4 ms·

IDF/military buildings are near civilian areas, considering that IDF is buying bombs to kill civilians (definition of terrorism), do you think it is okay to bom

IDF/military buildings are near civilian areas, considering that IDF is buying bombs to kill civilians (definition of terrorism), do you think it is okay to bomb civilian buildings located near IDF buildings? I changed the word "pager" to "building"

slibhb 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
invalidname 2y ago
[flagged]
cooloo 2y ago
[flagged]
HDThoreaun 2y ago
IDF buys bombs and kills children. Source that theyre systematically targeting children?
- andag 2y ago
  He... Did not say that. He said they are targeting civilians, and basic math on casualty numbers ("hamas" numbers being the same as in use by both US and IDF military intelligence) can at least tell you they're doing very little to avoid it.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    Doing little to avoid something isnt the same as doing it on purpose.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - threatofrain 2y ago
      When we design data structures do we not say that the sum of all things are intended tradeoffs? It doesn’t make sense to say that you intended to buy milk but you didn’t intend to spend money. Nothing in life works like that.
      - gruez 2y ago
        You guys are talking past each other. "intend" in this context is means two things: 1. a goal in and of itself (ie. they want civilians dead) 2. being aware of the costs (ie. they only want hamas dead, but don't mind if some civilians are killed) tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1, whereas HDThoreaun claims it's only #2.
        tuyguntn 2y ago
        > tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1 No, I didn't, I only asked a question by replacing words Hezbollah with IDF, pager with building. When pagers got blown up, there were civilians near by
        HDThoreaun 2y ago
        buying bombs to kill civilians is not the same as buying bombs and accidentally killing civilians.
        threatofrain 2y ago
        One must embrace the sum of the decision. You don't choose to drive your car without expending energy. You choose both. You don't blow up thousands of bombs in streets and marketplaces and only choose to kill the people you want — you choose it all. Recently we had what may have been a targeted hit in crowded public space in Alabama. When those individuals are caught, I hope it is understood that you don't choose to open fire in a crowd and only choose to shoot one person. You choose it all. In such a world how do we make a decision? By judging that the price is right. Why did innocent people die when thousands of bombs blew up in public spaces? Because the price was right. That should be the center of discussion, not whether we'd like to blow up thousands of bombs in public places without paying the price.
  - dogma1138 2y ago
    You might want to check the combatant to civilian casualties ratio for other conflicts including western led post WW2 ones. Iraq and Afghanistan had worse figures, by many reports even the drone part of GWOT was worse. And those were generally fought in more permissive environments. For the most part the single largest casualty cohort in any conflict are civilians achieving a 1:1 to 1:2 ratio depending on which figures you go by while tragic is actually quite impressive for a lack of a better word.
- Qem 2y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestini...
  - dzhiurgis 2y ago
    "Doctor says" is definition of hearsay There are tons of videos, none of them show drones chasing children. Some show injured children which unfortunately is unavoidable. Some are children injured by hamas themselves to manufacture a narrative.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      "Doctor says" is definition of hearsay Hearsay, no. A doctor has a professional certification, and is specifically certified to make pronouncements of exactly this sort. That doesn't make them unsusceptible to biases, pressure or corruption. But their testimony definitely does not fall into the category of "hearsay". If anything it should be taken as sufficient grounds to initiate a proper judicial investigation. More than sufficient grounds - an imperative, in fact.
      - dzhiurgis 2y ago
        Her testimony was admitting injured children. How they got there is completely different story and she explains NONE of it.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        She does actually, and I'll take her word over yours.
- tuyguntn 2y ago
  If you really wanted the truth, you would have already found it yourself by now and I don't need to give you a source to prove it. This is only one example out of >14.000 dead children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBkNDNj05XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBkNDNj05XA And remember, no one will admit in official documents that they have deliberately targeted civilians, not even countries officially recognized as executing a genocide. Not a single one will have any official document saying: target innocent civilians. You can derive it from their actions

slibhb 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

invalidname 2y ago

[flagged]

cooloo 2y ago

[flagged]

HDThoreaun 2y ago

IDF buys bombs and kills children. Source that theyre systematically targeting children?

andag 2y ago
He... Did not say that. He said they are targeting civilians, and basic math on casualty numbers ("hamas" numbers being the same as in use by both US and IDF military intelligence) can at least tell you they're doing very little to avoid it.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  Doing little to avoid something isnt the same as doing it on purpose.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    When we design data structures do we not say that the sum of all things are intended tradeoffs? It doesn’t make sense to say that you intended to buy milk but you didn’t intend to spend money. Nothing in life works like that.
    - gruez 2y ago
      You guys are talking past each other. "intend" in this context is means two things: 1. a goal in and of itself (ie. they want civilians dead) 2. being aware of the costs (ie. they only want hamas dead, but don't mind if some civilians are killed) tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1, whereas HDThoreaun claims it's only #2.
      - tuyguntn 2y ago
        > tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1 No, I didn't, I only asked a question by replacing words Hezbollah with IDF, pager with building. When pagers got blown up, there were civilians near by
        HDThoreaun 2y ago
        buying bombs to kill civilians is not the same as buying bombs and accidentally killing civilians.
        threatofrain 2y ago
        One must embrace the sum of the decision. You don't choose to drive your car without expending energy. You choose both. You don't blow up thousands of bombs in streets and marketplaces and only choose to kill the people you want — you choose it all. Recently we had what may have been a targeted hit in crowded public space in Alabama. When those individuals are caught, I hope it is understood that you don't choose to open fire in a crowd and only choose to shoot one person. You choose it all. In such a world how do we make a decision? By judging that the price is right. Why did innocent people die when thousands of bombs blew up in public spaces? Because the price was right. That should be the center of discussion, not whether we'd like to blow up thousands of bombs in public places without paying the price.
- dogma1138 2y ago
  You might want to check the combatant to civilian casualties ratio for other conflicts including western led post WW2 ones. Iraq and Afghanistan had worse figures, by many reports even the drone part of GWOT was worse. And those were generally fought in more permissive environments. For the most part the single largest casualty cohort in any conflict are civilians achieving a 1:1 to 1:2 ratio depending on which figures you go by while tragic is actually quite impressive for a lack of a better word.
Qem 2y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestini...
- dzhiurgis 2y ago
  "Doctor says" is definition of hearsay There are tons of videos, none of them show drones chasing children. Some show injured children which unfortunately is unavoidable. Some are children injured by hamas themselves to manufacture a narrative.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    "Doctor says" is definition of hearsay Hearsay, no. A doctor has a professional certification, and is specifically certified to make pronouncements of exactly this sort. That doesn't make them unsusceptible to biases, pressure or corruption. But their testimony definitely does not fall into the category of "hearsay". If anything it should be taken as sufficient grounds to initiate a proper judicial investigation. More than sufficient grounds - an imperative, in fact.
    - dzhiurgis 2y ago
      Her testimony was admitting injured children. How they got there is completely different story and she explains NONE of it.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        She does actually, and I'll take her word over yours.
tuyguntn 2y ago
If you really wanted the truth, you would have already found it yourself by now and I don't need to give you a source to prove it. This is only one example out of >14.000 dead children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBkNDNj05XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBkNDNj05XA And remember, no one will admit in official documents that they have deliberately targeted civilians, not even countries officially recognized as executing a genocide. Not a single one will have any official document saying: target innocent civilians. You can derive it from their actions