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.

ChrisLicht ,

There is something disturbing about the repeated notion, expressed again here in this article, that men of a certain age may be killed by Israel with impunity, regardless of whether they have anything to do with Hamas.

SatanicNotMessianic ,

Israel is claiming the explosion was caused by a misfire by a Hamas-fired rocket.

I suspect the skies over the area are absolutely blanketed with radar systems. While I well recognize the need to keep operational capabilities classified, it seems like there should be a way of showing the trajectory of the purported missile to show evidence of their claim. I know we do this with satellite and photo reconnaissance by making the pictures more blurry to hide the actual resolution of the system. We do the same with things like location data, where we reduce the number of significant figures to blur the data.

Radar detection of weapons like rockets is fairly sophisticated, because it’s used both for missile defense and for counter-battery fire. I know that things like buildings obviously clutter images of low flying objects, but from the footage I’ve seen the rockets are generally flying well above that level.

Also, given they’re fighting in such a small area against an unsophisticated force, I’m really surprised there isn’t 24/7 drone video footage that they could point to.

While I understand the need for secrecy, Israel is quickly losing the information war, so it’s baffling me as to why they’re not making stronger attempts to justify their claims if they are indeed innocent.

Of it was an Israeli misfire or mistargeting, they should admit it and say what steps they’re taking to start using more caution. If the building was occupied and being used by Hamas forces and so was deliberately targeted, they should say that.

NoneOfUrBusiness ,

Of it was an Israeli misfire or mistargeting, they should admit it and say what steps they’re taking to start using more caution.

Or it was Israeli and not mistargeting or a misfire. They're kind of famous for bombing civilians.

cogman ,

Fun how just a couple of weeks ago it was “obviously Hamas attacked the hospital”. Now that Israel is destroying hospitals, radio silence.

TokenBoomer OP , (edited )

They tend to gather in one thread. From my observation, if you criticize Biden, or threaten not to vote for him, they bring the wrath. By merely acknowledging this, I may get swarmed like piranha.

Linkerbaan ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

Noooo keep voting for Genocide Joe because he does less genocide than orange man!!!

bingbong ,

# Joe vs Agent Orange

Tune in next year for the matchup of the century!

bradorsomething ,

It’s important to establish you’re a victim in case no one notices.

TokenBoomer OP ,

Case in point.

Copernican , (edited )

Those are two different factual things.

A few weeks ago the evidence pointed to Hamas rocket misfire. This week it’s different evidence.

I don’t know what radio silence you mean. The previous incident had contentious conclusions and contradictory reporting. So there was lots of argument since there was obviously a political agenda to hide the facts to argue a political point of view. That’s not going on in this case because the facts aren’t contentious.

Maggoty ,

Dude, a week ago we had a video showing a missile intercept. We knew the short round theory was bogus.

WhatAmLemmy ,

“The IDF does not fire on hospitals. If we see Hamas terrorists firing from the hospitals, we’ll do what we need to do."

So, the IDF does fire on hospitals as long as a terrorist is in the vicinity… It’s the get out of crimes against humanity free card!

“HAMAS IS COMING RIGHT FOR US” shoots baby — IDF

capital , (edited )

A lot of y’all need to read up on the US’s rules of engagement. That lines up with the US so I’m assuming Israel’s is similar. I’ve been reminded that that’s Geneva ROEs…

This is why we don’t fight from hospitals, ambulances, schools, etc.

DOING SO TURNS THEM INTO VALID TARGETS.

TokenBoomer OP ,

Your lack of humanity is scary.

capital ,

No, you’re thinking of Hamas.

Because they know better than you people what western ROEs are and yet they STILL hide in hospitals, schools, and ambulances.

They do it because it can slow down decision making because their opponents CARE about collateral damage, unlike them.

What’s more, I’m not sure how simply stating facts about ROEs says anything about my humanity.

TokenBoomer OP ,

Just because something is the law, or legal, doesn’t make it moral, or ethical. How many civilian deaths are okay to stop 1 Hamas militant? 10? 100? 1000? 10000? If we have to destroy 2.2 million people to destroy 20,000 Hamas fighters, we are no better than Hamas?

capital ,

Up to this point I haven’t said a damn thing about morality. Providing facts about how things work doesn’t convey any moral position.

We (meaning the western world who uses these ROEs, in this context) are better than Hamas for the simple fact that we care about and do what we can during a WAR to reduce civilian casualties.

Compare that to Hamas who wouldn’t believe their luck if westerners positioned themselves in hospitals and schools. They would, and have, jump at the opportunity to kill more people who don’t follow their religion, civilian or no.

How this is lost on people like you I will never understand.

How well do you think any country would be able to defend themselves if they provide their attackers with an impenetrable shield by virtue of never attacking when said enemy is occupying certain types of buildings? Have you even thought about how that would work?

TokenBoomer OP , (edited )

So you are amoral.

Slavery in the U.S. is commonly used as an example. “Of course,” a good modern citizen will say, “slavery was wrong even when it was legal.” The passing of the 13 amendment did not make slavery morally wrong; it was wrong already, and the legal structures finally caught up to the moral structures.

Edit: > Have you even thought about how that would work?

I have. I would materially improve the conditions of the civilian Palestinians. With a granting of rights, an influx of aid and reparations and an overall increase in their standard of living, it would make the existence of Hamas undesirable. Hamas only exist because of the oppression of Israel. Take that away and the need for Hamas will dwindle. Violence begets violence.

capital ,

Looks like you linked to the wrong thing.

Conveying information devoid of moral positions I suppose could be considered amoral. Like saying “there are speed limits on most US roads” is amoral.

Here’s a definition because it seems like you may need one:

having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong

You could read into that, which it seems like you really want to do or you could just read it as I said it. Which is to convey a fact.

That said, I have since given some moral positions such as it’s more moral to consider civilian deaths than to purposefully target them. I never thought I’d be defending that position.

I have. I would materially improve the conditions of the civilian Palestinians…

You’re thinking too small. Imagine if all a Jihadist group like Hamas needed to do was roll up, shooting from the windows of ambulances and, being of high moral fiber, the Israelis did absolutely nothing about it. Why? Well, ambulances are protected. We mustn’t target them.

Doing that would guarantee that those of higher morals would be consistently beaten down and killed by those who don’t give a fuck (that’s Hamas in this situation).

Hamas only exist because of the oppression of Israel. Take that away and the need for Hamas will dwindle

This is such utter bullshit and the only thing you need to know to confirm it is to realize Jihadist groups exist in all sorts of places where Israel isn’t a factor in the slightest (i.e., EVERY other place seeing as they were driven out of Muslim countries a while back. Funny no one is talking about their right to return…). Believe these groups when they tell you they kill because their religion requires/allows it. Their religion tells them that dying for the cause is fine, even laudable. They’ll go to paradise. I suspect that’s why they’re also fine with using their own citizens as human shields - as long as they’re true believers, it’s no problem. They’ll also go to paradise.

TokenBoomer OP ,

Looks like you linked to the wrong thing

That was purposed. To give context to amorality. Everything else you wrote seems to be a synthesis of conflation. Reactionary and specious. To wit: we should nuke the Gaza Strip to be sure every fundamentalist Muslim terrorist is incinerated, even though some civilians may die. That’s the only way to solve this situation. Am I right?

capital ,

That’s your response after my detailing the difference between us and Hamas when it comes to killing civilians?

I don’t believe you’re this stupid or that your reading comprehension is that bad.

I think you just can’t actually justify your position of “never under any circumstances attack protected buildings” because you’re smart enough to know the practical outcome.

That said, it’s not really worth continuing with someone who won’t admit this or detail exactly what morally superior armies ought to do in those situations. Unless it’s to roll over and die because that’s the logical conclusion if you can’t explain further.

TokenBoomer OP ,

morally superior armies

There is no such thing. You can’t see the forest for the trees. I want a world where military action is the last resort and limited.

capital ,

There is no such thing.

You’re necessarily arguing that the purposeful targeting and killing of civilians is no worse morally than the accidental killing of civilians.

Do I have that right?

TokenBoomer OP ,

I’m arguing that both are immoral.

capital ,

Then it sounds like you’re arguing no person or country ought to defend themselves for fear of collateral damage.

Does that sound right?

TokenBoomer OP ,

No, every person or group has a human right to self defense.

capital ,

Which runs the risk of collateral damage.

Anyway, I think I got what I needed when you claimed purposeful targeting and killing civilians was no morally different than accidental civilian deaths.

I think you might be unreachable.

TokenBoomer OP ,

claimed purposeful targeting and killing civilians was no morally different than accidental civilian deaths.

I never said that. And I am reachable, you just have to understand material philosophy to get there.

capital ,

I never said that.

When asked directly you gave a non answer. Care to clarify?

What does materialism tell you about the likelihood of reoffending in the case of someone who kills civilians on purpose vs those who do so by accident?

Readers should ask themselves, is it morally wrong to accidentally step on someone’s toe? Conversely, is it morally wrong to purposefully step on someone’s toe?

The answer seems clear and I don’t have to link to Wikipedia and hand waive to get there.

The justice system is far from perfect but something it does correctly is differentiate purposeful killing from accidental.

TokenBoomer OP , (edited )

Any death caused by military action is immoral. Full stop! There is no justification for war if the material conditions (housing, water, food, education, employment, healthcare, freedom of expression) are being met. When people are happy, they don’t war. People seem to think war is human nature and inevitable. It is not. Most just want to live comfortably. It’s when they can’t live comfortably that conflicts arise. Change the conditions, change the culture.

I understand that we don’t live in that world, but if we strive to, collateral damage cannot be part of that equation. An eye for an eye just results in everybody being blind. And in a world full of blind people, the one-eyed man is king.

America, and it’s capital driven allies, including Israel, aim to be the one-eyed man. I just want everyone to see that.

SheeEttin ,

Not even US ROE. The fourth Geneva convention says that they can lose their protected status if used for military purposes.

capital ,

Huh. Forgot that was Geneva. Been a while since basic.

bradorsomething ,

This guy is just here to argue. Hey, did you know people on reddit love to argue? You should check out reddit.

capital ,

Aw man. It’s the lemmy police. Anyway, feel free to point out any inaccuracies. Unlike many here, I care about being wrong.

Maggoty ,

That’s not true. Even when the enemy uses a protected target you are constrained to the minimum force necessary. You can’t bomb a hospital because of a sniper.

And it’s certainly convenient that Hamas seems to choose only critical infrastructure to fight from, knowing it makes them and their wounded legitimate targets. Beyond belief one might even say. Especially with numerous international medical NGOs denying Israel’s claims and no hard evidence from Israel of this happening at a level that requires bombing.

count_dongulus ,

Why

SaakoPaahtaa ,

Fuck it we ball🤙🤙

-israeli pr

Linkerbaan ,
@Linkerbaan@lemmy.world avatar

They probably got a fresh new supply of American bombs to drop along with the new F35 parts they got from the Netherlands.

But then they discovered they were almost out of tall buildings to bomb!!! Luckily there was a hospital still standing so they had something to bomb.

A_A ,
@A_A@lemmy.world avatar

Now it’s Gaza’s extermination camp

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