All from in this thread in !world@lemmy.world about a chant at a British music festival where an artist said “death, death to the IDF”.
After other users were quoting that chant in the comments and had comments removed and banned, the hero of our story, @theacharnian@lemmy.ca (appearing as “acargitz”) pointed out that under international law, fighting an occupying force is legitimate. But apparently not under world news rules, as their removed comments and the many explanations from mods make clear in the thread.
Equally against the rules is the call for the eradication of an organisation or business, even without an explicit call to violence against individual members of the business.
In the same thread: user @DeathToTheIDF@lemmings.world had comments removed for being anti-American “(again)”, though I couldn’t see the first time. It’s not even clear to me how the removed comments were anti-American.
Bonus points for the “DC Comics” removal reason. Though this seems to be incompetence, rather than malice.
Tell me you didn’t read any of the links without telling me you didn’t read any of the links.
Again, nothing to do with genocide. When Israel gets attacked by Iran, they have the right to defend themselves. Same when Iran gets attacked by Israel. That’s the whole point of being a sovereign state. If you get attacked, you’re allowed to respond.
Unless your argument is Israel has no right to exist? You aren’t trying to argue that, right?
They are not (yet) trying to commit genocide in Iran. Give it 20 years, maybe. They have their hands full with the genocide in Gaza, then they still have the West Bank, Golan, probably Syria as a whole after Golan, and Lebanon.
Assuming the UN allows it to continue, it’s only a matter of time before they get to Iran, but it’s not happening yet. But then the UN is pretty fucking toothless when it comes to Israeli war crimes.
It is either lack of comprehension or lack of reading skills?
Read again what “Israel has a right to defend themselves” really means. Slowly.
Now, in Israeli-speach “defend themselves” is the same what in a “final solution” was in German speach.
But you know all that, my little genocide apologist, don’t you?
Let me try with a logic gate puzzle:
When any country gets attacked, they have a right to respond. We can agree on that, yes?
Israel is a country.
Israel got attacked by Iran.
Both indisputable facts.
So the response is, Israel has the right to defend itself.
Unless you want to argue:
or:
or:
Then your argument doesn’t make sense. You’re trying to twist it into being about the Genocide in Gaza, that’s not what I’m talking about.
I’m talking about Israel’s legitimate response to having rockets fired at them from Iran and Iran’s legitimate response to being bombed by Israel.
When a country gets attacked, they have the right to respond. You could even take it a step further and say they have an obligation to respond. If your country gets attacked repeatedly and you never respond, do you even HAVE a country at that point?
Read again. Slowly. You little genocide apologist.
Read again:
Countries that get attacked are allowed to defend themselves. That has nothing to do with perpetuating a genocide, which Israel is doing in Gaza.
It DOES have to do with being attacked by Iran.
One is a legitimate defense, one is an illegal war of aggression. I really don’t think you can tell the difference.
Read again. Slowly:
Israeli “defence” is a code sentence for aggression and genocide. Like “final solution” was previous nazis’ code sentence for genocide.
Palestinians have right to defend themselves by killing (and making calls to kill) IDF aggressors. This is their right under international law.
You therefore should remove any references to Israeli “right to defence”. Unless of course you are either:
So, which one is it sweetie?