https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pressure-builds-biden-after-israeli-strike-kills-dozens/story?id=110619827
The death of dozens of Palestinian civilians after an Israeli strike is escalating pressure on the Biden administration to pull back its military support for the country.
You seem to be ill informed, he's going to wag his finger so hard it'll give off a light breeze.
Yeah, I too would much rather get pneumonia than stage 4 leukemia. Would have been swell to get neither, though..
Not if Blinken continues to provide inconclusive reports. POTUS makes international diplomacy decisions based on intelligence provided by the State Department. It’s not based the President’s opinion, US citizens, news, the UN, the ICC, or the ICJ, but state intelligence. Biden needs to put pressure on Blinken to provide a thorough and conclusive report, or replace him with someone who will.
I’m fairly certain the fact that Biden has received more Israeli political donations than any other United States politician in history has more influence of potus than the state department
Dude, the state department looks like a bunch of chuckle fucks trying to say that there is no ground offensive in Rafah while Israel is broadcasting their tanks in the middle of the city.
Biden’s policy on Israel is as morally reprehensible as it gets. There is no lower. There is no worse position.
I agree. They also just had members step down and say their reported information was suppressed or altered. He needs to press Blinken for a conclusive report or replace him.
To amend existing contracts against the advisement of the State Department, against congressional legislation, is unfounded. He could even be impeached for bad faith.
It isn’t. It’s just the most heavily weighed piece of intelligence in the Executive Branch. The Legislative Branch is the other factor, and Congress voted in favor of legislation for munitions supply.
Yes, it is. That’s how POTUS decides how to proceed in international affairs. It’s not just some shot from the hip.
News outlets and citizens can talk all day, but we pay tens of trillions annually to have the most informed State Department in the world. It’s the President’s job to trust their intelligence. If the State Department says there is no proof of war crimes, it’s POTUS’s job to take that as fact. If he doesn’t agree with the findings, he can mandate a re-assessment, as I initially suggested that he should.
Yes, it is. That’s how POTUS decides how to proceed in international affairs. It’s not just some shot from the hip.
Are you saying all US presidents react to intelligence reports in the same way? That's ridiculous. When candidates are campaigning for the office of POTUS they normally publicize the international policy that they intend to enforce. And each candidate has a unique view on international politics, even within the same party.
You don't honestly believe both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump would act the same as Joe Biden in response to Blinkens' intelligence reports, do you?
I’m saying that amending existing bills and contracts for allied support, against congressional approval and without substantiated cause from US intelligence would be considered an act of bad faith, yes. I’m honestly not even sure the last time that was done by a President.
That’s true. He did that prior to pausing shipments pending the State Department investigation. Chronology is important.
So are the facts. And the fact is Biden has received more Israeli pac money than any other politician in United States history over the course of his career.
I absolutely agree that should be considered if he were supporting Israel against congressional legislation or the advisement of the State Department.
Blinken is releasing the reports thr president wants released. The actual intelligence is provided in classified reports provided to the president and some members of Congress. What gets made public is a policy decision that flows down from the top.
That does not change if the report is conclusive or inconclusive, nor does it change the content within. It only limits what can and cannot be shared with the public.
The evidence that makes the difference between conclusive and inconclusive could easily be classified. In which case it wouldn't be shared with the public.
That’s not how classified documents work. It would still be a conclusive report. He would be able to act on the information, and only disclose what he is capable of disclosing. The report was found to be inconclusive, meaning there was no proof of crimes committed by Israel found by the State Department.
If POTUS was not allowed to act on classified information, there would be no point in having a State Department at all.
Listening to Kirby yesterday was enraging. "Israel said that they are doing everything in their power to limit civilian casualties in their Rafah operations, and we have no reason not to take them at their word"
Really? Because have they ever bothered to limit civilian casualties so far? Media kept re-probing him to see if he would give any sympathetic response, instead he dug in, got annoyed that they were asking similar questions and reiterated how he doesn't think the Israelis did anything bad. Biden should fire Kirby just for his complete lack to tact.
The new strategy of Israel is to attack refugee camps so often that we dont know if its new attacks or late news...
The only way to distinguish them is by the number of dead civilians
We can't distinguish the number of dead civilians if they keep calling it dozens every time though.
Really starting to think that if USS Liberty happened again, Biden still would not change anything despite not being able to cover it up like LBJ due to the modern age of media and internet.
Hamas shouldn't store weapons near civilian areas. They should also release the hostages and surrender.
I don't think you're being downvoted because anyone disagrees with you. Of course the terrorist organization should stop terrorizing people. But your comment really comes across as apologizing for the civilian deaths.
"You're not wrong, you're just an asshole."
I'm not apologizing for anything. The 'enlightened' leftists and college 'protestors' need to realize a cold hard fact. When you hide your forces among civilians and use them as human shields to protect military installations (ammo dump, command center, launchers, etc), in effect deliberately maximizing your own civilian casualties to dissuade attacks, you are not only committing a war crime, but you are forfeiting the protections of those civilians under international law, and those installations remain a valid military target in the eyes of the law.
So by Hamas operating out of schools, mosques, refugee camps, hospitals, and other civilian areas, they are the ones responsible for those civilian deaths, because they are putting civilians in harms way.
What are you talking about? No one is defending Hamas.
maximizing your own civilian casualties to dissuade attack
The civilians do not belong to Hamas. What exactly do you mean by "your own civilian casualties?"
So by Hamas operating out of schools, mosques, refugee camps, hospitals, and other civilian areas, they are the ones responsible for those civilian deaths, because they are putting civilians in harms way.
No. Whoever killed the innocent people is responsible.
You're naive if you think no one disagrees. There's people on here consistently cheerleading for Hamas and at every protest you see people cosplaying as Hamas. There is a lot of support for genocide, so long as it's Jews that are the ones being murdered.
And yeah, Hamas is using civilians as human shields. If you actually cared about Palestinian civilians you wouldn't be calling people assholes for denouncing the actions of the real genocidal terrorists that are only getting Palestinian civilians killed with their cowardly tactics. But you don't really care about Palestinian civilians, you only care about hating Israel.
Can you share some links to these posts that support Hamas? Are they generally up-voted, or down-voted? There are trolls on every platform.
But you don't really care about Palestinian civilians, you only care about hating Israel.
Making these kinds of strawman, ad-hominem attacks against me makes me very hesitant to engage in any kind of serious conversation with you, but maybe that's your intent? I am certain I haven't said anything that would make anyone think I hate Isreal.
Can you share some links to these posts that support Hamas?
That would be a waste of my time. You don't strike me as someone that would be convinced by facts.
I am certain I haven’t said anything that would make anyone think I hate Isreal.
You call people assholes when they state facts about the fucked up shit Hamas does.
This is cult behaviour... always attack never even try to defend the horrible things your side does because it's indefensible.
But maybe I'm wrong. Are you capable of unconditionally denouncing Hamas?
Your entire post is a series of strawman arguments. You clearly aren't interested in conversing in good faith, so I'm out.
"Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get filthy and the pig likes it."
I know I already said I'm out, but that's the most truthful thing you've said in this entire conversation. Thanks for finally being somewhat honest.
So you have the time to say shit, but backing it up is a waste of your time? This is a definitely a sure fire way to be taken seriously!
This is cult behaviour... always attack never even try to defend the horrible things your side does because it's indefensible.
It is quite ironic of you to say this in a comment chain in which you came in, immediately attacking and attributing malicious intent to the other commenter, all the while insinuating that Israel does nothing wrong and only Hamas is to blame for the horrors happening. Of the two of it seemed to me like you were the one engaging more in this behavior.
But in the end it was indeed malicious intent. The guy supports Hamas.
I probably spent too much time during the pandemic talking with anti-vaxxers (nothing else to do), so I guess now I can pick up on this pattern of behaviour from the "I did my own research on the internet" crowd. Someone states indisputable facts, then the people that are pushing false narratives will make insinuations about how it's somehow wrong to do this. Not overt challenging the facts (because it's indisputable) But just how it's inappropriate somehow. Appeal to civility politics sort of thing.
In the end, it's not the tone or the presentation of the facts that bother this kind of person. It's someone presenting any kind of fact at all that's bothersome to the narrative brained crowd. This guy wants to support Hamas and the evil acts of Hamas are an inconvenience to the narrative he wants to believe in.
Same goes for those that wanted to believe the pandemic wasn't real, same goes for those that want to believe Trump is a great and moral leader. It's an inability to separate the facts of the real world with the narrative they want to believe about the world.
Okay Genocide justifier.
You do realize this logic is the same as if someone from a different household punches you, it gives you the moral right to shoot someone else from that same household in the head, right?
Finally, this blind allegiance to a morally wrong actor is going to make the rest of the world treat Israelis as the world treated Apartheid South Africans. I hope you enjoy being ostracized.
To add to this, Hamas has agreed to release the hostages several times. However Israel won’t agree to a ceasefire, and so the hostages haven’t been released.
Israel doesn’t want the hostages released, because then they can’t use the hostages as justification for their genocide.
false equivalence
[ fawls i-kwiv-uh-luhns ] Phonetic (Standard) IPA noun
a logical fallacy in which one assumes or asserts that two things are the same or equal when, while alike in some ways, they are not sufficiently similar to be considered equivalent.
Claiming something is a false equivalence doesn't make it so. You want to make a claim like that, you have to justify it.
But I know you won't, because you're happy with the charred corpses of babies.