you’re saying “death to Israel/America” in general somehow has islamist roots
Once again, you are accusing me of something I neither said nor intended.
No shit they want people dead
So why all this stupid hostility? Then you agree with me that when Islamists say “Death to America,” they don't just mean the American state. My argument all along is that the phrase “Death to X” is ambiguous, is used ambiguously, and prompts different people to take different actions. To be honest, I don't know what there is to discuss. Even here in this thread, you see people who agree with the “death to US Americans” interpretation rather than "Dissolve the US". The same applies to “Death to Israel.” Hamas, for example, also does not follow the interpretation that you would like to consider the only sensible one when it kills innocent civilians in Israel. If that's not literal, then I don't know what is. I provide empirical evidence that suggests a literal interpretation, while you simply post links that demonstrate that there are other interpretations as well. Which precisely underscores my argument of ambiguity. Do you just want to burn straw men here?
“Death to Israel” will always be ambiguous. It is a slogan intended to provoke. At least when it is used by Muricans (or other westeners). And then tears about the evil and intentionally wrong interpretations of the other side are shed when the provocation succeeds, which was the plan from the outset. It's the same tactic you hear from Karoline Leavitt every other day. Here in Sauerkrautland, the fascists are doing the same thing, of course. But it's a pathetic tactic for leftists. That's why you mostly hear it from internet edglords or armchair revolutionaries.









@AntiBullyRanger@ani.social @Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You said that the possibility of an interpretation of "Death to X" other than yours would be bad faith. But here you can see that this is not the case. Yes, I know this guy is just a sad edgelord. But because everyone knows that this interpretation above also exists, everyone also knows that it is ambiguous. It's meant to be. Pointing this out is not bad faith, but simply describes why the sentence is also rejected by many on the left.