• InevitableSwing [none/use name]
    hexagon
    ·
    12 days ago

    I was surprised the the NYT put the link at the top of the homepage and the title was free of sugarcoating and euphemisms. We are headed for who-knows-what.

    I'd love for a liberal to explain to me how people need to support Biden while he aids, funds, and arms Israel's continuing genocide that might result in a war with Hezbollah and then the war could lead to a war with Iran that the US would fight too. There's no way the US stands back if Israel and Iran go to war. The libs favorite go-to is some variation on "Trump would be worse" but that's a hard sell when you actually consider that the US must support a genocide so it could lead to a second war vastly bigger and dangerous war and that war could spiral out of control to involve yet another American forever war. This time with Iran. That would be three contiguous countries. Do we get a free sub sandwich?

    Why I am supposed to support a genocide again? The logic really doesn't make any sense even to an American ghoul who doesn't care if 10,000s more Palestinians suffer, starve, and die.

    • Teapot [he/him]
      ·
      12 days ago

      Free of sugar coating? If war with Hezbollah starts, it's because Israel attacked lmao. Perfect example of "police involved shooting" type article

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]
        ·
        12 days ago

        Something can be aggressively decontextualized and still not sugar-coated