4 ms·

Well, some lives matter more than the others. No one in the west cares about Palestinians. And the way people try to do blatant war crime apologia is by saying

Well, some lives matter more than the others. No one in the west cares about Palestinians. And the way people try to do blatant war crime apologia is by saying that Israel wasn't targeting civilians specifically (as if they would admit it lol) so that's fine! Even Russia pretends that it isn't openly targeting civilians but again, Palestinian lives are basically worthless so it's just different :)

bilvar 3y ago
If even Palestinians (Hamas) do not care about Palestinians and are holding them hostages or using Palestinian children as human shields, why would anybody expect from the West to?
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  Well I guess if Hamas doesn't care, that justifies war crimes from Israel.
  - bilvar 3y ago
    No it doesn't justify war crimes from Israel. I'm just pointing out your delusion expecting anybody to care when they don't even care about themselves. You have to love yourself first, in order to be loved.
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      What? What are you even talking about? I'm not saying anything about loving them, there's an insanely wide margin between loving them and not turning a blind eye on war crimes because it's your ally that is doing it. What the hell?
      - bilvar 3y ago
        Dude, don't play semantics. Want to substitute the word love for care? Do it, the statement still holds.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
bawolff 3y ago
> blatant war crime apologia is by saying that Israel wasn't targeting civilians specifically (as if they would admit it lol) so that's fine! Umm, that's literally what distinguishes whether or not it is a war crime*? Not saying you need to take israeli claims at face value - but if one side accuses the other side of a crime, and the other side says they didn't do it, generally the burden is on the first side to provide proof. Saying it doesn't matter whether or not they actually did it isn't the right response. * technically its more complex than that. There are times where it could still be a war crime even if civilians weren't targeted specificly. What matters more is the balance between military benefit vs civilian damage.*
- mardifoufs 3y ago
  Yes, but cutting off water and supplies while explicitly declaring that they will turn the city to rubble... while at the same time claiming that the attacks are targeted and proportional is a thing that only a western ally could get away with. Russia pays complete lip service to always trying to make it look like they don't attack civilians (they do) yet are unequivocally accused of war crimes (as they should be). It got to a point where Israeli officials had no problem publically declaring thinly veiled threats of extermination like: >On October 10th an Israeli official told a television station: “Gaza will eventually turn into a city of tents. There will be no buildings.” Daniel Hagari, an idf spokesperson, boasted that “hundreds of tons of bombs” had been dropped on Gaza. Then, he added: “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.” Again, only a western ally could get away with this with such a massive support at all level from all western countries after such statements.

bilvar 3y ago

If even Palestinians (Hamas) do not care about Palestinians and are holding them hostages or using Palestinian children as human shields, why would anybody expect from the West to?

mardifoufs 3y ago
Well I guess if Hamas doesn't care, that justifies war crimes from Israel.
- bilvar 3y ago
  No it doesn't justify war crimes from Israel. I'm just pointing out your delusion expecting anybody to care when they don't even care about themselves. You have to love yourself first, in order to be loved.
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    What? What are you even talking about? I'm not saying anything about loving them, there's an insanely wide margin between loving them and not turning a blind eye on war crimes because it's your ally that is doing it. What the hell?
    - bilvar 3y ago
      Dude, don't play semantics. Want to substitute the word love for care? Do it, the statement still holds.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

bawolff 3y ago

> blatant war crime apologia is by saying that Israel wasn't targeting civilians specifically (as if they would admit it lol) so that's fine! Umm, that's literally what distinguishes whether or not it is a war crime*? Not saying you need to take israeli claims at face value - but if one side accuses the other side of a crime, and the other side says they didn't do it, generally the burden is on the first side to provide proof. Saying it doesn't matter whether or not they actually did it isn't the right response. * technically its more complex than that. There are times where it could still be a war crime even if civilians weren't targeted specificly. What matters more is the balance between military benefit vs civilian damage.*

mardifoufs 3y ago
Yes, but cutting off water and supplies while explicitly declaring that they will turn the city to rubble... while at the same time claiming that the attacks are targeted and proportional is a thing that only a western ally could get away with. Russia pays complete lip service to always trying to make it look like they don't attack civilians (they do) yet are unequivocally accused of war crimes (as they should be). It got to a point where Israeli officials had no problem publically declaring thinly veiled threats of extermination like: >On October 10th an Israeli official told a television station: “Gaza will eventually turn into a city of tents. There will be no buildings.” Daniel Hagari, an idf spokesperson, boasted that “hundreds of tons of bombs” had been dropped on Gaza. Then, he added: “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.” Again, only a western ally could get away with this with such a massive support at all level from all western countries after such statements.