[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

I hate that this basically sums up how humanity is dealing with most climate crisis

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago

The US president who murdered so many muslims with drone strikes? I'm not surprised.

Looks like you have to be xenophobic, a murderer, a racist, or a combination of all three to win a peace prize nowadays

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago

This racist fuck that called Muslims cockraoches got a peace prize? What the fuck. The peace prize really means nothing

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Swak. And sad :(

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago
[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

The fact that the artists were queer and anti traditionalist. You know i knew this but it sort of went over my head until you actually spelled it out.

I wonder if anyone ever pointed this out to these types of people and what kind of response they received, if any.

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago

Ah i see what you mean, thanks for the clarification. Yes, i agree with you there on why they voted the way they did.

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

Absolutely not. That's why when i heard the US abstained i had to double check why, and predictably it was because of the length of the ceasefire.

Also, demanding the change of language from 'permanent' ceasefire to 'sustained' ceasefire was scummy and probably also part of the reason why they abstained and let the vote pass.

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml -2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

So the ceasefire is only for two weeks. No wonder the US abstained.

Edit: the ceasefire is for the rest of Ramadan, the rest of Ramadan is about two weeks.

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

And the difference is especially damning in Cape Town

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

And yet people will argue that the US is being charitable and concerned about a justified ( in my opinion) blockade of a major shipping route.

[-] stmcld@lemmy.ml 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Well, for weeks before the Houthis said that the reason for the blockade is Israel's ongoing genocide in Gaza. And that once Israel ceases their attacks on Gaza they would end the blockade.

Instead of using their political leverage to get Israel to stop their bombing, and thereby ensuring the end of the Houthi blockade, the US is instead attacking the Houthis and providing even more cover to Israel to continue it's genocide.

But yes, of course the US and allies would value the delays of shipments and providing genocide cover for Israel more than stopping an ongoing genocide against Palestinians

And yes, it's a major worldwide shipment route. So why does the US not use their political capital to stop Israel and thereby the blockade instead of attacking the Houthis on their own territory and greatly exacerbating tensions in the region.

That is why i said that there is a disconnect in what the US says and what it does. It has a diplomatic route to take but instead starts warring. And no, saying that the Houthis should just stop the blockade without Israel stopping it's genocide is not a valid diplomatic route.

So that begs the question if the US is truly concerned with the blockade of a major shipping route or if they're simply providing cover for Israel to continue bombing Gaza and terrorising the West Bank.

Replying from my alt account

view more: ‹ prev next ›

stmcld

joined 1 year ago