No, but if you look beyond a single isolated thing you're crusading for your realize that sending weapons over seas isn't the only power the president has. The president can make the world much worse beyond a single conflict in the middle east.

You can't see being that single issue. Other people are looking at long reaching impact. If my your admission they both want to send bombs, then look at what else they are doing. Try to effect some level of change and take action instead of just judging and bitching.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

A bit nasty to describe genocide as "a single conflict in the middle east," but regardless, the GOP and DNC are aligned on foreign policy.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Nasty? Is it multiple conflicts, is it not in the middle east? Or are you just mad and want to use inflammatory words to drive a discussion off feelings not reality.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The reality is that it's genocide, using passive language is a rhetorical strategy to downplay the internationally recognized genocide.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not down playing anything, it's you assuming and wanting to be extreme. Why don't you call it the murder of innocent children, are you trying to play it down by using a single word?

Jesus, it's not even about the issues with people like you, it's just an excuse to feel righteous and go after people.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Surely you can see tha difference between "conflict," which implies roughly equal power and moral responsibility, and "genocide," which depicts the situation accurately as Israel carries out its extermination campaign, right? Like, you aren't denying that "conflict" is more passive than genocide, correct? Moreover, you called it "a single conflict," designed explicitly to downplay it.

Correct your vebage, otherwise it's clear that you're acting as a Zionist.

[–] Lightor@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Surely you can see tha difference between "conflict," which implies roughly equal power and moral responsibility

It does not imply that at all, that's a massive assumption on your end that you use as a point to press. Throughout history the term conflict has be used to talk about many wars/battles and not all of them were equal, at all.

I'm saying I'm a conflict there can be genocide. But if anything genocide doesn't even capture the full scale of what's happening beyond the pointless killings. Conflict is a much broader scope, including things like economic impact, infrastructure damage to the county, etc. It's not one or three other. I agree genocide is bad and this conflict is bad and you're arguing with me about how I'm not saying it's bad enough because I used a word you don't fully understand. What are you even doing?

You need to educate yourself on the terms being used and stop making assumptions then using those assumptions to label people. You're mindset, while focused on something different, is bordering on MAGA.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

It does not imply that at all, that's a massive assumption on your end that you use as a point to press.

It absolutely does, this is silly.

I agree genocide is bad and this conflict is bad and you're arguing with me about how I'm not saying it's bad enough because I used a word you don't fully understand. What are you even doing?

We were using the term "genocide," you changed it to "a single conflict in the Middle East." You swapped the language.

You need to educate yourself on the terms being used and stop making assumptions then using those assumptions to label people. You're mindset, while focused on something different, is bordering on MAGA.

Scratched liberal starts projecting, who could've predicted?