AreaSIX

You literally wrote there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim herself. It’s still up there in your comment. If that’s not assuming then what is?

You do whatever you need to do. Again, it’s clear what I wrote and I stand by it. There’s nothing uncivil about what I wrote, that’s clear to all who read it. I don’t need one more opportunity, if you consider criticism and questioning of your ideas disrespectful, that’s your prerogative. So stop trying to threaten me into silence and do whatever you need to do in order to avoid examining your own biases.

I don’t ‘hate’ you, you’re just a commenter on Lemmy. I pointed out the obvious bigotry in your assumption of the woman being Muslim because she’s Iranian, despite the article making it clear she was harassing Muslim women. And you have done absolutely zero to dispell that conclusion. Assuming that my criticism is ‘hate’ just makes it clear that you’re unwilling to examine your own ideas from a critical perspective. Criticizing the civility of my comments reinforces the same conclusion. I’ve been very matter of fact, criticizing the substance of what you’ve written. I haven’t made any personal attacks as far as I can see. But you just keep doing the holier than thou thing.

Pointing to other bigoted comments doesn’t change the bigotry in your assumption, it just points to even more bigoted assumptions. Yeah, yours is more nuanced, but a more nuanced bigotry doesn’t mean it’s not bigotry.

Again, you assumed an Iranian woman is Muslim despite the article making it clear she was being bigoted against other muslim women. Ask yourself why you made that assumption if not because in your view, Iranian=muslim.

You can hide behind whatever rule you’d like. I’ve been more civil in my replies than your remarks call for. And it’s pretty clear in my unedited comments for everyone to see. Knock yourself out with whatever rule you need to hide behind, in order to avoid having an honest look at your own beliefs and biases.

Do you have any other reason than the woman being Iranian for your remark that there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim? You don’t, so my comment stands. You decided that she being Iranian is a good reason to assume she’s Muslim, despite the article saying she was attacking Muslim women. We both know why, so stop clutching your pearls and have look at your own assumptions.

There is no reason to believe that this woman is not herself a Muslim.

What is Muslim to you? This is a prime example for how western people see Islam as a race, and therefore people from Iran are automatically classified as muslim.

There’s a very good reason to believe that this woman is not a muslim, and that’s the whole purpose of the article: she’s harassing Muslim women for the sole reason that they wear a piece of clothing showing that they’re Muslim. That you are unable to recognize this as what it clearly is, anti Muslim bigotry, is revealing your own bias against Muslims.

I reside right by your mother’s welcoming pussy, come at me soldier. Bring the recruiter too and we’ll run a train on her, that’s her favorite.

I agree, while the head of state is the more important and powerful position, the president certainly isn’t exactly powerless and handles the day to day business of government. But calling the leader the Ayatollah is slightly misleading. While it’s a requirement in the constitution that the head of state be an Ayatollah, Ayatollah itself is a religious rank, not a political one. So there are many Ayatollahs around, even more since the revolution as many believe that the rank has become somewhat inflated.

Ok. To be fair, it is actually the first time you’re mentioning the German angle and English being your second language, so I had no way of knowing. Also, there are a lot of people online using these terms (politburo, kompromat and the like) in order to cast a subliminally negative light on the subjects being discussed, so I wasn’t trying to be malicious, if perhaps a bit too defensive 😄 My apologies for insinuating that you have a hidden agenda.

How are you this dense and don’t already have your own moon orbiting around you?

Yes, political and bureau are two English words, and if you had used them, they’d correspond to your quote from a wikipedia article. However, you used “politburo”, which is the abbreviation used to denote the political bureaus of the communist parties within the Soviet sphere. You know, like compromising material being an English phrase, while the abbreviation “kompromat” is a Russian intelligence abbreviation from the Stalin era.

It’s odd for someone getting their worldview through Wikipedia to not at least look for the wiki article for politburo. But in any case, I’d suggest not limiting yourself to the non existent nuance in Wikipedia and try to dig a little bit deeper in order to understand the words you’re using to sound smart online.

Lol, calling it the “politburo” really reveals the particular type of brain rot you’ve got. Hamas are not a communist party, and they are not part of the Soviet union.

“But ‘politburo’ scary, even if I don’t really have an idea of what it means. Some talking head on TV said it, and it sounded cool, so I’ll repeat it online in order to sound knowledgeable”.

Stick to words you know the meaning of maybe?

Jesus brother/sister, come down. Most people on Reddit are like most people everywhere, regular normal people with an extra dollop of asshole because they can hide behind a handle online. Many probably don’t know about other alternatives, or find the somewhat convoluted sign up processes to be intimidating. Or they sign up and don’t find the content all that varied or interesting. God knows I’ve been tempted to go back from time to time, but I refuse to use the garbage they call an official app. Drugged up lost causes with an insatiable need to be righteous seems like a somewhat drastic judgement to me. Unless you think that of people in general, in which case yes, they are like people in general.

You like to pretend that you care about what the animal feels, but you clearly just want to feel good about yourself by feeling superior to others. Why otherwise would you be this rude and obnoxious for no good reason? Do you think this behavior is likely to make people think “hmm, maybe he’s right and I should just eat beans and shut the fuck up”? Of course not, you’re just looking to feel superior. You have no actual interest in convincing others about the feeling of animals facing death.

The OP is not wrong, the capitalist system of exploitation is the root of the issue, and you’re the obvious example of a misguided vegan.

That’s because the crime of genocide tends to contain within it multiple instances of crimes against humanity, breaches of the Geneva convention, attacks against civilians and so on. It’s basically the ultimate crime containing all the other crimes within it. And the highest authority on international law in the World, the ICJ, has said that it is plausible that what Israel is doing amounts to a genocide. It really is very clear and simple, if you’re willing to see things as they are.

What exactly are people referring to when the label this a genocide?

This is The UN Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide detailing what constitutes a genocide.

Like, what line was crossed where this changed from defending against terrorists to commiting a genocide, in your opinion?

Here’s South Africa’s 84 page indictment with details and receipts on how the genocide Convention is being violated, assuming a good faith and genuine question on your part.

The US and Germany are both signatories of the UN arms trade treaty . This is article 6 (3):

“A State Party shall not authorize any transfer of conventional arms covered under Article 2 (1) or of items covered under Article 3 or Article 4, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party”

Mass murder is the name of the game in war. So arming other militaries is always in support of mass murder. But in the eyes of international law some mass murder is acceptable as part of war. Genocide and the other crimes recounted above however, have been deemed to cross the threshold of acceptability in international law, and therefore are meant to stop the transfer of arms immediately. If the US and Germany were to acknowledge that these crimes are being perpetrated by Israel, they’d have to stop transferring arms. Mass murder in itself is admittedly wrong, but that alone is not sufficient to trigger a halt to arms exports. Therefore, it is of great importance to keep repeating: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes.

Germany has supplied 30% of Israel s weapons, and has continued to do so during this ongoing genocide. If Germany or the US were to acknowledge the ongoing genocide, they’d have to stop supplying those arms immediately, hence stopping the annihilation of Gaza. So it’s of immense importance to keep repeating what most of the world already acknowledges: this is a genocide, and those arming the perpetrators are complicit in their crimes. History will not judge Germany kindly, but I guess that’s not exactly a new thing for a veteran perpetrator of genocide.

You’re equating Jews with Israel, so you’re basically on the same moral level as Israel and deserve just as much respect. So, fuck you.

I hope the “some sodomite sent me a bucket of poop”-drop returns soon. I don’t really like the latest drops for new technocrats.

Calling Iran’s support for Hamas “colonial shenanigans” is a perfect symptom of Zionist brain rot. Particularly when it comes from the mouth of a supporter of the only settler colonial society in the region.

Notice the gradual shift from an international order based on international law to the current “rules-based” international order that has happened during the last 2 decades? The ICJ is an arbiter of international law while the rules-based order is based on arbitrary rules made by the US and mostly NATO allies not necessarily related to international law. This shift was designed for situations like this where adherence to these arbitrary rules can be used to override/ignore international law. So when the highest court in the world when it comes to international law rules that the case brought by SA has clear merit, the US can punish SA for bringing the case in the first place and pretend that’s by the rules.