Evidence of Israel's unlawful use of white phosphorus in southern Lebanon as cross-border hostilities escalate
Evidence of Israel's unlawful use of white phosphorus in southern Lebanon as cross-border hostilities escalate
The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, in military operations along Lebanon’s southern border between 10 and 16 October 2023.
The Israeli army fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, in military operations along Lebanon’s southern border between 10 and 16 October 2023.
You're viewing a single thread.
And the US and UK give unconditional support.
I'm ashamed of my country and it only grows for each day that passes.
so you've been ashamed for all of 24 days?
Idk about OP but I've been ashamed of my country since at least
201620011990August 6, 1945the 17th century when "we" decided that land settled by Native Americans somehow belonged to us. I wasn't alive for most of that time but I guarantee my country has done shameful things for muuuch longer than 24 days.You get it. It's scary that some people seem to think you can only be upset at one thing at a time.
I will say I'm British so the dates are slightly different but we're not far off the same bullshit pulled by the same ego stroking cunts.
Agriculture was a mistake
Shouldn't have left that puddle in the early Triassic
little clarification here - humanity isnt native to anywhere other than Africa. the people that were in the American continents prior to the arrival of Europeans might not have taken boats to get there - though some clearly did as there were multiple waves of settlement over a few thousand years.
if their ancestors walked over the land bridge during the ice age and that somehow qualifies them as natives, then what about the ones whose ancestors took a boat across where the land bridge used to be and sailed down the coast? if they qualify, then why dont the people whose European ancestors took boats qualify as native? is it because the last round of people had vastly superior technology? because we speak the same languages they did? because we're the same ethnicity they were? is this a racism argument? I didnt get that memo.
is this a branch of the "noble savage" theory? there was a lot of war between various tribes in North America - generational warfare usually, where one tribe would traditionally raid another for resources or for women. this is well documented and had been occurring for as long as anyone could remember - long, long before the reintroduction of the horse into North America.
I'd say you're native if when you arrive, there's not already people living there. They walked the land bridge, found no other humans and then settled. Europeans sailed across the sea and found the native Americans and then continued to slaughter and pillage them for their own gain.
I'm not even sure how you're comparing the 2 events.
But these groups and people weren't the same people as the ones that walked across the land bridge. The cultures had long since diverged and were different. Wars had been fought. Whole groups died or merged. And if you go back a little further, they are all closely related. I don't think the point is that the slaughtering and pillaging was OK. It is that you cannot have a good faith argument on fixing current problems by trying to focus only on arbitrary time periods to claim certain privileges. I am very much in favor of doing more to make the lives of the native americans better, but I also will not make the argument that descendants of Europeans or Africans have no claim to the land there either. Because to do so is not in good faith and just ignores reality. Any time period you pick to decide who has a claim to a place is arbitrary. We cannot change the past. We can only change the future (but we are limited by the confines of the present).
This person really woke up and typed 3 paragraphs on the justification of manifest destiny
Good morning! Wash the land with blood every day!
I think it's mostly the uther lack of consideration for the locals at the time. Europeans went there with the explicit aim to "conquer" and loot a continent that was inhabited by dozens if not hundreds of societies. They went there, killed, raped and enslaved hundreds of thousands of people. Can't imagine to hear anyone defend that kind of behavior.
little clarification here -
3 evo anthropology essay paragraphs later
If you believe the reports coming out of the Hamas aligned side, Israel has not once hit a legitimate military target. They were all civilians. Do you remember that refugee camp they hit yesterday? You know, the one with all the apartment buildings where Hamas leadership suspiciously died at the exact same time. That was all civilians.
Arab states in the immediate vicinity cannot fathom that Israel could be any more trustworthy than their own governments despite consistency on the Israeli side. To be honest, after having seen how it works myself, I don't believe anything coming out of that region but those channels coming out of the Israeli state itself. I do not understand why people take any of the reports of the Hamas or aligned organizations at face value but they do.
State or no state, Hamas was legitimately elected by the people of Palestine. They committed a horrendous attack against Israel justifying a defensive war. War is fucking ugly. There's no way around it without risking your own forces. This is not genocide as they are targeting military targets despite the narrative. Collateral damage is not inherently a war crime and people should learn what that means. Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime. White phosphorous is only a war crime if they are signatory to the treaty banning its use which they are not nor are the United States or Russia.
The is a massive information war going on right now trying to pull public opinion to one side or the other and almost nothing can truly be trusted unless it comes from a primary source and even then they should be assessed for trustworthiness based on evidence and past performance.
This is also intended to take our attention away from Russia and Ukraine; just saying.
Israeli strikes are targeting locations where IDF instructed civilians to take shelter. This has been verified by BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67264703
They did not say they would not strike in the South and if you look at the spread of the strokes it is several orders of magnitude in the North. Nowhere in that article does it say where they were told to go in the south because they weren't told a specific location and they have been significantly removed from the bloodshed. Additionally, they gave been removed from any ability to actually validate independently that what was struck was in fact not civilians so you are again taking Hamas at their word.
This is genocide, you dolt.
Define genocide then detail with trustworthy sources why this meets it.
I'm tired of people pontificating that this is genocide who cannot even define what genocide is. The other side are those that can define genocide but fully trust Hamas sources while distrusting Western sources.
... You dolt
From the UN:
The popular understanding of what constitutes genocide tends to be broader than the content of the norm under international law. Article II of the Genocide Convention contains a narrow definition of the crime of genocide, which includes two main elements:
-
A mental element: the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such"; and
-
A physical element, which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively:
-
Killing members of the group
https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-shot-dead-by-settler-while-harvesting-olives-in-west-bank-report/
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/26/world/middleeast/gaza-death-toll-israel.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-middle-east-67262375 -
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/10/1143017 -
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/west-bank-palestinian-villages-israeli-army-settlers
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/17/crisis-gaza-why-food-water-power-running-out -
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group -
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
There's a few from Al Jazeera but to prevent collective screeching i left it out.
Wow you can’t just bring up some made up noname nonsense like the UN, they’re antisemitic terrorists!
I only trust real sources like Israeli newspapers.
It stand for Unknown News-source. How can Hamas do this
There UN source simply defines them at war, not genocide. Name a war that did not produce suffering. The UN source does not show that they are intentionally targeting a people, just that they are suffering as they target the elected Hamas government.
Elected how many years ago? What was the average age in Gaza, again?
If we want to talk about elected governments, the genocidal Israeli government has much more legitimacy in claiming it represents it's constituents.
Literally no one is questioning Israel's legitimacy in government except Hamas. Nobody here in this thread is anyway.
You still missed the point though as they are not doing collective punishment. Collateral damage is not collective punishment.
The point was you keep mentioning Hamas as an elected government even though that is laughable at this point, whereas the people of Israel seem to be pretty on board with genocide.
As for collective punishment, I think the entire population of Gaza has been suffering collective punishment for years, but certainly the moment Israel cut off food, power, and water they were engaging in collective punishment. Like really obviously, you'd have to be either really dumb or really dishonest to say otherwise.
He’s Israeli, it’s in his material interests to pretend his country isn’t doing exactly what they publicly admit they’re doing.
I agree that Hamas should not be the government of Palestine and that the people would have difficulty removing them even if they wanted them gone. Who do you suggest should do it? I still do not understand what the legitimacy of the Israeli government has to do with the legitimacy of the Palestinian one.
Israel is at war right now. Certainly, the literal laws have changed to that of armed conflict. Making claims against it that do not cite international laws that they are signatory to are irrelevant. I don't think understanding the legal status of the conflict is me being dumb or dishonest. It certainly shows that I may not be talking on the same level of education or experience. That's the funny thing about the internet. You never really know exactly who or what you are talking to.
isnt that's hamas's goal though? they want to drive Israeli into the sea and create a new arab caliphate. not going to get there without massive genocide.
In time of fighting demon, one should take note not to turn into demon themselves because by then we will have two demon.
I guess they didnt pay attention in class
Based on those definitions, what Israel went through is considered genocide against them and multiple times including the recent attacks as they absolutely targeted Israeli civilians.
This is an overly broad definition and includes literally every war ever. Air strikes against seemingly military targets that end up not being military targets does not constitute genocide. Not by a long shot.
Your UN article simply states that there is suffering. Name a single war where that wasn't the case. Is all war genocide? Your other articles simply define that they are at war in response to a massive terrorist attack. That is not genocide by this definition as it does not define the difference between a justified defensive war and a genocide.
Israel was at war the second they were attacked. War is not pretty. It is not genocide. You would be far better off scoping your argument outside of the confines of the current conflict as they were attacked by an elected organization by Palestine.
Based on those definitions, what Israel went through is considered genocide against them and multiple times including the recent attacks as they absolutely targeted Israeli civilians.
Yes.
This is an overly broad definition and includes literally every war ever.
Yes, that's literally what the Geneva Conventions is about.
Air strikes against seemingly military targets that end up not being military targets does not constitute genocide. Not by a long shot.
One casualty, no. Twenty casualty, no, but that might be a war crime. Eight thousands casualty and rising, including hostages, that is a large group. It include targeting refugee camp, place of worship that house refugees, hospital, evacuation route, that is genocide.
Your UN article simply states that there is suffering. Name a single war where that wasn't the case. Is all war genocide?
Terrible argument because that's not how genocide is defined, 0 point for the mental gymnastic. Genocide is a motive, not all war is genocide. But yes, a lot of war tend to consist the element of genocide because of one stronger group trying to eliminate a weaker group, including Israel - Palestine conflict, where Israel has been oppressing Palestine for decades.
Your other articles simply define that they are at war in response to a massive terrorist attack.
Apply the context of the article to the definition of genocide.
That is not genocide by this definition as it does not define the difference between a justified defensive war and a genocide.
Genocide did not define whether it's defensive nor offensive, nor the Geneva Conventions give a shit about how you think it should be. As it stand, being the defensive party does not give them any right to commit the atrocity they're currently doing.
Israel was at war the second they were attacked. War is not pretty. It is not genocide.
Using your line of thinking, Hamas is not genocidal group because war is not pretty.
You would be far better off scoping your argument outside of the confines of the current conflict as they were attacked by an elected organization by Palestine.
And in return, they murdered 8000 non-combatant of the people that they successfully dehumanised, just like all the conflict they have with Palestine for decades.
Holocaust Denial Trope also detailed on what people do to deny the holocaust, but lets swap some letter:
- Details of the
HolocaustPalestinian Genocide Have Been Exaggerated - Witness Testimony is Fabricated or Inaccurate
JewsHamas Invented theHolocaustPalestinian Genocide for Financial and Political Gain- The
HolocaustPalestinian Genocide is aZionistHamas Political Tool JewsPalestinian are Responsible for Their Own Persecution
Wouldn't be too far off from what is happening today.
The key difference to your last paragraph and the current situation is the trustworthiness of the narrative. Hamas has been shown time and time again to show complete disregard to the truth when they make claims of war crimes and civilians killed by Israel. I am sorry that you have any trust in them at all but you should validate your sources. Every militant struck is claimed to be a civilian. Every single one.
Are you saying of the 8700 death, all of them are combatant? Or are you saying it's okay to kill 100 non-combatant to get to that 1 combatant? How many combatant were kill? Do you have any source to claim otherwise? Or is it all out from your own ass?
It's funny when a genocide denial trying to argue about genocide denial trope, they fit right into it.
I'm saying that you literally cannot trust the things they say and it's been proven more often than not. It's extremely well documented.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-hamas-palestinian-casualties/%3Famp=true
"Over a year later, after the news media had moved on, Hamas Interior Minister Fathi Hammad enumerated Hamas fatalities at 600 to 700, a figure close to the Israeli estimate of 709 and about three times higher than the figure of 236 combatants provided by PCHR in 2009 and cited in the Goldstone Report."
It is immensely consistent over time and they do it because it works.
One source told the Telegraph: “The numbers from Hamas cannot be trusted, although even one killed or injured child or innocent person is one too many.
“In the end it is not really about exact numbers but about the fact that undeniably innocent people are dying or being injured.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/3035937/gaza-israel-hamas-palestinian-casualties/%3Famp=true
Hamad’s figures closely match the Israeli estimate of 709 combatant fatalities and indicate that combatants comprised around half of the Palestinian fatalities in the time period of Dec. 27, 2008 through Jan. 18, 2009
Statistics about Palestinians who lost their lives during the military operations vary. Based on extensive field research, non-governmental organizations place the overall number of persons killed between 1,387 and 1,417.
Fact still remain about half of that casualty is civilian in that conflict. 700 civilian. Fact still remain that the disregard of Israel toward the civilian is always consistent in their assault.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/camera-committee-for-accuracy-in-middle-east-reporting-and-analysis/
Critics of CAMERA claim that it is an ‘extreme Israel advocacy group’ aligned with hawkish right-wing viewpoints. In general, they frequently report negatively on left-leaning media that does not fully support Israel, such as THE WASHINGTON POST BURIES THE TRUTH ABOUT PALESTINIAN TERRORISM, and this ROLLING STONE JUMPS ON PRO-TERRORIST BANDWAGON.
Sure, a media that mark all Palestinian as terrorist, we should listen to that.
But here you're just moving the goal post.
- Details of the
-
Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
See the
blown up hospital, the blown up camp, the thousands of dead Palestinian civilians, the refugees bombed while trying to use the designated route out, or maybe just the leaked report with details of Israel's plan to ethically cleanse Palestinians in Gaza.Or, idk, just open your fucking eyes. You have to either be a fucking moron or intentionally ignorant, to both be aware of what's happening over there and still think it's not genocide.
Keep your head in the sand if you want. Fucking moron.
Edit: I'll concede on the hospital. Anyone care to refute my other points, or maybe touch on today's (11/1) bombing of the refugee camp?
See the blown up hospital
The one Palestinian forced blew up? That's still standing?
See everyone else's comments on how inaccurate your statements are. We are not the ones with our heads in the sand. Stop trusting Palestinian government sources. It's literally Hamas. There's a reason that they beat the Israelis to the narrative. They do not validate their information. They say whatever makes Israel look bad, no matter what the truth is.
See the blown up hospital
This is exactly the shit people are talking about. Palestine blew up a gathering of people at that hospital, then everyone just takes Palestine's word for it and yells at Israel for something Palestine did.
This is exactly the shit people are talking about.
PalestineThe terrorist group Palestinian Islamic Jihad blew up a gathering of people at that hospital, then everyone just takesPalestine'sHamas' word for it and yells at Israel for somethingPalestinePalestinian Islamic Jihad did.ftfy
The elected government of Palestine, Hamas. Yes, that organization. Yet they still are targeting Hamas instead of intentionally enacting collective punishment.
The elected government of Palestine by the only election since 2006, which at that time the US President is George W. Bush, the one who started the horrible Iraq War, Hamas. Yes, that organization. Yet they still are targeting Hamas
instead ofand intentionally enacting collective punishment by cutting off water and electricity, cutting aid from international humanitarian organization, and displace home for the millions.Ftfy
Israel is at war. Collective punishment is no longer a relevant claim. They have declared war on the government of Palestine, Hamas. They are no longer in competition and are no longer attempting to use these controls to prevent violence. There is nothing illegal or genocidal about it right now while they conduct literal war.
Hope you remember in 20 years you were posting genocide denial rhetoric in your free time and feel ashamed. Same points used un many other genocides.
You know what's funny about genocide denial rhetoric? It is exactly the same thing as the truth when there is no genocide. I trust Israel's rhetoric infinitely more having seen the evidence myself.
Not one militant has been killed by Israel according to Hamas. They were all civilians. I don't just mean in the current conflict but in the last 17 years. Find me one single example that wasn't a high-profile commander that they could not explain away and then we can talk. When your entire army is made up of what you claim is civilians, genocide is an easy claim to make but a hard one to prove to those dying by your hand.
I think I will be just fine in 20 years and maybe we will actually have a Palestinian sovereign state when they do not have a literal terrorist organization as its elected government.
Do you believe UN reports about the "Hamas aligned side"? Or is that just some big conspiracy?
And by your own words: "Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime." "Do you remember that refugee camp they hit yesterday?" I'll even concede and say sure, let's assume there were Hamas terrorists hiding in the refugee camp. Let's also assume there was terrorist-supporting infrastructure in the refugee camp. Guess what though. IT WAS STILL A FUCKING REFUGEE CAMP!
Let that sink in extra slow through your thick skull. Read through several times if you must. They knew there were innocent civilians in a refugee camp. They also suspected terrorists in said refugee camp. If you think the best and only option was to bomb that refugee camp, you're wrong and a monster. Or is it that you're simply a racist that thinks that every Palestinian is a terrorist simply for existing on the wrong "side"?
Let's say we find out that there's some terrorists hiding out in your city. Is the only solution to bomb the city? Yourself, your family, and your friends included? Let's say we narrow it down to terrorists hiding on your block. What's your solution? How much "collateral damage" (innocent civilian deaths) is acceptable to root out the terrorism that exists in your home town?
Edit: I would like to add that yes, this is distracting from the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would also like to add that I recognize that I do not know nearly enough about this conflict to speak with authority on the subject. What I do know enough about though is that not every Palestinian is involved with nor supports Hamas. And not every Israeli is involved with nor supports the IDF. There are many Innocent people that have died, and are continuing to die from both sides of this conflict. And every one of those deaths is a tragedy. I wholeheartedly condemn Hamas' killings of innocent civilians, and I wholeheartedly condemn Israel's killings of innocent civilians. Both sides fucking suck and the people that are truly paying the price are the innocent people dying and losing loved ones. I don't know what the answer is, or even if there is a "right answer". Maybe a special ground operation would have minimized loss of life? I don't know. What I definitely do know is that I will never be okay with the deaths of innocent people.
You mean the refugee camp that has been there so long there are multistory buildings and voting residents? Just because it is labeled as a refugee camp does not mean it functions as such. Is it worse than Hamas hiding in a regular residential area? If so, you should not be demonizing the Israeli military but instead Hamas who is using it for military purposes. Go look at what was labeled as a refugee camp and tell me that it was not an area with permanent structures. Striking legitimate targets in civilian areas is ethical, full stop. You cannot provide a legal argument otherwise and being unwilling to strike targets in those areas encourages militaries to use civilian shields further endangering civilians.
I have been involved in targeting within the conduct of warfare before. Yes, this is how it is done by the best armies on earth. It is infinitely better than indiscriminate artillery fire that preceded directed munitions. Yes, the prior solution was to level entire sections of the city in prior wars. This is not abhorrent within the context of military conflict.
I highly encourage you to look into the history of targeting approaches and see which is the more ethical approach. If you would like to compare it to other more recent conflicts with less sophisticated weapons, please look into the following.
2022 Bakhmut 2017 Mosul 1945 Manilla
Let me be completely clear. The above examples of absolute depravity are legal and ethical within armed conflict. Israel has declared war on the government of the West Bank, Hamas. They did so in reaction to a horrific terrorist attack against unarmed civilians planned and executed by real flesh and blood people and not as a result of mistaken intelligence. Israel has every right to absolutely level the West Bank as they fight to take it block for block within the laws of armed warfare. You may not like it but they do. It is not genocide. It is not a war crime. It is just simply war. It is simultaneously much worse for Palestine and much safer for Israel and that should be remembered that they are not choosing to take that approach.
They have lessened their approach to potentially minimize civilian casualties. They did not have to do this. You actively discourage them from doing this when you demonize them anyway. Why bother giving the enemy time to prepare and kill more of your forces if it does not further you towards your political goals? There is a reason why the coalition came out on the better end of the conflict in Syria instead of Russia/Assad's government. The coalition was not indiscriminate in their targeting and Russia was.
Furthermore, every chance that they have given the Palestinian people to better their position is used as leverage to wage more war against Israel. Without the removal of Hamas, they will continue to leverage their position to conduct further attacks against Israel because they have done it continuously and increasingly since 2006. I do not envy the position they are in but I certainly understand it. It should be remembered that Israel plays by the laws of war and Hamas does not.
I too am not okay with the deaths of innocent people which is why Israel is stopping with these half-assed solutions and is going in to remove Hamas. This is a limited ground operation even though they have declared war. You are using these terms that you do not even understand. They have never claimed otherwise as an organization and have remained consistent with that in their decision-making. When they get a system in charge there that can be trusted to not literally use every resource they have to kill innocent Israelis, they can open back up the movement corridors and start working towards autonomy again like they were in 2003. I do not see a fully sovereign Palestinian state until then which I actually do believe Israel wants. They just don't want one led by literal terrorists. A fully sovereign and stable Palestinian state is the only lasting peace that can end the bloodshed. Simply declaring Hamas full power and autonomy is a quick way to enable the spread of violence into a much wider and more deadly conflict.
Wow. Just.. wow. I'm not going to respond to everything because frankly, I don't feel like debating this and worse yet, you're absolutely right that I don't fully understand the situation, the rules of engagement, the legal/militaristic terms, etc. But I do have a few things I'd like to say, not that I think it will make a lick of difference for you.
First and foremost is that just because something is legally allowed, whether it's in war or in peace, does not make it morally okay. I recognize that you seem to be thinking of this from a purely militaristic point of view. I've never tried to argue that they're breaking international law or anything like that. I am fighting this from the perspective of someone with half a shred of empathy, but it seems you've come unarmed.
As far as the refugee camp goes, it only counts if civilians seek refuge on some flat unbuilt land and pitch tents? If that were the case I can all but guarantee you would still excuse it so what difference does it make? Again, arguing from the perspective of an empathetic person, to me a refugee camp is anywhere that people seek refuge. I don't care about legal definitions or military rules of engagement, I care about people. But it apparently wouldn't matter if civilians were seeking refuge in tents in the middle of nowhere, as long as "Intel suggests" Hamas activity in the newly erected campground you'd justify the bombing the exact same by your logic.
As far as leveling entire sections of the city, I suggest looking for the publicly released satellite images of Gaza from before and after this most recent conflict. Not that it matters to you because "this is not abhorrent within the context of military conflict." But, you can probably guess from my first points that I couldn't give two flying fucks about what is seen as okay in "the context of military conflict". It's a tragedy and should be abhorrent in any fucking context. The loss of life alone is terrible enough, not to mention the damage to the Earth when all of that has to be rebuilt. Justifying this in any way shape or form is nothing less than evil. Full stop.
Time and conflicts have proven time and time again that killing innocent people in the name of fighting terrorism breeds terrorists. If you critically think for a moment (and based on your militaristic view I'm not sure you can) it only makes sense. If you kill someone's family, if you take away all they have to live for, they have no further reason not to seek revenge. But I guess that doesn't matter because it seems like you're ok justifying what amounts to an endless game of whack-a-mole; you smack one down and wait for the next to pop up.
Once more I ask you to try to put yourself in their shoes. Play devil's advocate with yourself for a while. You never did tell me what you think should be done about the terrorists in your home town. If you live in an urbanized area they almost certainly exist. Do your precious rules of engagement still apply? And more importantly, outside the context of the almighty law, are you okay with it? Or would you feel upset (or anything really) if the military leveled your loved ones' block in the name of fighting terrorism? Would you still be happy if they bombed your innocent family because "Justice was served"?
The fully sovereign Palestinian state you're referring to should be in neighboring Egypt according to Israel if the articles I saw last night are to be believed. I suppose passing what you seem to view as unwanted pests off on the neighbor is a solution though?
Or perhaps it'd be more accurate to say that you label all Palestinians as "the enemy" that you shouldn't give preparation time to unless it furthers your political goals? Ugh just typing that makes me physically ill. Fuck political goals. These aren't some theoretical unknown life forms we're talking about. These are living, breathing people getting caught in the crossfire. These are kids that belong in school, families, people that are trying to go about their day and greet their family at the end of it. They and myself don't give a rats ass about these made up political goals.
From the bottom of my heart, and please take this to the black hole where your heart should be: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on for justifying unnecessary loss of life because it lines up better with political goals.
Finally, again I reiterate that I am not an authority on this or any military conflict. I am apparently more of an authority on empathy though, so take that for what it's worth.
I also reiterate that all attacks by Hamas that have taken unnecessary innocent lives is nothing short of tragedy. Absolutely evil.
I also also reiterate that all attacks by Israel that have taken unnecessary innocent lives is nothing short of tragedy. Absolutely evil.
ESH. Politics? Fucking suck. Military? Fucking suck. Anyone and everyone that is okay with innocent people of any nation, culture, skin color, etc. dying? You fucking suck worst of all for enabling all the other shit that fucking sucks. If I had a better mind for politics I'd probably ask you kindly to go find a ditch and swallow a tidepod. But that's not who I am. I love you for the human you all are and view your lives as sacred. But if you justify the deaths of innocent people in the name of political goals, would you kindly go choke on a lifesaver for a bit.
Yours truly,
Stanard
Just because you think something is morally wrong, does not mean you understand the full context. What is legal matters because they are the rules by which we play and they set expectations and consequences. Just because something is illegal does not make it wrong but ignorance of the law doesn't help your argument.
The ends don't always justify the means but sometimes they do of it means less suffering.
My claim is that you don't understand the situation and take the claims of religiously motivated murderers at face value. Your claim is that my side are genocidal maniacs who just want them to die. My claims have evidence and I have personally seen them. You base yours on what?
Additionally, my side categorically follows the laws of war, regardless of the narrative.
War is politics. That's been defined since the 1800s by Clausewitz. Your failure to understand that is not anyone's problem but your own. I'd like for war to not exist but it does and it would be nice if people would not be what are known as useful idiots in the western geological community.
You're making several assumptions that I don't think I've said or even alluded to. I don't think I've mentioned religion or motivation at all. All I've been trying to say is I disagree with the death of innocent people. I've agreed with you 100% that I do not have a good grasp of the situation and frankly I don't think you or most people do have a full grasp of the situation. You probably know more than me, good job. I still disagree with any person, country, military, religion, etc. taking the lives of innocent people. I recognize that sometimes it can mean fewer deaths in the long run, but seeing as I don't have absolute knowledge of the situation it's not my call to make. I'm not arguing whether one side is doing more harm than the other. I'm not arguing whether one side is more evil, or what their reason for killing is. I'm arguing that innocent people dying sucks. This will be my last reply to you/this thread because I don't have anything else to say. Killing innocent people should be avoided wherever possible because innocent people dying sucks. I'm not sure how that's such a hard concept to grasp or why anyone would argue that killing innocent people is good but evil does exist in this world and it sucks.
Have a wonderful day and may you achieve any and all of your non-evil dreams.
Bombing a building filled with civilians just because some arsehole who help do (or did) a terrible thing is hiding in there certainly sounds like collective punishment ..
Hiding amongst your own civilians when you just killed a bunch of Jewish civilians could also be considered collective punishment. They are targeting the enemy. The enemy is commiting a war crime. If Israel intentionally targeted civilians not around the enemy because they elected Hamas as their government this enabling state sponsors terrorism, it would be considered collective punishment.
If Israel intentionally targeted civilians not around the enemy because they elected Hamas as their government this enabling state sponsors terrorism, it would be considered collective punishment.
Israel is also attacking the West Bank, where there is no Hamas.
Hiding amongst your own civilians
I have never understood this argument of terrorists "hiding" amongst civilians. Terrorists are people, that live in residential buildings, that pray in temples, and that go to hospitals when they are injured or ill.
My country, Spain, had a huge problem between the 1970s and the 2010s with the terrorist group ETA. But nobody was ever so fucking psycho as to suggest bombing the places in the Basque country were the terrorists lived. There are other ways of fighting against terrorism that don't include the killing of civilians.
They are targeting the enemy.
No. They are targeting civilian areas where there are maybe some enemies.
I am sure you would not feel the same way about inaction if your family were being held at gunpoint because of their beliefs. I am not sure you are arguing in good faith if you do not think that terrorists who killed thousands of people are legitimate targets. Extremely few people would agree with you and you are literally the first I have ever met. (Including many academics who are very pro-Palestine and anti-West)
Do you also think the UK were wrong in how they handled the IRA? Should they have just bombed them?
Hamas is an elected government completely controlling the ground. The IRA was an insurgency and a completely different political situation.
lol, how is that going? Got many of the hostages released?
Yes actually and Israel's actions so far have resulted in the capture of enough militants for a swap. Not that you could possibly acknowledge that being forced to swap militants for civilians is in any way a good look for the elected government of Palestine.
"The other guy is doing it" isn't a justification for committing war crimes. You are also considered a war criminal regardless.
No matter how many people my comments may annoy, at least I never typed up multiple paragraphs defending genocide.