Nothing the Israelis try, no matter how much American money they spend, will change the fact that they are a bunch of fanatical genocidal maniacs and the whole world, including most Americans, KNOWS it.
Putting lipstick on a rapist only draws more attention to the rapist.
One of the biggest reasons institutional trust keeps collapsing is that people can literally watch which atrocities become 24/7 global moral emergencies and which ones get treated like awkward PR problems to quietly manage away.
Props on your propaganda consistency. Keeping “dog rape” in the algorithm, no matter how thin the sourcing, clearly serves your narrative. But calling the October 7 sexual‑violence record a “mass rape hoax” at this point isn’t just partisan hackery — it’s denial.
On the same day a thinly sourced, uncorroborated allegation about dogs went mainstream, a years‑long investigation into Hamas’s sexual atrocities dropped: hundreds of interviews, thousands of photos and videos, attacker‑filmed footage, and a nearly 300‑page archive built for war‑crimes prosecutors. You treat the first as unquestionable and the second as fabrication.
You’re entitled to do that. But anyone citing you as “credible” on Epstein, or on sexual violence generally, needs to understand the standard you’ve chosen: allegations count as truth when they’re useful against Israel, and a mountain of evidence can be waved away as a hoax when the perpetrators are Hamas. That isn’t skepticism. It’s telling your readers that some rapes matter and some don’t, depending on who committed them.
If a factual, sourced counterpoint to a random post makes you jump straight to “may God have no mercy on you,” that’s not justice talking, it’s an outrage addiction. Whatever you’re feeding your brain, it isn’t helping you think clearly.
They have been doing this for 75 years
Nothing the Israelis try, no matter how much American money they spend, will change the fact that they are a bunch of fanatical genocidal maniacs and the whole world, including most Americans, KNOWS it.
Putting lipstick on a rapist only draws more attention to the rapist.
What kind of people train dogs to do that sort of thing? My god! I can’t hardly read this stuff. I can’t imagine..
It will all backfire!
One of the biggest reasons institutional trust keeps collapsing is that people can literally watch which atrocities become 24/7 global moral emergencies and which ones get treated like awkward PR problems to quietly manage away.
The inconsistency is the story now.
Props on your propaganda consistency. Keeping “dog rape” in the algorithm, no matter how thin the sourcing, clearly serves your narrative. But calling the October 7 sexual‑violence record a “mass rape hoax” at this point isn’t just partisan hackery — it’s denial.
On the same day a thinly sourced, uncorroborated allegation about dogs went mainstream, a years‑long investigation into Hamas’s sexual atrocities dropped: hundreds of interviews, thousands of photos and videos, attacker‑filmed footage, and a nearly 300‑page archive built for war‑crimes prosecutors. You treat the first as unquestionable and the second as fabrication.
You’re entitled to do that. But anyone citing you as “credible” on Epstein, or on sexual violence generally, needs to understand the standard you’ve chosen: allegations count as truth when they’re useful against Israel, and a mountain of evidence can be waved away as a hoax when the perpetrators are Hamas. That isn’t skepticism. It’s telling your readers that some rapes matter and some don’t, depending on who committed them.
no it's calling out made-up lies against the truth of the worst regime in history.
if it was the other way round, we'd all be calling that out as well.
to think this is partisan is the limit of your fked-up mind.
may God have no mercy on you, ever.
If a factual, sourced counterpoint to a random post makes you jump straight to “may God have no mercy on you,” that’s not justice talking, it’s an outrage addiction. Whatever you’re feeding your brain, it isn’t helping you think clearly.