So Israel break international law and then Starmer asks Iran to just suck it up, saying it will put the ceasefire in jeopardy, ignoring the fact that Israel just assassinated the lead negotiator. What in the bloody fuck?

  • @[email protected]M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13 months ago

    Purity tests and insults are self-defeating. How about engaging with the substance of what people in this thread are saying?

    • whenyellowstonehasitsday
      link
      fedilink
      03 months ago

      whether or not you actually care about israel’s war crimes is very obviously materially relevant to the conversation

      • @[email protected]M
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13 months ago

        And I’ve said I do. The problem is that you’re obsessed with ‘proving’ I don’t, something you cannot do. This is your problem, not mine.

        • whenyellowstonehasitsday
          link
          fedilink
          -13 months ago

          yes because people never say things that aren’t true or that they don’t really believe

          it’s not really anybody’s problem that you’re a hypocrite, but it is relevant to point out that it’s likely the case

          • @[email protected]M
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 months ago

            Your (false) belief about my beliefs is not relevant to my argument or to me. It is certainly not very helpful to whatever cause you think you’re espousing to rely on purity tests and insults rather than any cogent responses to other people’s arguments.

            • whenyellowstonehasitsday
              link
              fedilink
              03 months ago

              pointing out that when you say “iran and israel should face international justice”, you only mean “iran should face international justice” is relevant, yes

              i’m not insulting you when i call you a hypocrite, i’m just accurately labeling the thing you’re doing, and if you take the word for the thing you’re doing as an insult, that’s maybe a sign you should stop doing that thing

              if you want to take referencing a year’s worth of posts establishing your position on israel as a purity test then i could play my own fun little line drawing game

              • @[email protected]M
                link
                fedilink
                English
                2
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                pointing out that when you say “iran and israel should face international justice”, you only mean “iran should face international justice” is relevant, yes

                But I don’t mean that. My posting history about Israel suggests nothing of the sort. It’s mostly me talking about what other people have said about Israel. When I do give my own opinions on Israel, they’re 1. To criticise Starmer’s earlier, weak position on Gaza; 2. To criticise Trump moving the US embassy. To characterise those comments as though they represent a year’s worth of pro-Israel comments is ludicrous.

                I’m not interested in talking about this any further with you.

                • whenyellowstonehasitsday
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -13 months ago

                  Also, it wouldn’t actually silence his critics on this, precisely because it won’t change anything. The war will continue, so people would just start demanding that [Starmer] demand issuing arrest warrants for Israeli government ministers who come to the UK, or trade embargoes, or whatever.

                  i guess defending starmer’s “earlier, weak position on gaza” is more or less equivalent to criticism of it