the extremely flawed and utterly repugnant lack of “logic” is that,
“if using human shields works as a strategy, they will do it more often”.
“conversely, if we prove to them that using human shields is ineffective, they will stop doing it”fucking. nauseating.
I would be more willing to believe this logic if they had more proof that one, Hamas was doing this in all instances that the IDF killed civilians and two that killing Hamas through human shields was working as a way to prevent this in the future. As of now it doesn’t seem to be stopping them according to IDF so I don’t think it is valid to use that logic.
It would also help if Israel’s leadership would stop comparing Palestinians to animals and stop stealing their land. It sure feels like an excuse to justify exterminating all Palestinians
So disgusting to see a correct and balanced viewpoint I agree.
correct and balanced
what a fascinating, bizarre, blatant misspelling of “cracked, unbalanced”…
Ducking autocorrect ruining my day again! Ugh.
It’s strange, how long does it take for IDF to realize that Hamas doesn’t give a shit about civilian lives. IDF killing the human shields changes nothing for Hamas.
They sort of have, when the “human shield” is being talked about, it’s not literal kids being held up front… it’s people refrained from gunpoint from leaving the building that IDF warned they’ll shoot down soon. They give enough time to escape while monitoring the “people leaving” using drones. But not enough time is given to transfer “ammo and weapons”. Constantly monitored using drones.
Human shields are the few people that are kept there at gunpoint, and there’s no way of knowing if there are civilians in the said building. As many people are seen escaping the building.
A friend of mine who works for Battalion [redacted] told me a story the other day about an adult male (about 23) who managed to escape the building and ran towards the battalion posted close by. While he was running/escaping towards the IDF, he was being shot from the building. But he made it. I don’t know the location of the guy except he’s in Israel and chilling. But wants to stay undercover for now, hopefully the world will hear his story someday.
IDF has a lot of proof, one I heard was that some of the gazans who died in the missile strike have “embedded” bullets from “Kalashnikova”… some Gazans know about this and they are afraid to speak out.
Regardless, I have few Palestinians and Israeli friends. And all of them support Palestinians… and all the Israelis I know told me they would protest after the war to force the Israeli government to rebuild Gaza.
You’d think people would learn that’s not the case after years of Hamas using human shields despite Israel proving they’ll bomb a place regardless. Even if it were true by some metric, how in the fuck is the number of casualties incurred by Israel’s policy of ignoring hostages worth it? In the days since October 7th, thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed, including many in strikes on hospitals and refugee camps determined to house Hamas personnel. The policy is fucking monstrous and evidence shows it winds up in thousands of Palestinian deaths. Don’t tell me that those stolen lives somehow prevent even more civilian deaths unless you’ve got some very strong proof that this strategy has done anything to stop Hamas from hiding behind civilians, or that the thousands of civilians massacred are worth the chance to kill a few terrorists
Edited for spelling
fucking thank you, yes, those are exactly the words i couldn’t find to express the sentiment i wish i could have stated
furthermore “you made me do this” is ABUSER RHETORIC.
as in, israel claiming that hamas “made them” slaughter civilians,
likewise, urkaine “forced” russia to invade
Who knew the Holocaust was just a preemptive strike. Hitler knew the Jews would do this to the Germans if they got power!
/S
Well if you wish to go there, there’s something to be said for how someone raised in violence can take away from their lived experience that “violence is how you raise people”, for instance how a big chunk of the baby boomer “sometimes children need to be smacked” generation did.
Sadly often, abusers turn out to have learned how to abuse people from being abused themselves; hurt people hurt people.
If someone stabbed you, though, I don’t think you’d feel mollified to learn that they themselves were victims of a stabbing themselves. The fact that they went through a trauma in the past does not give them free license to inflict that same trauma upon others.
But in light of the fact that Israel does not represent all Semitic peoples, the state of Israel has even less excuse to exhibit–practically EMBODY–the pure hypocrisy.
But this is the most reasonable response.
If they realize that human shields aren’t working, they won’t use them and a more optimal number of people will be killed overall.
Also, any human shields you kill should be attributed to the people using those human shields.
Thats my take on this. I will agree to disagree with anyone who thinks otherwise.
PS: For all those replying: where did the words “Israel” and “Hamas” come from? I would like to bring to your attention that I didn’t cover any details specific to the conflict anywhere above… As far as I am concerned:
- Hamas is a terrorist organization
- civilians in Gaza are innocent
- Opinions about Israel are based entirely on Hamas reporting which could.be accurate or could be misinformation.
PPS: Lets play some mental games for a second.
Statement 1: X is mass murdering innocent people. And Y is trying to kill X.
Who is the bad guy and who is the good guy? X is bad Y is good.
Now let me reveal How X is mass murdering people.
Statement 2: X is doing so by putting those innocent people into the fire of Y on X.
You cannot tell me Y is worse than X after that. I don’t say that we can’t judge Y for attacking X under these circumstances, but X is never better than Y.
If they realize that human shields aren’t working, they won’t use them and a more optimal number of people will be killed overall.
Kill civilians first, sort the rest out, later. /s
Also, any human shields you kill should be attributed to the people using those human shields.
Allegedly using. The IDF has yet to offer not debunked evidence that any hospital/refugee camp they bombed actually sheltered Hamas.
If they realize that human shields aren’t working, they won’t use them and a more optimal number of people will be killed overall.
Israel has claimed it is shooting through human shields for decades. Do you think Hamas is too stupid to realize that it doesn’t work?
Hamas likes it when Israel kills Palestinian citizens, because it make Israel justifiably look bad. Hamas wants to get other countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran involved in the war, and dead Palestinian civilians helps that goal.
You’re so close to the plot you could probably taste it
As much as you mock them its amusing how much you refuse to face reality. Hamas is a terrorist organization funded by Iran specifically to prolong Palestinian suffering and casualties to justify actions against Israel. The majority of Hamas fighters aren’t even Palestinians, same as most of the insurgents in Afghanistan were not natives to the country fighting against coalition forces.
Your argument is if someone takes a hostage let them do what ever they want.
Is that why Israeli has been propping them up for years? https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/
It is the plot, Hamas has said as much. Israel doesn’t seem to care much if they kill the civilians either, but Hamas keeps using human shields because they think their deaths will get them allies.
That completely contradicts your original point, that “If they realize that human shields aren’t working, they won’t use them”
That wasn’t me who said that mate. Learn to read usernames.
Well fuck I just responded from my inbox. Whatever.
So you think Israel is too stupid to realize how bad this makes them look and they are playing right into Hamas’s hands?
No, I think they don’t really care and won’t until they get support pulled by the US. And given the US is negotiating a ceasefire, and civilian casualties have gone down the last week, the US may have threatened just that.
Well fuck I just responded from my inbox. Whatever.
So fast and loose, what if you had created casualties with your mistake?
Israel is trying to rescue 240 hostages. I don’t think they care a whole lot about what most of the world thinks
They certainly don’t care about how many thousands of Palestinian civilians “have” to die to free those hostages
Using human shields makes you a war criminal. Attacking someone using human shields does not technically make you a war criminal, because it does not endanger civilians without furthering your “just” goal of killing that war criminal.
Please correct me if I am wrong. You still should consider if killing the war criminal is worth the cost and this does not mean civilians had it coming by any means.
The meme is about morality, not legality.
Legality is downstream from morality. To me, killing civilians in a war is pretty fked up. But wilfully getting your own women and children killed just so you can film them to show the world how bad your mortal enemy is is way beyond fked up.
Yeah, the world shouldn’t see what’s happening.
Way to miss the point… Keep doing propaganda for people who’d murder your wife and daughter for not wearing a hijab, that will show those heckin zionists
Upvotes for racism. Must be nice.
Today I learned Hamas is a race
It’s the generalization that makes it racist.
Proof?
Are you simply uninformed, or do you see all of the 50%-children population of Gaza as the war criminals here? Few Hamas terrorists using hospitals (still not believably proven) for various reasons and IDF bombing these critical service buildings for civilians, while hundreds of civilians are using them, is how come attacking the human-shield users only?
For clarity, no one is arguing against Israel retaliating against Hamas at this conflict. Hamas has proven themselves to be pretty clearly a terrorist organization in their acts, whatever their goals are. The whole world is calling them as such accordingly. What sane people argue here is that IDF has also clearly proven to be a terrorist organization, with a civilian killing scale of sheer efficiency of a regular army and the so called western humanitarian governments are turning s blind eye to it, or worse trying to pass it as something just.
Saying things like “worse” is just picking sides for no reason.
There’s a point where you can stop measuring the cuntiness and just accept that they’re both well over the threshold of being a cunt. There’s no limit to the size of the cunt bucket. There’s no queue to get in.
They’re both cunts and the world (and especially all the civilians in the local vicinity) would be better off without them.
Especially since there is no end to the actual conflict when there isn’t something done on both sides of the conflict.
There absolutely are degrees. We decided to name it the “Holocaust” because what the Nazis did was hella cunty.
There are degrees when it happens to you or something you like. There are simplifications when you don’t give much fuck about.
- Most centrists I know, including me previously.
Criticize both is the only opinion I care reading these days. Anyone that says one side worse than other, immidiate disinterest from me. Correct opinion for me is everyone is an asshole.
deleted by creator
They’ve even been making calls to trusted civilians in the area to evacuate target buildings of civilians. It’s not going to change much, it’s basically “what they can do to avoid collateral without investing actual personnel”, and will probably be forgotten just like America’s fliers to Japanese citizens about an upcoming nuke.
It does basically dress the point that if they feel they HAVE to retaliate, they’re making what little effort they can to restrict it.
deleted by creator
Funny, if you remove the “israel” from this comment you can’t even tell which side you’re talking about.
deleted by creator
Oooh big man there yelling “anti-semite”. What does that mean, exactly?
I love that you can’t engage with any of the points. Just gotta get your catch phrase in.
deleted by creator
How many resources would they need to go in with boots on the ground because it looks like they do have enough resources? (Serious question is it a dollar amount a person amount etc) If say Hamas was in an Israeli hospital and Israel didn’t have the resources to go in with boots on the ground would you find it acceptable to bomb the Israeli’s hospital? If your answer for one is yes and the other no then you don’t value Palestinians lives.
deleted by creator
There’s a gaping chasm
“let terrorists do whatever the fuck they want.”
and
“genocide it is, then”
Particularly when the more accurate framing would be
“oh no - the terrorist group we backed over the PLO predictably attacked us as we maintained Palestine as an open air concentration camp, spouting genocidal rhetoric - guess we’ll have to kill 'em all”.
If someone kicked you out of your home and wouldn’t let you walk on the same streets as them, what would you do? Would you cower, or would you fight back any chance you got? What if they bombed your friends and family? What if they denied you jobs? What if they denied you food and water?
What would you do?
As long as Israel exists it will be on stolen land, built on ethnic cleansing. There can never be peace in an apartheid state. No matter how many bombs they drop they will always make more enemies. There can’t be any peace on stolen land. So what should they do? Murder forever, escalate? Exterminate everyone in the region and clear it for Israel? What should Israel do if there can be no peace while it exists?
deleted by creator
A lot of the people being killed today are children. Do you believe that the fact that some people carry out monstrous acts justifies killing children and people completely unrelated to those acts? How many children is it worth killing to kill one monster? Can you give me a number?
Let’s say you had a magic woodchipper that you could throw babies in to and if you threw enough babies in you would get to instantly kill one terrorist. How many babies would you throw in? Is it 1 to 1? Would you throw in 10? How about kids? If they’re like 4 or 5 years old, would you push them in to the chipper to get to kill a terrorist? This is what you’re advocating when you’re justifying cutting off food and water. It’s a horrible and painful death for children who have literally no idea why they’re dying and don’t even have the capacity to understand.
So what’s the number? How many children and babies is it justifiable to murder in order to kill a single terrorist?
Oh, those poor Israelis… the west sends them bombs which Israel just have to drop on the largest concentration camp in human history.
Oh, those poor, poor Israelis.
Israel definitely does have the resources to go just boots on the ground. They have more troops than Russia initially sent in to Ukraine. They could “safely” secure Gaza block by block if they wanted to.
deleted by creator
In the context of your question, the correct thing to do is for Israel to utilize scalpel-accurate precision attacks at Hamas leadership with clandestine highly experienced embedded intelligence agents, careful consideration of civilian casualties, GPS guided munitions dropped from 6th generation command & control stealth aircraft, active camouflage stealth armor with powered mech suits, gundam/metal-gear bipedal tanks, and mind reading AI brain scanners, and trillions of dollars defense budget. Duh! You idiot.
To be fair, they do have very accurate munitions. They’ve recently used them to strike many journalists and their families in their homes. Many in Gaza, but also a few in other countries. This has been the deadliest conflict for journalists in decades (because Israel deliberately targets them).
because Israel deliberately targets them
That’s literally illegal. Do you have a quote said by an Israeli government or military official that they are deliberately doing this or just spreading misinformation?
deleted by creator
This bio bomb will disintegrate only the bodies of ruthless terrorists, leaving everyone else okay. Oh, but it’s magic, so you can’t see it if you’re a very smart person.
Not backing Hamas over the PLO, predictably getting their civilians killed and creating the pretext for the genocide they’re now committing would probably be a good start. How about not operating an open air concentration camp that’ll radicalise Palestinians against them?
Hamas are terrible, but this is a situation Israel has manufactured - they don’t get to cry about i the predicable consequences of their choices now.
To say “this is a situation Israel has manufactured” is a convenient gross oversimplification of the history of the region. Either you know this isn’t true and you’re just spewing misinformation or you’re not informed and speaking confidently.
A full history of the region wouldn’t fit in a post. Would you like to add relevant context to attempt to justify the ongoing genocide?
Don’t pivot. We aren’t talking about genocide. You said this “is a situation Israel has manufactured”. If you’re going to make bold statements then back them up.
I explained it, and you claimed my explanation was oversimplified without any further detail. Seems you’re the one making bold statements without backing them up.
There is an ongoing genocide - why is that not the most important part to you, and why should I care if whatever detail you claim I’ve missed doesn’t justify that genocide?
…or an I correct in thinking you’re taking this line because the genocide isn’t something you’re concerned about?
You want to talk about genocide that’s fine. You want to say this is a situation Israel has manufactured: that’s an entirely different topic. It’s not complicated.
Also, the word genocide gets thrown around very loosely these days I’ve noticed. When the allies were bombing Germany in WW2 were they committing genocide? Millions of civilians died in the bombing of dreaden. I’m not saying Israel is NOT committing genocide, because a collective argument could be made if you put all the pieces together (blockade, settlements, etc). If by genocide you mean just the occurrence of civilian casualties, then surely you will admit Hamas is also conducting genocide every time one of their rockets kills an Israeli baby. …Right?
This isn’t an explanation of what I oversimplified that would justify the genocide - it’s just dithering about the definition of genocide. I linked the UN definition in anticipation of your obviously bad-faith questions designed to diminish and distract from that genocide.
Third and final time: What did I miss in my oversimplification that would justify the genocide Israel is committing against Palestine? You say I’ve oversimplified, but haven’t made any effort whatsoever to correct the record. Why might that be?
Let’s pretend
Pretend huh. Still not willing to admit it?
Maybe Israel should stop using music festival attendees as “human shields…” that would be nice.
If they were operating behind the music festival then absolutely. Nobody should be using human shields.
I was wondering why a link to BBC News didn’t have HTTPS. Well…
Last Updated: Friday, 23 April, 2004, 11:24 GMT 12:24 UK
Of course this has nothing to do with the music festival in particular but I’m guessing your point is more that they’ve at least at some point used (or “faced claims” about using) huma shields? I would’ve imagined we’d much more recent cases to make that point though.
The IDf operates behind every civilian in Israel - which means every civilian in Israel is a “human shield” for the Israeli state.
While we’re at it, we might just as well declare every 9/11 victim a US “human shield,” too.
While we’re at it, we might just as well declare every 9/11 victim a US “human shield,” too.
Frankly, Bin Laden’s justification why killing US civilians was justified sounds very similar to justifications of hard line Israeli politicians why civilian getting killed in Gaza don’t deserve any sympathy and were “asking for it”. Both boil down to, “they voted for the people in charge who do crimes against us, so they are guilty as well.”
It’s amazing how quickly contrived propaganda terms like “human shields” loses any meaning when they are flipped around on people western media hasn’t marked for genocide, eh?
The IDf operates behind every civilian in Israel - which means every civilian in Israel is a “human shield” for the Israeli state.
That’s an interesting take on it. I don’t think that’s how the idea of human shield is usually viewed. It’s usually more direct, operating from a place with civilians so you don’t get bombed or literally forcing someone to stand between you and your enemy or something.
While we’re at it, we might just as well declare every 9/11 victim a US “human shield,” too.
How exactly?
That’s an interesting take on it. I don’t think that’s how the
ideapure propaganda of human shield is usuallyvieweddeployed for the consumption of Israeli-loving white supremacists.Fixed that for you.
You don’t think Hamas has used human shields?
Again… if that is what Hamas has (supposedly) done, then there is no reason not to designate every civilian in Israel, the US or any NATO member state as “human shields” as well.
Pick your propaganda and stop being a hypocrite about it.
deleted by creator
Because it’s just as disingenuous and disgusting to imply as what you’re implying.
I’ll have to ask you to explain what you think I’m implying. You might’ve misunderstood me, since I don’t think I’ve said anything that could be taken for “disingenuous and disgusting”.
Whoosh!
Please explain then
No.
Coward
deleted by creator
Lmao what a copout
deleted by creator
Take some self responsibility. Try to understand it yourself. Hint: Take away the top placard.
Cowardly and pathetic copout.
I hope you can get past your hate one day. Inshallah.
How many soldiers does it take to change a location to a military target?
Is it a percentage? Is it their presence at all?
Ok, does that apply to Israeli hospitals or public venues that had soldiers there as guards?
If the attack on those venues is terrorism by virtue of the civilians there, but not a legitimate military strike despite the soldiers being there, then at the very least, bombing hospitals and refugee camps is terrorism too even if a few soldiers and weapons are found.
Executing human shields is monstrous, and “look what you made me do” is the language of abusers.
Someone using something as a human shield makes it into a human shield. Requires just one.
How many soldiers does it take to change a location to a military target?
Could be as few as one. Which is why there’s zero tolerance for using such locations.
Ok, does that apply to Israeli hospitals or public venues that had soldiers there as guards?
It’s the same rule for everyone.
If the attack on those venues is terrorism by virtue of the civilians there, but not a legitimate military strike despite the soldiers being there, then at the very least, bombing hospitals and refugee camps is terrorism too even if a few soldiers and weapons are found.
There’s two related issues. Killing civilians and using civilian cover to conduct warfare. Both are despicable.
Executing human shields is monstrous, and “look what you made me do” is the language of abusers.
Right, though I’d put more blame on those, you know, using human shields. They’re the ones putting the humans between you and your enemy to begin with.
Given the demographics of those killed by Israel are squarely in line with the civilian population broadly (i.e. there’s no meaningful over-reprentation of Hamas, which we’d expect from purposeful targeted attacks against them), you’d apply your arguments consistently and defend Hamas attacking the IDF within Israel with similar civilian casualty rates (putting aside the whole national service, everyone is a combatant thing), right?
…right?
Thought not.
Why would I defend either side killing civilians…?
How can you misunderstand propaganda The propaganda is : “they use human shield so when you shot at them we can’t avoid killing civilians”
The lie being that this is binary choice, either shoot the terrorist killing the civilian or don’t shoot and let the terrorist kill people. The reality is that you can also try to devise a tactic to outsmart them.
And no you’re not fucking worse. If you take hostage and shot at the police when they enter and a civilian is killed in the firefight your 1000% getting charged for the death.
Btw the “rethoric” is a fucking UN reports
This take is pretty dumb. If someone is taking hostages, and killing some hostages guarantees that the purpertrator can’t take future hostages, it’s a shorty but understandable tradeoff. In the context of of the Israel/Gaza conflict it is infinity more complex. Please read about the history of the region and the nature of the conflict.
So many armchair generals on this site. Yes lets just kill Hamas and not kill anyone else, because it’s just that simple. Mkay. Even better, lets just make them apologize and pinky promise not to do that again. That should be enough to solve the tensions in the region. You people think anyone gives a shit what war rules are when bullets are whizzing by? Am not trying to defend any side here, but I can’t see anyone not trying to do their best to survive whatever shit is at hand.
Did you ever serve? LOAC was like, day 4 in basic training.
To anyone both sides-ing this issue, you are flattening the genocide. This is an overwhelmingly lopsided conflict. One side has the funding and backing of the largest military presence the world has ever known. One side has caged and gated the other into increasingly smaller and smaller spaces, like literal concentration camps. This one side has decided that healthcare, housing, food, water, communications, etc are not important to provide to the people who they’ve effectively imprisoned. This side has people at the highest points of leadership calling for ethnic cleansing. This side has been called out by the UN for genocide.
The other side is fighting back on their land, among their own people, in a space that is one of the densest populations on the planet per square foot, in a place with no resources, cannot leave, must defer to settlers who take their property if they leave it due to threat. None of this is by their own choosing. Guerrilla warfare is a tactic used when asymmetry is stark and is often negatively criticised without context to its necessity. Both side-sing ensures that the asymmetrical nature of this conflict remains status quo.
water, communications, etc are not important like turning water pipes into artillery rockets ?
if you were in a ghetto what infrastructure would you be willing to destroy to escape?
depend what
I think this is a bad take.
First of all, it assumes that there are only two sides when in reality, there’s an incredible multitude of groups and factions with their own interests - whether it’s Hamas or the IDF or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or militant Jewish settlers or Hezbollah or the Iranian leadership or Qatar or the Houthi rebels or any of the other groups that have been involved just in this current conflict.
And secondly, it inherently blames everyone put into either Group A or Group B for the absolutely worst, horrendous atrocities committed by the most extreme elements categorized into those groups.
So suddenly, Israeli citizens who were just a few weeks ago demonstrating against the Netanyahu government are now responsible for atrocities committed by the IDF in Gaza or by some violent settlers in the West Bank. And vice versa, Palestinian families who had to flee their home, maybe lost innocent family members to arbitrary bombing campaigns and are now living as refugees under the most dire circumstances are suddenly responsible for the murder of Israeli civilians, for Israeli children burned, for young Israeli women murdered and paraded around the streets in Gaza, and for all the atrocities committed by Hamas.
That makes absolutely zero sense.
Pointing out that atrocities are being committed by many different factions and groups doesn’t constitute “both-sidesing” the issue, it’s not some kind of enlightened centrism to pretend that it’s just impossible to form an opinion on the issue.
There is no hierarchy of suffering, either. Hamas doesn’t stop being a terrorist organization just because the IDF killed more Palestinians than Hamas murdered Israelis.
But, by the same token, the Netanyahu government doesn’t stop being a right wing extremist government hell bent on destroying democratic institutions in Israel in favor of an authoritarian system just because murderous Islamist terrorists stormed across the Gaza border and killed 1,200 Israelis in the most heinous way imaginable.
And no, pointing out all of the atrocities committed in this conflict or existing empathy for all the innocent victims doesn’t equate to condoning certain atrocities committed by a certain group.
so we should just ignore Hamas’s war crimes because Israel bad.
We should ignore Hamas’s focus on killing jews specifically? Israel is bad, sure, but every time I start to think that maybe Hamas could be dealt with equitably they go and murder civilians. Just like the Israelis do.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians not aligned with Hamas, they’re the real victims in all this.
No, I am not saying that and see such misdirections as not constructive. It is a matter of focus and scale. Focus on the power structure that creates conditions upon which Hamas is formed and persists: Israeli occupation, destruction, and genocide of Palestine. The scale of the death of civilians on both sides demonstrates how Israel continues to create the conditions. I vehemently disagree with killing civilians but the civilian death count on Israel’s side is exponentially larger than Hamas’ and perpetuates the conflict, among others.
keep killing the civilians who were supporting your cause, that’ll help.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/world/middleeast/peace-activists-killed-israel.html
Back at ya.
That’s not what he said
then spell it out sparky, what is he saying? it’s word salad prevarication as far as I can tell. Hamas needs to stop murdering the people trying to support palestine.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/10/world/middleeast/peace-activists-killed-israel.html
Yeah you really sound like someone who wants to have a good faith discussion. I’ll pass.
You sound like someone excusing the murder of innocent people as long as they’re israeli.
Enjoy your imaginary conversation
🙏🏻
Britain’s way of dealing with the IRA wasn’t killing Irish people by the hundreds while hoping that some of them might be terrorists. Spain’s way of dealing with ETA wasn’t killing Basque people by the hundreds while hoping that some of them might be terrorists.
If you think that neither Britain or Spain would have been justified in brutalizing the Irish or Basque populations, but you think that Israel’s disregard for the lives of innocent Palestinians is justified, you’re just a racist tool.
Is it an unreasonable position that if the IRA launched an attack from a school, then a counterattack is justified even though it would have killed Irish kids, but that unprovoked attacks against Irish civilians would be unjustified?
I’m stealing racist tool. Thanks
Tool is slang for penis outside the US. Like Dick, Knob, Bellend. It’s why the band Tool have that penis shaped spanner on one of their album or EP covers.
False dichotomy.
What’s the other alternative?
It’s really quite simple. You’ve set up a phony dichotomy wherein one either supports the killing of all innocent civilians used as “shields” by Hamas, or one is somehow morally obliged to argue that Israel has no right to exist or defend itself.
It’s a bullshit dichotomy.
You’re arguing an “either/or” situation when in fact there are many other alternatives.
or one is somehow morally obliged to argue that Israel has no right to exist or defend itself.
That’s not what is implied. You’ve somehow managed to create a straw man false dichotomy that you can tear down. Impressive. Their is another alternative where neither the hostage or their taker is killed. Which is what is being negotiated now. Israel could have done that from the beginning, instead of bombing civilian children.
What are you on about, what are you asking? why are you asking it?
This is false dichotomy because the intentions of the one using the human shield is known. On the other hand, the one who attacks the human shield needs plenty of context to determine his intentions, motives and decision making. They may not know the human shield is a human shield unless it is obvious or they are being alerted on the facts. Also, they may need to attack as there is clearly something off about the situation that they will fight to survive because there are times where you are at a disadvantage or terrible desicion making put you in a bad spot. Lastly human shields are not always tied up and may act independently enough that they are consciously accepting someone’s orders as a volunteer. There could be stray shots or the human shield intentionally gets in the way. There is so much context required that the “why” is not always subjective. It can be objective reasoning or random sequence of events that were badly done.
Not discounting the fact that there are situations where the “why” is subjective, like you are talking about where the person knows about the human shield and intentionally just targets them for no other reason and it is not collateral. However, this is a sterilized scenario that does not always occur.
That’s not a false dilemma.
They may not know the human shield is a human shield
Its a hospital
human shields are not always tied up and may act independently enough that they are consciously accepting someone’s orders as a volunteer
Its a hospital
There could be stray shots or the human shield intentionally gets in the way
Its a hospital
anyone trying to make this very complicated seem this simple is the problem… the truth is two groups of people hate each other and have been super shitty to each other for a long long long time. One group is going to destroy the other cause they can’t get along. No one is right, no one is wrong. It’s just the way that it is… yeah, that’s shitty. I didn’t decide for things to be this way though.
The “two sides” argument is pretty BS.
It really is.
It’s a cop out because you can say that about any conflict. “They hate each other, that’s just the way it is.”
It’s also a license to continue the egregious conduct, because “it can’t be solved.”
Any other argument is just plain wrong and negates history
I’d argue that the “two sides” argument is voiced by people who either don’t know the history, or is too biased to care.
There is always two sides to any conflict, by definition. It’s in of itself an intellectual cop out. But, bringing that point up when one side killing 30 children for every 1 killed, suggests the real basis is one of the two mentioned in the beginning.
There is always two sides to any conflict, by definition
That’s a great point and it is also very important here.
Really not much more to say. Reducing this conflict to the number of people killed on each side is just unreasonable and lacks both context and nuance.
Reducing this conflict to the number of people killed on each side is just unreasonable and lacks both context and nuance
… you’re the one that is reducing it to “both sides”. You do see that, right? Which is the whole point?
It’s not a reduction to include historical context, motivations, etc.
If you do think that you should look up what reduction means.
The Geneva convention is pretty clear on this. The presence of civilians doesn’t render certain points or areas immune from military operation.
Hamas knows exactly what they’re doing and what the consequences are. Peace will come when Arabs love their children as much as they hate Jews.
That is true, but it also stipulates that while they remain military targets, that extreme measures must be taken to minimize civilian casualties.
So while you can still try to get the terrorists, you can’t just bomb the entire thing, or fill the theatre with poison gas killing a ton of the civilians (as happened in Russia).
You mean like spending thousands of hours phoning people in the area and telling them to leave. You mean like sending your troops in at their own risk to escort civilians out of harm’s way?
From my chair, it’s proven very difficult to aid the civilians in the region when their own government is going out of their way to increase civilian risk. Well openly stating that the people living there are the problem of the UN. I don’t know how to square that circle and I don’t think anyone really does, which is ultimately a tragedy that we’re seeing unfold. There’s also the question of who’s a civilian and who’s not. We’ve seen video of medics taking weapons off of wounded people and handing them to people dressed in civilian clothes to fire on the IDF. That pretty much makes every male in the war zone a potential threat. Again, entirely understood by Hamas and part of their operating plan.
Yeah… It’s like strapping bombs of civilians but giving the enemy the trigger.
Both sides are fucked up. No justifying one or the other.
