oh, sorry, did you not say killing crowds of civilians in the hopes that a hamas member was among them was a totally excusable act, and labelled as just unfortunate collateral damage in war?
I could have sworn you said that, but my lemmy app does bug out sometimes, maybe I clicked on the wrong comment.
So you dont think killing crowds of innocent people in the hope that there might have been a terrorist among them is excusable?
If you hide ammunition, fighters amongst civilians, to use the as meat shield or their deaths as propaganda, they become collateral damage.
Huh. Weird, that looks like your text copy and pasted right here, where you say that killing civilians under the claim of targeting “hidden fighters” among their ranks is excusable collateral damage of war.
Same argument used to defend the atomic bombing of hiroshima, another well known war crime. The city had a well established military headquarters and arms depot, tucked away in the center of civilian housing and business, after all. Just more collateral damage, right?
Oh so you say the Israeli should not shoot at the rocket launchers and shooters in the crowd? They should just die because “check mate” you can’t kill civilians? You just want to see more jews dead… (/s)
Good now we both have said choking stuff that’s not precise nor in good faith. Where do we go from here?
No, see, cause Im not some sadistic loser, I understand you can address threats in a crowd without killing the crowd.
There are plenty of non lethal incapacitation weapons that are specifically designed for hostiles surrounded by civilians. There are plenty of options for not killing innocent people that arent “guess I gotta die!”
You arent being argued against in bad faith, youre just being argued against by decent human beings. I know, shocking for you, but normal folk arent excited to kill palestinians.
I’ve made my point clear, what I’m engaging with is your reductio ad absurdum you’re using since your first reply.
Let’s do it anyway: no, bombing a crowd because there may be someone hostile inside is not ok. If there someone shooting rockets at you from that crowd, in a war, yes, you should try to kill that guy even if it hits civilians. Otherwise YOU WILL DIE… that’s warfare… it’s horrible.
Now there is a mountain of nuance that i didn’t address because it’s a post on lemmy, and picking one of those nuanced scenarios and trying to make it my whole argument is fallacious and dishonest.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !news@beehaw.org
Breaking news from around the world.
News that is American but has an international facet may also be posted here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
oh, sorry, did you not say killing crowds of civilians in the hopes that a hamas member was among them was a totally excusable act, and labelled as just unfortunate collateral damage in war?
I could have sworn you said that, but my lemmy app does bug out sometimes, maybe I clicked on the wrong comment.
So you dont think killing crowds of innocent people in the hope that there might have been a terrorist among them is excusable?
My words are available to you. They speak for themselves. Mischaracterize them all you want.
Mischaracterize? Im practically quoting you.
Huh. Weird, that looks like your text copy and pasted right here, where you say that killing civilians under the claim of targeting “hidden fighters” among their ranks is excusable collateral damage of war.
Same argument used to defend the atomic bombing of hiroshima, another well known war crime. The city had a well established military headquarters and arms depot, tucked away in the center of civilian housing and business, after all. Just more collateral damage, right?
Again, arguing in bad faith. Let me do the same:
Oh so you say the Israeli should not shoot at the rocket launchers and shooters in the crowd? They should just die because “check mate” you can’t kill civilians? You just want to see more jews dead… (/s)
Good now we both have said choking stuff that’s not precise nor in good faith. Where do we go from here?
No, see, cause Im not some sadistic loser, I understand you can address threats in a crowd without killing the crowd.
There are plenty of non lethal incapacitation weapons that are specifically designed for hostiles surrounded by civilians. There are plenty of options for not killing innocent people that arent “guess I gotta die!”
You arent being argued against in bad faith, youre just being argued against by decent human beings. I know, shocking for you, but normal folk arent excited to kill palestinians.
Again with the personal attacks while I’m trying to explain war.
Non lethal incapacitation… yeah keep watching movies…
Youre not explaining war, you are defending war crimes. Now who is in bad faith?
This also shocks sadistic losers, but weaponry and war isnt just bombs and bullets.
Again with the insults, have a nice rage boner, i’m blocking you
Blocked by the warmonger, how ever will I get over it
Good riddance to bad trash
You can’t just accuse other people of bad faith arguing when you won’t even back your own point up.
I’ve made my point clear, what I’m engaging with is your reductio ad absurdum you’re using since your first reply.
Let’s do it anyway: no, bombing a crowd because there may be someone hostile inside is not ok. If there someone shooting rockets at you from that crowd, in a war, yes, you should try to kill that guy even if it hits civilians. Otherwise YOU WILL DIE… that’s warfare… it’s horrible.
Now there is a mountain of nuance that i didn’t address because it’s a post on lemmy, and picking one of those nuanced scenarios and trying to make it my whole argument is fallacious and dishonest.