3 ms·
The only point I’ve made which you address here is that you object to me using the word atrocities and then go on justifying the conduct which I called atrociti
by runarberg 3y ago
The only point I’ve made which you address here is that you object to me using the word atrocities and then go on justifying the conduct which I called atrocities. The rest is irrelevant to any point I’ve made so I’m gonna ignore it (at least here).
Genocide is by agreement not justifiable. Article III of the Genocide convention makes it clear that genocide (a), incitement to commit genocide (c), attempt to commit genocide (d) and complicity in genocide (e) are all punishable crimes. The convention offers no exemption for these crimes, and therefor no justification. So if intent is found, any crimes committed against Israel prior to these atrocities (sorry, I don’t know a better word, so I’ll keep using it), then it is demonstrably false that the October 7th attacks were a justification for them. Because legally, they aren’t.
If the court fails to find intent, then honestly you’ll just have to look at your humanity and see whether the same atrocities committed because of carelessness instead of intent, are then justifiable. Personally I think human lives are worth more.
- vasilipupkin 3y agoyou've actually made several points, perhaps without realizing it One point you made is that Israeli actions are apriori atrocities, not acts of legitimate warfare The second point you made, perhaps without fully understanding it, is that human lives by your definition does not include Israeli lives. Israel engaged in war with Hamas for a very specific reason, which is that Hamas is intending to continue murdering Israelis in unlimited numbers for all eternity. This context is relevant. You can't sidestep it if you want to seriously engage with what is actually happening.
- runarberg 3y agoSorry, I wasn’t clear (english is not my first language). What I meant to say was: The only point I’ve made which you’ve addressed. I made more points in my parent post (which you didn’t address) and you made more points in your reply (which I subsequently didn’t address). The intersection of these points was only one point (that I found), and is what I replied to. But it was unnecessary for you to assume believes from me about which live matter. Please don’t do that.