The only response that deserves your previous sarcasm is this one. There is a difference between federally funded news programs like NPR, and outright propaganda outlet with no journalistic standards like the VOA, but I can't believe you actually believe most people know that.

But hey, I guess informing people of that deserves an asshole amount of sarcasm.

Our?

You would be surprised how few people are aware that VOA is propaganda. They think it is something like NPR.

It is not.

Good job in knowing something most people don't?

What's with the sarcastic tone, again?

Nothing.

I understand climate change, how fast state transitions happen, that I'm in my 40's and have already seen the climate change in every place I've lived.

I also know that the atmospheric carbon is higher then it has ever been during every other mass extinction event.

And I'm aware that we haven't even been able to slow the rate of increase of how much yearly carbon we put out.

I know times like these seem scary, friend, but it is about to get a lot worse.

Amazing how few people know that VOA is literal US propaganda and are down voting you.

I'm literally going to this talk tomorrow:

30% of the area and 70% of the population.

So, follow with me here: They believe incorrectly that Ansarallah controls 30% of the land that contains 70% of the population.

Except, and I know math can be hard, if I wanted to talk about the land that the above believes Ansarallah doesn't control, I'd have to take the total land, 100% in this and all cases, and subtract the land the above thinks Ansarallah does control, 30% in this case.

So... What does 100 - 30 equal?

And you're in support of a genocide.

Arguing is easy when you put words in other peoples mouths.

30% of the area and 70% of the population. Ongoing combat has killed thousands in the past year alone. But sure, whatever you can do to simp for murderers, right?

Was there a UN brokered peace deal? Yes. Did it end in 2022? Yes. Has there been any fighting since then? Not significantly, no. I don't know where your thousands dead comes from. Or the 30% figure, considering that the vast majority of that 70% you're presumably talking about is arid desert that doesn't have people, of any denomination, in it.

Me: “Killing random civilians of various nations in the hopes that one or two might be Israeli is bad, and clearly has not impacted the ongoing Israeli genocide, which has only intensified since. Even if they were killing Israeli civilians only, supporting that would still make you a piece of shit.”

According to @PugJesus@lemmy.world, this is evil, and results in killing civilians:

I’d ask for you to come back once you’re capable of honesty, but honestly, I wouldn’t want to speak to someone like you again. I mean, simping for the murder of civilians to do absolutely nothing of value, because the murderous oppressive group says it’s definitely to stop genocide, despite not even meeting their own criteria? That’s some deeply immoral stuff. That’s not the kind of thing you look back on sheepishly, it’s reflective of deeply broken values. Not the kind of people I’d sit at a table with. 9 Nazis and all.

I wouldn't want to speak to someone that explicitly lies to back a genocide.

I have never said the murder of civilians is okay. I do not believe it. You seem to be perfectly fine with the murder of Palestinians, even using articles from the country committing genocide to justify being against the people trying to do something against it.

Enforcing a blockade is an acceptable act of war that is not considered the murder of civilians. If a boat runs a blockade, how does the country enforcing the blockade enforce it?

Do you think it was wrong for the USN to enforce a blockade against the southern traitor states? Was that deeply immoral even though it was a major component of the end of slavery?

You are a shitlib that is against genocide, not because it is wrong, but because it makes you feel icky. As does all of the effective measures against it, so you are against them, too. Ickiness isn't a good measure of morality.

What percentage of Yemen does Ansarallah hold?

What do you call a civil war when one side holds no territory or power?

I would also say that someone that claims a blockade doesn't economically hurt the people being blockaded should get help.

You're right, I did misread that, but it still isn't true. Ansarallah are not a non-oppressive government.

As for the link, I'm not sure what the fuck is going on, but it isn't live for all people. It 403's for me with multiple browsers from multiple ip addresses.

And I’m sure any source I provided would have similar excuses you’d trot out, because the fact of the matter is that you just don’t want to believe the “A Curse Upon The Jews” folks who’ve been running a brutal and oppressive regime in their own country might not be great people, despite being anti-West.

I'll ignore the typo where you imply I wouldn't want to believe Ansarallah, as I get what you meant. Still probably worth an edit, though.

Secondly, yes, the Yemeni government is 100% a brutal and oppressive regime. I am absolutely not saying they're not. They are.

Are they also doing something that is a recognized form of war throughout history (A blockade), that is also acceptable under current laws of war (What do you think happens to a civilian ship that tries to run a blockade) that is also one of the most damaging things Israel has suffered in the war against the Palestinians?

What the fuck is that even supposed to mean?

It means you're like someone against segregation in the south, but who also didn't support Dr Martin Luther King, because he was antisemitic/homophobic, Malcolm X because he was a too icky and didn't condemn violence, the Freedom riders because they broke the law. And to justify all of this, you use newspapers articles exclusively from the south.

Get help. We’re done here.

We may be done, but you're the one who needs to get help. You don't get to be against genocide if you're also against EVERYTHING anyone does to fight it, especially when it is effective.

I guess intentionally targeting civilians is just bad to me or something, I must be some kind of shitlib.

You still haven't provided even a single source of this. The Haaretz article doesn't count (Not because it is Haaretz, though that should be enough) but because it isn't even a source FOR ANYTHING. IT 403's. It's a dead fucking link

A literal Israeli newspaper article about the blockade that has done the most economic damage to Israel to date as a source for how ineptly the people who have done the most damage to Israel are not doing it right. Oh, and it 403's, currently.

Great sourcing there.

There is no ongoing civil war, too. It was won completely by Ansarallah against the puppet regime that Saudi Arabia and the US tried to install through forced starvation. This bullshit "Ongoing civil war" is just another example of refusing to acknowledge the winning side when people don't like the fact they won.

Your source above 403's and is specifically a (Liberal, to be sure) Zionist source.

The few times I've seen US media claim that the ships didn't match, they did match to Israeli ownership, one step removed.

Why are you so certain of something that is literally part of the debate that you don't understand why others disagree with you?

You're like a quantum anti-genocidal person. You post against it, but no one fighting the genocide is perfect enough for you to the point that you readily believe the people committing genocide as sources against the people actually trying to fight the genocide.

In that vein, It is strange to me that you advocate against one of the two MOST EFFECTIVE actions taken against Israel to date: The blockade that has done immense financial pain to Israel and bankrupted one of their ports.

And why do you believe that they're attacking civilians at random instead of ships that match the specifications they've given for their blockade?

EDIT: And no, I disagree with your assertion they are attacking civilians at random.

The fact that you intentionally misread my disagreement at that to pithily call me a Zionist is just bad rhetoric designed to appeal to people that already agree with you. Good job defending genocide. (See what I did there?)

EDIT 2: The two actions that have done the most harm against Israel is Hezbollah's support front that targeted Israel's sensors for Iron dome that displaced up to 100,000 Israeli's in the north, And Yemens blockade that has incredibly damaged Israels economy to almost the breaking point and bankrupted the Eilat port.

You're not against the genocide, you're just against anything that is effective against it. I hope you get help.

You also still haven't sourced the "Attacking civilians" claim that you seem to want to use to attack me personally.

Also, what do you think the US would do to a civilian ship in international waters that the US believes is carrying Iranian Oil? What do you think they'd do if the cargo ship ignored the USN in international waters and refused to allow boarding operations?

EDIT 3: Do you think the blockade of merchant ships in the US Civil War was ineffective? Do you think that the USN firing upon civilian merchant ships trying to take cotton to the UK was morally wrong?

I'm not simping for them. They're not on MY side. They're doing what they can to stop an actual ongoing genocide, which I give them credit for. But, I'm guessing that you would accuse FDR of simping for the Soviet Union.

Frankly, I think that after the US and Saudi Arabia tried for years to starve Yemen that they deserve to be left the fuck alone.

Also, Ansarallah have demonstrably lied less than the people saying that the ships they attack weren't associated with Israel.

It's interesting that you would accuse people who have the standard of "I give more credence to sources that have demonstrably lied less" as simping. It makes it absolutely clear that you care more about propaganda then you do about the truth.

What's wrong with owning a ship in Liberia?

Do you think most ships 'Owned in Liberia' are owned by Liberian citizens?

Gave an example where the Houthis attacked and killed people on a ship that had nothing to do with Israel.

Who owned the ship? Don't insult my intelligence and say Liberia.

When you cry racism about every thing is loses meaning.

This isn't everything. It's an intentional racist term intended to delegitimize a government by equating it with a select group of people. There. You learned something today.

Or should I start calling every Israeli a Netanyahu, every American a Kennedy, and every British person a Starmer?

'The Kennedy's seized another oil tanker on international waters today claiming it contained Iranian oil'

Does that seem like an okay headline to you?

EDIT: Maybe you'd like being called a Kennedy. Maybe Bushie would be a better example for you.

Goddamn.

I thought about replying to the wall of text that was entirely lies but just got tired at the thought.

Well done.

'Owned in Liberia'

I like how you stuck that in the middle. Just trying to sneak it in a bunch of other stuff that is unquestionable.

You know that that isn't clever, right?

It's obvious what you are doing, and why.

I guess I shouldn't expect better from someone using the racist term 'Houthis' for the government of Yemen.

This has been true for over half a year at this point.

It is a very well known fact of polling right now.

Asking for a source at this point is more likely to be a bad faith attempt to throw doubt on a well known true thing then it is to be an actual request for information.

Israel. Which is clear if you've read even one of their announcements of the blockade.

And calling the leadership of Yemen Houthis is like calling any US person a Kennedy.