- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa@lemmy.ml
Summary
U.S. Muslim leaders who backed Trump to protest Biden’s support for Israel’s war in Gaza and Lebanon feel betrayed by Trump’s Cabinet picks.
Trump named staunch pro-Israel figures, including Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, Mike Huckabee as Israel ambassador, and Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador, sparking discontent.
Muslim voters hoped for peace-oriented leaders, but critics say the administration reflects “Zionist overdrive” and “neoconservative” priorities.
While some leaders feel “played,” others believe Trump’s peace promises remain valid despite concerns over his appointments. Trump’s campaign has not commented.
Where are they blamed for the failure of the campaign here, again?
The obvious result was that a not-insignificant part of the country is stupid enough to vote for ‘more genocide’ instead of less?
The whole premise of this being a news story, and a story that receives reliable engagement and gets injected into every story about Lebanon and Palestine is that these votes of these people have meaningfully caused the problems we’re all going to experience. A similar amount of ink is not being spread about any other group, and certainly not about all the mundane white assholes who have been voting for the people who harm their communities year after year.
And be honest, we’re looking at like 5% more genocide than Biden. We aren’t exactly going from Gandhi to Hitler on this issue. The Harris opportunity was always a secret hope that she was better than what she was willing to say. And like, a hope is better than none at all, but if she just followed what she said and didn’t change anything, none of us would be seriously asking ourselves how we could have missed the signs.
There are over a million Gazans still alive. That is a very large number of people barely hanging on from starvation that can still be mercilessly wiped out. You really sure about that 5% figure?
I’m more disturbed by the fact that they think that 5% figure is irrelevant. Even if they’re right, that’s 5% more innocent people. That’s literally thousands of people.
Biden literally isn’t stopping the starvation tactic now. There was a red line, they crossed it, and he said “nevermind”. So what exactly is going to be different under Trump? From another story, Trump is going to release the 2000 lb. bomb shipments. It’s literally the only thing Biden has denied them. I’d estimate 5% is the difference is between killing people with starvation, disease, and 500 lb. bombs and starvation, disease, and 2000 lb. bombs.
I hope I’m wrong, but I expect the difference being going from a small handful of aid trucks a day to zero aid trucks a day. That would be a big difference to the people of Gaza.
That’s a lot of reading in to a common post-election story of buyer’s remorse that’s all over the place, about multiple demographics, right now.
Lord.
Junkies’ll do some crazy shit for some o’ that sweet, sweet righteous indignation…
Let’s say that’s true. I don’t believe it’s true, but let’s say it is… that’s worse, right? Would you go to Palestine and tell people there “only 5% more of you will die now that Trump has been elected, so it’s about the same as before?”
What a crazy bit of hand waving away a huge problem of your own admission.
I’m not counting bodies, I’m saying the relative dedication to genocide is not significantly different in impact. The material difference from Biden is literally just the 2000 lb. bombs, with an unquantifiable and unreliable hope that Democrats would snap out of it and start doing better. Hope meant it was worth trying for, because a change could be a big deal, but very likely the real difference in death come January 20th is going to be minimal compared to the death that Biden has already overseen and allowed.
That’s literally counting bodies. Even if your 5% figure is right, that’s a difference in thousands of deaths.
Again, would you say such a thing to someone in Gaza? That thousands more dead than there would have been otherwise is not significantly different in impact? Would you say it to a parent who’s child was amongst those thousands?
It’s not a “right” figure, it’s an expression of small differences. Stop trying to do math and just read what I’m writing. 99 vs. 100, 99.9 vs. 100, really bad vs. slightly more bad, whatever expression you’d prefer. The difference in impact is limited because Biden has presented practically no restriction or resistance.
I think you are the one who needs to do math, because you’re going from a 5% difference to a 1% difference to a 0.1% difference (which I don’t think you have realized) and I am saying that if you asked anyone in Palestine they would say that even one less death would be preferable. Especially if that one less death was their child.
Every life lost is a significant impact. Every human being in this world has a potential to make a massive difference.
And I’m sad that you don’t seem to understand that.
You need to keep reading my posts until you get it through your head that I didn’t pick 5% or 1% or 0.1% because there was an estimate of increased casualties, it’s just an expression of the degradation being marginal. None of the numbers mean anything. One is worse (Trump), but on this issue not by a lot, and when someone is voting emotionally because they know people who been killed, they may not be in the head space to see a small difference as more important than their anger.
You can talk about passionless objective voters calculating death percentages all you want, but that was never the topic of conversation. I’m not in that population, I made my calculation and a little less death is worth it, but I don’t blame anyone who lost a relative, watched Harris and Biden barely even give lip service to them and their community, and then told them to go fuck themselves. Haha, leopard sure ate their faces, what idiots.
And you need to keep reading my posts until you realize that ONE EXTRA DEATH IS WORSE.