“Yeah but women and girls will give birth to terrorists, and boys will become terrorists. These are just preemptive-preemptive strikes… Historians may call this genocide but we disagree semantically”. - Israeli government probably
It is a talking point meant to engage you and waste your time, it doesn’t have to make sense. This is conservative playbook 101.
It is a demonstration of good faith vs bad faith. If only you explain it to the person properly then they will change their mind? Nope. They’re just energy/effort vampires trying to exhaust you.
“In war, we don’t have time to incriminate every target. So we’re prepared to take the margin of error of using AI, risking collateral damage and civilian deaths (…) and live with it,”
The army also decided during the first weeks of the war that, for every junior Hamas operative that Lavender marked, it was permissible to kill up to 15 or 20 civilians; in the past, the military did not authorize any “collateral damage” during assassinations of low-ranking militants.
When it came to targeting alleged junior militants marked by Lavender, the army preferred to only use unguided missiles, commonly known as “dumb” bombs (in contrast to “smart” precision bombs), which can destroy entire buildings on top of their occupants and cause significant casualties. “You don’t want to waste expensive bombs on unimportant people — it’s very expensive for the country and there’s a shortage [of those bombs],”
So if a terrorist broke in to your home, locked you, your wife, and your kids in the basement, then launched a rocket from your bedroom window, you’d be 100% OK with the IDF turning your house in to rubble and your family in to compost? Really? Get a fucking grip, buddy.
The Hutu’s used the term “cockroaches” to dehumanize. The Nazi’s used “rats”. But at least those are living creatures. But “a shield”, calling a human being a shield, as if they’re an inanimate object meant to be struck, as if they’re a nuisance that you’re meant to get through to hit your target? Calling these civilians “human shields” is a new low for dehumanizing language, and Israel defenders don’t realize what kind of monster everyone else sees them as. So wild that it’s considered acceptable language by mainstream culture, fucking terrifying.
It’s considered acceptable language by mainstream culture because it’s a legitimate interpretation of reality.
It’s not reasonable to say Jews are literally rats. It is a reasonable to say civilian Gazans are used as a shield by Hamas. What is dehumanizing, sometime literally, is using people as shields.
My gut reaction is to say - I don’t know, if murder isn’t okay, how come I only see people here criticizing Israel and not Hamas or Hezbollah?
When people assign blame only on one side, they’re encouraging the other side to do more bad things. This applies to both the “Free Palestine!!!” and “Antisemitism!!!” camps.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the reason people are saying that Hamas are using Palestinians as human shields isn’t a Hasbarah plot to dehumanize Palestinians, but because Hamas are using Palestinians as human shields. Could you explain why this seems to be controversial? Do people not agree that Hamas are using human shields, or do they think that pointing any criticism at anyone Palestinian is “pro-Israeli”?
Well people say Israel is in the right because they had people killed. Does that mean everyone in Gaza now has the right to do what ever the hell they want to Israel? Since the IDF has killed way more civilians then the attack did.
The reason why people are focusing on one side is because one side killed ~1200 while the other has killed ~44,000. It’s like being a victim of a driveby shooting on 9/11 and complaining “Why is everyone only focusing on the Twin Towers?” The problem with pro-Israel supporters is that they somehow can’t seeem to tell the difference between 1200 and 44,000, it’s almost as if the 44,000 doesn’t matter because they’re Palestinian, and the 1200 matters more because they’re Israeli. If Israel killed 1200 and then Hamas returned by killing 44,000, we’d be focusing on Hamas, but that isn’t the case is it?
But wait for it, I can see the Hasbara talking point incoming - “Those are Hamas numbers.” Well the 1200 is Israeli numbers, and everyone now realizes their numbers are lest trustful, because they’re not the ones lying to the world and blocking independent investigative journalism. If you believe Israel is telling the truth, why not let in independent investigation?
Actually, 44,000 is about right for the IDF estimations.
Anyway, you’re saying it’s a numbers game? Let’s say Israel were to round up 1,199 random Gazans and shoot them in the street, people would be saying “Well, Israel killed less people, so Hamas should stop their aggression”?
If Israel killed 1200 and then Hamas returned by killing 44,000, we’d be focusing on Hamas
Sorry, but I doubt that. Right now there are at least two other major conflicts, each with more casualties (the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Sudanese civil war), yet the interest in Lemmy and like minded places is like that meme with the drowning kid and the skeleton (inb4 someone accuses me of “antisemitism” - I’m pointing out that Israel is singled out, not accusing anyone of anything).
“But these other conflicts are okay, why can’t Israel do one?” I fail to see the comparison with these other conflicts, where neither has 2 million people in a giant open air concentration camp being starved of food, water, electricty, sanitation, and then getting bombed by US/UK sold weapons. Yes those conflicts are terrible, the Sudanese civil war is terrible with over 60,000 deaths so far, we just want Gaza to not top that as the Lancet reckons Gaza is facing at least 186,000 deaths - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext - The problem is there can’t be an accurate count because Israel won’t let independent investigators in, also unlike the other conflicts you mentioned where independent investigations ARE allowed in. The fact that you’d point out these other conflicts, only to compare Israel to them as being MORE dishonest, doesn’t help Israels cause or your own. No matter what you say, you won’t convince us to accept genocide when it’s happening to Palestinians or anyone else.
I say it. Yes it is! If it commits terrorism to attack his enemies then yes it’s a terrorist org.
All religious ethnic based terrorist orgs have their reason, they all believe they are doing the right thing.
In the case of religious based they all believe to be the children’s of god and His favourite people.
What makes it a terrorist org isn’t reason or right or wrong sides, what makes it terrorist is the way it attacks it’s enemies to achieve their goals.
So hell yes they are terrorists because of they have done.
If a group of militants decided to have a meeting in the basement of a fully occupied apartment building in NYC, you believe it would be ethical for the US military to destroy the building and kill hundreds of people in their homes?
“Yeah but women and girls will give birth to terrorists, and boys will become terrorists. These are just preemptive-preemptive strikes… Historians may call this genocide but we disagree semantically”. - Israeli government probably
Mossad would be proud of this statement.
Not probably. “Erase the memory of them. Erase them, their families, mothers and children.” says the head of their air force.
Actually responsibility of civilian deaths are on those who use civilians as human shields
I don’t get that mindset. Why is it ok to shoot through people to get to the bad guys?
If the police did that when criminals took hostages it wouldn’t be acceptable so why is it acceptable for Israel?
It is a talking point meant to engage you and waste your time, it doesn’t have to make sense. This is conservative playbook 101.
It is a demonstration of good faith vs bad faith. If only you explain it to the person properly then they will change their mind? Nope. They’re just energy/effort vampires trying to exhaust you.
You’ve got your education right on that one. Learned the hard way perhaps?
You don’t know what you are talking about
But they are taking precautions, you guys act like they are doing it deliberately without precautions
Yeah right “precautions”
https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
So if a terrorist broke in to your home, locked you, your wife, and your kids in the basement, then launched a rocket from your bedroom window, you’d be 100% OK with the IDF turning your house in to rubble and your family in to compost? Really? Get a fucking grip, buddy.
The Hutu’s used the term “cockroaches” to dehumanize. The Nazi’s used “rats”. But at least those are living creatures. But “a shield”, calling a human being a shield, as if they’re an inanimate object meant to be struck, as if they’re a nuisance that you’re meant to get through to hit your target? Calling these civilians “human shields” is a new low for dehumanizing language, and Israel defenders don’t realize what kind of monster everyone else sees them as. So wild that it’s considered acceptable language by mainstream culture, fucking terrifying.
It’s considered acceptable language by mainstream culture because it’s a legitimate interpretation of reality.
It’s not reasonable to say Jews are literally rats. It is a reasonable to say civilian Gazans are used as a shield by Hamas. What is dehumanizing, sometime literally, is using people as shields.
I think it’s more dehumanizing to be the one who kills those people. What the hell is wrong with people? Is murder suddenly okay then?
My gut reaction is to say - I don’t know, if murder isn’t okay, how come I only see people here criticizing Israel and not Hamas or Hezbollah?
When people assign blame only on one side, they’re encouraging the other side to do more bad things. This applies to both the “Free Palestine!!!” and “Antisemitism!!!” camps.
Anyway, I just wanted to point out that the reason people are saying that Hamas are using Palestinians as human shields isn’t a Hasbarah plot to dehumanize Palestinians, but because Hamas are using Palestinians as human shields. Could you explain why this seems to be controversial? Do people not agree that Hamas are using human shields, or do they think that pointing any criticism at anyone Palestinian is “pro-Israeli”?
Well people say Israel is in the right because they had people killed. Does that mean everyone in Gaza now has the right to do what ever the hell they want to Israel? Since the IDF has killed way more civilians then the attack did.
And those people would be wrong. That doesn’t contradict anything I said.
The reason why people are focusing on one side is because one side killed ~1200 while the other has killed ~44,000. It’s like being a victim of a driveby shooting on 9/11 and complaining “Why is everyone only focusing on the Twin Towers?” The problem with pro-Israel supporters is that they somehow can’t seeem to tell the difference between 1200 and 44,000, it’s almost as if the 44,000 doesn’t matter because they’re Palestinian, and the 1200 matters more because they’re Israeli. If Israel killed 1200 and then Hamas returned by killing 44,000, we’d be focusing on Hamas, but that isn’t the case is it?
But wait for it, I can see the Hasbara talking point incoming - “Those are Hamas numbers.” Well the 1200 is Israeli numbers, and everyone now realizes their numbers are lest trustful, because they’re not the ones lying to the world and blocking independent investigative journalism. If you believe Israel is telling the truth, why not let in independent investigation?
Actually, 44,000 is about right for the IDF estimations.
Anyway, you’re saying it’s a numbers game? Let’s say Israel were to round up 1,199 random Gazans and shoot them in the street, people would be saying “Well, Israel killed less people, so Hamas should stop their aggression”?
Sorry, but I doubt that. Right now there are at least two other major conflicts, each with more casualties (the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Sudanese civil war), yet the interest in Lemmy and like minded places is like that meme with the drowning kid and the skeleton (inb4 someone accuses me of “antisemitism” - I’m pointing out that Israel is singled out, not accusing anyone of anything).
“But these other conflicts are okay, why can’t Israel do one?” I fail to see the comparison with these other conflicts, where neither has 2 million people in a giant open air concentration camp being starved of food, water, electricty, sanitation, and then getting bombed by US/UK sold weapons. Yes those conflicts are terrible, the Sudanese civil war is terrible with over 60,000 deaths so far, we just want Gaza to not top that as the Lancet reckons Gaza is facing at least 186,000 deaths - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(24)01169-3/fulltext - The problem is there can’t be an accurate count because Israel won’t let independent investigators in, also unlike the other conflicts you mentioned where independent investigations ARE allowed in. The fact that you’d point out these other conflicts, only to compare Israel to them as being MORE dishonest, doesn’t help Israels cause or your own. No matter what you say, you won’t convince us to accept genocide when it’s happening to Palestinians or anyone else.
Removed by mod
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/24/middleeast/palestinians-human-shields-israel-military-gaza-intl/index.html
So the responsibility is on the IDF, then.
Removed by mod
As the IDF has done. So you’re saying that the IDF is a terrorist org, right? Right??
I say it. Yes it is! If it commits terrorism to attack his enemies then yes it’s a terrorist org.
All religious ethnic based terrorist orgs have their reason, they all believe they are doing the right thing. In the case of religious based they all believe to be the children’s of god and His favourite people.
What makes it a terrorist org isn’t reason or right or wrong sides, what makes it terrorist is the way it attacks it’s enemies to achieve their goals.
So hell yes they are terrorists because of they have done.
If a group of militants decided to have a meeting in the basement of a fully occupied apartment building in NYC, you believe it would be ethical for the US military to destroy the building and kill hundreds of people in their homes?