…bullshit.
But I didn’t oppose nuclear power in the Fukushina thread.
I told you over and over and over again I didn’t oppose nuclear power. I said that if America wants to build more nuclear plants as part of a larger energy strategy, I’m JUST FINE WITH THAT.
You even conceded, at the end of our discussion, that I hadn’t been saying that. So did you just forget?
My position in that other thread was relatively straightforward. That Japan had broad evidence from a number of reports from experts in the field that the area around Fukushina was unsafe, that I’m not going to second-guess those experts, that Germany balanced a range of issues before deciding to abandon nuclear power many years ago, once they committed to that course they had to make a number of decisions that were not optimal, but also weren’t the worst things in the world. And that if America wanted to pursue more nuclear power, then go for it! But they need to hurry up because they are already facing multiple crises that are costing peoples lives.
The problem wasn’t with anything I said. It’s what you imagined I said.
And its the same thing here. My position on this war is relatively uncomplicated. I think the events that happened on October the 7th were unfathomably evil and committed by a terrorist organization that must be destroyed. But Israel is the occupying power, and under the Geneva conventions and international law have obligations that they must meet. And even if Israel don’t consider themselves the occupying power, they are still signatories to the conventions and obliged to follow international law.
I think the siege is collective punishment, an obvious breach of international law, and is something that needs to be stopped immediately. I think the bombing campaign lacks transparency and clarity and Israel refuses to answer questions on what they are doing to minimize civilian casualties. I think that refusal, along with a death toll that is well above what we have seen in other recent conflicts, demonstrate a complete disregard by Israel for complying with the Geneva Conventions and international law.
You can disagree with me if you like. But that’s an opinion that I came up with all by myself. And my sources have largely been from humanitarian agencies. I don’t think any of them have been bad.
I said the UN considers Gaza to still be an occupied territory, So internationally, thats the legal status. I’m aware that Israel disagrees. But we were talking about obligations under international law. As the occupier, Israel has a certain set of obligations. If they aren’t the occupier, as a signatory, they still have obligations.
When did I make that claim, exactly?
