![[email protected] mod enforces own opinion by modding opposing opinion as "misinformation"](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/30aa5f17-9c1e-47be-9806-263218c634ff.png){kind=link}
Context: https://lemmy.world/comment/14613536 Screenshotted context just in case:
A user claims that the killing in Palestine stopped under Biden now. I point out that biden had full-throatedly supported the genocide for over a year. A mod deletes my post and says that biden didn’t “state” (keyword here) full-throated support for genocide.
I counter by saying I consider sending billions in support of genocide counts as full-throated support for genocide. I also point out that I didn’t say Biden stated his support for genocide and that he didn’t need to outright state it because actions speak louder than words.
I receive a temp ban for that counter and the mod adds a response where they claim the weapons were “provided for defense from Iran, full stop.” which sounds to me like actual misinformation because how the hell does bombing hospitals in Gaza defend Israel from Iran? I’m not bothered by their stupid opinion, but I am bothered that they are enforcing it through moderation.
I ran into a similar moderation problem on the Political Memes community also on .world, but I didn’t bother making a post here for that because that’s just a dumb meme community and I was better off just blocking it, but now this is concerning a world news community and it’s awful to see something like this happening in a community that’s supposed to keep people aware of the news.
But hey, maybe I’m wrong and it actually is misinformation to say it’s full-throated support of genocide to send billions in weapons to a country using those weapons to commit genocide. Please let me know what you think!
Don’t worry about a ban from World News
Theres plenty of other world news communities to go to on other servers, if a servers moderation is poor vote with your feet, comments, and posts.
Like, my opinion, man…
Its probably too far to say “full throated support for genocide”, that administration made it very clear they didn’t like what Israel has done to Palestinians. Buut, its also hard to argue that administration didn’t passively support genocide or genocidal behaviour.
Its clearly true to say they supported the collective punishment of a whole people. Thats unambiguous, that administration put the US on the wrong side of history, and international law, something the US was instrumental in supporting, if never adopting.
Friends tell friends when they’re in the wrong, Israel doesn’t have a friend in the US, they’re the US’ unsinkable aircraft carrier.
Which is why despite saying one thing they did the opposite and continued to send blank checks. Actions speak louder than words. Full throated indeed.
PTB.
The USA is not only supporting the genocide with money and arms; they (and the UK) have also been bombing the only state (Yemen) that has tried to fulfill the international principle of Responsabilty to Protect (R2P) and has deployed their naval army to prevent others states to do it and/or to help with the genocide.
For me, that’s enough to speak of an Israel-USA-UK genocide.
And sorry to go off-topic. 🤷🏽
Edit: added wiki link snd typos
The Houthis in Yemen, not Yemen proper, you mean. How does their piracy and kidnapping of ships and their crews do anything to protect Palestinians? It’s blatant disregard for international law.
Look up the awful crimes of the Houthis against Yemenis before you hail them as your humanitarian heroes.
No, I mean Yemen. Ansar Al·lah is the Yemeni party that is in position to dictate their actions during the civil war that has been paused as a reaction of the Israel attack to the Gazan territory (i.e.: the escalation of the Israel genocide)
What you call piracy and kidnapping, others can call it blockade of Israel and detention of the ships in violation of that blockage.
The ships kidnapped were not going to Israel.
It’s not a naval blockade at all. Read up how these work in international law.
Of course, that is not a naval blockage at all.
Just after they announced it, the USA (or Genocide Joe/USA Democratic Party, what do you like more) announced an ‘international’ military intervention to stop them. Some usual USA bootlickers withdrew from that army (I remember that Spain was one of them, but there were more). Later, I have only read references to the USA and the UK.
At least, I think that we can agree that Yemen (or Houthis/Ansar All·lah, what do you like more) can not sustain a blockade with the active opposition of the USA.
We disagree on the finer points, but i’m not gona argue these points.
Fact is if these administrations don’t wish to be accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, or contraventions of UN Charters then there are other paths throughout this period they could have chosen.