1y ago

But War Crime

342 comments

The IDF's solution to bank robbers holding people hostage would be to blow up the bank
- When that mass shooter was in Uvalde they should have droned the school.
  
  Better analogy would be the killer in uvalde using a kid as a human shield while also shooting into the other classrooms trying to kill other kids.
  Do you shoot back or do you sit around like the cops did and wait till the killer gets bored, runs out of ammo, or runs out of victims.
  Just look up how many thousands of rockets and mortars Hamas has launched at seemingly random targets in Israel since October 7th.
- If that were the case, Gaza would be a flat parking lot right now.
  
  Have you seen photos of Gaza?
  
  Large swaths of it kind of are
- So you think that had the US military known about the 9/11 planes 5 minutes earlier they should have still just let them hit the WTS?
  
  Shit you're right, I forgot that banks and hospitals are exactly the same as a plane headed towards a building

Yeah no, the person behind the human shield wants to kill you and your family and is actively trying to accomplish said goal.
- Yeah it's pretty much the equivalent of the trolley-problem in real life.
  The question is how many casualties are "valid" before the cost is too high - and that's just a morally impossible choice to make prefectly
  People that pretend it's a black and white question and that either pretend the IDF is 100% wrong or the IDF is 100% right are just ignoring one side if the issue completely.
  In general I'd say the IDF is more often right than wrong in this conflict but they obviously fucked up, too - but at least for them it's not the intention to cill civilians other than for the people they try to actually get to
  
  Shooting hellfire missiles at crowds from helicopters, just a regular Thursday oopsie daisy.
- The people killing human shields are just as shitty as the people using human shields. Both are terrorists.
  
  Would be the best for the first asshole not to take human shields to begin with.
  
  Can we stop using the word terrorist for something that it obviously not terrorism? Terrorist use terrorism to strike fear into the population of a more powerful state and hope for and overreaction that would play into their cards. I can only see one terrorist organization here. But, the IDF is that overreacting oppenent.
- And so you're justified in killing an unlimited amount of children to get to them.
  
  Again, it's the trolley problem. No one is saying unlimited amount.

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.
- 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.
- 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.

Let's pretend
Pretend huh. Still not willing to admit it?
- 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.
- 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.
- Whoosh!
  
  Please explain then

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
- 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
- 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.
- So disgusting to see a correct and balanced viewpoint I agree.
  
  correct and balanced
  what a fascinating, bizarre, blatant misspelling of "cracked, unbalanced"...

False dichotomy.
- What’s the other alternative?
  
  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.
  
  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.

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.

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.
- 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.
- 🙏🏻
- 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?
- 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.
  
  That's not what he said
  
  Again scope and focus: IDF minister, "There will be no electricity, no food, and no fuel, everything will be closed. We are fighting against human animals and will act accordingly.” This is the genocidal rhetoric.
  Hamas is fighting a war within a prison where the guards are defacto Israelis. Who the fuck else would they announce that they would be fighting for freedom?
  Israel is in complete control over this entire conflict, their actions dictate the reactions from those they indefinitely hold in concentration camps. Do I want both sides to stop killing each other? Yes! But it requires bigger decisions by those in control otherwise the status quo remains and in a year or 5 we'll see this same type of senseless killing/genocide again like the last 70 years.
  
  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.

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.
  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.
- 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.

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.
- 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.
- 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.

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.
- An enlightened take.

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.
  
  Any other argument is just plain wrong and negates history
  
  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.”

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

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.

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.

342 comments