Over 50,000 Palestinian children require treatment for acute malnutrition, says UN agency
Over 50,000 Palestinian children require treatment for acute malnutrition, says UN agency
The UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) reported on Saturday that over 50,000 children in the Gaza Strip are in urgent need of treatment for acute malnutrition, Anadolu Agency reports. In...
The UN agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) reported on Saturday that over 50,000 children in the Gaza Strip are in urgent need of treatment for acute malnutrition, Anadolu Agency reports.
In a statement, the agency said that “with continued restrictions to humanitarian access, people in Gaza continue to face desperate levels of hunger.”
“Over 50,000 children require treatment for acute malnutrition,” it added.
You're viewing a single thread.
The funny bit is the Zionists still pulling out the "Hamas" card in the face of this shit:
- Dude, next to this level of crap Hamas are veritable pussy-cats, friggin Mother Theresa's, bloody My Little Ponies of the Middle East.
The only people in the contemporary era in the whole damn World that did anything worse than the purposefully starving of tens of thousand of children that the Zionists are doing were the friggin Nazis. NOBODY other than Nazis and Zionists comes anywhere close to this level of Evil.
Hell, even before this crap came to the attention of the rest of the World, the children-murder ratio between Zionists and Hamas was already over 1000-to-1.
Hamas is the lesser evil by a wide fucking margin.
Cap.
A group of genocidal terrorists is better than a democracy by a wide margin?
Project much?
The only genocide is being done by Israel.
Hamas went into villages and murdered everyone they could find. They weren't targeting military and some civilians being in the wrong place at the wrong time. They planned an attack to murder as many civilians as they could and executed that plan.
Before that for about a decade and a half they've been firing rockets towards population centers. It's only because Israel spent billions of dollars to protect their civilian population that Hamas hasn't been able to kill more civilians. And what do Hams spend their money on? Palaces in Qatar and tunnels under Gaza to keep themselves safe while they leave their civilian population at the mercy of an army they claim to be committing genocide.
While I agree with your overall sentiment that Israeli actions outweigh HAMAS actions, this betrays a massive underestimation of global atrocities in the modern era. There have been a lot, most of which are not covered in a typical history class. Several go well into the millions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history_(1946_to_1999)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history_(21st_century)
I was thinking just in terms of murdering children including the specific targetting of children (which the IDF has done both with snippers and by bombing playgrounds).
In absolute terms of civilians, there were a number of worst atrocities, though in terms of percentage of the target population, not so much (possibly none at all but the Nazis, depending on what the the proportion between counted deaths and real deaths amongst the Palestinians is, since those whose corpses were not found and brought to Hospitals - i.e. those still buried in the rubble of the over 70% of Gaza building that were destroyed - were not counted, something which got worse after Israel destroyed almost all Palestinian Hospitals: the 40k deads are likely a significative underestimation and we might never know how significative that is because Israel does not allow independent UN observers to go check it).
What's really "special" in the genociding done by the Zionists is the number of children being killed, the percentage of the target population killed, the targetting of Hospitals and medical personnel, the targetting of Humanitarian Personnel (worst ever, according to the UN) and the targetting of Journalists.
But, yeah, in absolute numbers of adults killed, things like Darfur and the Rwanda Genocide were worse.
I don't really see the point of singling out children. Murder is murder. Is killing a mother better than killing a child?
The killing of children is widelly deemed the most immoral kind of murder, because there is no way it can be spinned as the killing of people guilty of anything or a self-defense: children are almost by definition innocent and incapable of defending themselves or overpower an adult, especially young ones - it takes a special kind of individual (namelly, sociopath or psychopath) to not only willingly take human life, but even that of those who are guaranteed innocent and totally incapable of defending themselves, much less attacking.
This actually is reflected in the numbers of murder victims, were children are killed in a far, far lower proportion of their numbers than adults, and ditto for war casualties: adults on both sides usually will go a lot further in protecting children, even not their own, than they will for adults.
It is surprising that in your moral framework you do not see the murder of children as an especially cold and calous kind of murder.
I dunno, to me that's a little arbitrary. Killing someone outside of self defense is just murder. So in your view is a school shooter worse than a mall shooter? Would you say murdering a handicapped stranger in a wheelchair who cannot defend themselves is worse than killing a healthy young adult stranger?
To me it's all just killing innocent people, their age or health is irrelevant. The law makes no difference as far as I'm aware, it's all murder. I don't see any point in differentiating murders based on the traits of the victims.
The vast majority of people in this World see the killing of other human beings as something that covers a moral range, with something like self-defense when in direct danger for one's life being at the more acceptable end of the scale and the killing of the young children at the more unacceptable end of the scale.
This moral scale within murder also applies to the murderers themselves, which is why - as I pointed out earlier - in murder statistics and deaths in wars, children form a far smaller proportion of the deaths in comparison to the total of children, than people of other ages for in proportion to the total of people of those ages.
So even if you yourself haven't a heightened sense of revulsion for some murderes versus others (which, by the way, is not normal), even people who kill other people generally find the killing of children harder or even unnacceptable.
In practice child murder is pretty well correlated with the highest levels of sociopathy and psychopathy, so a military which practices high levels of child murder has higher levels of psychopaths and sociopaths in their midst and leadership, and they have freer reign to act in psychopathic and sociopathic ways with no punishment - there are always some psychopaths and sociopaths in the military, but there being so many that child-murder is a generalized practice including specific targetting children - for example snipping children or bombing playgrounds - is incredibly rare.
We saw this with the SS and the Nazis, and we see this with the IDF and the Zionists.
This seems a bit made up. Again, the law makes no difference.
Regarding this moral scale, I disagree. I think the vast majority of the world sees it as binary. Murder bad. Self defense okay. Either/or, no sliding scale present. Do you have any sort of evidence?
which is why - as I pointed out earlier - in murder statistics and deaths in wars, children form a far smaller proportion of the deaths in comparison to the total of children, than people of other ages for in proportion to the total of people of those ages.
This is not sound. There are many reasons children could die in wars less, with evacuation from conflict zones being a big one. Similarly with crime, where things like gang violence will never target them due to them not being gang members.
In practice child murder is pretty well correlated with the highest levels of sociopathy and psychopathy, so a military which practices high levels of child murder has higher levels of psychopaths and sociopaths in their midst
This is not sound. You point out leadership in the very next line, and leadership absolutely makes a big difference. One correlation is not enough to draw such a conclusion when there are other factors.
I'm academically inclined, personally, so I pay great attention to details and do not think with my feelings. So these details are important to me.
Every single Justice System in the World has a range of sentences for even the same kind of killing crime (for example for Murder) and even different crimes for the killing of another human being (such as Murder vs Manslaughter).
So even the various Justice Systems in the World recognize different levels of blame and deserved punishment for different situations where a human being kills another.
Justice Systems, even if containing plenty of unfair or ill-drafted laws, at the high-level encode what Society finds acceptable and unacceptable - you might have some countries with the Death Penalty and others without, and different minimum sentences for Murder across the World, but there isn't a single Justice Systems in the World with a single fixed sentence for Murder, which would be what matches your "Murder is Murder" position.
Meanwhile your argument on this is "the law makes no difference". Full, unadulterated, 100% personal opinion of the denialist kind.
Denialism is not Skepticism and it's the very opposite of "academically inclined" and putting forward and holding a theory entirelly on what you believe without in this entire thread even once putting forward even the most basic piece of supporting evidence that the rest of the World thinks like you (everything has literally been what you think and what you disagree with) is about as anti-academic as it gets.
Granted, for you it is as you say - Murder is Murder - (that's pretty well established by now).
For everybody else there are only two logical possibilities:
- Most other people don't think like you
- Most other people do think like you and the discrepancy between everybody thinking like you but setting some of the most important formal structures in Society in a way which is completelly inconsistent with that, is that everybody else but you is a moron.
Occan's Razors is a pretty straighforward way to determine which of the two possibilities is the most likely.
Okay, so do murderers of children get worse sentences then, on average? With supporting data, preferably.
Murder and manslaughter are differentiated via intent, same with things like first or second degree murder. Afaik, the traits of the victims are not taken into account, that I've ever heard anyway.
The very first link in a Google search - several states have explicity sentences for the murder of children, either with higher maximums, higher minimums or transforming things which would otherwise be Manslaughter into the same as First Degree Murder. (Just search for "Child" in that page to find those).
Also check this paper. Even though it's about gender rather than age, you can find the point I made earlier about "vulnerability" for example at page 435 section B.1 as well as explicity references to children in the various Sentencing Aggravatory Scales under Apending I (from page 464) explicitly under scale I and IV and implicitly in other scales (i.e. Scale 3 - Heinousness) which whilst they don't prove that child killing explicitly is deemed more heinous than others, does prove my point that society has Heinousness criteria for Murder, disproving your "Murder is Murder" take.
bloody My Little Ponies of the Middle East.
Ethiopia has done way worse rather recently: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/09/ethiopia-is-deliberately-starving-its-own-citizens
You just didn't care about it because it doesn't fit a simple good-guy/bad-guy narrative that makes it easy to blame people you've been predisposed into thinking are evil.
Also aid is getting into Gaza. There's a pier built by the US and the IDF has implemented a daily 11 hour tactical pause so aid can flow in. Israel doesn't normally do military campaigns this long so doesn't have the resources to deal with this kind of crisis. Other countries aren't stepping up because who wants to commit ground forces to Gaza to distribute aid? No one.
Hamas agreeing to a ceasefire would be a big help, but why would they? Starving Palestinian children helps their cause because it makes people like you so angry you will just blindly support Hamas.
Ah, yeah, Ethiopia, that self-proclaimed nation with "Western Values", which has the "Most Moral Army In The World" and is supported militarilly by the US in the specific actions causing death and starvation amongst the children of the targetted ethnicity.
What you're saying is that in reality Israel is pretty much a Fascist authocracy, like Ethiopia, hence having the same disregard for human life, especially children. That does make sense.
As for the rest of your bollocks, given that the blocade of Gaza for food, water, fuel and energy has been openly decreed by the Israeli Government, all that disassembly of yours pointingly ignoring the primary cause of it and throwing all the the excuses you can think of at the wall and see if something sticks, is just another technique straight out of Himmler's book of tricks, in order of appearance:
- "there is really no starvation" (even though the UN says there is)
- "we're actually trying to help them" (even though Zionists created the problem in the first place and could instantly stop it right now by letting aid in by land, but refuse to)
- "other people aren't helping" (even though it's not their fault and the ones who did and still now try to help, such as the UN, had and still have most of their help blocked from entering by the Zionists)
- "it's really all their fault and they're the ones killing their own children by not agreeing to our demands" (an almost perfect example of the "why do you make me do this to you by refusing to do what I want?" of sociopaths).
- "it's really all their fault and they're the ones killing their own children for political gain with the world's public opinion"
- "you only criticise the purposeful starvation of children in Gaza because you blindly support Hamas" (basically, "if you don't support us, you support our enemy")
It's amazing how you ethno-Fascists haven't really evolved much from the 1930s.
What you’re saying is that in reality Israel is pretty much a Fascist authocracy, like Ethiopia, hence having the same disregard for human life, especially children. That does make sense.
Nope. I'm saying you don't care about black people. When millions of black people were starving you simply didn't care.
But you didn't bring up Uighur which by your own logic proves you don't care about them. Why didn't you bring them up as well? Is their plight also not important? Why is your heart so small?
I'm not the one that said what's happening in Gaza is the worst thing to happen since the Nazis. See the problem with constantly being hyperbolic is that it results in all kinds of horrible implications. The implication of the statement that Gaza is the worst thing to happen in 75 years is that you're at best ignorant of history, and at worst you've dehumanized victims of the many atrocities that have happened in that time period.
So which is it? The victims of what happened in Ethiopia, what's happening in China, the victims of the Rwandan genocide, the victims of the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the people of China that starved in the "Great Leap Forward" (this list goes on and on) aren't people so therefore you don't need to even consider these events of the over 75 years since the Nazis held power? Or are you simply ignorant of history?
It's probably best just to claim ignorance and refrain from hyperbole in the future.
I guess when people are standing up to a genocide I don't assume the worse interpretation of their words 🤷 but you do you
When people try to "both sides" genocide in an attempt to normalize it in an effort to rationalize the horrific acts committed by their side, then yeah I don't give a lot of leeway.
Once again you're showing that in your worldview everything is about race just like all ethno-Fascists.
Ah yes, the far right tactic of claiming that anyone that recognizes the existence of racism is a racist.
From Nazis to Zionists all ethno-Fascists claim their violence along ethnic lines is for the defense of a specific ethnicity and that any violence is justifiable to defend their ethnicity, hence for them anybody who condemns that violence must be a racist: just like 80 years ago they said those who criticized them were "against the Arian Race", now they say critics are "antisemitic".
Further, this worldview extends to everything and sees everybody as first and foremost a member of an ethnicity: all actions of anybody out there are for the ethno-Fascist due to those people's race or to the race of others, both at the level of why people do things and the kind of things people can do, and that includes not just actions but words too - voiced criticism or approval and even lack of criticism or approval are all seen as due to race. Even inaction is seen as due to race.
Everybody looks like a racists to an ethno-Fascist since they're the biggest racists around and couldn't possibly imagine that other people would not have race as motivation for what they say or do.