253
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 12 Jul 2024
253 points (89.9% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3221 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
Are the circumstances identical?
I feel very confident in saying a childrens cancer ward far from the Ukrainian front likely had no military utilization. Probably no rockets fired from the roof, no soldiers inside, etc etc.
Can hamas say the same with confidence? Even though their medical facilities were very close to the fighting? I do not know, personally, and still condemn the Israeli attacks.
But I also know the circumstances are not the same.
There was no evidence for Hamas using the hospital as a military base so yes they are identical. There is no evidence of Hamas launching any rockets from the roof of those hospitals either not sure where that claim comes from.
Ironically the only party using hospitals and schools as military bases in Gaza is israel. After they force all the patients out that is.
There's a documentary about Al Shifa Hospital with interviews from the survivors. Be warned, it's very graphic with videos of the mass graves being bulldozed etc.
Uh... Yes. "Their" medical facilities were very close to the fighting because all of Gaza is a warzone what are you even talking about?
Exactly. And that is a difference. Since it is different, it means the circumstances are different. I'm not saying it's fair, circumstances are usually very unfair. They still exist though.
Why are they dropping bombs that take out entire blocks though? They aren't even being precise about it. It is not like they have hidden their genocidal intents.
"The emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy" -- Daniel Hagari
"We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly" -- Yoav Gallant
Just a few of many quotes that reveal their intents and yet here you are defending genocide.
No. The children in the Ukrainian hospital were white.
Let me repeat: Even if Hitler, Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot were hiding where children are, you do not bomb your way through children to get at your target.
See, it really is that simple, no discussion or comparisons needed.
No, I'm afraid not. I wish it was that way, but it's not true. Otherwise any army could protect itself from bombardment with human shields, which is not the case.
Every opportunity will be used and abused, whatever you think of as despicable, it will be used. So that is never an argument to stop fighting for what is right.
Find another way to get at your enemy. Yes, it will be harder then dropping a bomb but such it the cost of going to war and having the opinion to not turn 5 year olds into a red mist.
Yes, that is preferable when possible. I think this is why they raided some of the hospitals with ground forces instead of bombing them, which they could have. The outcry would have been too intense for such an unethical strike.
Even if their were a rocket or a soldier on the roof, Russia would but be morally justified in blowing it up. Nothing you said is relevant to that situation.
If a hospital is used as a combat position, it becomes a valid target for attack. You are not prohibited from returning fire just because the attackers are striking from a hospital.
Blowing up a hospital is not morally justified just because you're able to bullshit your way into calling it a combat position. Your use of "prohibited" is a weaselword. Obviously they're not prohibited - this is trivially true since they do it. It's still not morally justifiable.
Oh, certainly. Well, war is hell. It's an inherently immoral practice, one of the most evil things we engage in. When it happens though, it needs to follow a certain set of rules, for a variety of reasons of which morality is just one.
That said, "hospital" is just a word. If the building is occupied by patients and doctors and is not part of the fighting, then I fully agree with you. If it is empty of doctors and patients, and instead a battalion of soldiers is shooting at you from it, it should be blown up. The activities happening determine what happens, not the name and type of the building.
Adressing only both of these extremes ensure that nothing you said addresses any aspect of reality.
They're hypotheticals meant to communicate how the Geneva Conventions actually work in real life. Sorry if you don't like it.
The Geneva convention isn't relevant to Israel's current war in Gaza. Blowing up hospitals remains immoral. Sorry if you don't like it.
War is immoral, everything about it. No exceptions. Humanity does not function based on universal morality though, it functions on law.
There are no laws governing Israel's conduct in Gaza at this moment , and unconditional US support ensures that this will remain the case. You're purposely talking about irrelevant nonsense to deflect from their obviously immoral acts.
No, I'm not talking about irrelevant nonsense, I'm talking about war as it pertains to a war. Note, I have said several times that what is happening is very immoral. This is not deflection.
Additionally, international law certainly applies, the ICJ has jurisdiction to try war criminals regardless of where they are.
That jurisdiction doesn't matter for Israel so long as they enjoy unconditional support from the US. Why do you insist on talking about shit that doesn't matter?
Couple reasons. First, that's just false. The US cannot prevent an ICJ ruling, and it would definitely impact Netanyahu's govt on multiple levels with a great many countries including his own. Second, US support is not actually unconditional, as we saw when the bomb shipments got paused. US support is still partial, and could become either stronger or weaker.
I do enjoy the hypocrisy of Western leaders, they aren't even tacit about it anymore, and the public evidently are so propagandized as to justify genocide even when they think they oppose it.