This intellectually lazy domino theory being pushed by both Biden and McConnell is quite worrying. McConnell's justification of rebuilding our industrial base is the military-industrial complex in...
This intellectually lazy domino theory being pushed by both Biden and McConnell is quite worrying. McConnell's justification of rebuilding our industrial base is the military-industrial complex in plain English.
Yeah, it's weird. Linking Ukraine with Israel doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And here's Biden claiming that Israel is somehow existentially threatened, which is nonsense from a military...
Yeah, it's weird. Linking Ukraine with Israel doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And here's Biden claiming that Israel is somehow existentially threatened, which is nonsense from a military perspective. Hamas isn't Russia.
It's been vastly overshadowed by the israel-gaza conflict, but Biden is (rightly) concerned about a wider war.. Hezbollah - the iran-aligned government of Lebanon - has started firing across the...
And here's Biden claiming that Israel is somehow existentially threatened, which is nonsense from a military perspective. Hamas isn't Russia.
Hezbollah - the iran-aligned government of Lebanon - has started firing across the border into Northern Israel. The Houthis in Yemen - also backed by Iran - recently fired some cruise missiles in the direction of Israel that were intercepted by US naval vessels.
No, Hamas isn't Russia. But it's not just Hamas, here.
Israel has a highly competent, organized, and well-funded military. There is no reason to believe that they aren't already capable of defending themselves against a few stray missiles, and the...
Israel has a highly competent, organized, and well-funded military. There is no reason to believe that they aren't already capable of defending themselves against a few stray missiles, and the nature of the conflict they're fighting does not require especially expensive weaponry. Israel also asked for $10B and Biden put forward $14B with $3.7B going to the State Department's activities in Israel and Jordan (why the hell the State Department needs that much and for what, I don't know) (edit: article I read had misleading wording, most of it is military funding routed through the State department. Still somewhat suspect I would say to go above the requested amount and to involve the State Department in financing).
Tech to defend against "a few stray missiles" is some of the most expensive, complicated, and difficult tech there is. The iron dome, which is only hitting unguided rockets, is one of the most...
There is no reason to believe that they aren't already capable of defending themselves against a few stray missiles, and the nature of the conflict they're fighting does not require especially expensive weaponry.
Tech to defend against "a few stray missiles" is some of the most expensive, complicated, and difficult tech there is. The iron dome, which is only hitting unguided rockets, is one of the most expensive countermeasure systems to operate in the world.
Iron Dome is the ideal system for defense against Hamas artillery rockets. The system was designed to counter the militant rocket threat, is not expensive, and is widely fielded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#Cost and from the quick summary up top- $50 million per battery[2] $100,000–150,000 per interception[3] and again, this is vs unguided artillery rockets,...
Estimates of cost per interception have ranged from like 20-150k. More recent estimates put it at around 40-50k. That means just 1 billion dollars would buy Israel protection against 20,000 missiles.
Estimates of cost per interception have ranged from like 20-150k. More recent estimates put it at around 40-50k. That means just 1 billion dollars would buy Israel protection against 20,000 missiles.
You keep using missiles and rockets interchangeably and while i'm not trying to be difficult they're really extremely different things, so for the sake of clarity, yes it can stop 20,000 rockets...
against 20,000 missiles.
You keep using missiles and rockets interchangeably and while i'm not trying to be difficult they're really extremely different things, so for the sake of clarity, yes it can stop 20,000 rockets (which cost roughly $800-1000) for "just" 1 billion dollars, assuming no new batteries.
Again, these are artillery unguided rockets fired from far away. This is a vastly different system from cruise missile defense systems. The iron dome CANNOT stop any such weapon.
I don't say this to try to browbeat you, but there are a couple of misconceptions in your post. First, it's not at all suspect to transfer money - even military aid - through the State Department....
I don't say this to try to browbeat you, but there are a couple of misconceptions in your post. First, it's not at all suspect to transfer money - even military aid - through the State Department. This isn't some kind of trick, it's pretty standard practice.
Second, it's more than "a few stray missiles." I recognize you were exaggerating for effect, and that's not a problem, but the scale is larger than you may have realized. Hamas claims to have fired five thousand rockets on the first day of the conflict; if you take the Israeli's number, Hamas only fired 2,500.
And finally - I take your point that the Israeli army is reasonably well trained and equipped, but look at the struggles the US (massively larger, better armed) faced in their own two-front war.
I'd like to clarify that what I'm arguing is that there's a militarily sound reason for providing aid to Israel. I'm not commenting on whether it's a politically or ethically sound decision.
The truly suspect part for me is the Biden admin giving $4B over-asking to Israel. I wouldn't say that routing money through the State Department is suspect in the sense that they're doing...
This isn't some kind of trick, it's pretty standard practice.
The truly suspect part for me is the Biden admin giving $4B over-asking to Israel. I wouldn't say that routing money through the State Department is suspect in the sense that they're doing something sketchy, but it's not clear why the State Department needs to be directly involved in military financing unless the goal is to avoid Congressional involvement in the details of specific aid packages. There might be an argument that Congress may not be dynamic enough to address certain issues, but between more and less of foreign policy being run by unelected officeholders I would choose less.
struggles the US (massively larger, better armed) faced in their own two-front war.
Which two-front war are you referring to?
Whether it's militarily sound or not depends entirely on one's risk tolerance. Any amount, in a literal sense, can be justified if your risk tolerance is low enough. I don't know if the amount we're sending matters too much financially, but I don't think Israel's risk profile is that high if they don't do anything egregious. Sending more than they need may embolden them.
In full seriousness, State is routinely involved in the delivery of these types of aid packages. It doesn't avoid congressional involvmenet, it doesn't avoid oversight, it's not unusual, there's...
I wouldn't say that routing money through the State Department is suspect in the sense that they're doing something sketchy, but it's not clear why the State Department needs to be directly involved in military financing unless the goal is to avoid Congressional involvement in the details of specific aid packages.
In full seriousness, State is routinely involved in the delivery of these types of aid packages. It doesn't avoid congressional involvmenet, it doesn't avoid oversight, it's not unusual, there's nothing weird here. I understand that it looks a little strange at first glance, but its the norm, not the exception. I really don't know what else I can say here.
The amount they usually handle is around $6B/year. I'm not claiming any wrongdoing, I'd just prefer not to see it. Just because it's established practice doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned....
The amount they usually handle is around $6B/year. I'm not claiming any wrongdoing, I'd just prefer not to see it. Just because it's established practice doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned. Small things like these that are left unquestioned due to bureaucratic inertia often add up to something that is problematic (whether you believe it's problematic or not is fine).
Citing CATO Institute on reasons why or why not to spend taxpayer money isn't exactly persuasive. I think the aid is centered around concerns of Israel fighting a two front war, which seems...
and the nature of the conflict they're fighting does not require especially expensive weaponry.
Citing CATO Institute on reasons why or why not to spend taxpayer money isn't exactly persuasive.
I think the aid is centered around concerns of Israel fighting a two front war, which seems extremely likely if they move forward with a ground invasion.
The State Department is probably shoring up in Jordan since they moved SOJTF-L HQ there and because it's more stable than a lot of American Middle East partners and easier to evac State Dept...
why the hell the State Department needs that much and for what, I don't know
The State Department is probably shoring up in Jordan since they moved SOJTF-L HQ there and because it's more stable than a lot of American Middle East partners and easier to evac State Dept employees to than Kuwait, due to proximity if nothing else. It takes money to build up a whole new compound.
It makes sense as far as Israeli aid being harder for far-right Republicans to oppose, so tying them together in one package raises the odds of securing both.
It makes sense as far as Israeli aid being harder for far-right Republicans to oppose, so tying them together in one package raises the odds of securing both.
I was reading the Guardian earlier about the war. In the same paragraph it was talking about Biden giving military kit to Israel to help defend them, then in the next it was talking about aid...
I was reading the Guardian earlier about the war. In the same paragraph it was talking about Biden giving military kit to Israel to help defend them, then in the next it was talking about aid going to Gaza.
Make up your mind. You can either give more bullets to the gunman, or aid to the person shot. You can't continue to give both equally.
Your analogy aside, why can't you give aid to both? Not sure whether you read the details of the proposed aid package to Israel, but the majority is intended for support to missile defense.
Your analogy aside, why can't you give aid to both? Not sure whether you read the details of the proposed aid package to Israel, but the majority is intended for support to missile defense.
Oh you can give to both. It just read so weirdly with little detail on the packages, that it felt like that's how it was working. Here's some bullets and some bandages. Also, totally wrote the...
Oh you can give to both. It just read so weirdly with little detail on the packages, that it felt like that's how it was working.
Here's some bullets and some bandages.
Also, totally wrote the message with three hours sleep.
The only reason Ukraine has survived is because of the billions of dollars in surplus equipment and munitions sourced from American stockpiles, more military aid than all other countries combined....
The only reason Ukraine has survived is because of the billions of dollars in surplus equipment and munitions sourced from American stockpiles, more military aid than all other countries combined. The MIC has plenty of issues, but it occasionally does come in handy defeating dictatorships on the battlefield (directly or indirectly).
The military-industrial complex can literally never be justified. It drives up costs, making us less capable for every dollar we spend, and incentivizes conflict. We can still have a strong...
The military-industrial complex can literally never be justified. It drives up costs, making us less capable for every dollar we spend, and incentivizes conflict. We can still have a strong military and fund conflicts we perceive as necessary without viewing military spending as a way to support the economy.
This aid to Israel was so surprising to me. We already fund a major part of their military. I think I'd be looking at threatening to cut back support as leverage to keep them from commiting...
This aid to Israel was so surprising to me. We already fund a major part of their military. I think I'd be looking at threatening to cut back support as leverage to keep them from commiting genocide rather than offering more to help.
It's my perspective that using the term genocide to refer to the Israeli government's actions towards the Gaza strip dilutes the term almost to the point of meaninglessness, and is wrong. Genocide...
It's my perspective that using the term genocide to refer to the Israeli government's actions towards the Gaza strip dilutes the term almost to the point of meaninglessness, and is wrong.
Genocide means killing large numbers of people with the intention of destroying that group. Israel has shown repeatedly that it is not their intention to murder civilians. Whether or not Israel's definition of acceptable civilian casualties while fighting a terrorist group that conduts military operations from civilian buildings is a reasonable place to argue, but claiming Israel's goal is to eliminate the Palestinian population in Gaza is not.
Something can still be bad and wrong without being a genocide. Getting into the nuances of what the correct term would be for this conflict (and the decades to centuries of lead up, depending on what starting point you pick) isn't a place where I feel we could have a productive discussion, so to keep within Tildes' culture, I'll stop here.
Assuming in good faith you didn't intend this to come off as rudely as I initially took it, here is my justification as to why it's not as simple as "sparking white wine" vs "champagne"...
Assuming in good faith you didn't intend this to come off as rudely as I initially took it, here is my justification as to why it's not as simple as "sparking white wine" vs "champagne" (ultimately the same thing grown in a different place).
Words have meaning. A felony is worse than a misdemeanor, and they warrant different responses. If Israel was genuinely working to genocide Palestinians, then yes, that would validate cutting aid and applying international pressure to stop them.
The other reason I protested semantics is that people who misapply the term genocide to the conflict often then go on to claim what Israel is doing to Palestine is as bad as what Germany did perpetrating the holocaust -- the term genocide was originally coined after the holocaust to describe that scale of atrocity in the hopes of punishing perpetrators. That is (we're straying further into my opinion here -- I'm trying to explain why I think the semantics are important) a mild form of antisemitism; using one of the Jew's worst tragedies against them as a cudgel because they are Jews, even when the facts of the matter are that organizations like Hamas and PIJ (supported by a non-trivial portion of Gaza's civilian population) do genuinely have a goal of all Jews in the region being dead or gone, and they work towards completing that aim.
I 100% meant it tongue-in-cheek. It literally isn't genocide but is war crimes. A distinction that's both important and not that important (because war crimes are bad). I broadly agree with your...
I 100% meant it tongue-in-cheek. It literally isn't genocide but is war crimes. A distinction that's both important and not that important (because war crimes are bad). I broadly agree with your comment.
Considering the U.S. govt's typical attitude to Arab populations, I can't say I'm too surprised they wouldn't care about the mass slaughter of them by an ally of theirs. Wouldn't be the first time.
Considering the U.S. govt's typical attitude to Arab populations, I can't say I'm too surprised they wouldn't care about the mass slaughter of them by an ally of theirs. Wouldn't be the first time.
This type of post is immensely frustrating. If you look at the list of top recipients of US aid, you'll see that 5 of the 10 are countries traditionally considered "Arab"*. Then you have President...
This type of post is immensely frustrating.
If you look at the list of top recipients of US aid, you'll see that 5 of the 10 are countries traditionally considered "Arab"*.
Then you have President Biden repeatedly urging Israel to reduce civilian casualties in a specific reference to America's own failures in the war on terror.
Then he added a warning. “Justice must be done. But I caution this – while you feel that rage, don’t be consumed by it. After 9/11, we were enraged in the United States. While we sought justice and got justice, we also made mistakes.”
The US government's actions (over the course of 20 years of war) resulted in the deaths of many civilians in the middle east. If you want to have a nuanced conversation on whether the US' war was poorly prosecuted, I'm here for it. But I don't think there's anything to support the assertion that the US government just doesn't give a shit.
* (I'm including Afghanistan in there, even though they aren't Arab, because I'm guessing you were thinking about them in your comment.)
The whole comment was the quote minus one sentence which was this: “ To play Devil's advocate, Joe Brandon did actually say this about the situation:” The rest of the thread including the claim...
The whole comment was the quote minus one sentence which was this: “ To play Devil's advocate, Joe Brandon did actually say this about the situation:”
The rest of the thread including the claim that Biden never mourned the loss of Palestine life is still up.
Do you really think that’s what it was? I thought it was a relatively common meme that even the administration themselves has embraced? They literally tweeted the Dark Brandon thing themselves!
Do you really think that’s what it was? I thought it was a relatively common meme that even the administration themselves has embraced? They literally tweeted the Dark Brandon thing themselves!
If you look on this page: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dark-brandon You can see that the Biden administration has used the meme multiple times. I guess that’s the problem with this website, you...
Even now that I learned about the “dark brandon” meme and the origin of the “let’s go brandon” meme, I don’t see how anyone would know that you meant the “dark brandon” meme, versus the original...
Even now that I learned about the “dark brandon” meme and the origin of the “let’s go brandon” meme, I don’t see how anyone would know that you meant the “dark brandon” meme, versus the original one?
It’s easy to overestimate how familiar other people are with memes. Better to avoid.
Yeah, I suppose so. Regardless, I’m glad you posted the quote because I feel that a lot of people are criticizing the Biden admin for the wrong reasons.
Yeah, I suppose so.
Regardless, I’m glad you posted the quote because I feel that a lot of people are criticizing the Biden admin for the wrong reasons.
Well, I didn’t post the quote :) I think this is a lesson in how difficult moderation can be. Determining whether something is an insult or not can require obscure knowledge, and meaning changes...
Well, I didn’t post the quote :)
I think this is a lesson in how difficult moderation can be. Determining whether something is an insult or not can require obscure knowledge, and meaning changes over time.
But if it’s hard for the moderator, it’s also likely to be hard for other people to understand too. Someone could easily take it the wrong way.
Well you know what, I’m glad you replied even if you didn’t post the quote. This is off topic of the main thread but I totally agree with what you’ve said. It is very hard to communicate over text...
Well you know what, I’m glad you replied even if you didn’t post the quote.
This is off topic of the main thread but I totally agree with what you’ve said. It is very hard to communicate over text and I know I can personally do a better job of being more considerate about how I word things.
Sometimes it isn't anything about the comment by itself, but just a judgement call on deciding when and where to nip a conversation before it starts to go off the rails and people get nasty....
Sometimes it isn't anything about the comment by itself, but just a judgement call on deciding when and where to nip a conversation before it starts to go off the rails and people get nasty.
Generally it's not worth taking personally. If you're an otherwise trusted member of the site but something about a specific post (or general conduct) has started to become especially problematic Deimos will usually message you directly to see if you're willing to change how you're engaging with the site.
Though I assume the volume of takes that have been flying around since this conflict started are probably keeping him a little busy.
That’s good to know. Thanks for the info. I generally feel like I agree with Deimos and it is his website, so he can honestly take down comments for any reason he wants to.
That’s good to know. Thanks for the info.
I generally feel like I agree with Deimos and it is his website, so he can honestly take down comments for any reason he wants to.
This intellectually lazy domino theory being pushed by both Biden and McConnell is quite worrying. McConnell's justification of rebuilding our industrial base is the military-industrial complex in plain English.
Yeah, it's weird. Linking Ukraine with Israel doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And here's Biden claiming that Israel is somehow existentially threatened, which is nonsense from a military perspective. Hamas isn't Russia.
It's been vastly overshadowed by the israel-gaza conflict, but Biden is (rightly) concerned about a wider war..
Hezbollah - the iran-aligned government of Lebanon - has started firing across the border into Northern Israel. The Houthis in Yemen - also backed by Iran - recently fired some cruise missiles in the direction of Israel that were intercepted by US naval vessels.
No, Hamas isn't Russia. But it's not just Hamas, here.
Israel has a highly competent, organized, and well-funded military. There is no reason to believe that they aren't already capable of defending themselves against a few stray missiles, and the nature of the conflict they're fighting does not require especially expensive weaponry. Israel also asked for $10B and Biden put forward $14B with $3.7B going to the State Department's
activities in Israel and Jordan (why the hell the State Department needs that much and for what, I don't know)(edit: article I read had misleading wording, most of it is military funding routed through the State department. Still somewhat suspect I would say to go above the requested amount and to involve the State Department in financing).Tech to defend against "a few stray missiles" is some of the most expensive, complicated, and difficult tech there is. The iron dome, which is only hitting unguided rockets, is one of the most expensive countermeasure systems to operate in the world.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/can-united-states-equip-israel-while-simultaneously-equipping-ukraine-and-taiwan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome#Cost
and from the quick summary up top-
$50 million per battery[2]
$100,000–150,000 per interception[3]
and again, this is vs unguided artillery rockets, not guided missile systems.
Estimates of cost per interception have ranged from like 20-150k. More recent estimates put it at around 40-50k. That means just 1 billion dollars would buy Israel protection against 20,000 missiles.
You keep using missiles and rockets interchangeably and while i'm not trying to be difficult they're really extremely different things, so for the sake of clarity, yes it can stop 20,000 rockets (which cost roughly $800-1000) for "just" 1 billion dollars, assuming no new batteries.
Again, these are artillery unguided rockets fired from far away. This is a vastly different system from cruise missile defense systems. The iron dome CANNOT stop any such weapon.
You claimed the Iron Dome was expensive, and I was just responding to that.
I don't say this to try to browbeat you, but there are a couple of misconceptions in your post. First, it's not at all suspect to transfer money - even military aid - through the State Department. This isn't some kind of trick, it's pretty standard practice.
Second, it's more than "a few stray missiles." I recognize you were exaggerating for effect, and that's not a problem, but the scale is larger than you may have realized. Hamas claims to have fired five thousand rockets on the first day of the conflict; if you take the Israeli's number, Hamas only fired 2,500.
And finally - I take your point that the Israeli army is reasonably well trained and equipped, but look at the struggles the US (massively larger, better armed) faced in their own two-front war.
I'd like to clarify that what I'm arguing is that there's a militarily sound reason for providing aid to Israel. I'm not commenting on whether it's a politically or ethically sound decision.
The truly suspect part for me is the Biden admin giving $4B over-asking to Israel. I wouldn't say that routing money through the State Department is suspect in the sense that they're doing something sketchy, but it's not clear why the State Department needs to be directly involved in military financing unless the goal is to avoid Congressional involvement in the details of specific aid packages. There might be an argument that Congress may not be dynamic enough to address certain issues, but between more and less of foreign policy being run by unelected officeholders I would choose less.
Which two-front war are you referring to?
Whether it's militarily sound or not depends entirely on one's risk tolerance. Any amount, in a literal sense, can be justified if your risk tolerance is low enough. I don't know if the amount we're sending matters too much financially, but I don't think Israel's risk profile is that high if they don't do anything egregious. Sending more than they need may embolden them.
In full seriousness, State is routinely involved in the delivery of these types of aid packages. It doesn't avoid congressional involvmenet, it doesn't avoid oversight, it's not unusual, there's nothing weird here. I understand that it looks a little strange at first glance, but its the norm, not the exception. I really don't know what else I can say here.
The amount they usually handle is around $6B/year. I'm not claiming any wrongdoing, I'd just prefer not to see it. Just because it's established practice doesn't mean it shouldn't be questioned. Small things like these that are left unquestioned due to bureaucratic inertia often add up to something that is problematic (whether you believe it's problematic or not is fine).
Citing CATO Institute on reasons why or why not to spend taxpayer money isn't exactly persuasive.
I think the aid is centered around concerns of Israel fighting a two front war, which seems extremely likely if they move forward with a ground invasion.
The State Department is probably shoring up in Jordan since they moved SOJTF-L HQ there and because it's more stable than a lot of American Middle East partners and easier to evac State Dept employees to than Kuwait, due to proximity if nothing else. It takes money to build up a whole new compound.
It makes sense as far as Israeli aid being harder for far-right Republicans to oppose, so tying them together in one package raises the odds of securing both.
I was reading the Guardian earlier about the war. In the same paragraph it was talking about Biden giving military kit to Israel to help defend them, then in the next it was talking about aid going to Gaza.
Make up your mind. You can either give more bullets to the gunman, or aid to the person shot. You can't continue to give both equally.
Your analogy aside, why can't you give aid to both? Not sure whether you read the details of the proposed aid package to Israel, but the majority is intended for support to missile defense.
Oh you can give to both. It just read so weirdly with little detail on the packages, that it felt like that's how it was working.
Here's some bullets and some bandages.
Also, totally wrote the message with three hours sleep.
The only reason Ukraine has survived is because of the billions of dollars in surplus equipment and munitions sourced from American stockpiles, more military aid than all other countries combined. The MIC has plenty of issues, but it occasionally does come in handy defeating dictatorships on the battlefield (directly or indirectly).
Problem is that it more often comes in handy when creating dictatorships.
BUT, in an American viewpoint, it creates dictators friendly to US government interests.
The military-industrial complex can literally never be justified. It drives up costs, making us less capable for every dollar we spend, and incentivizes conflict. We can still have a strong military and fund conflicts we perceive as necessary without viewing military spending as a way to support the economy.
This aid to Israel was so surprising to me. We already fund a major part of their military. I think I'd be looking at threatening to cut back support as leverage to keep them from commiting genocide rather than offering more to help.
It's my perspective that using the term genocide to refer to the Israeli government's actions towards the Gaza strip dilutes the term almost to the point of meaninglessness, and is wrong.
Genocide means killing large numbers of people with the intention of destroying that group. Israel has shown repeatedly that it is not their intention to murder civilians. Whether or not Israel's definition of acceptable civilian casualties while fighting a terrorist group that conduts military operations from civilian buildings is a reasonable place to argue, but claiming Israel's goal is to eliminate the Palestinian population in Gaza is not.
Something can still be bad and wrong without being a genocide. Getting into the nuances of what the correct term would be for this conflict (and the decades to centuries of lead up, depending on what starting point you pick) isn't a place where I feel we could have a productive discussion, so to keep within Tildes' culture, I'll stop here.
Yes, it's not genocide - it's just sparkling war crimes.
Assuming in good faith you didn't intend this to come off as rudely as I initially took it, here is my justification as to why it's not as simple as "sparking white wine" vs "champagne" (ultimately the same thing grown in a different place).
Words have meaning. A felony is worse than a misdemeanor, and they warrant different responses. If Israel was genuinely working to genocide Palestinians, then yes, that would validate cutting aid and applying international pressure to stop them.
The other reason I protested semantics is that people who misapply the term genocide to the conflict often then go on to claim what Israel is doing to Palestine is as bad as what Germany did perpetrating the holocaust -- the term genocide was originally coined after the holocaust to describe that scale of atrocity in the hopes of punishing perpetrators. That is (we're straying further into my opinion here -- I'm trying to explain why I think the semantics are important) a mild form of antisemitism; using one of the Jew's worst tragedies against them as a cudgel because they are Jews, even when the facts of the matter are that organizations like Hamas and PIJ (supported by a non-trivial portion of Gaza's civilian population) do genuinely have a goal of all Jews in the region being dead or gone, and they work towards completing that aim.
I 100% meant it tongue-in-cheek. It literally isn't genocide but is war crimes. A distinction that's both important and not that important (because war crimes are bad). I broadly agree with your comment.
Considering the U.S. govt's typical attitude to Arab populations, I can't say I'm too surprised they wouldn't care about the mass slaughter of them by an ally of theirs. Wouldn't be the first time.
This type of post is immensely frustrating.
If you look at the list of top recipients of US aid, you'll see that 5 of the 10 are countries traditionally considered "Arab"*.
Then you have President Biden repeatedly urging Israel to reduce civilian casualties in a specific reference to America's own failures in the war on terror.
The US government's actions (over the course of 20 years of war) resulted in the deaths of many civilians in the middle east. If you want to have a nuanced conversation on whether the US' war was poorly prosecuted, I'm here for it. But I don't think there's anything to support the assertion that the US government just doesn't give a shit.
* (I'm including Afghanistan in there, even though they aren't Arab, because I'm guessing you were thinking about them in your comment.)
Careful, I posted the same quote you did and my comment got removed by the site admin.
I doubt it was for the quote, which seems fine. Maybe for something else in the same comment, or the whole thread was removed.
The whole comment was the quote minus one sentence which was this: “ To play Devil's advocate, Joe Brandon did actually say this about the situation:”
The rest of the thread including the claim that Biden never mourned the loss of Palestine life is still up.
Well, there you go. Mangling people’s names is childish name-calling and I hope we can do better than that here.
Do you really think that’s what it was? I thought it was a relatively common meme that even the administration themselves has embraced? They literally tweeted the Dark Brandon thing themselves!
Honestly, I’m not all that familiar with the meme. Some kind of insult Republicans use a lot? But yeah, that’s my guess.
It's been ironically reclaimed by Biden's campaign and Democratic rank-and-file.
If you look on this page: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/dark-brandon
You can see that the Biden administration has used the meme multiple times.
I guess that’s the problem with this website, you really have no idea why certain things get removed.
Even now that I learned about the “dark brandon” meme and the origin of the “let’s go brandon” meme, I don’t see how anyone would know that you meant the “dark brandon” meme, versus the original one?
It’s easy to overestimate how familiar other people are with memes. Better to avoid.
Yeah, I suppose so.
Regardless, I’m glad you posted the quote because I feel that a lot of people are criticizing the Biden admin for the wrong reasons.
Well, I didn’t post the quote :)
I think this is a lesson in how difficult moderation can be. Determining whether something is an insult or not can require obscure knowledge, and meaning changes over time.
But if it’s hard for the moderator, it’s also likely to be hard for other people to understand too. Someone could easily take it the wrong way.
Well you know what, I’m glad you replied even if you didn’t post the quote.
This is off topic of the main thread but I totally agree with what you’ve said. It is very hard to communicate over text and I know I can personally do a better job of being more considerate about how I word things.
Sometimes it isn't anything about the comment by itself, but just a judgement call on deciding when and where to nip a conversation before it starts to go off the rails and people get nasty.
Generally it's not worth taking personally. If you're an otherwise trusted member of the site but something about a specific post (or general conduct) has started to become especially problematic Deimos will usually message you directly to see if you're willing to change how you're engaging with the site.
Though I assume the volume of takes that have been flying around since this conflict started are probably keeping him a little busy.
That’s good to know. Thanks for the info.
I generally feel like I agree with Deimos and it is his website, so he can honestly take down comments for any reason he wants to.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.