I didn’t say it was reasonable, I was only answering the question as to why they were angry with France.
I think what the west deserves for funding a genocidal fascist is entirely up for debate, but that they deserve something is pretty well justified, IMHO
I think what the west deserves for funding a genocidal fascist is entirely up for debate, but that they deserve something is pretty well justified, IMHO
Are you trying to say the West deserves violence? Advocating for violence isn’t allowed in this community or instance.
I wasn’t advocating for anything, I was answering the question about why they were angry with the french.
And what will this justice be?
If it were me, i’d say the west should face international sanction and prosecution in the Hague for all leaders/diplomats accused of willfully collaborating with a genocide. Of course, a western-controlled criminal court would never do such a thing, so I guess all we have is BDS and public protest.
You italicised something. Implying violence as per the post.
International sanctions? How would that even work? You can’t sanction over half the world, let alone prosecute them. Why does New Zealand get sanctioned? Why Europe? Why Canada? What about countries that are collaborating in the Ukraine-Russia war? How about congo?
They seem to dislike france’s freedom of speech and their anti-islam stance.
… No, it does not make sense. I don’t have a clue.
I think it has more to do with Macron and his bedding of right-wing fascists to avoid a left-wing government coalition
That, and their funding of religious ethnostate terrorists…
Edit: i don’t get it, is it something I said?
Edit 2: OK, I was wrong about the specific context of the comment, but I’ll take partial credit for guessing it had to do with the war in Gaza
Yes, the dislike of a democratically elected leader is reasonable clause to call for innocent french people to die in a massacre
I didn’t say it was reasonable, I was only answering the question as to why they were angry with France.
I think what the west deserves for funding a genocidal fascist is entirely up for debate, but that they deserve something is pretty well justified, IMHO
Are you trying to say the West deserves violence? Advocating for violence isn’t allowed in this community or instance.
Maybe the west should lay off the fucking violence themselves and not bleat when it gets dished back to them once in a while.
The West? All of the West? You hear that New Zealand?! You cowards!
But legitimately, ‘dished back to them?’ – Not very pro-peace of you. Violence begets violence. You should aim for peace, not more war.
Absolutely not. I’m advocating for justice.
And what will this justice be? Because the post is saying a massacre.
I think it’s pretty telling you were advocating for violence, and now you’re forced to backtrack.
I wasn’t advocating for anything, I was answering the question about why they were angry with the french.
If it were me, i’d say the west should face international sanction and prosecution in the Hague for all leaders/diplomats accused of willfully collaborating with a genocide. Of course, a western-controlled criminal court would never do such a thing, so I guess all we have is BDS and public protest.
You italicised something. Implying violence as per the post.
International sanctions? How would that even work? You can’t sanction over half the world, let alone prosecute them. Why does New Zealand get sanctioned? Why Europe? Why Canada? What about countries that are collaborating in the Ukraine-Russia war? How about congo?
This is a fantasy