固定されたツイート
Simplicity
11.4K posts
Simplicity
@Simplicity
Read More. Complain less. A fool is his own informer.
Somewhere beyond the sea 参加日 Haziran 2007
1.3K フォロー中691 フォロワー
The most iconic spaceships in cinema🛸.
I'll start.
English
Simplicity がリツイート
Remember when an Israeli rapper truth bombed this👇Hamas supporter. Ah, good times. 😊
English
@JonahPlatt It's werid how the only people that question if Ms. Rachel loves "ALL children" are Zionists pieces of shit.
Go talk to a therapist instead of being pathetic online.
GIF
English
No one is saying caring about Palestinian children is the problem.
The problem is claiming to care about ALL children while your own public record tells a different story.
234 mentions of Gaza since October 7th on Ms. Rachel's account. Near silence on Israeli kids. Then gaslight anyone who points it out.
You don't get to call yourself a universal advocate and then pick and choose which children count.
English
@m4xim1l1an “Sir when did you stop beating your wife?” Your claim is the same. A presupposition fallacy. I’ve been challenging you on that. Dismissing, pending your actual argument which is apparently coming….
English
@m4xim1l1an A claim without evidence can hardly be considered a claim. As pointed out. Still waiting for that. Tick tock Clarice.
English
This is our post October 7th doctrine: we’re not evacuating our citizens anymore. We’re evacuating your citizens (if attacks come getting your territory).
Alex Crawford@AlexCrawfordSky
Israel’s ‘buffer zone will extend 30 km inside Lebanon, Israeli defence minister says and the more than 600,000 Lebanese residents who’ve been evacuated will be barred from returning south of the Litani ‘until the safety of residents in northern Israel is guaranteed’, he says
English
@Simplicity Conditions again?
There will be no goalpost moving, but it will be comprehensive.
Again, I will tie it with my initial post, a reminder.
English
@m4xim1l1an Then you read the part where your claim, such as it was, lacked any evidence, which is why we’re here now.
English
@Simplicity I’ve read the grok analysis and it has confirmed you never refuted the claim of intl law violations.
Grok established this a couple of times.
English
@m4xim1l1an Fine but let’s take it one at a time, without shifting goalposts. Your first was art 2(4). And go :)
English
@Simplicity My future post will focus on this and why its/there are intl law violation and violations and issues with Art 51.
So yes, I will be tying it all together with my initial post and claim.
English
@m4xim1l1an Obviously you can enter evidence to support your claim, you should not make a *new* claim until we close this one out.
English
@m4xim1l1an you can challenge my 51 of course, in the context of art 2(4). Remember I put 51 first and you answered with 2, explain how or retract 2 and move to a different attack.
English
@m4xim1l1an If not, explain where IL violated
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
English
@m4xim1l1an Do you wish to retract 2(4) in favor of a different argument?
English
@m4xim1l1an Fair. For now, I must insist that we limit our discussion specifically to Article 2(4). Expand beyond that, without us first settling this, could be seen as bad faith and goalpost shifting - that's not to say we cannot discuss other things, but one at a time. thanks.
English
@m4xim1l1an I suppose that's the best I can hope for, considering. Please explain why you believe Art 2(4) trumps Art 51. Case law- not opinion, no matter how "expert"- would be helpful.
English
@Simplicity Yes, this is the first time I mentioned it. Does not change the fact of what was stated and that you never refuted it.
English
@m4xim1l1an I am willing to engage with your Art 2(4) claim, before we do, I would like you to admit that this is the first time you've made a specific allegation to me in this thread and not some grok side conversation. If so we can return to a civil debate on it.
English
@m4xim1l1an Are you alleging a breach of Art 2(4)? cause up until now you haven't. If so, define how.
x.com/i/grok/share/0…
English
@m4xim1l1an You may repeat yourself indefinitely. Until you provide information in this thread, you will get the same answers to the same vague assertions.
English
@Simplicity I will repeat myself:
x.com/m4xim1l1an/sta…
Maximilian 🪁🐝@m4xim1l1an
This is an intl law violation. This is the intl law violation I meant. Someone with deeper knowledge, would have figure it out. intl law is non reciprocal so if lebanon violated anything, Israel does not get a free pass to violate intl law. They dont get a free pass to violate a jus cogens norm
English
@Simplicity My initial post was valid the whole time, it was an intl law violation. You never refuted this.
x.com/m4xim1l1an/sta…
Maximilian 🪁🐝@m4xim1l1an
This is an intl law violation. This is the intl law violation I meant. Someone with deeper knowledge, would have figure it out. intl law is non reciprocal so if lebanon violated anything, Israel does not get a free pass to violate intl law. They dont get a free pass to violate a jus cogens norm
English