There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

ArbitraryValue ,

They apparently managed to kill Ibrahim Biari - he was near the top of the Hamas hierarchy. I’m impressed that they knew he was there.

TinyPizza ,
@TinyPizza@kbin.social avatar

Wolf seemed less impressed.

TWeaK ,

But how have they confirmed his death?

Death_Equity ,

They found his passport, Hamas ID, frequent Jihadi card with 9 punches, copy of his dental records, and most of his renowned holographic Pokemon card misprint collection.

bloopernova ,
@bloopernova@programming.dev avatar

And 3 copies of The Sims.

T00l_shed ,

No, not THOSE Sims, the other ones.

Zaktor ,

This whole thing follows on the crowning jewel of intelligence fuckups, so I wouldn’t take any of their claims too seriously.

ale ,

And it only took 4,000 dead children to get him. Yay!

SirToxicAvenger ,

if hamas wasnt hiding under that pile of bodies & had the courage to actually fight it out like armies are supposed to, not involving civilians at all then this conflict would have been over a few weeks ago

ale ,

If a bank robber takes hostages, do you order an air strike on the bank?

SirToxicAvenger ,

when has that ever happened?

ale ,

Just one of the most famous bank heists ever.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norrmalmstorg_robbery

conditional_soup ,

I think the average person knows something like sixty or seventy other people, IIRC. Israel flat out killed that many to get one guy; imagine every single person you know getting deleted instantly but the government saying “don’t worry, we got him, so it’s all good.” That’s without talking about the injured, that’s just the people who got immediately killed. Spree shooters have better target discipline than these fucks.

ArbitraryValue ,

You’re presupposing that a way to kill him without killing civilians existed, but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that so many civilians just happened to be around him. As long as he’s near civilians, Israel either has to avoid killing him or triggers international outrage, so of course he’s going to stay near civilians.

birthday_attack ,

Ah so the civilians were asking for it by standing in the vicinity of a Hamas leader. They should have moved to… where exactly? Considering the IDF has been bombing the exact same areas they marked for civilians to move into.

UnspecificGravity ,

I mean yeah, that’s where the Palestinians are, who did they think was the target of a military attack on a city?

It’s getting hard for people to pretend that this isn’t a genocide when the people doing it aren’t even bothering to pretend it isn’t.

doctorcrimson ,

I bet by this time tomorrow Israeli leadership claims that was a Hamas Airstrike. Netanyahu should be hung and dragged.

StupidBrotherInLaw ,

I suggest dragged then hung.

doctorcrimson ,

Can we compromise with dragged hung dragged?

cashews_best_nut ,

Hung, drawn and quatered - “To be hanged, drawn and quartered became a statutory penalty for men convicted of high treason in the Kingdom of England from 1352 under King Edward III (1327–1377)…The convicted traitor was fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where he was then hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered. His remains would then often be displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge”

Illuminostro ,

Oh, they know. They don’t care.

tory ,

Truth is dying, as well. You get to choose what to believe during and long after the fog of war. One wonders why the US supports Israel so much throughout this level of shit if it’s actually this bad.

magikfish ,

A country’s support for an action is not the moral bellwether you think it is.

masquenox ,

You don’t understand the US all that well, do you?

twisted28 ,

All of Americas politicians are bought and paid for by AIPAC

SwampYankee ,

The US has been propping up Israel as a glorified military base since 1948. America’s politicians do not need to be bought by AIPAC because Israel is crucial to US imperial interests. The influence flows in the opposite direction to what your statement suggests.

twisted28 , (edited )

readsludge.com/…/heres-how-aipac-spends-money-to-…washingtonpost.com/…/the-dark-roots-of-aipac-amer…What? No snarky retort?

RedAggroBest ,

The truth is that is flows both ways.

The US has a vested interest in Israel and their sustained conflict since the MIC has been major industry in the US since WW2.

Israel pays into a lobby to ensure that otherwise on-the-fence politicians, who’s consituents otherwise don’t care much for Israel one way or the other, or ar evenly split both ways, continue to vote in favor of Israeli-favored spending.

It’s a mutualistic relationship that both sides feed in to to keep the tie strong.

You can even think of it in the reverse.

Without Israeli spending, there’s a chance our nearly broken democracy works and enough anti-Israeli or Israel-skeptic reps get elected that their spending doesn’t go where it needs.

The fact that this post could easily get me called an antisemite us sad. Zionism, and all religious extremism, is a fucking curse.

Maggoty ,

It’s more like the NRA. The “you’re racist of you don’t support Israel” line was highly effective. So like the NRA they can end your political career in large swathes of the country. Of course you can get endorsements and things too if you play ball.

twisted28 ,

I have always heard they will come to new politicians and ask for loyalty while offering money. If you agreed you could go forward. If not, they would fund an opponent

Maggoty ,

Yup it’s all carrot and stick. I just want to be clear it’s not just some back room thing. There’s been major PR campaigns and everything. They’re very much the liberal version of the NRA.

SCB ,

truth is dying

As evidenced all over this thread by people who didn’t Google what this “refugee camp” is

trafficnab ,

For those of you who are likely imagining a haphazard refugee camp of tents in a field set up for the people fleeing the city of Gaza during this war (that’s certainly what I was imagining), in reality it’s a heavily urbanized area (essentially just another city next to Gaza at this point).

It gets its name because it’s the original spot of a refugee camp in the 1948 war, something like 100,000 people live in the area now, it is also one of Hamas’ strongholds and where the First Intifada of the 1980s began

timewarp ,
@timewarp@lemmy.world avatar

It couldn’t have anything to do with this, could it?

timesofisrael.com/for-writer-who-broke-epstein-ca…

SCB ,

If they were attempting genocide, why ask the people you’re trying to kill to leave the area you’re going to bomb?

That seems to work at cross purposes.

UnspecificGravity ,

They are posting Internet messages warning people to get out of a place where they have cut electricity and communications, think about that for a second. Those messages aren’t for the Palestinians, they are for ignorant people like you to defend them in the US.

Malfeasant ,

Same reason school shooters pull the fire alarm.

SCB ,

Way to cross the line twice in one short comment

alwaysfallingupyup ,

Im sure Hamas wasnt among them

fosforus ,

Oh? Why are you sure about that?

kfet ,
@kfet@lemmy.ca avatar

I was talking about Chomsky. He is not trustworthy.

ledtasso ,

wat

Rockyrikoko ,

No one asked

CosmicCleric ,
@CosmicCleric@lemmy.world avatar

Actually, that guy over there did. /points

MedicPigBabySaver ,

Fuck Israel

kleenbhole ,

fuck Islam and Islamic terrorists more.

MedicPigBabySaver ,

Sure

ur_dad ,

How about, fuck all religious extremism.

kleenbhole ,

Sure. But Islam is at the top of that list for obvious reasons.

ur_dad ,

Which are…

AphoticDev ,
@AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Different sky fairy than his.

kleenbhole ,

Not at all. Isis and the Taliban are objectively and demonstrably more of a practical danger, and more disgusting and repressive in their worldview, than any extremists coming out of any other religion. The Buddhists ain’t crashing planes into towers, the Sikhs don’t have suicide bombers, the scientologists aren’t keeping women from getting an education.

AphoticDev ,
@AphoticDev@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Idk about suicide bombers, but I do know that the deadliest act of aviation terrorism up till 9/11 was at the hands of Canadian Sihk terrorists on behalf of the Sihk militant group Babbar Khalsa. Not to mention, there have been instances of violence from Buddhist nationalists in Sri Lanka against Muslim minorities. There are also many, many, many, many instances of Christian terrorism, and not just in the United States. The Lords Resistance Army has been terrorizing Africa since the 1980s.

There are currently no religions that do not have extremists that employ violence. Religion itself is violence, as it is a means of control and dominance. There are no good religions, and no peaceful ones.

kleenbhole ,

I think if you look at numbers overall you’ll see that Islam is by far the worst. I definitely don’t agree with the phrase that religion itself is violence because that just waters down the meaning of violence. But if it was the case that religion is violence because of control and dominance, then Islam would still be inherently worse than others.

Throwaway ,

Islam isn’t the worst, islamic religious extremism is. Just by coincidence, Islam is also the largest religion so the fact that there are a lot of extremists seem to be disconnected from the religion and has more to do with just sheer size…

kleenbhole ,

Doesn’t matter why it is, it is.

Throwaway ,

There are extremists in every religion, so we should just ban all religions. Actually, there are extremists in every group, so let’s just stop doing stuff, y’know?0

kleenbhole , (edited )

… yeah? Sounds good

Zannsolo ,

They are only the most prolific right now we killed and fucked over a whole bunch of natives spreading Christianity in the Americas.

kleenbhole ,

Who’s we, white man?

doctorcrimson ,

Don’t worry, in about 23 more strikes they’ll then send in ground forces to sort the survivors. /sarcasm

Maggoty ,

You dropped some zeros there. They did several hundred airstrikes over the weekend alone.

Stanley_Pain ,
@Stanley_Pain@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

And people wonder why they’re calling what Israel is doing a genocide…

4am , (edited )

“tAnKiEs aRe ThE ReAl aNtIsEmItEs NoW! YoU cAn’T sAy pAlEsTiNeAn ChIlDrEn aRe InNoCeNt wItHoUt sUpPoRtInG HaMaS!”

EDIT: either no one knows the mOcKiNg TeXt meme, or there are a lot of IDF supporters in here

GONADS125 ,

I downvote that type of meme humor because I don’t find it adds to discussion. Even if I agree with the person, I downvote them every time.

Up/downvotes are meant for promoting relevant discussion and suppressing off-topic content, spam, trolls, and hate. They are not and were never intended to be dis/agreement buttons. People just misuse them.

nbafantest ,

God tankies are insufferable

TinyPizza ,
@TinyPizza@kbin.social avatar

Define what a tankie is. You obviously know, right?

GONADS125 ,

I’m not convinced from that comment that the user they’re referring to is a tankie, but simply put, I’d describe a tankie as the alt-left equivalent of the alt-right.

They’re not quite as violent in my opinion, but they push pro-china/russia propoganda and misinformation, and are just as self-deluded and delusional as the alt-right. I’ve also seen tankies justify Hamas’ attack against Isreal, which I find inexcusable and morally reprehensible. The same can be said of the IDF’s genocide against innocent Palestinians.

Tankies are on the fringe and are just on the other end of the bell curve of the alt-right.

DarthBueller ,

You forgot to mention IRGC propaganda and misinformation. The current Gaza conflict is, without a doubt, the biggest propaganda victory the IRGC has ever had. They’ve got the US left absolutely fractured. People were worried about 2024 elections? HAHAHAH just wait. We’re so fucked.

TinyPizza ,
@TinyPizza@kbin.social avatar

Sure, my point was that they didn't know. That they were just out here throwing out words they had no clue about and (in my and others opinion) doing it as an attempt to drive wedges in the community. That's literally the joke up the thread that the guy baited the moron in with. I've met some of these people in real life. They weren't violent. They absolutely we're deluded apologists, but outside of talking revolution in the streets (which I don't think is to imply violence either, Iceland for example) they we're very much passive folk that just got pulled into a lame MLM.

To your later point, personally I agree, that the attack Hamas carried out on people in Israel is inexcusable. I don't think that is ubiquitous on the left, nor should it be. It parallels quite clearly in the discussions we're all having as to the validity of attacks on civilian populations but to some it is also a question of self defense under the massively imbalanced power dynamic between the two countries. Not only are we talking about apartheid here, but what is clearly becoming erasure. The longer this madness goes on the more people are going to question the validity of that Oct 7 attack and as I see the atrocities carried out daily I wonder if that point will come for me as well.

That's the significance of this story. Wolf fucking Blitzer, is starting to question this shit. If you ever needed a warning that you are taking the lead in the "bad guy" race, this is a skull and bones in the tea leaves.

dangblingus ,

Authoritarian Leftist who thinks Stalin and Mao had great ideas on how to run a country. Unironically pro-communist dictatorship.

umbrella , (edited )
@umbrella@lemmy.ml avatar

mao literally freed them from the rest of british colonial influence and kicked off the start of the prosperity and development china is in rn

dangblingus ,

Not sure what tankies have to do with it, but I think everyone understands mocking text, and yes, there is a lot of pro-IDF astroturfing on all social media platforms currently.

Destraight ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    Neon ,

    ahh, yes, “the jews”…

    antidote101 ,

    It’s a religious holy war, nothing else… And it’s irrational because of it.

    Religion has darkened politics for the past decade in particular ways. In America it’s shown Christians will support fascism. In the middle east it’s showing Jews will do as well…

    …religion is the root cause. Anyone over there is there for religious reasons. I think perhaps it would be best if, whenever peace is achieved, the secularist west nuke the entire area, with a particular focus on long term irradiation of all holy sites. This version of humanity in the current era can’t handle organised religion, and it needs to be prohibited with an automatic means of early death. It needs to be made abstract and reasonable… and only the irrationality or nuclear irradiation can be its metaphorical equal.

    Nuke religion. Nuke religious wars. Irradiated holy sites.

    Krudler ,

    Religion, mysticism, magical thinking are expressions of our innate biology. So attempting to eradicate it is a sad impossibility.

    legion02 ,

    Bullshit.

    Krudler ,

    Oh wow! Such intelligent dialogue!

    Since nothing I can say can match your immense wit, I’ll just say go read.

    GONADS125 ,

    The burden of proof is on the one who is staking claims.

    You can be devoid of religion and mysticism and function fine. Religion is not a requirement of spiritual health or spiritual beliefs, which can be as simple as a perceived interconnectedness with the universe.

    That other user’s response may have seemed brash, but I agree with his use of the literal philosophical term: bullshit.

    This was taught to me in philosophy courses. There’s lying, bullshitting, and most heinous is mind-fucking. Those terms were written on the board and I was tested on them.

    You made a bullshit claim. One that was bold, sweeping, and completely lacking supporting evidence. You cannot turn around now and demand others prove your claim wrong. The burden of proof is on you.

    Krudler ,

    You can really talk down hey? I’m an atheist, spare me.

    But seriously go do some research on biology. You telling me in a sneering way and calling bullshit on modern behavioral science / biology is laughable.

    I’ll even suggest some search terms for you to get you going: “biology and religion”.

    GONADS125 ,

    What’s laughable is you continuing to talk out of your ass and now talking down to someone who’s educational background is in psychology. I only took philosophy courses as a second passion.

    You need to follow your own advice and read. And maybe take a critical thinking course from even a community college in your area.

    Also, I wasn’t being a dick; you’re just hypersensitive. If you made a lie and I called out a lie, that’s not being a dick. Here, all I did was call out bullshit and point out that the burden of proof is on you. Just because you don’t like what I tell you, it doesn’t mean I’m being an asshole.

    HeyThisIsntTheYMCA ,
    @HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world avatar

    Oh wow. Medium. That’s a respectable source.

    tocopherol ,
    @tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    The source isn’t really ‘Medium’ but “Ethan Milne”, the author, Medium can be great depending on the author.

    GONADS125 ,

    It’s a decent introductory breakdown of bullshit. It’s based on the published 1986 piece “On Bullshit” and you can follow the citations.

    Here’s another source on the topic.

    Here’s the Oxford reference.

    From Plato.

    Or if you want to drop $10, you can buy the actual On Bullshit publication from Princeton.

    TokenBoomer OP ,

    Username checks out.

    Illuminostro ,

    Oh look! Another edgelord teenager decided he was an atheist!

    tocopherol ,
    @tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    You are correct, magical thinking is a natural part of the human psyche. But, unless we have some sort of disorder, we can practice to recognize it and work with our more logic based mind when making decisions, instead of basing our decisions on emotion or superstition.

    rckclmbr ,

    This is absolutely not a religious war. I understand why you say that. But if it were, Muslim countries would come to the aid of Palestinians. But there’s a reason Egypt is standing still. And it’s not religion.

    SirToxicAvenger ,

    Egypt has tried to get rid of Israel already. history shows us what happened - they know better than to get involved.

    tocopherol ,
    @tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    With the US carrier group in the area I’d be pretty hesitant to interfere if I was Egypt or anyone else really. At least in any direct way that could be retaliated against militarily, right now.

    SirToxicAvenger ,

    it might come to that. sure hope not but… maybe

    merthyr1831 ,

    Jews, Muslims, and Christians all lived in the region of Israel-Palestine (well, just Palestine) before 1948. Israel was a concept by nationalists and Europeans who saw an opportunity to get rid of Jewish refugees as well as project European military interests into the Arab world.

    Religion was a useful tool in dividing these people, but nationalism and colonialism played the role in turning these divisions into wars.

    kool_newt ,

    What a sick fuck!

    TimewornTraveler ,

    It’s not about what’s right and wrong, it’s about who will stop them. This is America’s war.

    WuTang ,
    @WuTang@lemmy.ninja avatar

    OK CNN, so ? at least you get clicks and time views.

    where’s the fucking flag "we stand with " you were throwing up at our face during Ukraine invasion ???

    joel1974 ,

    deleted_by_author

    •
    masquenox ,

    Israel doesn’t care about the needle - it’s just a pretext to drench the haystack in Willie Pete.

    masquenox ,

    Oh, man… do I have news for Wolf Blitzer - Israel loves bombing refugee camps almost as much as they love bombing hospitals.

    krashmo ,

    Disclaimer: what I’m about to say is not in support of any action, it’s just philosophical musing.

    Isn’t the whole concept of a war crime sort of hypocritical? War is inherently barbaric and uncivilized. Yet we seem to think we can make it something other than that by placing restrictions on parts of it. The goal is to defeat your enemy but society says it’s not gentlemanly to do it in a particular way, as if treating it like a sporting event with ineffectual referees will fundamentally change what’s happening. At the end of the day we’re still giving the green light to kill a bunch of people. I get why we do it, it just seems insincere to stop short of saying any amount of killing is immoral. We’ll only allow you to kill these people in these places under these circumstances.

    I don’t know how this helps anybody it’s just something I was thinking about.

    slinkyninja ,

    I think the idea is that a ‘good’ war (lolwut?) is one they would surgically cut out that opposition like a tumor without affecting everybody else.

    Madmen see the world as a thing they can change with simple actions, wielding power only to hurt.

    Seasoned_Greetings , (edited )

    If war is unavoidable, wouldn’t it be a good idea to have an international council capable of condemning tactics that lead to total destruction?

    The concept of war crimes and international courts aren’t there to concede that war is acceptable. They are there to grapple with the fact that war is inevitable and try to mitigate the worst, most horrific and lasting consequences.

    If the international courts had the power to stop war crimes they would, but they don’t have that power. All they do is condemn. Why is it hypocritical that they condemn war crimes when they don’t have the power to stop wars either?

    krashmo , (edited )

    Condemning something you believe to be inevitable is a rather pointless exercise in my opinion. It may not be wrong but it’s not exactly useful either unless you believe it can be avoided, in which case it is no longer inevitable.

    In any case, you’re speaking from a UN perspective and I’m speaking from the perspective of individuals. The way we speak of war as if it’s something that can be noble so long as the enemy “deserves” it. Nevermind the fact that your enemy thinks the same of you. We’re fine with dehumanizing and killing large groups of men but women and children is a step too far. It’s perfectly acceptable to bomb a factory full of workers but not a hospital. The concept of innocence in war presupposes that those who participate in it are not worthy of the same consideration as those who do not, despite the fact that in many cases a small group of people directed the actions of everyone else equally. Maybe that’s a valid point but it does seem to clash with Western ideals of equality and judicial review.

    Seasoned_Greetings , (edited )

    Woah dude, you’re putting a lot of words in my mouth.

    It may not be wrong but but it’s not exactly useful unless you can believe it can be avoided

    There’s no metric saying that war crimes weren’t avoided by condemning them.

    Also, we don’t use mustard gas anymore. We don’t use zyclon d. Or agent orange. There are plenty of tools of war we don’t utilize anymore because we condemn them as war crimes, even if there’s no actual, tangible punishment for utilizing them.

    There’s plenty of evidence for the effectiveness of just calling those things war crimes and condemning them.

    Are you going to say that you prefer a world where we didn’t condemn and phase out more brutalistic forms of warfare in the name of alleviating hypocrisy? Because grandstanding about how not all war crimes, or war, can be averted, is advocating for a world that’s much worse off for the lack of restraint.

    Edit: I’m not deaf to your point that the individual participants of war are no more deserving of death than anyone else. But is preventing some death in the name of sparing women and children morally the same as just letting everyone be killed for a concept of equality and justice?

    shrugal , (edited )

    War parties usually don’t want to completely eradicate the opponent’s population, just break their fighting power and force them to surrender. The “tolerated” form of war is a power struggle between those who want power (incl. keeping it, so defending yourself), and it should leave out those who don’t as much as possible. So the idea is that you only fight the people on the other side who actually signed up for fighting, and spare those who would rather flee or accept defeat. Ofc in reality it’s never that clear cut, soldiers can be forced to fight against their will for example.

    bitwaba ,

    The Geneva Conventions laws were built around the idea that while War is hell, War is also inevitable. The purpose was to provide a framework around the way war can be waged while trying to limit the atrocities committed while it is happening. Providing protections to prisoners of war and civilians in combat zones is beneficial to both sides because without those protections in place, it leads to an circle of escalation by both sides’ armies against those not actively engaged in combat against you (i.e. army A kills civilians, army B kills civilians asl retaliation, army A’s soldiers mistreat POWs as retaliation, army B’s soldiers no longer accept surrender from Army A in battles and executes those surrendering, etc)

    So yes, admitting war is inherently barbaric and uncivilized. But that doesn’t do anything to help prevent the fact that war crimes happen in war. The goal of defining war crimes isn’t to make them something other that barbaric and uncivilized. It’s simply to try and set a soft limit on the level of crap an organized military can and/or should do to non combatants in order to facilitate a quicker end to the conflict instead of needing to eliminate every last living member of the other side in order to declare victory.

    DoomBot5 ,

    Those same conventions also have clauses around the usage of civilians to defend military targets. These same clauses make Israel’s strikes in fact not war crimes by the same Geneva Convention that people love quoting.

    Also, another thing you have wrong. The Geneva convention isn’t as much laws as an agreement between countries, and more of a suggestion to other countries not part of it.

    bitwaba ,

    The Geneva Conventions are international humanitarian laws consisting of four treaties and three additional protocols that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war.

    It’s the first line of the Wikipedia page. They’re laws because they are enforceable, and you have a trial for those that have violated those laws.

    SirToxicAvenger ,

    “War is simply the continuation of political intercourse with the addition of other means.” - Clausewitz

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •