3 ms·

Can you name a war in which members of a group weren't killed, or serious bodily or mental harm wasn't caused to a members of a group?

by tome 1y ago

kergonath 1y ago
That is a straw man. The criterion is deliberate targeting of civilian populations. The US is known for having occasionally bombed a wedding party, but in Gaza, 80% of the victims were civilians. That’s a war crime and closer to WWII extermination campaigns than any modern military conflict involving western militaries. We are not talking about collateral damage from a drone strike, that’s systematic levelling of entire cities. You have to go back to things like Dresden and the Tokyo firebombings to find western equivalents. Hospitals and journalists were deliberately bombed. That’s a war crime and the closest example of a western military doing it is Russia in Ukraine. Emergency shelters and food distribution centres were deliberately targeted. That’s a war crime and again, there is no western equivalent. Then there’s the pogroms on the West Bank. When your argument is that a country’s behaviour is not as bad as ethnically cleansing in some African countries or WWII, your argument is really desperate.
- tome 1y ago
  It's not a straw man, and you are incorrect on a number of factual points. For example, there are circumstances under which targeting hospitals is not a war crime. I think that "not as bad as WWII" is the opposite of desperate! WWII is a war that all decent people acknowledge that the allies absolutely had to win, and the human toll, whilst tragic, was necessary.
- breppp 1y ago
  > 80% of the victims were civilians That's incorrect, at best you may have been quoting an organization that had abducted babies for political advantage and you assume won't lie for a political advantage, even though it was caught lying before. However, I don't believe even they are claiming that, as they are intentionally not publishing militant death statistics to inflate the notion of civilian deaths
  - bdangubic 1y ago
    watch if you can: https://youtu.be/cR24yDub8Ps?si=Bm2RgOQrluzsqTUj https://youtu.be/cR24yDub8Ps?si=Bm2RgOQrluzsqTUj
    - tome 1y ago
      That disproves the 80% figure, right?

Can you name a war in which members of a group weren't killed, or serious bodily or mental harm wasn't caused to a members of a group?

by tome 1y ago

Can you name a war in which members of a group weren't killed, or serious bodily or mental harm wasn't caused to a members of a group?

kergonath 1y ago

That is a straw man. The criterion is deliberate targeting of civilian populations. The US is known for having occasionally bombed a wedding party, but in Gaza, 80% of the victims were civilians. That’s a war crime and closer to WWII extermination campaigns than any modern military conflict involving western militaries. We are not talking about collateral damage from a drone strike, that’s systematic levelling of entire cities. You have to go back to things like Dresden and the Tokyo firebombings to find western equivalents. Hospitals and journalists were deliberately bombed. That’s a war crime and the closest example of a western military doing it is Russia in Ukraine. Emergency shelters and food distribution centres were deliberately targeted. That’s a war crime and again, there is no western equivalent. Then there’s the pogroms on the West Bank. When your argument is that a country’s behaviour is not as bad as ethnically cleansing in some African countries or WWII, your argument is really desperate.

tome 1y ago
It's not a straw man, and you are incorrect on a number of factual points. For example, there are circumstances under which targeting hospitals is not a war crime. I think that "not as bad as WWII" is the opposite of desperate! WWII is a war that all decent people acknowledge that the allies absolutely had to win, and the human toll, whilst tragic, was necessary.
breppp 1y ago
> 80% of the victims were civilians That's incorrect, at best you may have been quoting an organization that had abducted babies for political advantage and you assume won't lie for a political advantage, even though it was caught lying before. However, I don't believe even they are claiming that, as they are intentionally not publishing militant death statistics to inflate the notion of civilian deaths
- bdangubic 1y ago
  watch if you can: https://youtu.be/cR24yDub8Ps?si=Bm2RgOQrluzsqTUj https://youtu.be/cR24yDub8Ps?si=Bm2RgOQrluzsqTUj
  - tome 1y ago
    That disproves the 80% figure, right?