you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -9 points 1 year ago (49 children)

Other countries are trading with israel too, russia, China and many more, they are all complicit in aiding the israel war machine, so is it still "nato"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (38 children)

    Whatabout russia and china is monumental cope

    Why cant you admit that nato is responsible and should be held responsible the same way as any other entity that did not discontinue weapons transfers to israel after the siege began?

    Oh its american mic weapons? Okay, nato is an american defense pact.

    Why are you trying to dismiss culpability as if European nations dont actively support and enable the genocide in the exact same material capacity as america? Take your lumps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (37 children)

    It literally isn't "monumental cope" Israel imports more from China than any other country, helping to fund what they do.

    I can't admit nato is responsible because it's not, nato is a defensive pact, the countries that are part of nato are the problem, not the organization, it is also not "an American defense pact", there are many countries involved.

    I literally said some European countries are responsible? But if you want to go to "NATO" being responsible it's clearly china's fault, because they allow the Israeli capitalism to flourish, allowing Aipac to bribe the Americans (see how fucking stupid that sounds?)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Those articles are clearly written in such a way their bias doesn't show (that was sarcasm btw).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    These articles that disagree with me are clearly biased… against me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Cool, keep making stuff up. If facts were important to you you'd know that it's not biased against me, just the authors are clearly biased lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I’m not sure you even know what “bias” means, nor do you understand that there’s no such thing as an “unbaised” author.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    I do. Looks at the words chosen to write the article. There is a lot of emotion behind the words chosen, I know what an unbiased author would be, while everyone conveys emotion to a certain extent, when the entire article is written that way, it's easy to tell the bias.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (3 children)
    1. As if you’d actually read the articles.
    2. And when it isn’t written that way, it’s harder to tell the bias. When the NYT “neutralizes” language regarding the Palestinian genocide, is it removing its bias or obscuring it?
    3. Your media literacy could use improvement.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I opened your links and perused what was written. And when things are written factually there is less bias. Those wors used by NYT show bias, not facts. I'm not the only one here who needs to improve their media litteracy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    NATO is not a defensive pact regardless of how much marketing campaigns (read: Western propaganda) is churned out. Look up what they did in Yugoslavia and Libya for good examples of their "defensiveness".

    Every single NATO country materially supports the settler-colony, regardless if they advertise it to be their genocide or not, no amount of "But china but russia but.." will change that. "Israel" is not a distinct state but an amalgamation of European (and more recently US and commonwealthian, whom hail from settler-colonies) settler-colonialist Zionazis occupying Palestine. Get that through your head.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    Sounds like your just regurgitating anti nato propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Right, cause if if was offensive it would be invading other countries to steal their territory right? Funny that's what russia claims NATO does, but they are doing it themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    The NATO bombings of Libya & Yugoslavia have nothing to do with Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Right, and they invaded and took over those countries right? Cause that's what an offensive group would do

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

    Cause bombing civilians is what a defensive group would do. The NATO bombings of Libya & Yugoslavia still have nothing to do with Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    *Cause bombing civilians is defensive group would do

    Bombing civilians is bad, but they weren't just bombing civilians, they were preventing ethnic cleansing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If you’d read Parenti’s 2001 book, you’d know that that was bullshit pretext by the NATO powers. Yet more evidence has since come to light.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I have no doubt there is much more going on, but there are many conspiracies, I can't say it was a full on bullshit just based on this one guys take. If there was no intervention it would be what is happening now in Palestine. A genocide

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    No it only sounds stupid when you say that china allows Israeli capitalism to thrive.

    Getting hung up on the descriptor of nato countries being responsible for arming and funding the genocide is a deliberate obfuscation and refusal to acknowledge that these countries coordinate their military intelligence/technology and are connected through nato. Nato isnt like the UN where it's some separate body from the member states, the member states ARE nato.

    i/e nato is responsible for supplying israel with weapons = america, France, germany, Britain, turkey, etc are supplying israel with weapons.

    If russia, brazil, china, and iran were funding Israeli genocide we would be saying "brics is funding genocide in gaza" and you would unironically accept that framing even though brics is itself an economic pact whereas nato is explicitly a military defense pact. It is a descriptor, used because spelling out all 32 nato nations who are complicit is a waste of time when you can just say "nato is responsible for these weapons being used against palestinians" and it conveys the exact same meaning to anyone who isnt a pedant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    If you feel happy to say it's NATO then fine, I'm not wasting time anymore arguing with you. It's not NATO no matter how much you wish for it to be

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Wow, you actually went with "I know you are, but what am I?"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    With the way you were acting, it was appropriate

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 8 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    In the Gaza genocide no. In the West Bank yes.

    You seem to avoid the point that these vehicle suicide bombs are 100% NATO funded and supplied.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    In both, the Gaza genocide and in the West Bank. These suice bombs aren't nato funded, just because the countries they originate from are some of natos members doesn't mean it's nato. Yes, the US Canada, England are funding the genocide, and providing equipment sure, but it's not NATO, Israel get funds it army through trade with hundreds of nations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 1 year ago* (7 children)

    NATO countries with "military export bans" are sending F35 parts and other weapons including interceptors to Israel through the NATO logistics program.

    They are using NATO ports and NATO logistics to send their NATO weapons. And purchasing Israeli designed weapons for their own NATO military after Israel is done testing them on Palestinians in Gaza.

    There is one overarching factor making this genocide possible: NATO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    They are "nato" just because the countries are part of nato, not the other way around.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    No they use their NATO logistics scheme to bypass military export bans and transport their weapons to America which then sends them to Israel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It's the other way around, nato logistics is just military logistics that are shared across various countries, it's not nato, it's the countries themselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 7 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    The NATO countries? Yeah it is them. Using the NATO chain to supply Israel. They could of course stop being complicit in the NATO genocide of Gaza. But they refuse.

    Not sure what the point here is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The point is, it's not "NATO", that being said, I don't think this is going anywhere. We all agree there is a genocide, and it must be stopped.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments