3 ms·

"By destroying civilian infrastructure, targeting journalists, using starvation?" they are not using starvation, humanitarian aid is going into Gaza, multiple

"By destroying civilian infrastructure, targeting journalists, using starvation?" they are not using starvation, humanitarian aid is going into Gaza, multiple trucks are going on, hundreds a day. they are not targeting journalists, they are targeting Hamas. There are plenty of examples of Hamas affiliated "journalists" there. "At any rate, it's not 5". It doesn't matter if it's 5 or 10. There are literally hundreds of thousands of soldiers. You are holding Israel to a bizarre standard that no country can fulfill while somehow completely letting Palestinians off the hook. Thousands of civilians took part in the October 7th massacre. If you are going to compare soldiers making tiktoks Israel has fringe figures, bad people that say bad things or do bad things like any other country. This is not relevant to the analysis of the situation in which two sides are at war. In war civilians die, civlian infrastructure gets destroyed and that is horrible. But it;s extremely bizarre to place full responsibility on one side of the war, the side that did not start the war. Hamas started the war and Hamas made clear that Israel doesnt have too many options.

johnnyworker 3y ago
[flagged]
- tptacek 3y ago
  Which is why you probably keep making up that straw man no matter how often I explain to you that everyone is reponsible for THEIR actions. There is not some kind of "war" package with shared responsibility. That is sophistry to sweep actual war crimes done by actual people under the rug. At the point where you're writing stuff like this, maybe the thread has outlived its usefulness? This isn't going to get resolved here, and you're both writing on a 7-day-old story that nobody is reading.
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    > There is not some kind of "war" package with shared responsibility. That is sophistry to sweep actual war crimes done by actual people under the rug. I'd say that's simply accurate, and should be said more often, not less.
    - tptacek 3y ago
      Right, but you didn't simply say it; you said it emotively and with implications about good faith from the other side. It's your call, I'm not the boss of you, but I think you two are probably wasting your time at this point. 7 days! That's a very old thread.
      - johnnyworker 3y ago
        If someone ignores what I say over and over and over again, no matter how I rephrase the point I was making all along, I no longer assume good faith, no. The goal at that point isn't to convince them, but to end it without letting the last word be another falsehood. Seems that last comment did the trick, so.

johnnyworker 3y ago

[flagged]

tptacek 3y ago
Which is why you probably keep making up that straw man no matter how often I explain to you that everyone is reponsible for THEIR actions. There is not some kind of "war" package with shared responsibility. That is sophistry to sweep actual war crimes done by actual people under the rug. At the point where you're writing stuff like this, maybe the thread has outlived its usefulness? This isn't going to get resolved here, and you're both writing on a 7-day-old story that nobody is reading.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > There is not some kind of "war" package with shared responsibility. That is sophistry to sweep actual war crimes done by actual people under the rug. I'd say that's simply accurate, and should be said more often, not less.
  - tptacek 3y ago
    Right, but you didn't simply say it; you said it emotively and with implications about good faith from the other side. It's your call, I'm not the boss of you, but I think you two are probably wasting your time at this point. 7 days! That's a very old thread.
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      If someone ignores what I say over and over and over again, no matter how I rephrase the point I was making all along, I no longer assume good faith, no. The goal at that point isn't to convince them, but to end it without letting the last word be another falsehood. Seems that last comment did the trick, so.