The blatant political purposes of acquiring TikTok demonstrate the impoverished status of the US and Israel to millions of representatives of Gen Z, and another platform is ready to rise to bring more truthful takes to the next generation.
Point 1, nonsense: Allies fed Germans during WW2, the US fed Iraqis and Afghans during their wars and occupations. Point 2, nonsense: The Rafah crossing has been intermittently open, and Egypt has allowed aid in coordination with the UN. Israel has bombed the Rafah crossing multiple times since October 7th. Point 3, whataboutism. Sudan and Yemen are in the news in my circles weekly and there's care for all these horrible events.
My whole point is that there is a double standard applied to the only Jewish state vs all other countries, and I'm afraid you have given pretty weak rebuttal.
Point 1: nope, the Allies provided minimal food to the Germans during the conflict. They were too busy bombing the crap out of German cities, and they didn't bother on warning the civilians first, as Israel does in Gaza. The aid came AFTER the Nazis had unconditionally surrendered.
Point 2: nope again - there has been some food coming from Egypt, but they are not at war and nobody is marching in the streets demanding that they give more. And yes, Rafah was bombed, because there is a war taking place, with Hamas smuggling arms and food through the crossing.
Point 3: nope, the famines in Sudan and Yemen are real vs the fake famine in Gaza, and yet I see no street marches or HN posts on these tragedies. Maybe it's because it is Muslims killing and starving other Muslims. No Jews, No News.
If you actually cared about Gazans you would demand that Hamas release hostages and surrender - conflict ends immediately.
You move goalposts and mire yourself in falsehood.
Point 1 empirically wrong. Of course more food was provided after guns went silent.
Point 2 you sound like you agree with me and disagree with your original post.
Point 3. Reveals you as a propagandist.I've demanded that Hamas releases the hostage. From your rather uninformed framing it's clear you think there's a war on all of Gaza and not just Hamas. You just read an article on how Israel engineered a famine, correct? This reveals quite a lot about your relationship to truth and human suffering.
Well, unfortunately once again lots of opinions in your post but no evidence to back it up.It doesn't look like we will be learning anything new from you. Buh Bye.
The Free Beacon piece feels like it’s arguing against a caricature of the UN report rather than the report itself. The Commission wasn’t trying to do a military balance sheet of Hamas vs. Israel. It was a legal analysis under the Genocide Convention. That means it asked: do Israel’s actions and official statements check the boxes for genocidal acts and intent?
And on that front, the report isn’t just “repeating Hamas numbers.” It leans thoroughly on interviews, satellite imagery, verified video, medical testimony, etc. The ICJ already said there’s a plausible genocide case and ordered Israel to let in more aid months ago. Fast forward: famine is now confirmed in northern Gaza, which really undercuts claims of “unprecedented humanitarian relief.” The UN verdict is a very detailed legal case that can’t just be waved away with “what about Hamas tunnels.” Your "excellent" article doesn't budge the needle at all on this.
There are quite a few to be found if you look around.
From Wikipedia:
On January 4, 2021 (the day before the Capitol attack), Kirk tweeted that Turning Point Action and Students for Trump were sending more than 80 “buses of patriots” to Washington, D.C. to “fight for this president.”
On March 21st 2024, he called for the whipping and using rubber bullets and lethal force on migrants at the southern border.
Sounds plenty violent to me. I'd have to agree with those who say there are grounds for seeing Kirk as someone who frequently advocated for violence.
>From Wikipedia: On January 4, 2021 (the day before the Capitol attack), Kirk tweeted that Turning Point Action and Students for Trump were sending more than 80 “buses of patriots” to Washington, D.C. to “fight for this president.”
Was it clear 2 days before Jan 6 that it was going to be violent, or does this hinge on the "fight" wording?
>On March 21st 2024, he called for the whipping and using rubber bullets and lethal force on migrants at the southern border.
See: >except perhaps the government monopoly on force (e.g. to speak in favour of the death penalty).
Yes, Kirk advocated for a violent solution due to the election not going his way. It's also standing in stark juxtaposition to how Brazil handled similar issues with a much greater level of integrity.
"Expect perhaps" now seems as only so much weasel words. Whipping? What manner of government monopoly on violence needs to include whipping?
What could “fight for this President” possibly mean when you’re sending people to the capital, after the election’s over, while telling them the election was stolen, on the very day that the election is to be formally certified? The election was over, the contest had ended… so far as legal options that follow the usual route for the peaceful transfer of power. What does “fight” mean here? What is someone using that kind of language around an event like that trying to accomplish?
I think it’s prodding people to do something dangerous and illegal and a risk to democracy herself, and I’m not really sure what else it could be.
(Why… would Trump hold a rally in DC on that particular day to begin with? And why did he and other speakers choose to say what they did? None of this is mysterious, it’s easy to read, but it still seems to be eluding a lot of folks in ways that it don’t think it would in any analogous situation that didn’t involve partisan politics)
> What could “fight for this President” possibly mean when you’re sending people to the capital, after the election’s over, while telling them the election was stolen, on the very day that the election is to be formally certified? The election was over, the contest had ended… so far as legal options that follow the usual route for the peaceful transfer of power. What does “fight” mean here? What is someone using that kind of language around an event like that trying to accomplish?
The same, non-violent thing that it means in the stock phrase "fight for your rights".
> None of this is mysterious, it’s easy to read, but it still seems to be eluding a lot of folks
Other people are not unaware of the possible connotations you describe. They have evaluated the evidence for themselves and concluded that those connotations were not intended.
Two days before the January 6, 2021 insurrection, there were already clear and documented warning signs that violence was likely. Intelligence units within the FBI and DHS were aware of this chatter, and the FBI’s Norfolk office even issued a report on Jan 5 warning of extremists preparing for “war” at the Capitol. Social media and fringe platforms (Parler, TheDonald.win, Gab, Telegram, etc.) were full of posts openly discussing storming the Capitol, bringing weapons, and even targeting lawmakers.
We can conclude with very high certainty that joining this clamour with promises to send busloads of people to fight was a call for violence at the time.
> there were already clear and documented warning signs that violence was likely.
Even taking your claims for granted (none of this sounds familiar to me) there is no reason to suppose Kirk would have had any knowledge of it. For that matter, the FBI and DHS believing something about an ideological group doesn't make it true.
It means what "fight" always means in a political discussion, work hard to make your voice heard and win the argument. So you know exactly what it could be. There were still court cases out there, and shenanigans being uncovered. And in the end the only person that died was a trump supporter. Unlike the other riots during that time where dozens died and it's much more easy to read what one side wanted to happen, namely country-wide intimidation and destruction. And another politician shouted "Fight like hell!". Do you denounce that? Of course now. I'm sure you don't even want to discuss it.
