720
AOC decries ‘unfolding genocide’ in Gaza, urges halting weapons to Israel
(www.aljazeera.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
720 points (96.6% liked)
World News
33419 readers
1183 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Dont be fooled. Shes doing this to not be voted out, not because she cares
Why do you think she doesn't care about people dying? What would make you think that?
Something about waiting after 40000 deaths to take a position
Here she wants a ceasefire on Oct. 9: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-violence-israel-and-palestine
And here she calls one of the methods a war crime: https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-introduces-amendment-banning-israel-using-us-aid
Nov. 15 looks like where she's solidified the public position more firmly, and with associates https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/24-members-congress-call-biden-administration-establish-ceasefire-protect
"I condemn Hamas’ attack in the strongest possible terms. No child and family should ever endure this kind of violence and fear, and this violence will not solve the ongoing oppression and occupation in the region."
Yeah, cant take it seriously.
Yes, completely expected that despite her calling for a ceasefire, you would find something objectionable that is also 100% disqualifying. Weird that what you chose is the condemnation of a terrorist attack but okay.
Resistance to colonization is not terrorism. Its a really weird point coming from people who praise so much your own fight against the British colonization
It is literally, by definition, terrorism in this case. What you meant to say, if you put any thought into your position, is that terrorism isn't always bad. A significant weaker force using gorilla tactics and politics to fight a stronger force is the only hope they have to succeed. No one can expect Palestine to resist using conventional warfare.
Terrorism is a tool. The US engages in terrorism constantly. The police enforce their rule (in the US) by using terrorism. Just about every government uses terrorism. It's just only ok (as decided by the elites) when it's state sanctioned and by a stronger force against a weaker one.
By definition by who? Can Hamas have saying in that too?
I define it as counter terrorism, since its against the terrorist occupation of palestine by settlers
"Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims." I believe every definition of terrorism will be similar. Nothing about that definition has anything to do with morality though. Terrorism can be acceptable. It's only people who have bought into the mainstream ideas that think terrorism is always wrong. I would say you need to re-evaluate your ideals if you think Hamas can be correct but terrorism must be bad. One of those does not follow from the other. Terrorism can be used for good, and there's no reason to think otherwise.
And sure, terrorism can be used to defeat terrorism. You can have counter-terrorist terrorists. I would personally argue they always are, and I think it'd be difficult to argue against that.
Terrorizing military targets is completely different from terrorizing civilians. Civilian terrorism has never been an effective tool for the people doing the terrorism. It has always resulted in a huge backlash that basically destroys whatever movement it's working for.
If you want actual quotes from AOC, look at her social media. The mainstream media, where you likely got these false notions about when she called for a ceasefire from, is invested in getting her out of office.
Look this is true but AT LEAST it's how politics is supposed to work, it's not about choosing the most ethically and morally consistent person, it's about having a person in the seat who will vote the way their constituents want, no more