Including Montana.

I’m assuming you’re all talking about the Uyghur genocide. I wouldn’t downplay it for a second, but the simple reality is that they’re not being exterminated through a rapid act of carpet bombing by high-powered airstrikes, the degree and brutality of the killing going on in Gaza right now is unlike anything I’ve seen in my entire life. To cleave to the point here, which is, “do other ongoing genocides exceed this one in terms of killing of civilians”.

It may be the case that the long-term death toll is higher, considering how many years it’s been happening, though downplaying what’s happening in Gaza on that basis, I mean, let’s not wait for that comparison to flip.

Looks like that “live updates” link broke - here’s a persistent link https://turkiye.un.org/en/253313-gaza-unprecedented-and-unparalleled-civilian-death-toll-guterres

You referencing that MEMRI video? If so, do some serious source checking on it.

We’re seeking something like 20-25k dead in the last 6 weeks - 1/57th of the entire population killed or wounded. What are you thinking of that exceeds that?

Any real actions from the UN have to come from the UN Security Council, which is paralyzed by the veto power of its permanent members (US, UK, Russia, France, China).

The video suggested that they coulda mighta maybe planted evidence to disguise war crimes.

It’s not just rearranged, it’s different stuff.

Maybe the U.S. upvoted that to discredit China /j

Russia arguably gains via ties with Iran and decrease of U.S. influence in the region. But, as far as news, reporting, information are concerned, it’s pretty irrelevant, if there’s actual propaganda then let it be shown and debunked, and even Iranian RT right now is barely saying anything surprising to anyone who’s been watching what’s happening on the ground.

It’s grotesque to me people that keep repeating this. The accusations of genocide almost universally relate to after Oct. 7. And population growth over a 60 year stretch does not discredit incitement to genocide or actions taken to attempt genocide.

I will never understand how people have the nerve to leave comments about things they don’t understand or know anything about.

“He hasn’t gotten”? He drafted the request:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-drafts-100-billion-foreign-aid-package-including/story?id=104059871

write an executive understanding order, which again can not set new conditions,

He is bound by existing conditions, e.g. the ratification of the Geneva Convention, not to facilitate genocide. He is currently being sued for this.

edit: To be sure, the reason I wrote this is contentious, the actual scope of EOs (not to be confused with a private MOU, which isn’t applicable nor legally binding) is contentious. The reason we have the executive branch to begin with, in terms of checks and balances, is to ensure there can be a refusal to implement. Although it’s a non-issue in this case since he’s asking for it, it would only become an issue with a 2/3 majority ready to force legislation through and with him actually opposed to it. Disclaimer, not a lawyer, just know some fundamentals.

He can veto the legislation, and (more contentiously) he can issue executive orders blocking the implementation of the legislation. Or least of all, use his human mouth to speak words against the legislation (the “bully pulpit”).

Truth is the truth. Doesn’t take much imagination to see why that type of idea is stigmatized so much.

I don’t think one state runs the other. IMO, the same organization runs both, plus other European colonial powers and proxy/puppet states. It’s basically impossible otherwise to account for this kind of like, inexplicable synchronicity that they have with absolutely indefensible policies.

Yeah, I saw it.

Well, first off, apologies for writing an essay in this comment, but I did a deep dive checking all my facts here.

On 26 May Nasser declared, “The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel.”

So, right off the bat, simply pointing to a seemingly offensive intent does not enter a “preemptive war” into a legal grey area under international law. The UN Charter (Article 2 (4)) simply prohibits the initiation of armed conflict, absent a UN Security Council resolution authorizing an enforcement action.

Second, this is naturally a huge oversimplification to portray the origins of the conflict as “preemptive defensive attack”. As you’ll typically find with this kind of “let’s destroy Israel for no reason!” rationale being painted over Arab countries.

The actual origin of the conflict goes back to the mid 1950s, with the Suez Crisis. Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal on July 26, 1956, prompting Western powers to try to find a way to unseat Nasser. Israel invaded the Sinai on Oct 29 1956 - the UN Security Council convened the next day, US submitted a draft resolution calling for Israel to withdraw behind the 1949 armistice lines, which Britain and France vetoed and then sent in an air attack the next day. Security Council passed resolution 119, which called for an emergency special session of the UN GA, which passed resolution 997 (ES-I), calling for an immediate ceasefire, withdrawal of all forces behind the 1949 armistice lines, arms embargo, and the reopening of the Suez Canal. Soon after, they passed resolution 1001, establishing the UNEF force to perform peacekeeping throughout the Sinai, prompting the withdrawal of British and French forces by the end of the year, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces by March 1957. This was the source of the general tension prior to the 1967 war - the “tripartite conspiracy” between Britain, France and Israel, to coerce control of the Suez Canal via an invasion of the Sinai.

Going into the 1960s - the first key event is Israel invading Jordan in the Samu Incident, on Nov 13 1966 (and, as usual, they destroyed everyone’s houses in the village of Samu). Yitzhak Rabin, then the Chief of General Staff in Israel, declared “the moment is coming when we will march on Damascus to overthrow the Syrian government” in response to the Ba’ath party coming into power in Syria and sponsoring guerilla Palestinian groups attacking Israel. Israel shot down 6 MIG-21s from the Syrian Air Force on April 7th. Moshe Dayan, Israeli Defense Minister, attested to a reporter that they were purposefully instigating clashes on the Syrian border basically by having a tractor cross territorial lines until troops on the other side became aggravated. An apparently false report was delivered on May 13 to Nasser from the USSR, that Israel had been amassing its army on the Syrian border, and the next day he ordered the troop movement into the Sinai, on May 13/14. All these things indicated a sense that Israel was escalating hostilities and prompted a defensive troop movement from Egypt, and Nasser’s vice president requested the UNEF peacekeeping force evacuate in the case of hostilities breaking out. Israeli planes, soon after (May 17/18), had fired warning shots and “buzzed” a UNEF plane to attempt to force it to land inside Israel, claiming it had violated Israel’s air space (despite that it was flying within Egyptian territory, from El Arish to Gaza). At this point, on May 23, Nasser closed the Straits of Tiran on its eastern border to Israeli ships, a contentious closure that the U.S. maintained was illegal, but predicated on agreements (namely this) Egypt was not yet a party to (see also this re: the legality) - and Nasser suggested adjudicating the issue in the ICC. Egyptian radio was publicly announcing during this general period whole period that they were on “maximum alert” for an Israeli attack. The “Waiting period”, the article you linked, describes exactly that - Egypt moved its troops into a defensive position and waited for three weeks in anticipation of an Israeli attack, which materialized as Operation Focus, a surprise attack on the air forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria, the first clear act of hostilities.

To provide some key quotes to this point:

In another 1972 interview, Mordechai Bentov, a former member of the Israeli ruling coalition during the June war, stated: “This whole story about the threat of extermination was totally contrived and then elaborated on afterwards to justify the annexation of new Arab territories.”

Despite these moves by Nasser, Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban wrote in his autobiography “Nasser did not want war; he wanted victory without war”. James Reston of the New York Times wrote from Cairo on June 4th that: “Cairo does not want war and it is certainly not ready for war.” In 1968 Yitzak Rabin said: “I do not think Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent to the Sinai in May [1967] would not have been sufficient to launch an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.” In 1982, Israeli Prime Minister Begin admitted: “In June, 1967, we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai did not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him.” Reinforcing the position that Egypt was not prepared for war with Israel, Egypt then had 50,000 of its crack troops tied down in Yemen.

Some sources: https://www.palestinechronicle.com/the-six-day-war-and-a-possible-resolution/

https://web.stanford.edu/group/tomzgroup/pmwiki/uploads/0345-1967-06-KS-a-EYJ.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy56Q1a0Flc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cn3RUZsaPmg&t=1s

And yet they still happen. Expecting lands and access to them to be granted to an enemy while they remain belligerent is absurd.

I say again, annexation of land is a violation of international law, either in an offensive or defensive war. It is not a “grant”, it’s that state’s land to begin with.

Right. So we’re not going on much here.

Do you not see the contradiction in claiming that the “military industrial complex” owns the pool of all the politicians, but then refusing to vote outside that pool?

Dems ran Hillary Clinton in '16 - a horrifying, war mongering two-face, basically. What was the reaction of the GOP? Elect Trump. He seemed reasonable to them compared to her. They think it’s “lesser of two evils” too. I would argue that the horrible candidates across the aisle guarantee our slide towards fascism and even the theocracy the GOP is pushing.