• Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      An investigation isn’t a plan. It’s a delaying tactic. We can’t shovel weapons out the door fast enough for an obvious genocide, but if we want to condition sales, well, as in all things centrists don’t want to do, wouldn’t you know it? Our hands are conveniently tied and we have to go through this whole self-imposed process.

      The genocide will be complete before any bogus “investigation” is over, and that’s the idea.

      • Dragon "Rider"(drag)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        According to this comment, the law requires an investigation, so yes, an investigation is a plan. If you want to say the law is delaying the ceasefire, sure. But Harris didn’t write that law. Harris is following the laws she needs to follow in order to stop the genocide.

        • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          And since it says the genocide gets to continue, you uncritically accept the comment’s interpretation of the law.

          The Leahy law is a thing, but that’s discretionary because it gets in the way of genocide.

          • Dragon "Rider"(drag)@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            If you’d like to present a critique of the interpretation, drag will listen. What drag will not do is be complicit in any way in genocide.

              • Dragon "Rider"(drag)@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                No, drag didn’t understand. Your critique was one short sentence. The idea it’s supposed to be refuting was several paragraphs. Drag doesn’t know what point you were trying to make because you rushed it and used multiple ambiguous pronouns. Explain it properly.

                • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 days ago

                  The idea was one excuse buried in several paragraphs about multiple subjects. The Leahy law prohibits selling weapons to governments that we know are committing war crimes. Pretending that Netanyahu isn’t committing war crimes and vaguely announcing that you support an investigation because that’s the only way you can proceed is slow-walking compliance with a law that centrists don’t want to follow and have no intention of ever following.

                  Frankly, I doubt you will accept any explanation that involves anything that might curtail weapons sales to Netanyahu before his genocide is complete and it’s too little, too late.

                  • Dragon "Rider"(drag)@lemmy.nz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    Okay, the law says we need to know it’s a genocide. That means Harris needs proof that it’s a genocide. And the proof needs to be compelling enough to stop the MAGA SCOTUS from meddling. Therefore, investigation. Seems to drag like Harris is doing the right thing. You explained the law in a way that matches what drag heard.