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.
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?
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.