this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2023
189 points (87.1% liked)

politics

19104 readers
2751 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Penn.) called some of his colleagues’ quickness to blame Israel for the hospital blast in Gaza “disturbing” in a statement Wednesday.

“It’s truly disturbing that Members of Congress rushed to blame Israel for the hospital tragedy in Gaza,” Fetterman said in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually it was probably a Islamic Jihad missile. They are another gang in Gaza. Let's put it this way...if you were disturbed when you thought Israel was to blame, yet you shrug off when Islamic Jihad is proven to have done it...they you just might need bias confirmation.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What if I think both sides are fucking assholes?

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then you almost join my club, however, there are two other certainties. 1. Terrorism is always wrong and the brutality of Hamas on Israel was way way over the line. 2. Since that is true, there is absolutely no way a war would not result and there is no way that ideological rhetoric is going to stop it.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is property destruction allowed? Lots of people consider that terrorism but I'm not mad if someone, say, sinks an oligarch's yacht as long as nobody gets hurt.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How do you feel about someone running a plane into a building is more salient

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Are there people in the building or on the plane? Is the building something like a factory that makes pepper spray and tear gas?

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com -3 points 1 year ago

Quit obfuscation. You know exactly what I'm talking about.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Remember Kids:

  • When the dominant force in a conflict commits violence against civilians it is due to the "fog of war" or seen as "unavoidable collateral damage".

  • When the minority force in a conflict commits violence against civilians it is "terrorism" or "savagery".

I'm not condoning the use of violence against civillians in any capacity. However, this is the way that the power brokers manipulate the emotions of the ignorant unwashed masses in their own societies to justify their own atrocities.

Some form of this language manipulation tactic has been utilized as a catalyzing force to support the genocide of indigenous populations throughout all of human history.

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Actually the term Fog of War describes a basic misunderstanding of events in war.

War has rules and killing civilians is against the rules. Doing so to freighten living populations is terrorism.

Hope this helps.

[–] Riccosuave@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I know what it means. What I'm saying is that concept is then used as a justification for violence against civilian populations by the dominant force in a conflict.

The messaging around that violence is what matters in the context of your initial statement, and the dominant force in a conflict NEVER admits that what they are doing is also very much "terrorism", and usually on a much larger scale.