• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    2 months ago

    He’s telling Jill what she said about Netanyahu, but he doesn’t seem to agree. He keeps doubling back and insisting she needs to condemn Putin (which she then does) and using that as a shield for Netanyahu in follow-up.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Jill Stein: Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.

      Mehdi Hasan: No disagreement from me at all.

      Jesus, why are you lying about this when everyone can read the interview?

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s what I’m seeing.

            If we apply equal standards to both of them, then Hasan didn’t call Netanyahu a war criminal and Stein didn’t call Putin a war criminal. They both do this weird word dance around the topic.

            They’re both really frustrating here.

          • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            2 months ago

            She agreed that he was a criminal when asked.

            Hasan then pivoted to complaining about Jill calling Biden and Netanyahu criminals, while asserting our sponsorship of Israel isn’t relevant to the question of war criminality.

            • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              He literally said he didn’t disagree that Netanyahu is a war criminal. This is your own logic you are arguing with. Absolutely amazing

                • Cadeillac@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  2 months ago

                  Mehdi Hasan: So you called Netanyahu one, which I think he is.

                  Jill Stein: Yeah. Well, let me say this. We are sponsoring that war. We are sponsoring Netanyahu. He is our dog in this fight. That is why we have a responsibility to pull him back.

                  Mehdi Hasan: No disagreement from me at all. It still doesn’t answer my question. Whether we sponsor them or not is irrelevant.

                  Do yourself a favor

                  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    It’s really amazing that they’re trying so hard to argue that we aren’t seeing what’s right in front of our eyes.

    • dogslayeggs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Mehdi Hasan: So you called Netanyahu one, which I think he is.

      That’s all you need to read. If you are unable to read that one simple sentence, you are too stupid to even have a real conversation here. If you refuse to read that one simple sentence, then you are intentionally trying not to have a real conversation here.