5 ms·

> Genocide is defined under international law as a crime of intent. Israel was happy to sign a ceasefire agreement as soon as Hamas offered to return the hostag

> Genocide is defined under international law as a crime of intent. Israel was happy to sign a ceasefire agreement as soon as Hamas offered to return the hostages. Therefore Israel had no intent of removing the people of Gaza from Gaza, therefore there was no genocide. This was simply an ordinary war. It can be both, an ordinary war that is also used as cover for genocide while it is ongoing.

spwa4 1y ago
And yet Wikipedia has no problem avoiding the word genocide when some parties are involved, even when the consensus is that the Kremlin has committed genocide, multiple times, during a conflict. It's even convicted before the ICC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War Note: before you point out that that page does mention genocide, read what you found. It details Putin's fake claim that Ukraine is committing genocide, several times, and does not mention that the Kremlin has committed at least 5 separate campaigns of genocide (so far) in Ukraine. Wikipedia has a pretty damn serious case of extreme leftist bias (meaning there are many instance of leftist bias on wikipedia where most people I consider lifelong leftists would not accept that as a reasonable leftist position.
- Scarblac 1y ago
  If that page sides with Putin, then surely that's a right wing bias?
  - spwa4 1y ago
    I think people are seriously tired of that argument, though with Putin I'll admit it has more validity than in most cases. You see, Venezuela had a "socalist revolution" followed by a slight misinterpretation of Marxism, and ... let's just call it "dictatorship of billionnaires", and ignore that for more than a decade this was enormously supported and pushed by leftists worldwide: https://marxist.com/a-tribute-to-hugo-chavez.htm https://marxist.com/a-tribute-to-hugo-chavez.htm Now Venezuela is a state run through criminal gangs with a billionaire dictator on top. You know, doesn't quite satisfy the definition of socialism or communism. Yet socialism is what got them there. Therefore ... can you call Chavez a socialist? Why? He certainly had the chance to implement socialism, even communism ... and did the exact opposite. Kim Jong Il or his father? Xi Jingping? Khomeini or Khamenei of Iran? All gathered power as communists, none can be said to be even remotely communist once they got to power. So same can be said of Iran, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Soviet Union and many others. It'd be very inaccurate to call any of these places communist (except the Soviet Union), or even socialist. Most of them never even tried (in fact it surprised me quite a bit that the mullahs actually really tried to be communist) Even many leaders in the west started their careers as communists, only to betray every communist and socialist principle once they got any amount of power, for example, the best paid politician in the world, Antonio Guterrez. Can you call them communists? They're about as communist as I am canine. And in a roundabout way, the same goes for Putin. He came into power as an extreme version of Guterrez: they both climbed the ladder to power using violence to push communism. They both totally betrayed communism once they had even a small amount of power, and frankly Putin's the more honorable of the two: the choice to betray communism was made for him, whereas Guterrez betrayed communism out of free will in trade for power. And there's so many of these guys. Jose Manuel Barrosso, violent communist, non-executive chairman and senior adviser of Goldman Sachs International, after ... let's say "helping" that firm in 2007. Yes, really. So is Putin a communist? You can be cynical and simply state the truth: Putin is an incredibly successful communist. The most successful communist in the world today, except perhaps for Xi Jinping. And, like all successful communists, he isn't the least bit communist.
    - Scarblac 1y ago
      Economically, communism in Russia died with the Soviet Union. Putin leads a criminal oligarchy that concentrates all the country's wealth near him and his clique, like a modern czar. Putin returned the church to a prominent position, is extremely conservative. Look at his political friends: Orban, Wilders, Farage, Trump, Le Pen. All very right wing. He's among the leaders of the current extreme right wing wave in the world, not in any way leftist.
      - spwa4 1y ago
        You don't answer ... what exactly is wrong with stating that Putin is an incredibly successful communist? He started out as a violent enforcer of communism, card carrying enforcer of of the Communist party, and climbed the ladder, and has been incredibly successful doing so. He's a murderous asshole of course, but how does that change what he managed to do. There are few people who can present a better claim to being communists, don't you think? You're also right, of course, that he's extreme right. So are other successful communists. Chavez was never anything but the leader of criminal gangs, as is Maduro. Khamenei in Iran is also extreme right of course, not even that different (his power also mostly comes from control over criminal gangs, and obviously the members of his gangs are about as muslim as bikini-clad pigs having a barbecue on a beach). There's other kinds, like UN's Guterrez or Jose Manuel Barosso, much less successful than Putin, but another violent enforcer of communism, now non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International. But again, is there even a single socialist in your entire country that can make a better claim to being a communist than him? Makes you wonder how loyal current well known leftists are to leftism. Greta Thunberg, to stay on the Gaza issue, has made millions of dollars on her "green-left" activism. About 10 times the absolute maximum she could have earned as a politician (ie. 10 times what the prime minister of Sweden makes). And of course Nicolas Maduro is a billionaire. Putin, if you wanted to quantify it, can probably claim to be the world's first trillionnaire. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they also have somewhat less complete faith in communism.
        Scarblac 1y ago
        I just don't see why any of your comment is relevant to the situation today, after Putin has been in power for 25 years. If something has a pro-Putin bias nowadays, that's a right wing bias, because he's clearly part of the right wing. I don't think he was ever a communist. Soviet Russia was a single party state, so people with ambitions had to join it. I don't know much about Maduro or Thunberg and don't see why they're relevant.

spwa4 1y ago

And yet Wikipedia has no problem avoiding the word genocide when some parties are involved, even when the consensus is that the Kremlin has committed genocide, multiple times, during a conflict. It's even convicted before the ICC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War Note: before you point out that that page does mention genocide, read what you found. It details Putin's fake claim that Ukraine is committing genocide, several times, and does not mention that the Kremlin has committed at least 5 separate campaigns of genocide (so far) in Ukraine. Wikipedia has a pretty damn serious case of extreme leftist bias (meaning there are many instance of leftist bias on wikipedia where most people I consider lifelong leftists would not accept that as a reasonable leftist position.

Scarblac 1y ago
If that page sides with Putin, then surely that's a right wing bias?
- spwa4 1y ago
  I think people are seriously tired of that argument, though with Putin I'll admit it has more validity than in most cases. You see, Venezuela had a "socalist revolution" followed by a slight misinterpretation of Marxism, and ... let's just call it "dictatorship of billionnaires", and ignore that for more than a decade this was enormously supported and pushed by leftists worldwide: https://marxist.com/a-tribute-to-hugo-chavez.htm https://marxist.com/a-tribute-to-hugo-chavez.htm Now Venezuela is a state run through criminal gangs with a billionaire dictator on top. You know, doesn't quite satisfy the definition of socialism or communism. Yet socialism is what got them there. Therefore ... can you call Chavez a socialist? Why? He certainly had the chance to implement socialism, even communism ... and did the exact opposite. Kim Jong Il or his father? Xi Jingping? Khomeini or Khamenei of Iran? All gathered power as communists, none can be said to be even remotely communist once they got to power. So same can be said of Iran, North Korea, China, Vietnam, Soviet Union and many others. It'd be very inaccurate to call any of these places communist (except the Soviet Union), or even socialist. Most of them never even tried (in fact it surprised me quite a bit that the mullahs actually really tried to be communist) Even many leaders in the west started their careers as communists, only to betray every communist and socialist principle once they got any amount of power, for example, the best paid politician in the world, Antonio Guterrez. Can you call them communists? They're about as communist as I am canine. And in a roundabout way, the same goes for Putin. He came into power as an extreme version of Guterrez: they both climbed the ladder to power using violence to push communism. They both totally betrayed communism once they had even a small amount of power, and frankly Putin's the more honorable of the two: the choice to betray communism was made for him, whereas Guterrez betrayed communism out of free will in trade for power. And there's so many of these guys. Jose Manuel Barrosso, violent communist, non-executive chairman and senior adviser of Goldman Sachs International, after ... let's say "helping" that firm in 2007. Yes, really. So is Putin a communist? You can be cynical and simply state the truth: Putin is an incredibly successful communist. The most successful communist in the world today, except perhaps for Xi Jinping. And, like all successful communists, he isn't the least bit communist.
  - Scarblac 1y ago
    Economically, communism in Russia died with the Soviet Union. Putin leads a criminal oligarchy that concentrates all the country's wealth near him and his clique, like a modern czar. Putin returned the church to a prominent position, is extremely conservative. Look at his political friends: Orban, Wilders, Farage, Trump, Le Pen. All very right wing. He's among the leaders of the current extreme right wing wave in the world, not in any way leftist.
    - spwa4 1y ago
      You don't answer ... what exactly is wrong with stating that Putin is an incredibly successful communist? He started out as a violent enforcer of communism, card carrying enforcer of of the Communist party, and climbed the ladder, and has been incredibly successful doing so. He's a murderous asshole of course, but how does that change what he managed to do. There are few people who can present a better claim to being communists, don't you think? You're also right, of course, that he's extreme right. So are other successful communists. Chavez was never anything but the leader of criminal gangs, as is Maduro. Khamenei in Iran is also extreme right of course, not even that different (his power also mostly comes from control over criminal gangs, and obviously the members of his gangs are about as muslim as bikini-clad pigs having a barbecue on a beach). There's other kinds, like UN's Guterrez or Jose Manuel Barosso, much less successful than Putin, but another violent enforcer of communism, now non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International. But again, is there even a single socialist in your entire country that can make a better claim to being a communist than him? Makes you wonder how loyal current well known leftists are to leftism. Greta Thunberg, to stay on the Gaza issue, has made millions of dollars on her "green-left" activism. About 10 times the absolute maximum she could have earned as a politician (ie. 10 times what the prime minister of Sweden makes). And of course Nicolas Maduro is a billionaire. Putin, if you wanted to quantify it, can probably claim to be the world's first trillionnaire. So I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that they also have somewhat less complete faith in communism.
      - Scarblac 1y ago
        I just don't see why any of your comment is relevant to the situation today, after Putin has been in power for 25 years. If something has a pro-Putin bias nowadays, that's a right wing bias, because he's clearly part of the right wing. I don't think he was ever a communist. Soviet Russia was a single party state, so people with ambitions had to join it. I don't know much about Maduro or Thunberg and don't see why they're relevant.