- cross-posted to:
- palestine@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- palestine@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
And you should read Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance.
Eye for an eye makes the world go blind only works when one party doesn’t exist solely to exterminate another.
That’s what Hezbollah is.
I have never defended genociders - you on the other hand keep defending Hezbollah.
The world needs to deal with Hezbollah the same way it needs to deal with Zionism and the same way it eventually dealt with the Nazis.
Tell me dumbass, do you think Netanyahu and co. will stop his campaign on Gaza if everyone decided not to retaliate? Or would he just order his men to take advantage of the situation and shoot them down? Do you think the Nazis or any other group, such as Hezbollah, intent on genocide would accept peace?
Of course ideally such corrupt evil fucks could be eliminated with no innocent casualties. But that’s unfortunately not the way the world works. Do you think innocent casualties didn’t occur when other fascist evils were fought? You think only military personnel were killed in WW2?
You’re either a naïve kid, or have thought up of miracle solution like a death note.
This was a case of monsters fighting monsters; we’re lucky that this at least was an actual very precise strike one monster did to the others, rather than their usual M.O. of just striking buildings with missiles.
Naive kid.
You’re seriously saying “they deserve the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ treatment” while Israel is actively escalating the conflict?
I have never defended genociders
Oh okay. So where have I done that? In assuming that 3000 civilians who were harmed weren’t exclusively Hezbollah? Which would be an utterly ridiculous claim seeing how many literal children there are involved.
So… you’ve never defended genociders. Then let’s see if you will. Is Israel committing a genocide in Gaza?
You think only military personnel were killed in WW2?
I’ve actually been in the military and have had training on what is and isn’t legal to do in armed conflict. Have you?
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12
Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks
Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those: (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
© which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
They limited the attacks by replacing the pagers ordered by Hezzbollah, not the pagers ordered by anyone.
Are you dense?
Perhaps you didn’t read the entire passage?
“Which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law”
Or perhaps you don’t know what those requirements are, because you don’t care?
These can’t. They had no way of limiting or even knowing where and whom the bombs would be around when they exploded.
You’re talking out of your ass. By sending bombs only in pagers marked for Hezzbollah, as opposed to pagers to be sold generally in Lebanon, they were limited as required.
You’re talking out of your ass.
pagers marked for Hamas
I’m not the one “talking out of my ass” so bad I get Hamas and Hezbollah confused.
I linked the international law. This attack breaks those laws.
“as required”
Aha, hmm, and what exactly are those requirements? (I know you’ve no idea, but I’ll settle for you even looking them up and reading them even for trying to still defend Israel, because that’ll still mean you’ll at least have read them)
You have no clue what you’re talking about. You’re a real life Dunning Kruger curve.
I learned International law in law school and in my profession of decades, not from Googling links and pretending to be an expert.
I’m not going to call you an anti-semite for these bullshit arguments you read online because I know it’s just that you’re ignorant, but the reason many people would is because you are applying a heightened standard of law to Israel but not anywhere else, you are holding Israel to a standard that you do not apply to Iran and the violent pan-Islamist nationalists that it backs on all sides of Israel, and are willing to defend it when pan-Islamists do mass shootings and mass kidnappings of civilians, which is their new thing, ever since suicide bombings became faux pas.
Sure you did, bubba, sure you did.
You’re not just random internet kid with a cringe username who gets Hezbollah and Hamas confused and kicks off a tantrum. Nope, youre definitely not that.
You’re an expert in international law!
You did just call me an antisemite. You implied it. I think you might have to look that word up as well, despite your extensive training in “law school”.
I’m holding Israel to international laws they’ve agreed on, as a member of the United Nations.
The the rest of your comment is more shitty whataboutism.
Projecting your own shit.
Which country’s military? Because I’m more than willing to bet your country has killed innocents too, even if by accident. Depending on the country, like the USA, deliberately killing them too. Congratulations on choosing to actively participating in that horridness I suppose.
Is Israel committing a genocide in Gaza?
I see you weren’t the reading comprehension guy in the military. But since you need it directly spelled out for your crayon eating ass to understand - yes, the Israeli government is committing genocide. You know who else is trying their hand at Genocide? Hezbollah.
But hey, while we have ‘holier than thou’ ex-military on the line, how about a bit of a trolley problem for you:
If you could dispose of Netanyahu along with the top heads of his genocidal campaign, at the cost of 10 children, would you? And just to make it even easier on you, let’s add that doing so will end Israel’s current war and genocide campaign too.
Which country’s military? Because I’m more than willing to bet your country has killed innocents too, even if by accident
Finland. Go ahead and dig dirt. We have such a cruel and bloody history and we never do what we say or listen to laws. /S
I see you weren’t the reading comprehension guy in the military. But since you need it directly spelled out for your crayon eating ass to understand - yes, the Israeli government is committing genocide
You don’t seem to understand what reading comprehension is, nor understand the existence of people who absolutely refuse to admit to Israel’s warcrimes. Like the war crime they committed with this indiscriminate bombing, which can’t be limited as international law requires.
International law is international law. And Israel is breaking it.
Edit oh and I’m not **ex-**military until I’m 60. Also, I was the company’s quartermaster, which very much is a reading job for the most part.
Finland. Go ahead and dig dirt. We have such a cruel and bloody history and we never do what we say or listen to laws.
Finnish Civil war of 1918. No country is without sin. That’s not even getting into the Jaeger unit issues that existed in WW2 and the soldiers who kept working and then later joined the Nazis even afterwards.
Btw, why didn’t you answer the trolley problem, coward? Because those are the kind of situations that can arise in conflict.
“No country is without sin” *mentions a civil war*
Wow, yeah, having struggled for our independence more than 100 years ago is what you’re going with with this whataboutism, when we’re discussing WAR CRIMES?
Wow what a great argument, definitely showed me my place, yeah. /S
Why didn’t I answer your garbage attempt at rhetoric? Because you’re ignoring actual international law to defend Israel’s despicable attack on civilians. Something my country has NEVER done.
War is war, civil or not. I also mentioned WW2 since Finland did ally with the Nazis.
No, I’m giving you a moral dilemma to show you your own hypocrisy. Injuring thousands of Hezbollah members will save lives too - these are the people firing missiles at civilians as well (unless you’re saying every Israeli is guilty, in which that says a lot more about how ducked up you are if true).
Hence I gave you a similar scenario. Because if the tables were turned - if someone managed to explode Netanyahu and co’s phones and kill him, you’d probably be cheering even if children died, because it would mean a genocidal war would be halted.
You prefer the few rather than the greater good. And that always leads to more death rather than less. And quite frankly, makes you a shit military member to boot. Because it means if Russia did attack Finland, you’d prefer Putin alive if the opening for taking him out would kill a few innocents - even though letting him live would mean many more dying.
None of this exonerates Israel btw - an evil accidentally doing a net good doesn’t stop that evil from being evil. But Hezbollah taking such a heavy hit with very few bystander casualties is a best case scenario, because the alternative - doing nothing - would have eventually led to more deaths.
War isn’t war crimes.
Youre ignoring actual international law and think your 12th grade philosophy rhetoric is some fucking gotcha?
War isn’t war crimes. I shouldn’t have even engaged with this shitty whataboutism, but it’s so laughable this is honestly entertaining. “War is war”. Weirdly we’ve never had to resort to bombing civilians? The only thing you can manage to find is “you had a civil war and you got support from Germany (before having a war with them), thus you’re just as morally bad as anyone who voluntarily massacre children, like Israel.”
We weren’t allies with Germany. You think that can’t be true, since you know WWII history. But what you don’t realise is you don’t understand that like warcrimes, “ally” also has a definition. We were not allies with Nazis, we we’re cobelligerents. Until we had to have a war with the fuckers cause they weren’t happy with us not being in thrall to them. The fuckers burned Lappland.
if someone managed to explode Netanyahu and co’s phones and kill him, you’d probably be cheering even if children died, because it would mean a genocidal war would be halted.
I don’t have anything better to do rn, so I might as well. This is absolutely moronic. No, I wouldn’t be fucking cheering at anyone’s death, and Netanyahu dying wouldn’t even realistically stop the genocides, because why the fuck would it? Do you think he’s the sole person pushing everyone else to do something they loathe? You haven’t heard the “we’re fighting human animals” from Israel’s defense minister?
War is allowed. War crimes are not. How is this hard for you to understand? And how is it you honestly still cling to your, “every country has blood on their hands” and comparing mother fucking Finland to Israel, trying to equate them because we fought for our independence literally more than a century ago, and did no war crimes in the process.
How is that even remotely comparable to sending off bombs to be exploded in population centers with children?
Like how fucked up do you have to be to even be able to think that?
You: an eye for an eye makes the world blind
Also you: well war isn’t that bad, it’s war crimes that are bad!
Also, failing reading comprehension again, but to be fair English is your second language. I said Netanyahu and co., as in company, as in also the defense minister. Yes, that would manage to stop the genocidal war, because the rabid leadership that wants it would be dead, and politically they would have to scramble in order to maintain majority coalition.
How is that even remotely comparable to sending off bombs to be exploded in population centers with children?
For someone in the military you really don’t seem to understand how modern warfare works, at all. A lot of modern warfare is urban now, not in fields - you know, places where non-combatants are. This is why Finland also offers civilian support training as an option for the mandatory regimen - such as learning how to build defences in city streets. **Even regular war occurs where there are children in modern times.**Even in ancient times. Hence, war is war. Children die in war, and your thick ass skull doesn’t seem to get the root issue is war itself. War crimes are the ugliest thing of war, but war itself is already terrible.
Secondly, this wasn’t just “sending off bombs to be exploded”. This was a directed supply chain attack - it’s not like grenades or rockets were just launched at city streets. They specifically infiltrated Hezbollah, convinced then to use Walkie Talkies and gave them tainted ones, that seemed to have also been tapped , then convinced them to use pagers as an extra precaution and gave them tainted ones too, then detonated those first rather than the walkie talkies to make them think the first form of communication was safe, then the walkie talkies. These were items designed to be carried around by the enemy, not indiscriminate bombing, and designed to disrupt and slow down their comms. Even without killing, it has incapacitated a huge amount of the enemy, and made them easier to identify by cross referencing hospital records with other Intel.
That is vastly different than what you imply. This if anything resulted in the least amount of casualties, considering the enemy combatants are mostly non-uniformed, and rarely attack directly in a front line.
Could you come up with a better way to deal with a zealot theocratic group also intent on genocide that fires missiles remotely and indiscriminately constantly at the general population that isn’t directly starting a war in another country? Of course, you’ll ignore this question just like every other thing I brought up that’s extremely inconvenient for you to answer.
That’s why I also brought up Finland and the Nazis - the Nazis just happen to be fighting the Soviets at the time didn’t make the Nazis good, did it? Same here with Mossad fighting Hezbollah.
