this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
527 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
8596 readers
3402 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think it depends on how people/voters see the particular conflict. When Bush jr put a genocide on the Taliban, he had a lot of support. When Obama put one on ISIS, he had a lot of support. When Biden stopped US support for genocides in Yemen or Rwanda, voters didn't really seem to care one way or another.
When did Biden interfere with the Rwandan genocide, famously known for global inaction as the Hutus killed nearly 1 million Tutsis? Fuck off with this transparently bad faith talking point.
I'm so very sorry, of course I meant the Rwanda supported genocide in Eastern Congo. Can you explain on why you see this as 'bad faith'?
it was a bad, wrong, evil thing that happened when the US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, but it was not a genocide. Same with how Obama handled drone strikes, well, everywhere in the region. I did not have the context that you unintentionally referenced the wrong events and it was the simplest point to address. I apologize for leveraging that accusation
I think it's weird you're downplaying these other genocides to defend taking a stronger position on Gaza
The Lancet estimates 2,5% of the Iraq population killed because of the US invasion between 2003-2006. They're nearing 1,5% in the Gaza strip (but it's slowing down). So I would think it's weird to say it's normal people are protesting the Gaza one so much while not really caring about the Iraq one, back in the day.
(Sorry I hope I'm somewhat exagerating but I also hope you see my point)
What you're hoping nobody looks up is that the Lancet decided most deaths during that period were attributable to the invasion. Even gang and tribal violence. In the breakdowns they only say ~180,000 deaths were due to coalition actions. Which is in line with most other studies.
So that's about 4,600 deaths a month. Altogether 0.6 percent of the population. Per month? 0.017%
Now let's do Gaza. We hit 30,000 deaths in how many months? 5? Hell let's give them 6. That's 5,000 people a month in a county a tenth of Iraq's size. Literally 2.3 million people. 1.3 percent of the population, double the coalition numbers from Iraq.
And that's before the hospitals were too destroyed to keep counting deaths. Before we've tallied the death toll of Israel's man made famine. Before we've dug the bodies out from under the rubble.
Don't try to whataboutism this with bullshit numbers. It's not a good argument even when the US actually did something. But trying to make it up too? You deserve to be laughed out of here.
So, if I look at your whataboutism argument
Why would you want to include every single death in Gaza and then coldly say 450.000 excess deaths (read that number again) in Iraq 'don't really count'?
Because the coalition didn't encourage the civil war in Iraq and they pumped as much aid into Iraq as they could by air, land, and sea.
Israel is doing the exact opposite. They want people to fight Hamas. They are restricting aid. They are preventing civilians from leaving the combat area.
Everyone wants to forget that in 2004 the Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds fought mercilessly over territory. It's why their constitution is set up to have a leader from each faction.
Lmao I'm sorry. You think the US committed genocide in Afghanistan and Syria? I must have missed the part where we carpet bombed them and withheld food.
US-backed forces succeed in making Raqqa 80 percent “uninhabitable”
Do you think they were sending in food trucks while they were bombing anyone trying to flee the city?
So now we're pulling out the propaganda pieces. This would be the first time I've ever heard of the US bombing civilians excavating Raqqa. That's just not corroborated anywhere. Even Amnesty International blames ISIS for holding the civilians there. They also put the civilian death toll at 1,500, which is a bloody miracle if there were 25,000 civilians being held hostage in the city.
The closest thing I could find is a relief web article saying the US didn't help civilians evacuate. Which isn't surprising because that's not something that happens unless you're the defending military. And then it's usually actually the police and first responders anyways.
And I'm not surprised 80 percent of the city was destroyed. The only enemy left were the ISIS fighters that had mentally prepared themselves to die fighting. They weren't going to let a single inch of ground go uncontested.
Edit to add - You still haven't explained how that would be a genocide either though. There was a massive evacuation of civilians before the siege started. It's a city of 500k-750k people.
I've linked you an article where you can learn about the US military 'shooting every boat they saw crossing the river'. I can imagine you haven't really heard about the details of the siege of Raqqa because, well, most people didn't want to know. There's a lot you can find though, same goes for sieges like Mosul or Fallujah: a final siege against a dug in enemy is never going to be pretty. White phosporous, thermobaric weapons, ... War crimes. It's either that or a lot more casualties for the attackers.
And regarding your final paragraph: Israel is encouraging massive evacuation of civilians as well. It's not like they're not letting anyone out of Rafah, it's just that Egypt is not letting any refugees through (unless they pay) which results in them running around in circles. But rest assured that they would not have let Raqqa 'of the hook' if those civilians hadn't left
Lmao no they aren't. They designated a tiny area, and they don't allow them to leave Gaza. Then they keep attacking into the area they forced them to move to. When you allow people to evacuate you do so to a non combat area.
And again. That's not corroborated anywhere. Groups like Amnesty International have no problem coming after the US.
You're also still not talking about the 95 percent of Raqqa that was evacuated. If that was a genocidal act they would not have been allowed to do so.
Can you cite a source that they're not allowing them to leave Gaza?
Human Rights Watch
Are they preventing them from fleeing elsewhere?
The entirety of Gaza is a warzone. So yeah.
Gaza only borders Israel?
Well the Israelis can't violate Egyptian sovereignty. They have perfectly good areas they can setup IDP camps without bothering Israel.
Do you think the Egyptians are putting a genocide on Gazans by keeping them trapped in a war zone?
I think the Egyptians are irrelevant to Israeli actions.
Do you think them keeping their border shut is relevant to Gazans wanting to escape?
No. Because Israel controls the border crossing. And even if they weren't it wouldn't absolve Israel of it's sins. Just like western countries accepting Jewish refugees would not have absolved Germany.
Do you think it's secretly disguised mossad agents masquerading as Egyptian officials when they say they don't want to let in Gazan refugees?
That would certainly be an interesting twist
Uhhhh... No.