![](https://aussie.zone/pictrs/image/2ce7d152-3f1b-4b81-9188-41fa3a6d9588.jpeg)
![](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/gWmVEUZ94Z.png)
really appreciate you taking the effort! i see where you’re coming from with the “enemies of the state” part, and think that id agree there
really appreciate you taking the effort! i see where you’re coming from with the “enemies of the state” part, and think that id agree there
would you be able to link to a page that helps describe fascism as you say: that relies on severity of consequence?
asking because whilst i agree that fascism is specific - and this doesn’t cover it - im not sure that degree of severity is part of the definition and that could be a dangerous precedent to set because the other parts of fascism about control and quashing dissent enable the severe consequences once they are present
sure, but usually when used in this way for a single word or a couple they’re implying someone else said this; we don’t believe it so we aren’t saying it
i’m kinda hoping the “whoops our bad” from countries that suspended funding results in an apology of far more humanitarian funding than would have otherwise been given… not that it’d make up for it, but if Israel’s idea was to destroy the UNRWA then strengthening it and making sure that will never happen would be a fuck you i guess
neither is israel… the ICC decided that it has jurisdiction if a crime was committed in a country(area? because palestine is a signatory but not a country) that is a signatory
so it’s charged israelis because palestine is a signatory
afghanistan is also a signatory, so AFAIK the ICC believes it has jurisdiction to charge US citizens for any war crimes that may have occurred during… that… whole… thing
the US disagrees of course, but IDK it kinda makes sense. if you assasinate someone in, say, the UK and then flee to… like… Russia for example <_< then the UK isn’t just going to say well i guess they’re Russian so we don’t have jurisdiction