if they weren’t serious, there wouldn’t be a deal.

they, the EU, are/is serious.

the Belgians are just being greedy little cunts.

…so business as usual ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

…they are quoting a meme:

“would someone really do that? just go on the internet and tell lies?”

it’s a joke you didn’t recognize…maybe chill out a bit?

fucking peace.

no, you dum-dum:

just because YOU, personally, haven’t been reading, hearing, or seeing the perpetual violence against Palestinians (and muslims in general) in and around isreal, doesn’t mean it just appeared out of thin air, like you are suggesting.

well, not suggesting… you’re straight up lying.

you are using your own ignorance as basis of fact.

YOU are unaware of the hostilities happening, so you assume they DIDN’T happen. which is wrong.

this genocide didn’t just suddenly happen, it’s been going on for decades. it’s simply been a much slower process before (except for all the times in-between when it wasn’t slow at all, but I’m not about to copy-paste half o wikipedia. look it up if you don’t want to be ignorant), which makes no difference.

a genocide, by definition, is not bound to a certain timeframe; when a people is eradicated deliberately, it doesn’t matter at all how long that process took.

Palestinians have been under direct attack for almost century now. that entire time is a continuous state of genocide.

that fucking fish should have stayed in the ocean, where it belongs!!

or, alternatively:

In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made many people very mad and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Public opinion in Israel also does not appear to be influenced by the British.

let’s start with the easy one: this is completely irrelevant. public opinion is largely worthless and means nothing.

The active current genocide started in 23.

it started in the 1940s, arguably earlier.

the very first thing that happened in the region was Palestinians being expelled from their own land in order to make way for the zionist regime.

that’s how Palestinian oppression started, and it’s the reason the situation got so bad in the first place.

it got much, much worse in '23, but that’s not the start at all.

It was triggered by a terror attack.

no, it was the other way around; ongoing genocide triggered the terrorist attack.

and more importantly:

is this supposed to mean that genocide can be justified? is that what you’re saying?

Some have considered the attack inevitable due to continued oppression and border fences.

gee, i wonder how that oppression started in the first place… certainly couldn’t have been the british! they’d never meddle in the middle east for colonialist reasons!

well…except in afghanistan…and iraq…and syria…and egypt…wait, how long is this list anyway?

could the british empire be responsible for most of the clusterfuck that is the current middle east, by having drawn completely arbitrary lines on maps more than a century ago, which were deliberately designed to fence in diverse ethnic communities, with the explicit goal of suppressing the local populations by putting them in a constant state of unresolvable armed conflict in order to ensure instability in the region and as a result keeping education and living standards low, thus guaranteeing cheap oil for the foreseeable future by making it trivial to install dictatorships across the region?

…are you for fucking real?

(hawara, du saufst den lack aber auch im liter pack…)

welp: there’s your problem! right here:

Reading the Bible

yeah, i entirely agree!

it’s stupid and ridiculous!

i mean…they DID trespass onto a military airport and messed with military aircraft.

that was what they did, that got them the designation “terrorist organization”.

the planes were about to fly weapons down to israel, afaik, so i think they were doing something worthwhile, but, you know…bad idea regardless.

I don’t agree that this makes them terrorists, i think that’s some insane hyperbole on the governments side…but it does fit a very draconian definition of “terrorism”: simply defined a “using force to achieve a political goal”

the entire thing is stupid. this is the stupidest timeline, after all…

so first of all: fair points.

but also to consider:

• the Vatican is the only not-country with a permanent seat at the UN (this in itself is somewhat insane)
• the Pope’s direct influence might be limited, but the cultural influence the catholic church holds should not be underestimated. if the pope gets killed or injured or simply stubs his toe in gaza, europe will, absolutely, go berserk. it’s pretty dumb, as you’ve pointed out, but it will happen.
• beyond religious influence, the cultural influence of the catholic church is actually incredible! (consider: every settlement, from village with population 5, all the way to metropolitan cities has at least one church in all of europe! every single one!)
• the pope is held in high esteem, even among other religions and their leadership. killing a pope is, effectively, a declaration of war to the entire world. that’s the kind of shit that makes north korea go “wait, that’s insanity, wtf?!” (and this isn’t pure admiration, it’s simple survival instinct: the leadership of all major religions is smart enough to realize “if it can happen to the pope, it can definitely happen to us”, and that includes jewish leadership)
• even most people that feel contemptuous about the church as an institution (which i definitely am one of) would be extremely upset by such a blatantly hostile action against a major foreign dignitary. even just harming a pope is unthinkable to most europeans raised in christian households. even if we’ve become firmly atheist later…
• imagine the president of germany, france, italy, poland, spain, or really any other european country being assassinated in gaza. all of europe would revolt. it would cause absolute mayhem in geopolitics and most likely result in immediate International intervention, i.e. severe sanctions. (because israel has nukes, although they would most likely be forced to relinquish or severely reduce their capabilities and they would definitely be subjected to international oversight.)
• the US cannot, i repeat, can not ignore hostilities against the church. there will be riots, and it will unite people like basically nothing else could, because even conservatives would get severe whiplash from those news. trump claims to be christian, and even the nutty american christians would be upset enough to force a reaction out of the white house. yes, even this white house. because, as someone else has pointed out, not ever in history was a pope killed in a military conflict. never.

or to some it up:

✅: fuck the catholic church and fuck the pope!

🚫: but never, EVER, fuck with the pope!

Madonna really, truly, has a point here: the pope could probably end this genocide!

because as you’ve pointed out; having fans in gaza isn’t really important!

…but the leader of THE most influential religion in the entire world?

hell yeah, that guy has influence! and hell yeah they could definitely throw their weight behind this cause!

and Madonna drawing attention to that fact is actually solid strategy to get the church to respond:

no response means complicity, but virtually any response other than a resounding renunciation will be seen as weakness.

she is putting them on the spot, forcing a reaction. that’s how politics works, and this is a political move, and an honestly pretty great one at that!

edit; forgot this bit:

this is why Madonna pointing at the pope is more than just a rich person that could do more being cheap; nobody in the world has the sheer support of the pope and the catholic church. she’s acting as a force amplifier. that’s something that goes beyond mere monetary influence, although you are absolutely right that she could do more.

no one said it did:

it can still be the worst crime of this century, because last century had even worse crimes at the same time as this one.

just because the words “what about…” are used, doesn’t make an argument a whataboutism.

a whataboutism deflects from an argument or aims to derail an argument.

what the previous user did was ask for further argumentation about a directly related topic; it’s a continuation, not a deflection.

so it’s not fallacious, buta legitimate question:

you’ve banned some propaganda channels (argument is closed at this point), will you now also ban other, similar channels (new, related argument)?

since the previous argument has concluded, because yt has already enforced their views, wether right or wrong, the follow-up question is perfectly legitimate.

i mean it’s a mathematical certainty that FPTP systems will eventually result in only 2 parties.

so it really is not up to the voters…