HappycamperNZ @ HappycamperNZ @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

1,281

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yes - we also have no evidence Hamas is avoiding civilian casualties either. This is the point - why are we excusing one but not the other?

I struggle with any excuses from Israel- you have the manpower, tech and logistic to do soo much better and (regardless of your actual intent) causing excess suffering isn't going to help your long term position. We learned this in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wait, are we saying he's the good guy, the Hamas "freedom fighter" or the Israeli protecting their lands? Who is the good guy... and that's are fucking scary thought that I don't know.

And that we just casually missed the part where he went to the outpost, and killed all the non combatants.

Us?

Using your discussion they had no choice but to fight. Fair point.

They absolutely had choices on where to organise, whether or not to kill and capture civilians, or if they should set up in hospitals and key infrastructure that keeps their civilians alive. Do you have a justification for this?

Good question, should clarify.

Standing directly behind someone, using them as a physical shield is not the human shield im talking about. The only direct evidence I've seen of this was the original attack when hostages were being taken back... and we know how that went.

Im referring to using protected places (hospitals, mosques, infrastructure) as bases for logistics, planning and operations - doing so removes the protection placed on those places and makes it legal to attack... regardless of what that means for the civilian population. There has been significant evidence of this.

Proportionality does need to be brought into discussion as I do believe much of the response on protected places was excessive - We've all seen the damage and suffering that removing the protection on these places has caused.

Going back to my original point, Hamas uses these with the justification of "we don't have a choice" because there is a significant strength inbalance and everything not breaking the conventions has been destroyed - no where is this considered acceptable. The laws and convention doesn't just apply when you are winning and its a "fair" fight. Nor does Israeli actions justify it - just like Hamas actions don't justify Israeli breaches.

So what your saying is war crimes are acceptable when you are losing?

You also missed the part where I took one of my neighbors kids after throwing shit over the fence, that there is years of history between us where we both attacked eachother, and that im apparently hiding behind wife shooting at you saying "hurt her its your fault".

I had people at high school who did this regularly.

Same crowd than snorted sherbet when we made it, put hot glue in their hands to see who could hold it longer... did the same thing with metal rulers and bunsen burners.

Didn't see any of them graduate for some reason.

That's like saying I had no choice but to beat my wife at home because if I did it in public I'd get arrested.

No where in the UN charter, Geneva convention or any legal precident does it say war crimes are acceptable if you don't have a choice, or its ok if you will be attacked by not breaching the convention. There is a damn good reason we keep those places protected and we are looking at the suffering losing them causes.

I hope i get this across without getting pedantic responses.

So why is Hamas allowed to be excused for using human shields because of the population density where there is no choice, but civilians being killed by Israeli attack are completely unacceptable? Surely if its so density they don't have a choice then Israel doesn't either.

Other poster is correct, civilians on both sides are the only innocent ones here. No need to excuse one side as "no choice".

Anyone else just find out they are a fruit fly?

I would also argue we lived in a pre-9/11 world.

It us shocking how much the world changed in response for the sake of security and safety, and I know it's a controversial take but the terrorists succeed in changing the world to their image.

I wish to state 3 people 6 hours isn't actually alot. Does it suck - yeah, but don't act like this was mountains from 3000 people not caring.

If I had to guess? Global warming melted the snow that kept them there

Where did you get destruction of Palestine from that one?

The core part of the article is that he won't order it to stop until opinion polls say its best for him.

Still fucking wrong, no need to add your own beliefs into it.

I would have also accepted

• warcraft 3
• Heros of might and Magic
• Warhammer (bit of a push there though)

We saw the Mythbusters episode- I ain't getting smeared by a water heater.

I'd argue that means the ground is constantly missing, but gets lucky once.

Do you have anything recommended?

You've also got to remember the US health system is user pays, but most of the NZ health system is free.

The US system is faster because patients are customers... well insurance is but you get the idea. Ours if free, but prioritised by the needs of the whole. If you go private in NZ you have similar or better wait times.