6 ms·

I wasn't ignorant of it - that's why I said "any modern Israeli party". I'm aware past Israeli/Zionist groups have engaged in terrorism and in some cases delibe

I wasn't ignorant of it - that's why I said "any modern Israeli party". I'm aware past Israeli/Zionist groups have engaged in terrorism and in some cases deliberate civilian massacres. As far as I know Likud hasn't within the past 50 years.

markdown 3y ago
What do you call what's going on right now, if not deliberate civilian massacres in order to get to relative handful of fighters hiding amongst them?
- kaba0 3y ago
  Well, what other way is there? Hamas is a terrorist organization, with in the picture, there will never be peace. The only option thus is the most targeted elimination of all terrorists. Unfortunately, 100% specificity is impossible to achieve. So the question is, is Israel doing their absolute best on minimizing casualties or not? Do you have a reason to assume they don’t do so? The reported 2:1 ratio is absolutely in line with modern warfares, especially considering the very very densely populated urban environment.
  - account42 3y ago
    > Well, what other way is there? Hamas is a terrorist organization, with in the picture, there will never be peace. The only option thus is the most targeted elimination of all terrorists. And I'm sure you will accept Hamas strikes against Israel as justified as long as they deem the IDF as a terrorist organization? Or is it only your view of who is or is not a terrorist organization that matters? We should never let labels like "terrorist" be used to justify using any means neccassary to ensure their removal. There is always the null option - do nothing. How much civilian casualties are there with that option vs. indescriminate eradication of anyone near Hamas?
    - kaba0 3y ago
      The null “option” is forever letting Israeli civilians living in constant fear of rocket attacks. That’s no way of living.
      - account42 3y ago
        It's a better way of living than what the palestinians are subjected to right now.
        kaba0 3y ago
        With hamas in the picture, both Palestine and Israeli civilians will suffer indefinitely with no peace ever. With a hopefully short war that manages to cut out the cancer that is hamas, healing can begin for both nations.
  - markdown 3y ago
    > Well, what other way is there? I mean, fire the general in charge of security and put competent people on your walls to avoid any further incursions, and then work to remove the million settlers you've pushed onto stolen lands. It's insane how Israel has managed to sell this fiction that they have a right to slaughter tens of thousands because a few terrorists must be hiding amongst them.
markdown 3y ago
What do you call what's going on right now, if not deliberate civilian massacres in order to get to relative handful of freedom-fighters/terrorists hiding amongst them?
- C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
  Let us imagine a residential building with about 100 people living there, and let us imagine that there is information that some enemy combatants are living among them. A decision is made to strike at the building in order to eliminate the combatants. Consider two different approaches: 1) An air strike at the building, destroying it and killing most of its inhabitants, and leaving a minority of them wounded. 2) A squad of soldiers enters the building and executes most of the inhabitants at close range, and wounds and leaves alive a minority of them. Most people would call scenario 2) a deliberate massacre that cannot be justified. Many people would, however, call scenario 1) a legitimate military strategy with unfortunate collateral damage that cannot be avoided. Question is, why? The outcome is the same, but for some reason the impersonality of striking from distance (air strikes, missiles, or artillery fire) seems to make it acceptable in many bystanders' eyes.
  - selestify 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
      > Because in scenario 2, you’re presumably also shooting at unarmed civilians with their hands up who are posing no threat to you. There’s no reason to shoot them if you have the choice not to. In scenario 1, an air strike is coarse-grained enough that you don’t have such a choice to make. But in scenario 1, one is bombing unarmed civilians residing inside their homes. The only reason they do not literally have their hands up is that they do not even see the strike coming before they and their families are killed; and they pose even less of a threat to the person sending the missile than they would pose to a soldier that is physically located next to them. > The outcome is not the same, because scenario two involves a high likelihood of more casualties on your side. It is legitimate to care more about your own soldier casualties than about enemy civilian casualties. My initial reply to the parent was in the context of "deliberate massacres of civilians", pointing out that people seem to find such massacres much more acceptable when done from a distance. The rest of your reply seems to provide motivations for such actions, and your last paragraph even provides justifications (unless I horribly misunderstood it). Regardless of whether one agrees with the motivations and justifications, the reality of the outcome is what it is — a deliberate massacre of civilians. Whether that is done by bullets at gunpoint or by a missile from a long distance makes little, if any, difference to the people being slaughtered by tens of thousands (and ongoing), and makes no difference at all to the death reports.

markdown 3y ago

What do you call what's going on right now, if not deliberate civilian massacres in order to get to relative handful of fighters hiding amongst them?

kaba0 3y ago
Well, what other way is there? Hamas is a terrorist organization, with in the picture, there will never be peace. The only option thus is the most targeted elimination of all terrorists. Unfortunately, 100% specificity is impossible to achieve. So the question is, is Israel doing their absolute best on minimizing casualties or not? Do you have a reason to assume they don’t do so? The reported 2:1 ratio is absolutely in line with modern warfares, especially considering the very very densely populated urban environment.
- account42 3y ago
  > Well, what other way is there? Hamas is a terrorist organization, with in the picture, there will never be peace. The only option thus is the most targeted elimination of all terrorists. And I'm sure you will accept Hamas strikes against Israel as justified as long as they deem the IDF as a terrorist organization? Or is it only your view of who is or is not a terrorist organization that matters? We should never let labels like "terrorist" be used to justify using any means neccassary to ensure their removal. There is always the null option - do nothing. How much civilian casualties are there with that option vs. indescriminate eradication of anyone near Hamas?
  - kaba0 3y ago
    The null “option” is forever letting Israeli civilians living in constant fear of rocket attacks. That’s no way of living.
    - account42 3y ago
      It's a better way of living than what the palestinians are subjected to right now.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        With hamas in the picture, both Palestine and Israeli civilians will suffer indefinitely with no peace ever. With a hopefully short war that manages to cut out the cancer that is hamas, healing can begin for both nations.
- markdown 3y ago
  > Well, what other way is there? I mean, fire the general in charge of security and put competent people on your walls to avoid any further incursions, and then work to remove the million settlers you've pushed onto stolen lands. It's insane how Israel has managed to sell this fiction that they have a right to slaughter tens of thousands because a few terrorists must be hiding amongst them.

markdown 3y ago

What do you call what's going on right now, if not deliberate civilian massacres in order to get to relative handful of freedom-fighters/terrorists hiding amongst them?

C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
Let us imagine a residential building with about 100 people living there, and let us imagine that there is information that some enemy combatants are living among them. A decision is made to strike at the building in order to eliminate the combatants. Consider two different approaches: 1) An air strike at the building, destroying it and killing most of its inhabitants, and leaving a minority of them wounded. 2) A squad of soldiers enters the building and executes most of the inhabitants at close range, and wounds and leaves alive a minority of them. Most people would call scenario 2) a deliberate massacre that cannot be justified. Many people would, however, call scenario 1) a legitimate military strategy with unfortunate collateral damage that cannot be avoided. Question is, why? The outcome is the same, but for some reason the impersonality of striking from distance (air strikes, missiles, or artillery fire) seems to make it acceptable in many bystanders' eyes.
- selestify 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
    > Because in scenario 2, you’re presumably also shooting at unarmed civilians with their hands up who are posing no threat to you. There’s no reason to shoot them if you have the choice not to. In scenario 1, an air strike is coarse-grained enough that you don’t have such a choice to make. But in scenario 1, one is bombing unarmed civilians residing inside their homes. The only reason they do not literally have their hands up is that they do not even see the strike coming before they and their families are killed; and they pose even less of a threat to the person sending the missile than they would pose to a soldier that is physically located next to them. > The outcome is not the same, because scenario two involves a high likelihood of more casualties on your side. It is legitimate to care more about your own soldier casualties than about enemy civilian casualties. My initial reply to the parent was in the context of "deliberate massacres of civilians", pointing out that people seem to find such massacres much more acceptable when done from a distance. The rest of your reply seems to provide motivations for such actions, and your last paragraph even provides justifications (unless I horribly misunderstood it). Regardless of whether one agrees with the motivations and justifications, the reality of the outcome is what it is — a deliberate massacre of civilians. Whether that is done by bullets at gunpoint or by a missile from a long distance makes little, if any, difference to the people being slaughtered by tens of thousands (and ongoing), and makes no difference at all to the death reports.