I would agree but the problem is war crimes at that level gets other people mad and could cause a regional war
I'm pretty sure an accidental hit on a hospital (if Israel hit it) is not even in the same ballpark as what Hamas did last week. Coincidentally, you weren't crying about that.
Because war crimes aren't just about numbers of dead - and besides, twice as many were killed at that music festival and in the kibbutzes.
If Israel intentionally hit the hospital and the military-strategic value is not proportional to the number of civilian dead (very likely), then it is a war crime. Even so, butchering people you can see, in front of their families, is just so much worse than dropping a bomb.
But there's just something bestial about slaughtering uninvolved people with your own hands.
I think you are right in a consequential sense (making killing easier to do makes it more likely to happen), while the people who are willing to raid and slaughter like Hamas are undoubtedly morally worse for it.
Even so, butchering people you can see, in front of their families, is just so much worse than dropping a bomb.
I'd say thinking like this, is what allows horrific atrocities to occur.
Obama was droning innocent people constantly, but because of how detatched we treated it, since it was just a bomb instead of actual boots on the ground, its more treated like a Wikipedia note and a funny meme thing instead of constant killing with little effort.
Like, its morally worse on some individual level between the butcher and his prey. But for us on the outside its no different and shouldn't be treated as such.
I'd say thinking like this, is what allows horrific atrocities to occur.
And you're absolutely right about that.
But I can't help it, I just know that you have to be a much worse person to invade someone's home and shoot terrified children in front of their parents, than to even intentionally drone a house with civilians that you can't even see. Even SS men were going insane because of all the atrocities they had to commit - the gas chambers were introduced in order to make executions more humane (for them, confirming that this is what allows atrocities to occur).
Like, its morally worse on some individual level between the butcher and his prey. But for us on the outside its no different and shouldn't be treated as such.
Ah, I think we agree. But regardless if the net effect is the same, it bothers me more if the bestial kind of killer gets away with it than the 'clean' one. Maybe it's irrational, I don't know.
You can't just pick one incident and compare it, since the Hamas attack, Israel has already killed more civilians than Hamas did. It's irrelevant if they did it in a single attack on a hospital or not. And I'm not even picking sides, and this hospital event is too fresh for me to believe anything one way or the other. Still a weird thing to defend, though.
Whoever bombed a hospital, and whether intentional or accidental, should be totally condemned.
Israel has already killed more civilians than Hamas did
Have they? Where exactly are those numbers coming from? That said, I'll gladly accept the claim arguendo. The difference is that 100% of Hamas civilian killings were intentional, while 100% or close to it of Israeli were unintentional - and thus not war crimes, assuming proportionality is met.
Still a weird thing to defend, though.
I don't see it as defending anything, but rather, explaining what war crimes are and aren't.
Whoever bombed a hospital, and whether intentional or accidental, should be totally condemned.
Agreed. But if a hospital is used as a military base, it is a legitimate military target, and the war crime is on those using it as a human shield.
I'm pretty sure an accidental hit on a hospital (if Israel hit it) is not even in the same ballpark as what Hamas did last week. Coincidentally, you weren't crying about that.
I have to say, this is an...unusual take for you. What gives?
I've seen it, but this is still quite overt, and personally I was surprised. I know a lot of people here argue with him (often unfairly, I'd argue), but his takes aren't usually this bad.
Defending a hospital bombing because 'Hamas did worse' is pretty blatant.
To be fair, they act fairly normally and fit in on any other subject, but the moment the discussion involves jews, for some reason they get extremely defensive and hostile. It's like a switch is flipped. Not sure if they're shills trying to remain covert, jews themselves, or incredibly indoctrinated by Western propaganda, which has turned jews into sacred cows capable of doing no wrong, and anyone who criticizes them into Nazis (it's exactly like a religion).
The argument is that because Hamas did it “on purpose” and Israel did it “by accident”, Hamas is more in the wrong than Israel. Whether or not there is a difference or whether it matters is a stupid argument about a point that doesn’t matter, because the real point should be:
Think of it this way: would you rather have an American airmen who intentionally struck civilian targets in Tokyo or Dresden as your neighbor or an SS Einsatzgruppen member?
The effect may be the same, killing innocent civilians, but killing innocents with your own hands is just so bestial that I do think that people who do that are way worse.
I'm pretty sure an accidental hit on a hospital (if Israel hit it) is not even in the same ballpark as what Hamas did last week. Coincidentally, you weren't crying about that.
How is 500 dead in a hospital not in the “same ballpark” as 500 dead at a music festival and kibbutz?
Because war crimes aren't just about numbers of dead - and besides, twice as many were killed at that music festival and in the kibbutzes.
If Israel intentionally hit the hospital and the military-strategic value is not proportional to the number of civilian dead (very likely), then it is a war crime. Even so, butchering people you can see, in front of their families, is just so much worse than dropping a bomb.
#RememberTheDecapitatedBabies
#NeverForget
You haven't actually responded to a single point that Antonio has made in the entire thread.
Imagine throwing in with Hamas to own the Jews.
"Forget all the Hamas atrocities, except the one that may not have been true!"
Not really. It's just easier, which leads to one of the moral failings of our modern "peaceful" empires.
And that's true too.
But there's just something bestial about slaughtering uninvolved people with your own hands.
I think you are right in a consequential sense (making killing easier to do makes it more likely to happen), while the people who are willing to raid and slaughter like Hamas are undoubtedly morally worse for it.
I'd say thinking like this, is what allows horrific atrocities to occur.
Obama was droning innocent people constantly, but because of how detatched we treated it, since it was just a bomb instead of actual boots on the ground, its more treated like a Wikipedia note and a funny meme thing instead of constant killing with little effort.
Like, its morally worse on some individual level between the butcher and his prey. But for us on the outside its no different and shouldn't be treated as such.
And you're absolutely right about that.
But I can't help it, I just know that you have to be a much worse person to invade someone's home and shoot terrified children in front of their parents, than to even intentionally drone a house with civilians that you can't even see. Even SS men were going insane because of all the atrocities they had to commit - the gas chambers were introduced in order to make executions more humane (for them, confirming that this is what allows atrocities to occur).
Ah, I think we agree. But regardless if the net effect is the same, it bothers me more if the bestial kind of killer gets away with it than the 'clean' one. Maybe it's irrational, I don't know.
You can't just pick one incident and compare it, since the Hamas attack, Israel has already killed more civilians than Hamas did. It's irrelevant if they did it in a single attack on a hospital or not. And I'm not even picking sides, and this hospital event is too fresh for me to believe anything one way or the other. Still a weird thing to defend, though.
Whoever bombed a hospital, and whether intentional or accidental, should be totally condemned.
Have they? Where exactly are those numbers coming from? That said, I'll gladly accept the claim arguendo. The difference is that 100% of Hamas civilian killings were intentional, while 100% or close to it of Israeli were unintentional - and thus not war crimes, assuming proportionality is met.
I don't see it as defending anything, but rather, explaining what war crimes are and aren't.
Agreed. But if a hospital is used as a military base, it is a legitimate military target, and the war crime is on those using it as a human shield.
Israel's propping up of Hamas means they are partially responsible for everything it does,. They have no moral high ground.
I have to say, this is an...unusual take for you. What gives?
He shills for jews, whenever they come up or whenever they're involved in a discussion, no matter what. So does Gizortnik.
I've seen it, but this is still quite overt, and personally I was surprised. I know a lot of people here argue with him (often unfairly, I'd argue), but his takes aren't usually this bad.
Defending a hospital bombing because 'Hamas did worse' is pretty blatant.
To be fair, they act fairly normally and fit in on any other subject, but the moment the discussion involves jews, for some reason they get extremely defensive and hostile. It's like a switch is flipped. Not sure if they're shills trying to remain covert, jews themselves, or incredibly indoctrinated by Western propaganda, which has turned jews into sacred cows capable of doing no wrong, and anyone who criticizes them into Nazis (it's exactly like a religion).
The argument is that because Hamas did it “on purpose” and Israel did it “by accident”, Hamas is more in the wrong than Israel. Whether or not there is a difference or whether it matters is a stupid argument about a point that doesn’t matter, because the real point should be:
Fuck em all.
Think of it this way: would you rather have an American airmen who intentionally struck civilian targets in Tokyo or Dresden as your neighbor or an SS Einsatzgruppen member?
The effect may be the same, killing innocent civilians, but killing innocents with your own hands is just so bestial that I do think that people who do that are way worse.
Am I? Link that exact comment. Because you're lying (as usual), Adolf.