• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yes, but unless she uses the exact words whatever shitposter would, she too is a bad person, and doing nothing but shitposting is justifiable.

    • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      Does she use the term “illegal war of aggresion”?

      I understand most people aren’t aware of how politics works but hacks like AOC know how to spam the term “illegal war of aggresion” when it comes to Russia invading Ukraine. But for Israel they spontaneously forget them.

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 months ago

        Did she say those exact words in this one statement? No. Has she condemned bombing iran as illegal in the past? yes.

        She didn’t say the the exact phrase in this release, possibly because what you’re demanding was word-for-word already said by Mamdani in his condemnation. She describes it as illegal and repeatedly calls it a war, both in no uncertain terms, and has almost nailed the same phrase in the past the last time this happened.

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not seeing this post on Twitter. Maybe I’m not looking through the timeline correctly. Could you link it to me please?

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Dude. I’m sorry she’s imperfect for your particular criteria. She can still be the best for America’s evolution while not being perfect. Maybe the libel of marking someone before their trial date is just a bridge too far; but we all got it from context clues.

        I’m actually glad this is the best issue today you could come up with: the amount of hair-splitting is almost a good sign.

        • orc girly@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 months ago

          She supported coups in Latin America, she’s just as imperialist as the rest, so no, not good enough if you see us as people

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Scenario’s like these show who will support and initiate imperialist wars when they are in power in the future. For you they are meaningless because you don’t understand how politics works.

      • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        She’s a politician. War is a definitive term in politics. I don’t know how US laws exactly dictate it, but I’d guess it needs to be somehow declared and it has legal consequences and whatever else it includes. However, as there’s no congress approval for it then it, by definition, can’t be a war. So it’s a ‘combat operation’. Just like Russia claimed their attack was ‘special operation’ instead of ‘war’.

        So, she’s, for all intents and purposes, saying that it’s illegal war operation, but keeping it politically/legally truthful, which is a pretty big deal on her job.

          • IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 months ago

            It’s excactly how it works. USA has not been, from their legal point of view, in war since second world war. Their ‘special operation’ equivalent is (based on a very quick search) ‘armed conflict’ or ‘prolonged period of sustained combat involving U.S. Armed Forces’.

            If you insist on the term ‘illegal war’ the proper legal equivalent would be ‘act of war’. In politics correct use of terms at least used to be pretty important, but obviously today, and specially in the USA, that goal has been flushed down the golden toilet multiple times. But that doesn’t change the fact that she condemned the attacks while defending their constitution and that fact doesn’t change even if you try to twist that to something else.

            • geneva_convenience@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              Saying words confidently doesn’t mean you understand how politics works.

              Also AOC didn’t condemn the attacks at all