97
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 07 Dec 2023
97 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19072 readers
3815 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
"Least bad group" in this case indiscriminatingly bombing a civilian population seems quite the bar position to get that tag.
Opinion: I don't think the "leftists" are saying that Hamas isn't terrible. The issue is that Israel is either going to create a whole new generation ready to create a new terror group and start the cycle over, or they are going to effectively destroy that generation. Both of which don't really mesh with an idea that it's totally a defensive push.
And hopefully it didn't need pointing out, but there is a weird disconnect with antisemitism vs anti-Israel: the former tends to be far-right individuals not wanting Jewish humans in their country while the latter tends to focus more on anti-Zionist groups within the county of Israel. Far-right groups tend to be much more pro-Israel due to it meaning either end of the world types or just happy they're "no longer in much country."
Just because I'm so tired of hearing "indiscriminately bombing" I'll go ahead and address this.
0.6% of Gaza's population, both combatant and non-combatant, has died in this conflict.
While the civilian deaths are excessive, irresponsible, and a terrible humanitarian, strategic and geopolitical decision, in no way can it be argued that Israel is "indiscriminately bombing" or committing genocide.
When you bomb one of the most densely-populated cities in the world, you're going to hit civilians. That's the way ordinance works.
Would I prefer a radically different approach to this campaign? Hell yes. Is their current, misguided, approach "indiscriminate bombing" or "genocide?" No. Math doesn't lie.
Compare/contrast with the more than 10k civilians killed in the Battle of Mosul, which is a much less densely-populated city.
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/urban-warfare-project-case-study-2-battle-of-mosul/#:~:text=The%20number%20of%20civilian%20casualties,left%20in%20the%20battle's%20aftermath.
I'd love for this to be true but it is not. See my link in the post above, as well as the many instances of things like this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/04/us/white-house-philadelphia-protesters.html
While I disagree with anti-zionists personally, I fully support their right to advocate anti-zionism. Anti-Jewish sentiment is unacceptable. It's the same as people hating Muslims after 9/11, or that asshole who shot those poor Palestinian kids just for being Palestinian.
That kind of hate has no place in society.
Fair point! In that case, how about "uncaringly" bombing? No matter how you swing it, they are taking a hammer to a population.
"Go south", bomb. "Go north", bomb.
And just to also address that, 0.6% has died because of this. Another fair stat, but hides the actual number of 15k+. This all kicked off due to a horrific attack that killed 1.5k.
Whether or not it reaches the legal definition of a genocide is effectively moot when the civilian population is getting decimated in a short amount of time. Placing the people killed behind a percentage, for me, turns a bunch of suffering into "oh it's not that bad " because you are excluding the injured, the family of those individuals who have died, and a whole swath of destruction that a larger group is never coming back from.
I'm not trying to change your mind, because this is the internet lol I'm just pointing that there is more to the anger and frustration outside of the general statistics, which are equally a valid way to look at the whole thing.
Totally agreed. I don't support the bombing campaign as it has been prosecuted by Israel. I think it is a very poor choice.
I specifically address this in my comparison to Mosul, in which a similar amount of civilians died, while being 20% as dense as Gaza. The US was clearly not aiming to maximize civilian casualties in Mosul.
My entire point here is not "bombing civilians is fine," but "war kills civilians, which is why war is bad, and there is zero evidence that this is genocide."
This situation sucks and the outpouring of pure rage-bombing from Israel is completely stupid, immoral, and counter-productive. It is not genocide, nor is it indiscriminate.
On a personal note, thank you for engaging with me as a person. I can pretty much guarantee I'm gonna catch a lot of really offensive and personal attacks for saying true things here, and I thank you for not being part of that.
❤️ thank you as well! Have a great day / night!
0.6%, that's 1 person in 160 out of every person in Gaza... you say that like it's nothing... that's like 2 people on the train I was on this morning.
I don't hate Jews or Israelis, but I hate "anti-Semitism" being used as an excuse to justify causing more terror and suffering onto others.
Who are you doing the math to figure out the divisor of 0.6% but not bothering to read where I say
It was literally the very next sentence.
I read it and I get your sympathy, but respectfully I disagree with your claim that killing 0.6% of a population doesn't amount to a genocide even if the aim is to only hit what a side considers military targets. It most definitely can qualify, and using AI to determine targets with loose oversight can be considered indiscriminate.