@owenjonesjourno Think the reaction is against the way the police handled the incident not the murder. So in the cases you describe, how did the police treat the victims?
@childofeternity@owenjonesjourno The “strawman” claim is nonsense.
Polanski literally stated “Israel killed 160 children” as fact before the evidence existed. Later reporting points more towards US responsibility for the strike.
Everything since has been a different argument.
@childofeternity@owenjonesjourno You’re still arguing inference, not proof.
“Trump could have stopped Israel” is not evidence that Israel directed the strike or that Polanski was correct to state Israeli responsibility as fact before the evidence existed.
@childofeternity@owenjonesjourno That’s an argument, not evidence.
You’re asserting Israel “pressured” or directed the US into the strike, but you haven’t produced evidence for that, which was my original criticism of Polanski stating Israeli responsibility as fact.
@childofeternity@owenjonesjourno You keep pivoting to “influence” and “lobbying” when that was never my point.
Polanski stated Israeli responsibility as fact before the evidence was there, and later reporting points more towards US responsibility for the strike.
@childofeternity@owenjonesjourno You keep arguing “influence” while ignoring the actual point.
My criticism is the hypocrisy: unproven claims are called “dangerous conspiracy theories” when opponents make them, but treated as settled fact when allies do.
@childofeternity@owenjonesjourno “Strong lobbying influence” and “America fights wars on Israel’s orders” are not the same thing.
That’s the leap you keep trying to smuggle in.
@childofeternity@owenjonesjourno So “fake footage” claims are dangerous conspiracy theories, but “Israel controls the US” suddenly isn’t?
Interesting standards.