Remarks by President Biden Before Marine One Departure | The White House
www.whitehouse.gov
South Lawn 10:34 A.M. EST Q Mr. President, what — do you hold Iran responsible for the death of the three Americans? Q Have you made a decision how you’ll respond to the attacks? THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Q And — Q Mr. President, do you hold Iran responsible for the death of those three Americans?…
  • huginn@feddit.it
    552·
    8 months ago

    I think that’s a good, fair way of treating arms dealers. Let’s apply that to everyone then yeah?

    Lets apply that to everyone.

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    504·
    8 months ago

    So they’ll sue gun shops owners when there’s a mass-killing going on, right?

  • athos77@kbin.social
    44·
    8 months ago

    Q Mr. President, do you hold Iran responsible for the death of those three Americans?

    THE PRESIDENT: I do hold respon- — them responsible in the sense that they’re supplying the weapons to the people who did it.

    Cool. Now do Israel.

      • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
        61·
        8 months ago

        It’s not even the electorate, the DNC is pushing Octogenarian Joe and his zionist sympathetic ideology. While they are also hiding any real alternative.

        • AnyProgressIsGood@lemmy.world
          11·
          8 months ago

          Yeah it’s the electorate. Dnc didn’t push shit. He’s the incumbent that was picked clearly in primaries. If the voter is voting on his Israel stance they’ll have a rude awakening with trump in charge. Not to mention how stupid it is to make a single issue vote

          Hence it’s 100percent on a dumb electorate that can’t to basic if else logic

          • FrowingFostek@lemmy.world
            1·
            8 months ago

            I disagree, the DNC favors the incumbent, which I believe is a poor decision electorally. Moreover, the electorate should feel informed on the choices of candidates.

            I don’t like the argument “DNC didn’t push shit” they are an organization with an agenda, just like all organizations. They maintain support for Biden and sweep any other candidates under the rug away from the visibility of voters.

            It’s my belief that people on the left who would have voted from Biden, independents & moderates who support Palestine, will stay home based on single issues. I don’t think it’s smart of them to vote that way but, it’s an uncomfortable truth about the voting population that the DNC should understand.

  • HubertManne@kbin.social
    113·
    8 months ago

    misleading headlines are misleading:

    Q But directly responsible?

    THE PRESIDENT: Well, we’ll have that discussion.

    • MarcoPOLO@sh.itjust.works
      65·
      8 months ago

      This is from the same President that slurred “womenofamerica” at a rally, so I guess it’s understandable he would confuse being responsible for being responsible.

      • HubertManne@kbin.social
        71·
        8 months ago

        that last statement you made sounds wierd. He said what has been the status quo. Those selling are somewhat responsible but not directly responsible. Thats why the us gets so much flak (well and the actual do things we do)

  • Hyperreality@kbin.social
    232·
    8 months ago

    Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in “what about…?”) is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense of the original accusation. … Leonid Bershidsky called whataboutism a “Russian tradition”, while The New Yorker described the technique as “a strategy of false moral equivalences”. Julia Ioffe called whataboutism a “sacred Russian tactic”, and compared it to accusing the pot of calling the kettle black. …

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

    • davel [he/him]@lemmy.mlEnglish
      171·
      8 months ago

      Citations Needed podcast: Whataboutism - The Media’s Favorite Rhetorical Shield Against Criticism of US Policy

      Since the beginning of what’s generally called ‘RussiaGate’ three years ago, pundits, media outlets, even comedians have all become insta-experts on supposed Russian propaganda techniques. The most cunning of these tricks, we are told, is that of “whataboutism” – a devious Soviet tactic of deflecting criticism by pointing out the accusers’ hypocrisy and inconsistencies. The tu quoque - or, “you, also” - fallacy, but with a unique Slavic flavor of nihilism, used by Trump and leftists alike in an effort to change the subject and focus on the faults of the United States rather than the crimes of Official State Enemies.

      But what if “whataboutism” isn’t describing a propaganda technique, but in fact is one itself: a zombie phrase that’s seeped into everyday liberal discourse that – while perhaps useful in the abstract - has manifestly turned any appeal to moral consistency into a cunning Russian psyop. From its origins in the Cold War as a means of deflecting and apologizing for Jim Crow to its braindead contemporary usage as a way of not engaging any criticism of the United States as the supposed arbiter of human rights, the term “whataboutism” has become a term that - 100 percent of the time - is simply used to defend and legitimizing American empire’s moral narratives.

      Ben Burgis @ Current Affairs: Is “Whataboutism” Always a Bad Thing?

      Discussing the crimes of our own country as well as the crimes of others is not always an effort to downplay other countries’ crimes—it can be a test of whether we are serious about our principles.