Lurker > COVxy

Isn't that how he won in 2016?

If you're trying to pick which side is more justified in killing innocent people and committing human rights abuses, maybe it's time to take a breath.

At least Im not advancing discredited tropes about human shields to make my point.

To be fair, everything you've said is really gross and stupid.

Israel by far kills more Palestinian children. Youll have to excuse me if I dont see your point.

I'd say thousands of children dying is a bad outcome.

Should Israel worry about collateral damage it all? If you agree that they should then surely you agree that we can then have a conversation about wether or not they are out of the bounds of acceptable risk.

They should do everything in their power to avoid attacking civillians, like I said a few posts ago.

If you know there are civillians in a building there should be zero civillian casualties if you attack that building.

lol @ all the pathetic probably self described 'left wing' Americans handwringing and parroting IDF propaganda

settler colonialists btfo

There is a difference between the sort of subtle and dogwhistle shit he's always done and this.

Well you're suggesting human shields are why there's been so many child casualties caused by Israel, so it seems like they aren't doing that great of a job at it.

If your enemy uses children as a human shield, you should probably do everything in your power to avoid harming those human shields.

"They made me murder the children" is god awful thing to say.

The first half would be news to me. The AP was pretty adamant about there being no Hamas in the building because it was supposed to be one of the safe places for journalists to be in the area.

As it stands, the only information that Hamas was ever there is entirely from the IDF and has, as far as I can see from wiki and reporting by people in the building (AP, AJ), no independent confirmation of such an allegation.

And no casualties is good. That's a good thing.

Not giving the journalists even the necessary time to save and recover valuable equipment and network infrastructure that the building housed was a bad thing, setting back efforts for objective observation and reporting in the area by years.

Until I see independent confirmation, I cannot take the IDF on good faith, that a building housing journalists needed to be destroyed. It doesn't pass the sniff test in the least.

It was a strike against the free press.

I'd like a clear answer on this: do you think this justifies Israeli forces killing civilians, including children?

And this proves that Israeli forces lie about human shields to justify their killing of civilians. The same rhetoric you used itt.

In the cases investigated by Amnesty International of civilians killed in Israeli attacks, the deaths could not be explained as resulting from the presence of fighters shielding among civilians, as the Israel army generally contends. In all of the cases investigated by Amnesty International of families killed when their homes were bombed from the air by Israeli forces, for example, none of the houses struck was being used by armed groups for military activities. Similarly, in the cases of precision missiles or tank shells which killed civilians in their homes, no fighters were present in the houses that were struck and Amnesty International delegates found no indication that there had been any armed confrontations or other military activity in the immediate vicinity at the time of the attack.

This doesn't excuse you claiming they use children as shields and that a why Israeli forces disproportionately murder children 15x more.

The human shield rhetoric is propaganda used by Israeli forces to justify whenever they make civilian casualties. It's a shame you're spreading this.

See page 75
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde15/015/2009/en/

They're targeting children. Can't have a future with no kids.

murdered 15x more children

Yes. Like when they give journalists 60 minute to clear an entire high-rise that had no terrorists in it, just journalists that had been there for 15 years, and some family houses nearby to boot.

"Notice."

Israel wouldn't back off and make a peace treaty though.

Israel has been a human rights black hole for long time. Let me guess, that's completely the fault of the aggressors against them.

I figured you of all people could understand the difference between justification and explanation. Do profilers "justify" the actions of serial killers?

And multiple people have said, "No, Israel and terrorism are both bad" and you went "What do you expect Israel to do when they're constantly attacked? Not defend themselves? Goddamn leftists defending terrorism!""

No they wouldn't.

The "rockets" fired by Hamas are in no way comparable to the weapons that the IDF use.

I've been pretty clear about the (yet again) unacceptable violence and terrorism of hamas.

Israel is the aggressor. Your statement makes it sound like Israel has done nothing wrong, has been attacked unprovoked, and is just "standing its ground."

None of that gives hamas the right to target civilians, but it's not like there isn't a reason they're doing this horrible shit in the first place.

Absolutely not. I said I thought I knew its origin.

I was always under the impression that hamas and its terrorism existed in direct response to Israeli occupation, settlements, and violence.

I'm not referring to them as people, but as two distinct political bodies with agendas and policy goals they're trying to achieve. And one of those political bodies doesn't make a distinction between the terrorists and the people whose houses they bulldoze and annex.