this post was submitted on 27 Mar 2025
1533 points (95.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
7230 readers
2700 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Actually, it kinda is. For the same reason the US, the UK, and the USSR were all allies during WWII, and were all "the good guys" in that conflict, despite having drastically different ideologies. Because the other side was committing a major genocide, and had to be stopped above all else.
The genocide must be stopped, and neither US political party is willing to offer us a chance to vote against it. Therefore, it can only be stopped through military force, and we don't really have the luxury of waiting for some faction to suddenly emerge out of thin air that has the strength to fight and win while also being perfectly aligned ideologically. The very least we can do is offer our verbal support to the anti-genocide side, regardless of their reasons.
But if I'm wrong, then enlighten me. How exactly do you envision stopping the genocide?
The allies fought together in WWII because the axis attacked them. The genocide not only had nothing to do with it, war decisions were explicitly made to leave intact the concentration camp system (for example not bombing railroads that took people to the camps) because any whiff of supporting Jews would have damaged political support for the war. The people in the camps were only freed at the very end of the war.
The allies were the same countries that crippled Germany's economy after WWI, leaving its society vulnerable to the demagogery of Hitler. I don't believe they can be black-and-white described as "the good guys".
Yeah, that's the point. Many of the countries who were part of the Allies were doing it for their own interests, as world-dominating colonial powers. But whatever their motivations, they're still correctly regarded as "the good guys" because the other side was the fucking Nazis. Likewise, Ansar Allah and similar groups may have their own motivations, their own problems, their own sins, but the other side is committing genocide.
And the reason that literally every single conflict from Korea to Vietnam to Iraq and so on is justified by comparing it to WWII is that virtually everyone was and is on the same page about it, for different reasons. Yeah the leadership was motivated more by maintaining power, but that doesn't mean that everyone fighting at the time or that everyone looking back on it supported/supports the Allies on the same motivation.
Once Israel and the US have been defeated and the genocide has stopped, then sure, let's look at Ansar Allah's position on gay rights or whatever. Until then they are some of the only ones doing anything to keep Israel in check, and we desperately need someone to do that, because again, the genocide must stop.
You didn't answer the question. The genocide must stop, how do you envision stopping it? If you denounce every actual, practical solution without offering any other option, then how is your position meaningfully different from just outright supporting it?
That same line about how "they'd be even worse than us if they ever got power," has been used by virtually every colonialist project on earth. It's wild to watch an old school, 1800's style colonial project playing out in 2025 and to see all the same rhetoric being used, it's like getting in a time machine.
I don't have an answer. I just know supporting Islamists is not the answer.
You in 1940: "I don't know how we can stop the Nazis, I just know supporting Stalinists is not the answer."
I mean...yeah. Those fuckers were as bad as the Nazis. Fuck Stalin, he's a genocidal monster too, he just happened to be on the winning side.
Christ. Well then thank god you weren't president back then or we'd all be speaking German, and we wouldn't be discussing Israel because all the Jews would be dead.
What the hell is wrong with liberals? Do you just enjoy losing?
There it is. Tankie moment.
Ah yes, the famous tankie, Comrade Winston Churchill.
Jesus fucking christ. We've finally reached the point where supporting the Allied war effort in WWII makes you a "tankie." I guess that was always the logical endpoint for you moderate fascists.
This man is your FRIEND. He fights for FREEDOM.
We don't owe you an answer to that question.
Yeah, you kinda fucking do, actually, unless you're fine with the genocide continuing.
I asked for an answer, not Hasbara propaganda and genocide apologia.
Every claim Israel makes about Palestine is lies and projection. It's the IDF that uses human shields, not Hamas. It's the IDF that levels cities and shells hospitals, including those run by the UN. The IDF is a terrorist organization.
Yes, the "war" would stop if Hamas surrendered, because then it would become even more of a one-sided slaughter, although the killing wouldn't even end when every Palestinian was dead because Israel also goes Lebensraum on neighbors like Syria and Lebanon. Israel is a blatantly expansionist apartheid state and the only way lasting peace will be achieved is when the system of apartheid is ended and Palestinians are given full and equal rights and the colonizer ethnostate goes the way of similar states like apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany.
From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.
In the mean time, the terrorist rogue state of Israel cannot be reasoned with but can potentially be kept in check through force, the only language it understands.
It's a bit rude to just respond to someone with an empty accusation, isn't it? I'm sure you can come up with a better response and is useful to read and shows your point.
That is a very strange line of reasoning.
What's strange about it? "The poor should be fed, but I oppose every practical solution to feeding them" is effectively the same as saying "The poor should not be fed." The only difference is rhetorical. Likewise, "I don't support the genocide, but I oppose every practical solution to ending it," is effectively the same as saying, "I support the genocide."
I guess it's strange if you think words and rhetoric matter more than physical reality.
And you consider killing sailors who may not even know their ship is Israeli owned is a "practical solution"?
Yes, I do indeed consider distruption of trade routes a practical solution, because it is. How do you propose to force Israel and the US to the negotiating table? Asking nicely?
That's an ML take if ever I saw one.
Yes, people from my instance do tend to have more correct takes, thanks for noticing.
You still can't offer any alternative whatsoever, besides just allowing the genocide to continue unopposed.
yes. even in your stupid fucking bullshit strawman can you come up with a more heinous event than killing 53 civilians like the US just did.
Exactly what nazis would say if asked about why they tried to exterminate the jews.
Good god you’re broken beyond repair.
Except my solution is not to exterminate Israel. Fighting genocide by supporting a different group of genocidal maniacs is lunacy. Hamas is bad. Israel is bad. I can't even say who is worse, morally. Israel just happens to have greater capacity for inflicting their evil right now.
Sometimes, there are no good guys.
wow you are a nazi
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi" is not only a dumb argument, it's a boring argument.