this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
1772 points (97.6% liked)
Microblog Memes
8044 readers
2528 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
no one is saying it is right smart ass, i am just saying you should accuse the entity that militarizes civillian areas
As I know we have no other information source about hamas using civilian infrastructure like hospitals as military bases than the IDF. That's because no external journalists are allowed in gaza by the IDF. And in the beginning exactly this IDF also claimed they don't target hospitals and it was a hamas rocket that hit the biggest hospital of gaza. Now there is not a single hospital left. So maybe we shouldn't believe this kind of information. Also there are other methods than bombing the whole area if the enemy is really using civilian infrastructure as military bases. So it's still on the attacker if civilians die. Especially if the attacker has massive military capacities and options for other methods like in the case of the IDF.
Do you know how to read?
What to do then in a situation where civilians are killing other civilians?
Its wrong for anyone to kill civilians, what are you talking about?
Civil war. When one group of civilians is going against another group of civilians.
Do you think that the union army or the Confederate army were civilians in the American civil war?
Civilians = non-combatants
If they're engaging in warfare, they aren't civilians
That is very USA centric, so I dont know the background enough there. The argument i am trying to make is against the "there is no justification" part of your statement. A similar statement would be there is no justification to kill anybody ever. Sounds all good and valid, until shit hits the fan properly. If you read my question as "killing civillians is fine" then that is an incorrect interpretation.
Killing should only be done in self defense. Dropping bombs on civilians is not self defense
I got no argument against this formulation. Unless of course someone would threaten to kill my family unless i press a button and then random people die and my family gets to live. Not self defense, not combatants. I'd press the shit out of it anyway.
"engaging in warfare" is subjective
I bet the Geneva convention has a pretty objective definition.
ok but who is to blame for their deaths? the allies or axis ?
The people that drop bombs on civilians are responsible for killing civilians.
The people who starve a population are responsible for starving a population.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE JUSTIFICATION IS
wrong it was axis fault for militarizing it in the first place, by not bombing it they would have incentivized the practice
THE FAULT IS ON AXIS NOT ALLIES
Were the nazis justified in destroying the Warsaw ghetto because Jewish groups had militarized it?
of course not because they were agressor in invading poland which had a goverment of it's own
You're not even trying to be consistent
Are you saying that people have the right to militarize parts of their own country? And doing that doesn't justify murdering civilians? Sounds like you've switched to my side
i am saying germans were agressors in ww2 that's why it was bad
International Law doesn't make that distinction. The only reason you make that distinction is because you want to justify killing some civilians
i am confused, i mean isn't reducing civillian casualties good? Sounds like you’ve switched to my side