this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2024
719 points (96.6% liked)
World News
32324 readers
860 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Better late than never I guess
She should consider also applying this knowledge to the embargo on the Cuban people
Edit: Obviously not trying to downplay the genocide in Gaza if it came across like that.
She looks like a 60 year old cat lady in that photo
I think she's done that as well
https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-rep-ocasio-cortez-demonstrations-cuba
Ooh based
Pretty bad comparison when Cubans have higher life expectancy than Americans.
And it would be even better if not for the embargo.
That's thanks to the excellent healthcare system. The country is still lacking in food, medical supplies, and building materials — all of which could just be imported as necessary like any other country if not for the embargo.
At this point, I think some American politicians and policy makers are afraid of Cuba surpassing the US in living conditions if the embargo is dropped, and Cuba is given a fair shot. A thriving Cuba would serve as fodder for a leftward push in politics in the US, and I don't think any of the lobbyists or their puppets want that, at all.
Not to mention that, given the average age of said politicians and policy makers, one can only assume many of their brains are heavily washed with the Red Scare era propaganda.
AOC has been calling for a cease fire and more aid since last year. She might not have used the word genocide until now, but it's not like she has been cool with things up till now either.
At the beginning she was very much on the Israel side. The well known "israel has the right to defend themselves". Even back then Israel was hitting hospitals.
She only flipped recently. Faster than the pure establishment Democrats, but still a very bad look.
This article from back in October of '23 does not state that at all, and I never read her take the position of "Israel has the right to defend themselves", but rather the opposite.
She calls protest marchers anti-Semitic ?
No, there were pro-Palastine people at the event who were being anti-Semitic and she called them out. But in the article you see that while she has called the attack by Hamas an evil act she also stated that it was brought about by Israel's treatment of Arabs in that country. She's been asking for them to not slaughter innocent Palestinians since the beginning. It's literally right there at the end of everything you quoted.
But it's easier to make things up without citation, so people are probably going to, in the end, believe the other guys sadly.
Honestly this whole drama is so immature.
"What Israel is doing is terrible, on top of their mistreatment of the Palestinian people for decades they've now crossed a line and seem to be willing to remove them all from existence. This is a genocide, and we should enforce a cease fire and an embargo."
"What Israel is doing is terrible, on top of their mistreatment of the Palestinian people for decades they've now crossed a line and are killing people indiscriminately. The fact that some people are calling it a genocide is telling of the immense gravity of the situation, and we should enforce a cease fire and an embargo."
"How could you NOT call it a genocide??!?!?"
Both statements are virtually the same thing, have the same worries and are calling for the same solutions, yet the later get shat on because it doesn't virtue signal. There are lots of seemingly dumb reasons why politicians and PR departments may choose to use some terms and avoid others, and some of those decisions are mere pragmatism that doesn't change in essence their goal or effect. I think AOC has flaws, just like almost any politician, but making a gigantic deal out of this smells like it's been promoted by grifters looking to start drama.
The fact that Alex Jones beat her to the punch on calling it a genocide is embarrassing.
The only reason he did that was because it allowed him to rail against jews. Had it been done by America, Jones would have cheered.
The US isn't complicit. It (along with several European countries) are active participants by supplying weapons, intelligence and as is rumoured, bodies on the ground
My point still stands. The main perpetrators pf and main agitators for an extended bombing campaign (read genocide) are Israeli politicians. If the US under a republican President were to bomb the gaza strip to shut without israeli consent, Jones would be silent.
Dont be fooled. Shes doing this to not be voted out, not because she cares
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.