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.
How have I not addressed his points? He claims one war crime isn’t in the same ballpark as another. I dispute that by showing the events have the same amount of innocent casualties.
“Throwing in with hamas” = “pointing out you personally have been spreading hoaxed war-crimes to facilitate extermination of an entire nation”
Lmao.
Hey, btw, do you run the other SR blackbird accounts?
Imagine conflating the calling out of war propaganda as throwing in with terrorists.
Just like with Ukraine/Russia, we shouldn't believe essentially anything that either side says. And there have been way too many holes in the 'decapitated babies' story for it to be given much credence, as far as I can tell. It's certainly not the whole and unvarnished truth.
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.
Its completely rational, because as you said its a huge shadow on the perpetrator's morality and humanity that they can do that and we should want them punished for being so heinous.
But, the guy who can push a button and accomplish the same net end is almost eviler. Because he is so detached from the situation he isn't even giving human life the intimacy it deserves when it takes it. He can laugh in complete safety while he murders dozens, whereas the butcher is taking a risk everytime he does it and having to look at the horrors he leaves behind.
Its a normal reaction to the situation to think like you do, but I think that once we detach ourselves from gut instinct we can evaluate it to be a lot different than our minds think.
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.
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.
How have I not addressed his points? He claims one war crime isn’t in the same ballpark as another. I dispute that by showing the events have the same amount of innocent casualties.
“Throwing in with hamas” = “pointing out you personally have been spreading hoaxed war-crimes to facilitate extermination of an entire nation”
Lmao.
Hey, btw, do you run the other SR blackbird accounts?
Imagine conflating the calling out of war propaganda as throwing in with terrorists.
Just like with Ukraine/Russia, we shouldn't believe essentially anything that either side says. And there have been way too many holes in the 'decapitated babies' story for it to be given much credence, as far as I can tell. It's certainly not the whole and unvarnished truth.
"Forget all the Hamas atrocities, except the one that may not have been true!"
“It’s only terrorism when non-yids do it!”
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.
Its completely rational, because as you said its a huge shadow on the perpetrator's morality and humanity that they can do that and we should want them punished for being so heinous.
But, the guy who can push a button and accomplish the same net end is almost eviler. Because he is so detached from the situation he isn't even giving human life the intimacy it deserves when it takes it. He can laugh in complete safety while he murders dozens, whereas the butcher is taking a risk everytime he does it and having to look at the horrors he leaves behind.
Its a normal reaction to the situation to think like you do, but I think that once we detach ourselves from gut instinct we can evaluate it to be a lot different than our minds think.
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.