I thought the other examples was some soldiers and a journalist, a mention of "military officials and two Israeli pop singers are also cited by South Africa for making inflammatory comments" (didn't include the comments) so not the top level stuff we discussed about? The goalposts have always been the same and you even wanted a specific number for it, five top level comments talking about extermination etc.
It would be a lot easier if you quoted the parts you specifically refer to, so there would be no room for me to miss them. A lot clearer that way.
Genocidal fucking coward.
Wat. I'm just disagreeing with you online, it doesn't seem serious enough to call me genocidal because of that, even if you are very passionate about the topic.
I listed the officials cited. At least five cabinet level or high up parliament ghouls.vthere were more but I stopped when I reached five.
By defending and denying their genocide, in the face of overwhelming evidence, after moving hoal posts, you are a part of it.
I listed the officials cited
If you mean this: "(Prime minister, deputy head of parliament/head of dominant party, defense minister, ‘heritage minister’ whatever that is)" then yeah I saw that, but didn't really think out of them there were the sort of outright genocidal comments from top decision makers other than maybe deputy speaker. For "heritage minister", I don't know how influential role that is and it was a smaller part so maybe?
So unless I'm mistaken I did respond to them all. I didn't respond to the lower level comments (soldiers, a journalist, so on) because I didn't think that's what you meant anyway. This sort of confusion is why I was hoping you'd quote what was said and then write who said it. It's a bit of effort but would make it a lot clearer and make sure we're talking about the same thing.
By defending and denying their genocide, in the face of overwhelming evidence, after moving hoal posts, you are a part of it.
I just don't think it fits the mentioned definition, that's all. That's not defending the action at all. I don't know about overwhelming evidence, I might've missed something crucial but what I did interact with didn't seem convincing in the way I was hoping. As for goalposts, they've stayed the same. You helped set up some of those goalposts, so it's strange you'd think they've moved.
I thought the other examples was some soldiers and a journalist, a mention of "military officials and two Israeli pop singers are also cited by South Africa for making inflammatory comments" (didn't include the comments) so not the top level stuff we discussed about? The goalposts have always been the same and you even wanted a specific number for it, five top level comments talking about extermination etc.
It would be a lot easier if you quoted the parts you specifically refer to, so there would be no room for me to miss them. A lot clearer that way.
Wat. I'm just disagreeing with you online, it doesn't seem serious enough to call me genocidal because of that, even if you are very passionate about the topic.
I listed the officials cited. At least five cabinet level or high up parliament ghouls.vthere were more but I stopped when I reached five.
By defending and denying their genocide, in the face of overwhelming evidence, after moving hoal posts, you are a part of it.
If you mean this: "(Prime minister, deputy head of parliament/head of dominant party, defense minister, ‘heritage minister’ whatever that is)" then yeah I saw that, but didn't really think out of them there were the sort of outright genocidal comments from top decision makers other than maybe deputy speaker. For "heritage minister", I don't know how influential role that is and it was a smaller part so maybe?
So unless I'm mistaken I did respond to them all. I didn't respond to the lower level comments (soldiers, a journalist, so on) because I didn't think that's what you meant anyway. This sort of confusion is why I was hoping you'd quote what was said and then write who said it. It's a bit of effort but would make it a lot clearer and make sure we're talking about the same thing.
I just don't think it fits the mentioned definition, that's all. That's not defending the action at all. I don't know about overwhelming evidence, I might've missed something crucial but what I did interact with didn't seem convincing in the way I was hoping. As for goalposts, they've stayed the same. You helped set up some of those goalposts, so it's strange you'd think they've moved.