Yeah, both sides amiright?

      • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        What do you call giving weapons with the knowledge that they will be used for genocide?

        Does the recipient obviously lying “oh they’ll just be used for defense” while they continue to commit genocide with previous shipments of weapons give the democrats plausible deniability in your book?

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Knowledge != expressed purpose.

          We supply Israel for the defense of Israel, what they then choose to do with it is on them, not us.

          • OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            what they then choose to do with it is on them, not us.

            Why do you believe this? Don’t people have a responsibility to not give weapons to people knowing they will be used for genocide?

            Also, us? Are you part of the Biden admin?

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            What a fascinating standard.

            I’m curious, does this mean that you would consider China to be absolved of responsibility for arming Pol Pot, who used their weapons to murder millions of innocent people, on the basis that they never expressly told him to do it, and “merely” kept arming him while it was clear that that was what he was doing? Because I’m pretty sure that kind of apologia would catch you a ban even in the tankiest of tankie spaces, and rightly so. But switch out China and Pol Pot for the US and Netanyahu, and dronies consider not taking that position to be “misinformation.”