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?
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?
Purity tests and insults are self-defeating. How about engaging with the substance of what people in this thread are saying?
whether or not you actually care about israel’s war crimes is very obviously materially relevant to the conversation
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.
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
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.
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
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.
i guess defending starmer’s “earlier, weak position on gaza” is more or less equivalent to criticism of it