I don't think this can be answered on here. There's too much propaganda and psyops, and quite simply, I doubt anyone on here is from Syria!
I do not like authoritarianism, so that's a no from me dawg, but if Assad's rule is that big a threat to the Empire of America then maybe? But that's about as deep an analysis as any non-expert forum (i.e. lemmy) can give you imo.
EDIT: some research - like the ideology of the coup, dislike hereditary regimes. It's really not an easy one to balance out imo
none of these people are redeemable
That was you.
Which led to someone else replying:
Statistically speaking there probably isn’t a nicer country if you were going to do a Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
You literally sent that from a FOSS platform...
Well goddamn! That's insane! Thanks for the source.
However, I'd still argue collective punishment of the (up to) 6% is still wrong. And the idea that they 94% are somehow too far gone to be changed is defeatist in the extreme!
I'd also argue that no one is inherently fascist or unsavable. Brain washing can be broken. Calling for the deaths of roughly 9m people (as some of the others in this chain have done) is inherently wrong and plays into the reactionists hands ("they'd do it to us if they could so we need to do it to them").
EDIT: On top of that, I want to highlight the date: November 10, 2023. The poll was conducted a month after Oct 7th. I would be interested to see what the polls say now.
Can I get a source for that number? The amount of Israeli propaganda when you try to search it is insane (jfc NPR) so can't find anything concrete.
I dunno...the company I work for has a Tel Aviv office and there's an Israeli on my team. We are always talking about this shit, how disgusting it is, how he got a black eye at the last protest for daring to call Muslims people, etc etc.
There is a large amount of fascists in Israel - it is a European colonial state after all - but painting everyone with the same brush is not it, especially people that were born there and are trying to make it better for everyone. Like any large group, they are not homogenous and portraying any group as homogenously evil is dangerous to the extreme.
I'd suggest reading some of the "New Historians" to get a sense of the wide range of people that live in the colony known as Israel. Ilan Pappe is a good place to start imo.
(Edit: spelling)
I don't think this is a great "guide".
It's overly simplistic: a lot happened between the launch of the internet and the dotcom bubble bursting (like the dotcom bubble itself). It doesn't mention the blog explosion of the late 90s. It doesn't mention the rise of personal/family websites. It talks about search engines, but the 90s were defined by the browser wars.
It's wrong: Dropbox was launched in 2007. Tim Berners-Lee didn't just propose the internet, he created the first web browser, the first web server, and invented HTML.
I'm not flailing, I'm pointing out you are trying to rewrite history.
On top of that the other commenter didn't "destroy" my claim nor was it "bullshit". They added context based on an assumption I didn't make (i.e. vaccine = cure) which led me to do more research and add context that changed the level of enthusiasm I had.
What was bullshit was you deciding it was disingenuous AND you saying I had made changes you had requested. Neither of those statements are true.
"I believe your edit came either at the same time" - you do see the irony of asserting your belief like it's fact in a thread where I added my belief to a fact and mangled it as a result? You do see it, right?
I find it kinda funny that I admitted where I was wrong but you are literally unable to.
Anyway, just clarifying: the OTHER poster got me to edit based on their HELPFUL comments. You didn't do anything apart from state obvious facts about FDA approval and try to take credit for being so wise and insightful
Check again.
"My original comment was a glib link to a wikipedia page. I had not done the research and have edited my comment above"
To which you replied:
"Your last sentence here would change the sentiment of your original comment in a positive way. I encourage an edit."
I was going to reply with "what, I should edit my comment again to say I have edited my comment" but decided it wasn't as funny typed as in my head.
Sorry, mate, you are wrong. But over the most stupidly ridiculously small thing on the internet (and that's saying something)
I just want us to be clear: your satisfaction/demands mean literally nothing to me so please don't take credit for the other poster helping me do my research 🤷♂️
Nope, I had already. Hence why I said "I have edited my comment" and then you said "you should edit your comment.
You don't have to give either money and there is the option to give both money.