305
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
305 points (97.5% liked)
World News
38977 readers
2793 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Explicitly combatants... and anyone who happens to be in their vicinity when the bomb goes off.
"Extremely" targeted you say? So when they were detonated, the people doing the detonating had visual confirmation of the targets not being in close proximity to civilians?
Or even had the pager at all instead of leaving it at home where their kids could get hold of it or a fire could be started.
Ah. So this 9-year-old-girl was killed on purpose then, I take it?
Since "People in the vicinity are not harmed" it had to have been targeted. Right? Right??
So which is it? "People in the vicinity are not harmed" or "whops we killed a kid"?
Can't fucking be both, can it?
No, it can't be both.
You say that "people in the vicinity are not harmed." Either the 9-year-old-girl was targeted, or she wasn't. If she was harmed, it was according to you, a targeted strike at her, or she would not have been harmed.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Either she was harmed on accident by a bomb which did end up harming innocents, or she was targeted on purpose. THOSE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE STATEMENTS.
These attempts at defending indiscriminate attacks on civilian population are fucking disgusting. I genuinely don't know how you sleep at night when you're defending the death of a 9-year-old girl.
More like "you want to kill a soccer player who did something very bad to you. You get a soccer ball and plant it full of explosives. You leave it on a football pitch. Not even necessarily the one the player you're trying to kill uses. Just a pitch. Any pitch. Then you hope that the first person to touch the ball and explode is the person you intended. You end up killing several innocents and injuring hundreds."
Despite all your shitty propaganda, THE STATEMENTS ARE STILL MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can't be "extremely surgical attacks" which accidentally kill innocent children.
That's like saying you're a vegan who eats meat. Doesn't fucking work.
So was Israel's attack "extremely targeted" and they 'chose* to kill a 9-year-old-girl OR were these terror attacks so uncontrolled and chaotic that a child died on accident?
It's EITHER OR.
Hezbollah is, also, a political party. It's military wing was formed to fight the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
From what I can tell online its militant wing predates the political wing. Just adding that in because I thought it might be the other way around based on your comment
It is classified as a terrorist organisation by the majority of the international community. By legal definition, all Hezbollah members are terrorists regardless of what they do in the organisation, in the same way that all SS members are war criminals even if they were an office janitor or something, which makes them legitimate targets in a broader way than ordinary combatants who are bound and covered by the laws of war.
I don't know if you grew up during the color coded terror threat level days, but after updating everyone on the days terrorism threat color, the nightly news anchors would share how many terrorists were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even as a kid, I thought to myself, "how is everyone killed by coalition forces a terrorist?"
Or, "why are car bombs that kill coalition forces in theatre, called terror attacks?"
News flash, governments and media label all sorts of organizations and actions terrorism, 90% of it is propaganda, or bullshit.
Otherwise, I guess that would mean Ukrainian forces fighting Russians are also terrorists, which is how the Russian government and media refers to them.
That's absolutely not how the nazis' war crimes were handled post-war.
Only those with a direct active role and sufficient knowledge were charged in the post-war trials.
90+% of the SS members just went right back into their pre-war jobs.
(At least in the western part, the Soviets were much more...thorough in their de-nazification.)
Also, a janitor in a civilian building will never be an active combatant by any stretch of international law, no matter which organisation they belong to.
In law, every SS member, without exception, was axiomatically classified as a war criminal, with membership being sufficient evidence in itself. Of course, the western allies were not above looking the other way if it potentially meant the difference between victory and defeat in the Cold War, but this was an informal policy imposed from high up.
Do the confederates next, they were back in power in 10 years and terrorizing black people with the KKK shortly after.
The people getting these communication devices aren't exactly the kitchen personnel
True. Who would want a 9-year-old-girl as kitchen personnel?
Do you think Hezbollah gave her a pager? What was her father's position within Hezbollah? Maybe he's the one that fired some rockets that killed someone else's kids recently
I'll engage with your shitty whataboutism after you answer which it is: were the bombs "surgical" and killed a 9-year-old girl on purpose, or were they sloppy attacks which caused civilian casualties on accident?
Although they did kill that girl (and others) on accident, the attack as a whole seems to have been far more surgical that what we usually see in this conflict (and dare I say, certainly more surgical than most attacks from Hezbollah)
You can't have it both ways.
Either it was "very surgical" and still killed a small girl (ie the girl was targeted) OR Israeli attack methods are so indiscriminate and poorly aimed they end up killing INNOCENT CHILDREN.
It's one or the other.
That's a very childish way to look at it.
Imagine if Hezbollah managed to send a missile right up Bibi's bedroom window and killed both him and, unbeknownst to them, some child that was with him. Would you then conclude that it was an 'indiscriminate' attack? Would you not make a difference between that and say a carpet bombing where they just try to level the city block he's in?
Please use more caps and bold formatting in your posts
Bibi is fucking kids at night? I thought he couldn't get more disgusting for fucks sake.
Someone's personal bedroom has a bit more of what is known as "a reasonable expectation of privacy" than... *literal marketplaces. To pretend you don't understand the difference is pathetic.
And no-amount of your garbage propaganda will change the fact that you've tried asserting mutually exclusive things to be the case. Like propaganda usually does, claiming literally impossible things.
You CAN NOT answer the question. Was it extremely targeted and Israel killed a child on purpose, or did Israel attack so indiscriminately that it killed several innocents and harmed thousands of innocents.
It can't be both. And I know Netanyahu is a scumbag politician, but I'm sure even his personal bedroom wouldn't fit 3000 people.
So which is it? Extremely targeted (meaning these civilians are dead on purpose) or wildly uncaring (an indiscriminate bombing)?
The answer you seek is in my example: in the real world it's not binary, it's always a scale
btw I don't understand why you've used so little formatting
Some things are really that binary, when they're MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Even in the real world, you can't have you cake AND eat it too. Do you not understand what that means?
You can't claim "it was extremely targeted, but all the civilian casualties were an accident, even though the accidental things happened on purpose."
It's like saying "up is down". Some things are mutually exclusive.
I keep underlining these things so even a cowardly whataboutist would understand.
You have to choose one, there is no middle-ground as these are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE (you may need to Google the term): was the strike "extremely surgical"? If it was, then the 3000 injured plus ~10 dead, including children, are dead on purpose.
OR
Israel indiscriminately bombs civilians.
There's no middle option here, no matter how much you'd like for there to be. Either Israel targeted civilians or didn't care they'd end up killing them.
Just to be clear on definitions here: could you give me an example of something that you personally believe can be respresented on a scale (as opposed to binary)?
Sexuality is on a spectrum, because the opposing ends aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both. What you can't do is have a cake AND eat it. Because if you eat the cake, you won't have it. See?
Have you ever driven a car? You come to a crossing where you can go left or right.
If you go left, you didn't turn right, and if you turn right, you're turning away from left.
The choices are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You seem to be really struggling to understand what that means.
Just a reminder, it's YOUR assertion that these were "extremely targeted, no accident".
So you yourself have said that Israel bombed and killed civilians on purpose. That's a crime against humanity. Terrorism.
Fuck terrorist scum like whoever did this cowardly pager attack. Disgusting pos.
I kinda love how you're using the example of sexuality and a traffic crossing together. It's no different than someone 'explaining' how there are only two genders, really.
With violent acts like what we're talking about here, both intent and outcome are on a spectrum. There's a luck factor involved between the two. These clues should be enough for you to understand it's not as binary as you've been led to believe
I kinda don't love how you're unable to imagine that your b-grade logic would make Israel any less of a terrorist state.
Trying to assert the problem of induction into anything when faced with shitty things your people have done is honestly just shitty rhetoric. Like trying to play hide and seek with a 2-year old who thinks if they close their eyes no-one can see them.
You fail to stand behind your OWN WORDS.
YOU wrote:
And
This wasn't Israeli outlets saying these things. It was YOU. I'm having an issue with YOUR statements, which you're desperately trying to run away from.
So the attacks are extremely targeted, and don't harm "people in the vicinity". Those are your statements. Then how come a 9-year old girl among others is dead? (And 3000 people injured?)
I'm sorry, but can you point me to where I said either of those two things?
I'm starting to think you're just making things up
Oh right, you're just another troll backing the bullshit of another person who started this thread, I see, I didn't pay attention to the username. Apologies, terribly.
So just read the comment again and input him where I say "you".
Like I said, you don't have any logic here. Some things are mutually exclusive.
Feelings don’t care about the facts.
Whoosh