765
Apparently controversial, in this day and age
(lemmy.world)
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 29 Jun 2024
765 points (89.8% liked)
Political Memes
5487 readers
2058 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
go read through my posts, you'll find the shit i'm talking about.
ignoring the fact that you're treating your point like the ultimate source of authority (yet another fallacy, i don't even know what it is, but this is almost definitely a fallacy lmao)
And ignoring your rather loaded definitions and statements here which is obviously an intentional tactic of yours, whether you realize it or not.
Statistically, israel is bombing, and likewise, killing considerable amounts of civilians throughout the period of this conflict. Whether or not this is definable as "indiscriminate" killing is debatable, because that makes it sound like they're sending bombs into fucking public libraries in america or something.
However, funny story, this is the middle east, and we're engaging in extreme urban guerilla warfare tactics here. There is simply no way to counter these without substantial loss of life, or putting your military force at considerable risk. You might just argue that you should send personnel into the urban environments to directly counter them, but this is basically going to be a suicide mission. The only trivial ways to counter these are going to be infantry vehicles, or tanks, and bombing. That's it.
And no, i'm not rambling, this is a conflict that has well over 50 years of history, close to 70 in the modern era. Arguably going all the way back to the very founding of religion itself. There is no "simple" answer here.
nice source btw, literally states that hamas has committed multiple war crimes LUL. fascinatingly the block text chunk you're quoting doesn't seem to exist. That or ctrl f is shitting itself.
interestingly enough you say it finds them guilty, but again, not a single mention of guilty within the report itself. The report does mention, at least a few times, that israel has committed war crimes, but amusingly it mentions hamas quite a bit as well. Curious that you aren't talking about the "hamas genocide" on jewish people (or israeli citizens, but that wouldn't be a conflation now would it?) during the time of this conflict.
i don't quite believe this statement, again you're doing the funny weaselly wording. I believe that israel has committed war crimes, like hamas, but i don't believe, and i don't know of any corroborating evidence that demonstrates that Israel is legally guilty and charged of committing war crimes. But again, that wouldn't suit your narrative, and it undermines your statement, so you'll continue using incorrect wording and statements to try and adhere to your framework huh?
I don't know if you're genuinely trying to conflate "israel is legally guilty and charged of comitting war crimes" with "israel has committed war crimes" in order to later conflate it with "israel is committing genocide" in an effort to "convert" me, but by that point you'll have deconstructed your argument thrice, and it will have so little remaining value that it won't matter.
Oh you're denying that Israel is guilty of anything, just alleged to have been doing naughty things? I'm shocked. Yeah, that's exactly the point of this whole thread. You're a pathetic defender of crimes against humanity because you're too much of a pussy to take the stand you know is the moral one, because you have relationships with people whom you're not brave enough to disagree with.
There's not enough money in this world for me to go and read the brainfarts of a person like you.
you: "i believe that the sky is blue"
me: "yeah but it depends on how we define believe, and how we define blue, along with how we classify the concept of "seeing" color."
you: "well you're just a fucking retard who doesn't understand how perception works, you must be denying the concept of blue existing in its entirety"
i'm disagreeing with the shitty way you word your statements, and then reconstructing them to provide my answer to what that question realistically should be.
And to be clear here, you very subtly diverged from using the term "war crimes" and transitioned into using "crimes against humanity" Which are two VERY different things. We agree that there are war crimes taking place. You keep trying to semantically undermine my statements and arguments so that you can say "i agree with you" even though it makes me look hypocritical, specifically through the mechanism of silent semantic corrections. Arguably this is equivocation, because you're subtly stating that war crimes = crimes against humanity.
yet you've done it, again, and again, and again, and again. For some reason you keep fucking responding to me, even though you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole for me to classify your argumentative mechanisms into.
you also keep (amusingly) accusing me of being too frail to simply, make my own decision, even though literally all you do is (incorrectly) reiterate what other people have said. Have you been to gaza? Or israel? No? That's weird.