UN Security Council passes resolution calling for Gaza ceasefire
www.bbc.co.uk
The resolution passes after the US refrains from using its veto, in a shift from its previous position.

UN Security Council passes resolution calling for an “immediate ceasefire” in Gaza, as US shifts position by abstaining from vote

  • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    8 months ago

    That sentence isn’t relevant though is it?

    Do you think geopolitics is that simple or nah?

    • soratoyuki@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      8 months ago

      Of course the sentence is relevant. I’m not sure why I should bother writing a reply to you when you apparently stop reading them after the first word. Have a good day.

      • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        8 months ago

        JFC you aren’t even denying it. you guys actually unironically believe it’s that simple.

          • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            8 months ago

            It’s not selective reading. If I make a statement and you say “No” that mea s you’re refuting that statement.

            Then their second sentence had nothing to do with wether they think these politics are simple or not, hence why I didn’t quit it.

            The OP is just using bad faith arguments to distracts from that. Which is why they don’t even attempt to deny it and just criticise the fact I didn’t quote their entire comment instead of responding.

            • ABCDE@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              8 months ago

              No, you didn’t read it properly, and I’d say you’re arguing in bad faith or you just cannot read properly as everyone else seems to have done just fine. Ignoring so much of their comment then their intention afterwards makes you look silly. You are wrong, your understanding is wrong.

              • gmtom@lemmy.worldEnglish
                1·
                8 months ago

                Then why can’t the OP nor you/ anyone else actually give an explanation, or even so much as give a response to an INCREDIBLY simple question. Of “do you think international diplomacy is that simple?”

                Again. The conversation went

                Me: diplomacy isn’t that simple

                SB: No. Shouting genocide Joe worked.

                The first sentence is them denying my point that diplomacy isn’t simple. The second sentence is tangential to that point. And does nothing to explain why they think diplomacy isn’t actually simple. He’ll I’m not even denying their se and point. Shouting genocide Joe did put pressure on Biden that did shape foreign policy in some small way. But again, its not relevant to the point I was making, so didn’t quote it.

                Which is why the other commenter is acting in bad faith when they completely ignore my point because I didn’t quote their tangential point in my second comment.

                I thought this would be fairly obvious to anyone with literacy skills but apparently I need to wrote whole paragraphs to explain what someone replying “no” means.