocking the strait) to prevent her from pushing this far. She'd likely be another Biden: not directly assisting Israel in aggression, but too cowardly to call them out in any meaningful way.

Anyone with a functioning brain could see Trump was talking out of his ass on this topic, especially when project 2025 explicitly talks about waging a regime change war on Iran and assisting Israel in bombing Iran.

[–] cornishon@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 7 hours ago

I think it’d be incredibly likely that Kamala would have continued economically suppressing Iran via sanctions, maybe some half-hearted attempts at another nuclear deal, but would have had advisors presenting what military aggression would mean for the region

So she would continue to unjustifiably oppress the Iranian people, but in a way such that the US wouldn't have face the consequences!

Your priorities couldn't be more obvious.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 18 points 22 hours ago

The difference is worthless, one is just a more competent manipulator

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 11 points 21 hours ago

She’d likely be another Biden: not directly assisting Israel in aggression, but too cowardly to call them out in any meaningful way.

Yep, in other words BOMBING Iran

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 19 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

There’s a difference between known liar Trump, who contradicts himself from one sentence to the next, and Kamala, who is a bog-standard politician.

[+] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works -16 points 23 hours ago (5 children)

She’d likely be another Biden: not directly assisting Israel in aggression, but too cowardly to call them out in any meaningful way.

Again, there's a difference between complicity via silence, and complicity via an active bombing campaign. Neither is good by any stretch of the imagination, but the latter is clearly worse than the former.

[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 7 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

The Biden administration actively structured it's weapon shipments in such a way that they wouldn't trigger Congressional oversight, they actively ran with the "Hamas 40 beheaded babies" blood libel, they actively condemned anti genocide protestors, they actively sent special forces to build that pier they used for a hospital massacre, they are are as actively complicit as it is possible to be.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 15 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Selling weapons to them and defending their actions publicly isn't silence.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 18 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

I don't understand your point. Both of them have a massive track record of lying. But the one thing Trump did actually have was a record of not starting any wars in his previous presidency. Both of them are in the pocket of AIPAC but Kamala was signalling that if Iran didn't agree to a "diplomatic solution" then she would start a war. Which is literally what Trump did was well. He told Iran to give up the nukes. Iran said no. Then he bombed Iran.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 14 points 22 hours ago

The difference is worthless, your opinions are worthless

[–] Lenins_Dumbbell@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 22 hours ago

No, you're wrong. One is complicity via an active bombing campaign but better PR, and the other is an active bombing campaign with bad PR.

Both are war criminals that deserve the guillotine

[–] Lenins_Dumbbell@lemmygrad.ml 13 points 22 hours ago

A distinction without a difference. Both fuckers wanted to attack Iran, because their donors need them to attack Iran

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 10 points 23 hours ago

Ah, you prefer the smiling fox to the snarling wolf.

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes the dems are so good about not saying out loud what we all know they're going to do anyway, so much more respectable

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world -2 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

Are these unsaid things you presume in the room with you now?

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 12 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Not my fault you're too chickenshit to say what you actually mean

[–] Lenins_Dumbbell@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 22 hours ago

No, but they're in Congress lol. Death to the US

[–] tacosanonymous@mander.xyz 7 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

And look who she was specifically speaking to and when. She was specifically campaigning to Jewish voters. She’d probably say anything to get their vote.

While the dnc is an atrocity, their members aren’t wrong for calling this a genocide.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 9 points 18 hours ago

she lost because she said the same thing to the rest of us

[+] fizzle@quokk.au -12 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

It literally says diplomacy is preferable but all options are on the table.

Am I nuts or is that a reasonable, balanced position?

[–] RiverRock@lemmy.ml 4 points 15 hours ago

This is not a reasonable, balanced position.

[–] mrdown@lemmy.world 11 points 23 hours ago

All options are on table is not reasonsble especially when irsn never seeked a nuclear weapon

Inventing Reality