zeke5123
2yr ago
But they signed off on the operation? Why are we assuming that when a vast majority of the targets were civilian that Hamas leadership was only interested in legitimate military targets but grunts fucked it up? No the easier explanation is that what the grunts spent a majority of their time on is what the leadership desires (and amplified).
zeke5123
2yr ago
This guy is changing the meaning of the phrase collateral damage. It would be like saying “my goal is to obtain 10k so killing the bank employee was merely collateral damage.”
No one uses collateral damage in that way.
zeke5123
2yr ago
How is it sophistry? Maybe the Palestinian’s goal in killing the toddler is to affect political change, but it’s also true that the Palestinian purposefully murdered a toddler. It wasn’t an accident. It wasn’t collateral damage. It was the target.
That is different from say bombing a military target that might cause collateral damage. The collateral damage isn’t the target; it is a side effect.
zeke5123
2yr ago
So when they used hang gliders to attack a musical festival that was just the grunts?
zeke5123
2yr ago
No one needs only look at major population centers where large amounts of people support genocide (eg Sydney, Chicago, London) of the Israelis.
zeke5123
2yr ago
HBD in action. No wants the Palestinians in Gaza since they as a group produce negative marginal value.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I’d add the terrorists published the video and in the Gaza community were celebrated; not condemned for their barbarism.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I think there is a different argument. When one bombs a target, one knows there may be collateral damage. When one purposefully attempts to kill a toddler, the death of the toddler isn’t a side effect.
zeke5123
2yr ago
My question to you is whether the Palestinians in the West Bank suffer similar privations during the time period. If not, does that not explain that perhaps Israel isn’t the bad party with Hamas?
Hamas also does put military targets next to civilian targets purposively.
zeke5123
2yr ago
But that’s my point. Abu Ghraib was a shame to the US (and clearly the soldiers intended to keep it quiet). Here, the Palestinians writ large are celebrating the atrocities and making them known. The different reactions demonstrate the different culture assent.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I think you are wrong on your assertion. The US and Russia have engaged in countless aggressive wars. They are (perhaps were) the two hegemonic powers since 1945. I don’t think the US has clean hands although as far as hegemonic powers you could do a lot worse.
zeke5123
2yr ago
One must also point out that the borders are what they de facto are as a result of an offensive war launched against Israel that Israel defended and took territory. I know the right of conquest is out of favor, but the right of conquest is surely just in Israel’s case.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Why would Americans have a view? First, any American’s view will have zero outcome on what the American government does. Second, the impact of said foreign policy isn’t felt by most Americans. So they are rationally ignorant.
zeke5123
2yr ago
I wonder if in the Republican primary someone like DeSantis will respond to Haley (who made the claim softness on Ukraine created this situation) something along the lines of:
Your constant war mongering has led to the situation where one of our closest allies lacks the means to fully engage a true existential threat because you gave all of our weapons to a corrupt regime with zero oversight to the point a decent amount of those weapons ended up in Hamas and the southern border. Only an idiot fights a war on two borders. Only the heir to the kingdom of idiots fights a war on 13 fronts. But that is always your policy notwithstanding how it puts us and our closest allies into worse positions. We cannot continue to fund Ukraine and Israel especially as it weakens our defenses (which we really need to worry about — this could spill out of control if Iran gets involved or China attacks Taiwan). This is similar to the pandemic. We need targeted aid; not just “fund everything”
zeke5123
2yr ago
It never struck me until now but effectively Uncle Ted is saying the left has merely embraced slave morality to the point they don’t even know it.
zeke5123
2yr ago
A civilization that parades around naked dead corpses of young woman civilians is a civilization that doesn’t deserve civil rights. Level up from your barbarism and sure, I can get behind that. Note there are Arab states — even if not western — that deserve civil rights.
zeke5123
2yr ago
The key here also is that Israel is not nearly as repressive in the West Bank where the Palestinian authority isn’t as radical as Hamas.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Even then, you can still square it. If I’m poor, I still might pay for my wife’s heart surgery even if I wouldn’t pay for say my sister-in-law’s boob job.
zeke5123
2yr ago
-
You could have very strong reasons to reject funding to Ukraine while supporting funding to Israel. For example, Hamas is much less a threat compared to Russia.
-
You may think Israel is much more a strategic ally compared to Ukraine.
-
You may think the cause of Israel is better than Ukraine.
zeke5123
2yr ago
The American stockpile is depleted because the Biden administration didn’t want to lose an election.
zeke5123
2yr ago
Doesn’t the solution to the Troubles and the Good Friday accord speak to an ability to accomplish the same through peace?
zeke5123
2yr ago
It really is odd. I’m not juvenile enough to be shocked that shit happens during war and young military age men do shitty things. The difference is most participants know what they are doing isn’t permissible so they don’t broadcast it to the world. Take for instance abu ghraib. While the soldiers had bad opsec, they weren’t posting the pictures on fucking MySpace.
Seriously? Words have meanings and you don’t just get to change the meaning to support your antisemitism (yes — I saw your other post where you mentioned jewish pharmacists with opioids where the status of the pharmacists as Jews was beside the point).
Collateral damage results in non-military targets being incidentally killed as a result of a military strike on a military target. That’s different compared to targeting civilian targets and killing those targets despite there being zero military objective (but a political one). One might say “what does it matter — the dead are dead alike.” True but generally outcome is not the only matter determine the morality of an act.
More options
Context Copy link