sudneo

Sure, but the conclusion is still the same: saying that Italy is a "fascist country" is bs.

"Italy" did not, a minority of people, who did for all kind of different reasons, did. A subset of those is probably a nostalgic.

Meloni's party benefited from the fall of the other right wing parties. The core base which is probably what I would call fascists are probably close to the usual % her party was getting few years back: 3-5%.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with "being a fascist country". Words have meaning, and a fascist country is a dictatorship in which freedom of press does not exist, where minorities and political opposition is systematically repressed, killed, silenced, etc. Thankfully, we are still very far from that.

If you read about this matter, you would know very well that the matter is way more complex than "he did not want to stand trial". The whole matter is very well described by Stefania Maurizi (a journalist who cooperated with Wikileaks) in her book "Secret power". Both the Swedish and the UK government have huge responsibilities on how (bad) that case was handled.

Meloni has still been voted by a minority of people, considering the incredibly low turnout in the last elections. "Fascist" country seems very much pulled from your ass, especially when talking about something started by the previous city government of Rome.

Just be aware that "liberal" has a complete different meaning in the political discourse compared to what it means in the current (low quality) american political discourse. Historically liberals have been allies of fascism, indeed.

I am not sure how many it's "them", but I usually just make very liberal use of the block function. I had very bad experiences from people from multiple instances (sopuli, .ee, etc.) and I have always blocked the people. It's a click of a button, and soon you can ban whole instances...

IDF soldiers have long been safe and secure in Israel without any pushback from residents. It's time for them to reap the rewards of their support. If they still stand by the IDF, so be it.

This is your alter ego from across the border speaking.

It is well known that those are the only two options. Also, the problem here is that the task is not possible, according to UN personnel, not me or you. So this feels a lot as just a way to create plausible deniability by saying "we tried hard to spare civilians".

Pretending to be talking about good and evil is defending murdering children. 300 children (according to The Guardian who quotes Palestine authorities) died from Israel strikes already. It's not like killing in uniform and with "precision" strikes is less killing.

It is exactly both sides, although there are qualitative (hamas raids of innocents were somewhat more brutal and violent) and quantitative (many more palestinians dead) differences.

Then there is the whole historical analysis which is a whole other debate.

Plus, the data they gave was minimal, basically just the recovery email address, if I remember. That person got caught because they used the same address on Twitter (or something) and then they could get more data, if I recall correctly.

To be honest, I think they might be thinking about two different things. The article itself criticized the parroting of "this is 9/11" and explicitly decides to explain why it is Israel's 9/11 but reaching obviously different conclusions that many that repeat the same thing.

Well, sure, but war crimes are war crimes.