• intelshill@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      It should be a no-brainer to not fund and ship weapons to a state committing a genocide, and yet here we are.

        • yesman@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          So, a genocide doesn’t count unless it’s complete, and if the Palestinians in Gaza knew what was good for them they’d self-ethnic-cleanse?

          they have genocidal leadership who are clearly intent on attacking their neighbors until they’re all dead.

          What you’re implying is that Hamas is bringing down genocide on their own people via the IDF. Since Hamas is in control of, and responsible for the IDF, why don’t they use it to attack Israel? Are they stupid?

        • تحريرها كلها ممكن@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          All natives resist colonialism, the only genocidal maniacs are the Zionist invaders. You are suggesting removing Palestinians to Jordan instead of removing the illegal settlements in the West Bank.

      • rbesfe@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        How many of the attacked cargo ships were transporting weapons? And what, cargo ships transporting Russian oil are just fair game for NATO to blow up now because they’re funding genocide?

        • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          yes, but the Russians have nukes so actually no. If you have nukes you basically get to do what you want and the other great powers don’t get to attack you. If you don’t have nukes you don’t get that privilege

          • Truck_kun@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Hundreds to thousands of nukes, mostly yes. one to tens of, not so much. People don’t want nukes to be used, but having a supply of 20 nukes or so would not get the world to let you do whatever you wanted.

            And at a certain point, even the hundreds to thousands may still lead to war, if pressing too hard.

    • gnuhaut@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      “No brainer” is exactly how I would describe a person who think this is a good idea.