I’m just giving context, there’s no need to be passive aggressive or hostile. Do you think I’m defending the US or Israel? Where did I ever state that this is some righteous cause?
Its not just the “war” designation. The way they describe it in the Tweet harkens images of the Invasion of Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia, or countless other bloody conflicts in which millions died at the hands of combined offensives. Not the UN dispatching 4 destroyers to escort merchant ships in a story that is barely a footnote in the news. This is needless sensationalism and looks like crying wolf.
What “actions”? You make it sound as if the US is using the UN as pretext to annex Yemen, which if that was the case, do you think that the other members on the Security Council might have some objections and would have used their veto power? Do you think China would allow the US to use the naval assets they requisitioned for this operation, and are currently under the command of a US Navy officer, to aggressively strike the Houthis?
I’m just giving context, there’s no need to be passive aggressive or hostile.
Oh come on. There’s no need to be dishonest. I’m responding in kind to your screeching tone.
“deliberately untrue.”… “The operation is titled Operation Prosperity Guardian if anyone is curious.”
This is reddit quality sneering commentary. You seem to be triggered simply by the bald fact that this is an entirely American led operation in response to another American led atrocity.
The way they describe it in the Tweet harkens images of the Invasion of Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia, or countless other bloody conflicts in which millions died at the hands of combined offensives.
This is all in your mind. This is purely your inference. I see nothing to support this.
Not the UN dispatching 4 destroyers to escort merchant ships
These innocent escort ships are called “destroyers”.
This is needless sensationalism and looks like crying wolf.
Your apologia seems like needless trivialising and crybullying to me.
What “actions”?
The attempted neutering of the only real response we’ve seen to the US/Israel genocide.
You make it sound as if the US is using the UN as pretext to annex Yemen, which if that was the case, do you think
Your panicky attempt to put words in my mouth and defend your scarecrow won’t work here.
Do you think China would allow the US to use the naval assets they requisitioned for this operation, and are currently under the command of a US Navy officer, to aggressively strike the Houthis?
So it’s under the command of a US Navy officer now, and not just some humdrum, run of the mill UN operation that’s just going through the motions?
When I read the OP tweet saying that the US is ‘preparing to go to war’ my first thought was that it was preparing to go to war, as it did in Iraq and a host of other places. Not a joint operation with a broad coalition of forces. An invasion. Because that’s usually what it means when we hear the US is preparing for war.
Then:
“The operation is titled Operation Prosperity Guardian if anyone is curious.”
Coming at this with relatively little knowledge, I was curious, so it didn’t come across as screeching or sneering. Characterising that sentence as such and then talking about being ‘triggered’ or ‘Reddit-anything’ is disingenuous and/or ironic in light of: ‘this is all in your mind’, ‘crybullying’, ‘panicky attempt’, ‘scarecrow’. This is not the way of a good faith discussion, not to mention the ableism.
ComradeSalad appears to have identified ‘misinformation and ragebait’ and there is a big difference between that and impliedly supporting the US. I for one am glad of it, so that I don’t repeat falsehoods. There’s enough to criticise the US about, as you noted in another comment above, without sensationalism.
When I read the OP tweet saying that the US is ‘preparing to go to war’ my first thought was that it was preparing to go to war, as it did in Iraq and a host of other places. Not a joint operation with a broad coalition of forces. An invasion. Because that’s usually what it means when we hear the US is preparing for war.
I don’t know what to say about this. I read it as a figure of speech. Something the other guy is claiming as his defense now. I think it’s a weird reading to think this in any way meant an “invasion”. The trading of military projectiles is all I thought about.
Coming at this with relatively little knowledge, I was curious, so it didn’t come across as screeching or sneering. Characterising that sentence as such
Please don’t attempt this conflation. I characterised their angry response as a whole a “screeching”. I characterised this sentence as “sneering”, please don’t misrepresent me.
‘this is all in your mind’, ‘crybullying’, ‘panicky attempt’, ‘scarecrow’. This is not the way of a good faith discussion,
This is all in response to OP’s raging defense of America’s brutality in the region. Specifically its aggression towards the only material state defense against its genocide.
not to mention the ableism.
Excuse me? It sounds like you’re attempting to dishonestly gain some kind of moralistic, liberal upper hand by accusing me of this. Please explain yourself. Where is this ableism? Now this is not the way of a good faith discussion.
ComradeSalad appears to have identified ‘misinformation and ragebait’
I disagree. They’ve enacted a completely over the top histrionic defence of the USA’s actions here and decided to uncharitably take issue with a simple tweet as a literal, legal statement of fact.
and there is a big difference between that and impliedly supporting the US.
Then you can insert your own explanation for his extreme emotional reaction?
I for one am glad of it, so that I don’t repeat falsehoods. There’s enough to criticise the US about, as you noted in another comment above, without sensationalism.
Agreed. Now you better back up your allegations against me making ableist comments. Since we’re taking everything extremely literally here, as if this is a court of law. I take your accusation very seriously.
I had deleted my comment as I didn’t like how I’d phrased some of it but you’ve managed to see it and reply, so I’ll address one of the points.
This seems to be the root of it:
defense of America’s brutality.
I don’t know how you’re getting that from what was said. But nevermind, my issue is with the way that you challenge ComradeSalad. I think you’ve missed the mark because they don’t say what you think they are saying, and so you aren’t tackling the argument but the tone of it.
‘this is all in your mind’ … ‘panicky attempt’
Seems to me that you’re questioning ComradeSalad’s state of mind, repeatedly, to dismiss what they’re saying. And you’ve doubled down, whether you realise it or not:
‘over the top histrionic defence’ … ‘extreme emotional reaction’ … ‘raging defence’ …
You might not be doing this on purpose but casting doubt on someone’s emotional/mental state to discredit what they’re saying is ableist. It relies on a model of mental capacity that is used to deny autonomy to people. You might be writing just one comment but some of it’s premises rest on that ableist system.
Coming at this with relatively little knowledge, I was curious, so it didn’t come across as screeching or sneering.
Please don’t attempt this conflation. I characterised their angry response as a whole a “screeching”. I characterised this sentence as “sneering”, please don’t misrepresent me.
This is pedantic. I’m talking about your comment as a whole, with that sentence as an example. The ‘screeching’ is also another example of the above, re: emotional state.
Since we’re taking everything extremely literally here, as if this is a court of law. I take your accusation very seriously.
You’re taking this the wrong way. I’m saying all this because you need to reflect on how you’re talking to others. I wouldn’t be saying all this if you had made an argument that focused on the substance of the OP. You don’t have to agree with it. But you can’t interpret it in a different way to the OP and others (me included, although you seem to disbelieve or question me) and then attack their mental state. It’s not on.
Oh come on. There’s no need to be dishonest. I’m responding in kind to your screeching tone.
So you’re calling me a liar to my face? That’s a wonderful plan, and I’m sure you’re coming at this in good faith.
Why would I bother responding to you at this point if you assume that everything I’m saying is a lie, because what? Am I a fed? A supporter of the US military? Am I a sock account for Joe Biden? I want to know, what’s your reasoning? You’ve just been hostile and gone in guns blazing for no reason.
You’re entire argument is, “You’re lying, it’s all in your head and your interpretation, and you’re triggered”? The hell is wrong with you?
This escort is required to deal with the response to the US sanctioned genocide, right?
So the US is using the UN to give credence to its actions. Okay. What part specifically do you take issue with here? The “war” designation?
I’m just giving context, there’s no need to be passive aggressive or hostile. Do you think I’m defending the US or Israel? Where did I ever state that this is some righteous cause?
Its not just the “war” designation. The way they describe it in the Tweet harkens images of the Invasion of Iraq, Vietnam, Somalia, or countless other bloody conflicts in which millions died at the hands of combined offensives. Not the UN dispatching 4 destroyers to escort merchant ships in a story that is barely a footnote in the news. This is needless sensationalism and looks like crying wolf.
What “actions”? You make it sound as if the US is using the UN as pretext to annex Yemen, which if that was the case, do you think that the other members on the Security Council might have some objections and would have used their veto power? Do you think China would allow the US to use the naval assets they requisitioned for this operation, and are currently under the command of a US Navy officer, to aggressively strike the Houthis?
Oh come on. There’s no need to be dishonest. I’m responding in kind to your screeching tone.
This is reddit quality sneering commentary. You seem to be triggered simply by the bald fact that this is an entirely American led operation in response to another American led atrocity.
This is all in your mind. This is purely your inference. I see nothing to support this.
These innocent escort ships are called “destroyers”.
Your apologia seems like needless trivialising and crybullying to me.
The attempted neutering of the only real response we’ve seen to the US/Israel genocide.
Your panicky attempt to put words in my mouth and defend your scarecrow won’t work here.
So it’s under the command of a US Navy officer now, and not just some humdrum, run of the mill UN operation that’s just going through the motions?
You’ve misread things here, I think.
When I read the OP tweet saying that the US is ‘preparing to go to war’ my first thought was that it was preparing to go to war, as it did in Iraq and a host of other places. Not a joint operation with a broad coalition of forces. An invasion. Because that’s usually what it means when we hear the US is preparing for war.
Then:
Coming at this with relatively little knowledge, I was curious, so it didn’t come across as screeching or sneering. Characterising that sentence as such and then talking about being ‘triggered’ or ‘Reddit-anything’ is disingenuous and/or ironic in light of: ‘this is all in your mind’, ‘crybullying’, ‘panicky attempt’, ‘scarecrow’. This is not the way of a good faith discussion, not to mention the ableism.
ComradeSalad appears to have identified ‘misinformation and ragebait’ and there is a big difference between that and impliedly supporting the US. I for one am glad of it, so that I don’t repeat falsehoods. There’s enough to criticise the US about, as you noted in another comment above, without sensationalism.
I don’t know what to say about this. I read it as a figure of speech. Something the other guy is claiming as his defense now. I think it’s a weird reading to think this in any way meant an “invasion”. The trading of military projectiles is all I thought about.
Please don’t attempt this conflation. I characterised their angry response as a whole a “screeching”. I characterised this sentence as “sneering”, please don’t misrepresent me.
This is all in response to OP’s raging defense of America’s brutality in the region. Specifically its aggression towards the only material state defense against its genocide.
Excuse me? It sounds like you’re attempting to dishonestly gain some kind of moralistic, liberal upper hand by accusing me of this. Please explain yourself. Where is this ableism? Now this is not the way of a good faith discussion.
I disagree. They’ve enacted a completely over the top histrionic defence of the USA’s actions here and decided to uncharitably take issue with a simple tweet as a literal, legal statement of fact.
Then you can insert your own explanation for his extreme emotional reaction?
Agreed. Now you better back up your allegations against me making ableist comments. Since we’re taking everything extremely literally here, as if this is a court of law. I take your accusation very seriously.
I had deleted my comment as I didn’t like how I’d phrased some of it but you’ve managed to see it and reply, so I’ll address one of the points.
This seems to be the root of it:
I don’t know how you’re getting that from what was said. But nevermind, my issue is with the way that you challenge ComradeSalad. I think you’ve missed the mark because they don’t say what you think they are saying, and so you aren’t tackling the argument but the tone of it.
Seems to me that you’re questioning ComradeSalad’s state of mind, repeatedly, to dismiss what they’re saying. And you’ve doubled down, whether you realise it or not:
You might not be doing this on purpose but casting doubt on someone’s emotional/mental state to discredit what they’re saying is ableist. It relies on a model of mental capacity that is used to deny autonomy to people. You might be writing just one comment but some of it’s premises rest on that ableist system.
This is pedantic. I’m talking about your comment as a whole, with that sentence as an example. The ‘screeching’ is also another example of the above, re: emotional state.
You’re taking this the wrong way. I’m saying all this because you need to reflect on how you’re talking to others. I wouldn’t be saying all this if you had made an argument that focused on the substance of the OP. You don’t have to agree with it. But you can’t interpret it in a different way to the OP and others (me included, although you seem to disbelieve or question me) and then attack their mental state. It’s not on.
So you’re calling me a liar to my face? That’s a wonderful plan, and I’m sure you’re coming at this in good faith.
Why would I bother responding to you at this point if you assume that everything I’m saying is a lie, because what? Am I a fed? A supporter of the US military? Am I a sock account for Joe Biden? I want to know, what’s your reasoning? You’ve just been hostile and gone in guns blazing for no reason.
You’re entire argument is, “You’re lying, it’s all in your head and your interpretation, and you’re triggered”? The hell is wrong with you?
This is an online, text-based media forum and I have not called you anything at all.
You’re hysterical now and just shadow boxing. I think we can leave it there.
Imagine being pedantic over a figure of speech. You really got me there.
Coward, you go in guns blazing then immediately run away while claiming the other side is “hysterical”.
Where did I call you a liar? Anywhere? Figuratively? Literally? I have no idea what you’re talking about.