C6JEsQeQa5fCjE

12 ms·

121.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
See my reply here for why the claim that Israel is actually trying to prevent civilian deaths (except to the point at which USA stops using its veto power to protect it, at least) is not taken seriously by almost anyone other than Israel&#x
122.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
> If Hamas would take up a defensive stance, there would never be any conflict. The only reason Israel attacks has been in response to terrorism. Proof that this claim is not true is the occupation of West Bank which has submitted itself
123.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
I am not in favour of striking, and you have misunderstood my message. You can see that if you read my replies to the other person who replied to me.
124.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
Questioning the purity and peacefulness of thoughts and intentions of (a subgroup of) a people living under colonial occupation is satire at best. Check out [1] for one of many well-written articles on this topic. I will only say that if Ru
125.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
> when a Palestian says "Free Palestine", what do you think they mean by that? What does Free mean there? Let's also just agree that "end the occupation" is a synonym for "Free Palestine". What does &qu
126.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
> That phrasing sounds like civilians were deliberately targeted. They were not. > But intentions matter. Intention implies that if civilians and combatants were clearly separated, the IDF would not continue to kill civilians at the s
127.
by 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-grai
128.
by 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
129.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
The choice is not difficult to understand. What prompts more of a concern about these particular dead children (civillians, really, but since the topic focuses on children, let us stick with that) than others, is largely about the level of
130.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
> Sure the settlements suck, hut that's not the state of Israel's doing. When illegal settlements start being built, and complaints are raised/filed against it, I imagine that it takes quite some time for the settlement bu
131.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
In theory, there is obviously a difference between the two things you mentioned. However, from what we can see happening in reality, there is no indication that Israel's military makes that distinction. See this article for a summary o
132.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
Japan has committed many atrocities and had no moral high ground, nor would I have suggested so. I am not debating how many conscripts to sacrifice and so on, and you are free to question my intelligence however much you wish. I reject your
133.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
Honest question — how else would you describe dropping a nuclear bomb each on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities full of civilians, causing "between 129,000 and 226,000" deaths (source: Wikipedia)? Those were not military targets.
134.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
If there are illegal attacks on Serbs (especially children, as you put it), then they should stop and no country should mistreat its citizens. Furthermore, it would be better for everyone to reduce tensions and promote unity and peace, obvi
135.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
Everything you wrote is correct, and I would just like to add that in all the wars during the 90s, all Serbia had to do in order to avoid war was to not attack other countries and support paramilitary groups inside other countries. They wer
136.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
Perhaps you are right. However, from the article: >The US warnings come at the end of a week of high tension, beginning with an ambush by well-armed Serb paramilitaries on a Kosovan police patrol, in which a policeman was killed. Three S
137.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
The latter. To think otherwise is to ignore thousands of years of human history that has consistently proved it through many different forms of government. Whatever the initial idea of any new system of government might be, after a few gene
138.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 3y ago
> Or maybe history is right and a bunch of racist slavers wanted to birth liberty and freedom into the world. While this is logically inconsistent, it is not without a historical precedent. Ancient Athens, during the classical Greek peri
139.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 4y ago
In music theory, C# would be read as "cis"
140.
by C6JEsQeQa5fCjE 4y ago
Their timeline is definitely incorrect beyond Rome. "2000 years before Rome" was the period of dominance of the Akkadian Empire of Sargon, and right afterwards of the Sumerian Third Dynasty of Ur. You are correct about Assyria and