If that happens (and I hope it doesn’t, but they’re crazy enough to do it), can the west stop supporting them and leave them to their own devices?
A couple of mods here seem to downvote every post that draws attention to this sort of atrocity. One of them is even on YPTB defending banning people for criticizing those who approve of war crimes.
What a shockingly level headed response to the whole event.
I wish we still had sanity like that in the US. I’m sure the kid would have been taken into custody here and the police would have rushed into the school with guns drawn, scaring all the staff and children, and later crowing about how they heroically thwarted a terrorist attack.
Let’s hope their efforts are undermined by Trump’s disrespectful blue suit.
Why wouldn’t the anarchists be well armed too, especially if that’s an obvious necessity for your commune to survive? The only people in the US who refuse to touch a gun, even if their lives depend on it, are the centrist liberals.
I agree and it sucks. At the start of the internet, I was convinced that it was humanity’s single greatest accomplishment: near instantaneous worldwide communication between every human was possible. Access to all of our collective knowledge and intelligence at everyone’s fingertips.
Then we discovered what that actually meant, practically. Either all of our collective knowledge amounts to💩 or we’ll let the greedy scum just latch onto it like everything else and turn it into shit for their personal profit.
So if the poster doesn’t constantly monitor the article and continually update their post title, the post will be removed? Even if it’s clear that they aren’t editorializing?
Isn’t this a case of the letter of the rule not reflecting the intent and you should just let it slide (or better yet update the rule)? Why strictly enforce a rule that you know doesn’t make sense?
The rest of the world’s response. When we stop caring enough to even report on it, they stop being drills and go live.
Which facts are those? The fact that if she opposed the genocide at all she would have mentioned it at some point?
Just fuck off with this whole line of argument. If she wanted to claim any sort of moral high ground on this issue, she had ample time to denounce the genocide and claim that she’d stop it, but she didn’t do that.
For a program that has such a profound impact, that seems like such a small budget. It’s a shame that the US cuts $116M to save precious money, while maintaining $16 billion in, for example, petroleum subsidies.
In maybe the most important race of this country’s history, Harris couldn’t bring herself to denounce genocide and war crimes like a decent human being and instead chose to support a corrupt, fascist foreign nation that more closely resembles Nazi Germany than another country today.
Party loyalists tut-tut at the voters and learn exactly nothing, yet again.
They’re the same picture meme. Seriously, ACAB.