AreaSIX

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.

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.

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.

You literally wrote most south east Asian cultures are deeply pretentious. Having a Thai partner doesn’t somehow magically make you an authority on a region with close to 700 million people. You’re grouping together countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Burma and Singapore and calling them deeply pretentious. Bringing up a Thai partner to demonstrate some kind of authority in the matter fits perfectly in with the rest of it. I don’t have any issues believing you have a Thai partner and have spoken to many Thais. My issue again is with you thinking that fact gives you the authority to casually judge a region of 700 million people as deeply pretentious. And then doubling down.

The equivalent to the legalization of cannabis making people think of Thailand as a 'junkie nation’s would be the rampant sex tourism making people think of Thailand as a paedo nation. And they’ve been fine with that for decades. So I very much doubt that it’s because “south east Asian cultures” are “deeply pretentious”. Also, just grouping hundreds of millions of people from vastly different cultures together as monolithic and “deeply pretentious” ironically says more about your own levels of deep pretension than about south east Asian cultures

Yup, thousands of murdered brown children were fine for MSNBC, but three young Jews getting murdered while trying to surrender to their own military is where the moral outrage starts. It’s pathetically transparent why they suddenly saw this as problematic.

Iran is a multi-ethnic society. What ethnicity is the ethno-state you imagine centered on? Persians? You know that General Soleimani wasn’t a Persian? Or that Iran’s supreme leader is an Azeri Turk? Or that the merchant class of Iran is not centered on Persians? How is this an ethno-state? Zionists sure like projection it seems…

Got it, killing thousands of brown muslim babies wasn’t enough to awaken your empathy. But killing three young Jews and two Christians is where you drew your moral line.

Also interesting that the church being ‘affiliated with Rome’ was somehow a factor in this excellent judgement of your’s. Should we assume that you were fine as long as the ones killed are Christians affiliated what say, the Armenian Orthodox church? Better late than never I guess…

I think it’s pretty clear that they just wanted to 'scream and shout at the people’s like the researcher in the article says. A herd of angry elephants looking to do actual damage would have easily crushed that car if they wanted to. This was just a warning, as the calf turned out to be fine.

I beg to differ. That’s only true for the human Brian, my friend’s dog Brian is a very sharp fella.

Nah, racist is a descriptor of a viewpoint, not something that’s inherently built into people because of their ethnicity. So it makes about as much sense to say that calling someone a racist is “validating their point” as saying calling someone a flat earhter somehow validates their ideas about flat earth theory. It’s just a silly line of reasoning.

Fortunately, there are some very good historical examples of how and why you’re very wrong. Maybe you’re not the best example of what one would do under such circumstances.