Current Events > Israel strikes Refugee camp. At least 50 dead.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Channel 14 is a right-wing mouthpiece. Stick with channels 11 through 13.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Rhetorical

punkfanalways posted...

Post deleted thank god.

Nope...Post 12 remains. I am shocked

/s

pikachupwnage posted...

.fucking hell they are counting every death in Gaza as a terrorist in that count 100%. Absolutely credible zero sources have claimed anywhere near 9000 Hamas deaths. Civilian deaths however are pretty close to that number

Fucking abhorrent.

That graphic is sad that they had to refer to the injured as "Palestinians". Fuck the Israeli government.

These war atrocities are reminders that the world as a whole needs to be pushed to the left where reality exists. The less people, affiliated with a religion, voting in elections. The better were all off.

The Democrat party in US needs to be pushed to the left as the younger generation of come to power. Who are much more left leaning than their elders. We need to vote in primaries more often and consistently to help ensure this party's transformation for the better.

Sadly the Palestinians might be fucked, because the world is fucked in the head right now. Though hopefully in the future, we'll get to a better place where the world won't stand by and let an atrocity go unpunished, because are leaders won't be beholden to awefully stupid religious people and their reasons.

GranolaPanic posted...

Careful, one mod was going around moderating people who point that out (despite that when the rules changed, mods said it was okay to mention it in the topic, just not to make topics specifically about it).

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

They should. And there's no magical or ethical Geneva conforming ratio to track all of this.

I would like to see smarter weapons like the R9X. You can slice through individual floors with a literal bladed missile and not explode everyone inside it.

These war atrocities are reminders that the world as a whole needs to be pushed to the left where reality exists. The less people, affiliated with a religion, voting in elections. The better were all off.

The Democrat party in US needs to be pushed to the left as the younger generation of come to power. Who are much more left leaning than their elders. We need to vote in primaries more often and consistently to help ensure this party's transformation for the better.

Sadly the Palestinians might be f***ed, because the world is f***ed in the head right now. Though hopefully in the future, we'll get to a better place where the world won't stand by and let an atrocity go unpunished, because are leaders won't be beholden to awefully stupid religious people and their reasons

Grimly the world is going more to the right these days. It does seem like most of the world is just tired of being civilized and wants to just be savages, and just discard any " rules" and just wipe out whoever they can if it means they don't have to give up things...many just want the entire middle east to disappear at this point based on reactions, its getting rather depressing.

Not here obviously. In general.

Talking mostly about those who would deny Israel's existence or right to exist.

One day when America isnt dictated by religious Zealots, Israel is going to be alone in a sea of people who dislike them and fake treaties (UAE, Saudi). All Im saying is what goes around will historically, inevitably come back around and the way you treat people on the way up the ladder is just how you can expect them to treat you as you fall down.

Letron_James posted...

One day when America isnt dictated by religious Zealots, Israel is going to be alone in a sea of people who dislike them and fake treaties (UAE, Saudi). All Im saying is what goes around will historically, inevitably come back around and the way you treat people on the way up the ladder is just how you can expect them to treat you as you fall down.

You know Israel has nukes right?

What do you think would happen if all those nations tried to invade it?

Necronmon posted...

Grimly the world is going more to the right these days. It does seem like most of the world is just tired of being civilized and wants to just be savages, and just discard any " rules" and just wipe out whoever they can if it means they don't have to give up things...many just want the entire middle east to disappear at this point based on reactions, its getting rather depressing.

Youre on the right track. I feel a lot of people are going more right because they are scared / angry and right wingers seem to offer easy solutions to complicated issues.

When you say people dont want to give things up youre right. But I think it includes people not wanting to give up their own standards of living theyve become accustomed to. As we enter the dying embers of capitalism and inflation and the rich poor divide continues to increase people are worried about getting poorer / not being able to afford the luxuries theyve grown accustomed to and its easy to offer easy solutions like its because of the immigrants its because of climate change policies but its not real! Its because of x y z.

Thats for the people who are currently doing ok. For those who have always been poor its just as easy to say youll be richer if only it werent for those damn immigrants / punitive climate change policies / foreign country X.

Of course there are some right butters out there as well this doesnt apply to but I think those are the minority and its just echo chambers and social media that give them more of a voice than theyd otherwise have because controversy create clicks!

pikachupwnage posted...

.fucking hell they are counting every death in Gaza as a terrorist in that count 100%. Absolutely credible zero sources have claimed anywhere near 9000 Hamas deaths. Civilian deaths however are pretty close to that number

Fucking abhorrent.

The Israeli president literally said there were no civilians in Gaza about a week ago.

Starks posted...

Israel made the wrong choice. But what was the right choice? Let the IDF be fair targets and spare civilians in a more precise operation?

Yes

legendary_zell posted...

There's not a single Pro Hamas poster on this board. Hamas is evil and shouldn't be indiscriminately attacking Israeli civilians, even as part of armed resistance.

To answer your earlier question, yes, the military should risk it's life to specifically target Hamas rather than blowing up Palestinian children to save their lives.

What military commander is going to do that though? From a pure tactical perspective, what commanding officer is going to march his troops into a situation that is more than likely going to get themselves killed and eliminate the tactical advantage they have over the enemy?

Especially since in the history of warfare, the precedent has already been set that military leaders time and again choose ending the threat over saving lives, with the chief example of that of course being Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At this point, it can not be disputed that the Israeli government is guilty of war crimes. But think about it at the ground level. Youre the leader of a battalion, a platoon or whatever. You are responsible for the lives of your men and women, and know that you have to make the phone calls to their parents in the event that things go south. Theoretically, why wouldnt you use every advantage you had to try and bring your people home?

Its not like this is the movies. You dont want your platoon to be remembered like the Massachusetts 54th where they made a movie about you, but only your relatives get to watch it.

Again, all theoretical. Obviously you want your soldiers to be able to sleep at night comfortable with the moral correctness of your orders, but just from a theoretical perspective, what military commander is going to make that choice?

FlyEaglesFly24 posted...

What military commander is going to do that though? From a pure tactical perspective, what commanding officer is going to march his troops into a situation that is more than likely going to get themselves killed and eliminate the tactical advantage they have over the enemy?

Especially since in the history of warfare, the precedent has already been set that military leaders time and again choose ending the threat over saving lives, with the chief example of that of course being Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At this point, it can not be disputed that the Israeli government is guilty of war crimes. But think about it at the ground level. Youre the leader of a battalion, a platoon or whatever. You are responsible for the lives of your men and women, and know that you have to make the phone calls to their parents in the event that things go south. Theoretically, why wouldnt you use every advantage you had to try and bring your people home?

Its not like this is the movies. You dont want your platoon to be remembered like the Massachusetts 54th where they made a movie about you, but only your relatives get to watch it.

Again, all theoretical. Obviously you want your soldiers to be able to sleep at night comfortable with the moral correctness of your orders, but just from a theoretical perspective, what military commander is going to make that choice?

There might be some that would, I dunno. I don't think the universal response is to kill an unlimited number of refugees to get one guy. But even if they wouldn't that's why military commanders are awful people on a systemic level. Because they routinely see it as easier to sleep after killing innocent kids and refugees than after losing some soldiers in a war.

And why? Because they actually know some of people that will die or because of nationalism? That's not an excuse for war crimes, and we'd all recognize that if we were in the refugee camp, or knew someone who was, or were citizens of the country the commander was at war with. Artificially restricted empathy like this is the root of all evil, I truly believe that.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. Strategic bombing is a war crime. And this is a war crime.

damn, Israel sure finds a lot of convenient tunnels.

ProfessorKukui posted...

damn, Israel sure finds a lot of convenient tunnels.

And they are the only ones that report them. No independent source ever verifies them.

It truly is the Golden Parachute of mass murdering bombing.

Hospital bombing - Tunnels!!!
Refuge Camp bombing - Tunnels!!
Apartment Complex Bombing - Tunnels!!
Escape Path for Refugees Bombing - Tunnels!!

legendary_zell posted...

There might be some that would, I dunno. I don't think the universal response is to kill an unlimited number of refugees to get one guy. But even if they wouldn't that's why military commanders are awful people on a systemic level. Because they routinely see it as easier to sleep after killing innocent kids and refugees than after losing some soldiers in a war.

And why? Because they actually know some of people that will die or because of nationalism? That's not an excuse for war crimes, and we'd all recognize that if we were in the refugee camp, or knew someone who was, or were citizens of the country the commander was at war with. Artificially restricted empathy like this is the root of all evil, I truly believe that.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes. Strategic bombing is a war crime. And this is a war crime.

Well I would argue with a couple of points.

1. All wars are crimes in some way, even if we justify them with the whole ends justify means thing.
2. In this particular case, I agree with you, but Im not sure if thats the end all be all for rules of war. Im speaking purely as a selfish Jew at the moment, but if nuking Berlin in 1942 would have stopped the mass murder in the camps, Id have dropped that sucker in a heartbeat. But as a general rule, sure I agree with the premise.
3. So then it comes down to trading lives, doesnt it? Asking people to weigh the lives of their men versus the lives of their enemies versus the lives of the innocent,!(while also considering the lives of those who may be lost in the future, should the terrorist bastard get away) I mean, were talking screwed either way. For example - the British soldier who let Hitler go in World War I - in theory youd like to think at least he did the right thing not shooting a disheveled corporal who was just doing his job, but he is quoted as saying that he was sorry he didnt kill him right then and there. I guess when it comes to hunting terrorists, theres also that idea in the back of your mind. What happens if you let him go, and he does it again?

Again, these are all theoretical, and were living a real world atrocity at the moment. Still, Id be interested to know what the wartime protocol for these situations is..if there even is one?

FlyEaglesFly24 posted...

Well I would argue with a couple of points.

1. All wars are crimes in some way, even if we justify them with the whole ends justify means thing.
2. In this particular case, I agree with you, but Im not sure if thats the end all be all for rules of war. Im speaking purely as a selfish Jew at the moment, but if nuking Berlin in 1942 would have stopped the mass murder in the camps, Id have dropped that sucker in a heartbeat. But as a general rule, sure I agree with the premise.
3. So then it comes down to trading lives, doesnt it? Asking people to weigh the lives of their men versus the lives of their enemies versus the lives of the innocent,!(while also considering the lives of those who may be lost in the future, should the terrorist bastard get away) I mean, were talking screwed either way. For example - the British soldier who let Hitler go in World War I - in theory youd like to think at least he did the right thing not shooting a disheveled corporal who was just doing his job, but he is quoted as saying that he was sorry he didnt kill him right then and there. I guess when it comes to hunting terrorists, theres also that idea in the back of your mind. What happens if you let him go, and he does it again?
Again, these are all theoretical, and were living a real world atrocity at the moment. Still, Id be interested to know what the wartime protocol for these situations is..if there even is one?

There are many better ways for Israel to handle this.

Immediately ask support for the UN to handle the movement and relocation of civilians

Don't cut resources to the territory

Ask the population to relocate a week before the bombing campaigns

Ask on Arab neighbors to relocate populations in before the precision strike

Don't kill journalists

Be transparent

Opt more for joint operations rather than a solo strike

All these things would have significantly changed public perception and show a concerted effort to diminish civilian casualties. As it stand right now

"Hamas is in the chuck e cheese"
*blows it up and the journalist across the street*

Personally I would not suggest that people in a refugee camp might be future Hitler when discussing the bombing of them

Intro2Logic posted...

Personally I would not suggest that people in a refugee camp might be future Hitler when discussing the bombing of them

It also a meaningless argument, as futures are not written in the moment, but as they happen.

Intro2Logic posted...

Personally I would not suggest that people in a refugee camp might be future Hitler when discussing the bombing of them

Im not saying they are. I was merely presenting a situation where the rule might not be absolute. And to the argument about not using the moment to predict the future, I chose 1942 because by then, the killings had already started. Not suggesting nuking Berlin in 1935 - even though the writing was on the wall at that point.

Im just saying, its not unheard that tactically,
military leaders choose the objective over saving lives, and can sometimes be put in impossible situations where you have to choose the lesser of two evils. Thats all.

If you're trying to find a more nuanced version of basic ethics, it's almost never because you're trying to be more ethical.

Israel doesn't know the definition of "proportional response"

LSGW_Zephyra posted...

Israel doesn't know the definition of "proportional response"

Reminds me of one of my favorite shows
https://youtu.be/SZE4pEKc6WY?si=yfqdpHQ_k1NVSbmp