327
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
327 points (92.7% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2369 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Innocent human lives. (Which the Jsraeli government is of course also carelessly discarding. But that's why I think Sanders' position is the most reasonable. We should definitely demand Israel greatly reduce the military force it's exerting, but a total ceasefire might not be entirely realistic)
We lose "innicent human lives" in a ceasefire attempt? The killing will increase?
Also you really don't need to reiterate a very obvious typo. Ideally the goal here should be to have some form of dialogue that works towards the goal of understanding each other better and increasing knowledge, not ridiculing each other. It's pretty poor form imo.
If I were going to correct what you got wrong when quoting you, I could just swap your post with my own.
Ok, so you're not imterested in sincere dialogue. Have a good day then.
Wouldn't misquoting you be the insincerity?
What's your proposal to reduce civilian casualties more than a ceasefire would? Seems like an impossibility to me.
The question you're asking implies a decrease during the ceasefire which is of course a near certainty however in the time scale of the total conflict it's very possible that the total number of civilian casualties will increase.
Hamas will use the time to move troops, stock defences, replenish supplies and plant IEDs - this will prolong the war and make fighting more difficult resulting in more rockets and bombs and thus more potential civilian life loss.
Decisive victory can often be less brutal than lingering conflict, especially with logistical considerations like in Gaza.
What's the better solution? Continuing to bomb refugee camps and hospitals in an incredibly densely populated area where 45% of the people are children and food, water, power, fuel, and movement have all been stopped doesn't seem great to me.
Imagine a comic strip where the Joker is holding a kid hostage at gunpoint. With his other gun he repeatedly shoots random people on the street. Batman shows up but does nothing, for he doesn't want the boy to die. Bam, another passerby dead. And another. Bam-bam, this time it's a twofer. Then Superman shows up and eye-lasers the Joker cleanly in half along with the kid.
Whose action resulted in fewer deaths?
Pretty poor analogy when superman has propped up the Joker (Hamas) over the pacifist Harley Quinn (PLO) while being pretty open about wanting to genocide Arkham asylum (Palestine) - you think they might have done that to create a pretext for what's currently playing out?, and has operated Arkham as a concentration camp, constantly killing its innocent residents and taking over more of it, blowing up refugee camps, hospitals, apartment blocks, you name it, while eye lasering 20-500x the number of bystanders the Joker is killing (depending on the stats you choose). Superman is also a nuclear power with a modern military and f35s - the Joker has small arms and a paraglider.
So far, Israel has killed over 11,000 people in a population that's 45% kids - statistically, that points to them killing 55 Hamas members and 5,000 children (and plenty more adult civilians). Even if they're 10x more effective than that, it's still 10 dead kids for every dead Hamas member.
Who is the bad guy again? Feel free to look at the kill count over the past few decades of that helps.
Thanks for the non-dismissive reply and for the additional context. Just to clarify, I have only voiced my view on the "avoid killing innocents when others are in danger" situation - I admittedly lack the knowledge regarding the big picture to be able to pass judgement or offer solutions. But it seems the answer to your last question is pretty clear: everybody involved in this situation in any way is bad for some degree.
Which is fair enough, but given what we know about the situation, it's incredibly frustrating that everyone is being called to condemn Hamas when Israel are unequivocally the aggressor here.
But yes - between a jihadi org and the Israeli government, there are no good guys, but I think we're collectively failing to recognise the far greater evil here.
So just wait a few days for Hamas to dig in then do the same?
How are Hamas going to dig in to a more meaningful extent with a few days' respite from Israel's attacks on Palestine? It's not as though the IDF is making so much as a token effort to avoid killing Palestinian children and civilians.
B-but Hamas is a pretty poor excuse for killing thousands of children.
Well not compared to the current situation, but that it would possibly be an increase compared to the most civilian sparing scenario. Obviously the situation should be deescalated to the maximum amount possible, but I don't think it's a realistic scenario to assume that if the current main aggressor (Israel) were to cease military action completely, no more civilian lives would be lost.
What's your proposal to reduce civilian casualties more than a ceasefire would?