I don't see a problem here. She's not gonna say that Israel should be eradicated. There is no mAsK oFf happening here; the position is "end war, everyone stay in their borders".
okay.... so why not vote for the amendment to cut off Iron Dome? or is her "worry" that with Iron Dome cut off in the bill, more of the House will vote to continue the bill which still includes munitions flow - to which she is against?
i'm being very charitable to her, but that seems to be what she's arguing?
A nuanced position aimed at reducing civilian casualties regardless of where they live and their ethnicity?
/s of course.
Seriously, tankies can fuck right off until they gain enough understanding about how the nuanced details of this impact how a defensive IADS system operates.
Nakoichi [they/them]
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Nakoichi [they/them] • • •TheRedSpade
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ doesn't like this.
geneva_convenience
in reply to TheRedSpade • • •☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
InternetRando
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to InternetRando • • •InternetRando
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to InternetRando • • •No she admits that she voted to send weapons to Israel in this very tweet.
Vote is here.
lemmy.ml/post/33371684?scrollT…
geneva_convenience
2025-07-19 10:38:20
☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
InternetRando
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to InternetRando • • •InternetRando
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to InternetRando • • •Nakoichi [they/them]
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to Nakoichi [they/them] • • •frogbellyratbone_ [e/em/eir, any]
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •okay.... so why not vote for the amendment to cut off Iron Dome? or is her "worry" that with Iron Dome cut off in the bill, more of the House will vote to continue the bill which still includes munitions flow - to which she is against?
i'm being very charitable to her, but that seems to be what she's arguing?
geneva_convenience
in reply to frogbellyratbone_ [e/em/eir, any] • • •☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆ likes this.
gravitas_deficiency
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •A nuanced position aimed at reducing civilian casualties regardless of where they live and their ethnicity?
/s of course.
Seriously, tankies can fuck right off until they gain enough understanding about how the nuanced details of this impact how a defensive IADS system operates.
geneva_convenience
in reply to gravitas_deficiency • • •☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience likes this.
notsosure
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •geneva_convenience
in reply to notsosure • • •thermal_shock
in reply to geneva_convenience • • •Uh, wtf is this title?
geneva_convenience doesn't like this.
geneva_convenience
in reply to thermal_shock • • •An accurate one clarifying what she actually said.
See also lemmy.ml/post/33371684 for context
geneva_convenience
2025-07-19 10:38:20