I would never deny any claim of genocide, regardless of evidence, because that’s against .world’s rules. If someone tells me that France is genociding Belgians, I won’t question or dispute it because that’s against the rules. But the thing is that when a genocide has clear, documented evidence, I just find that a lot more emotionally compelling. I connect more with what’s happening when I can see a shitton of photo and video evidence of dead children in the streets than when all I have to go on is random hearsay. I guess you could say I’m a very visual person.
This comment was reported.
Instead of taking any actions, I’ll just ask this:
If the people committing the crime are great at controlling the media, it didn’t happen?
I’ve decided to write a seperate comment for it, so… what’s that?
is it a hospital? a school? what is its purpose and why is it in the dessert
Good question.
I sometimes think about the fact that JFK fired Alan Dulles, the guy in charge of assassinating world leaders, months before he was assassinated, and that Dulles was then on the investigative committee into his death. Now, does that prove Dulles was behind the assassination? No. But it does make me go “Hmm.” But it is worth noting that if that was what happened, I certainly wouldn’t have the means at my disposal to prove it. I wasn’t on the investigative committee, after all.
Now, I might choose to believe that’s what happened, or that there was a possibility that that’s what happened. You might not. That’s fine. But what would be less fine would be if I declared anyone who doubted my conjecture and wanted concrete proof to be a redfash who blindly believes anything the US government says and should be banned and excluded from conversation.
