• Jocker Black@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    But this is the most reasonable response.

    If they realize that human shields aren’t working, they won’t use them and a more optimal number of people will be killed overall.

    Also, any human shields you kill should be attributed to the people using those human shields.

    Thats my take on this. I will agree to disagree with anyone who thinks otherwise.

    PS: For all those replying: where did the words “Israel” and “Hamas” come from? I would like to bring to your attention that I didn’t cover any details specific to the conflict anywhere above… As far as I am concerned:

    • Hamas is a terrorist organization
    • civilians in Gaza are innocent
    • Opinions about Israel are based entirely on Hamas reporting which could.be accurate or could be misinformation.

    PPS: Lets play some mental games for a second.

    Statement 1: X is mass murdering innocent people. And Y is trying to kill X.

    Who is the bad guy and who is the good guy? X is bad Y is good.

    Now let me reveal How X is mass murdering people.

    Statement 2: X is doing so by putting those innocent people into the fire of Y on X.

    You cannot tell me Y is worse than X after that. I don’t say that we can’t judge Y for attacking X under these circumstances, but X is never better than Y.

    • Prunebutt@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      If they realize that human shields aren’t working, they won’t use them and a more optimal number of people will be killed overall.

      Kill civilians first, sort the rest out, later. /s

      Also, any human shields you kill should be attributed to the people using those human shields.

      Allegedly using. The IDF has yet to offer not debunked evidence that any hospital/refugee camp they bombed actually sheltered Hamas.

  • Gladaed@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Using human shields makes you a war criminal. Attacking someone using human shields does not technically make you a war criminal, because it does not endanger civilians without furthering your “just” goal of killing that war criminal.

    Please correct me if I am wrong. You still should consider if killing the war criminal is worth the cost and this does not mean civilians had it coming by any means.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Saying things like “worse” is just picking sides for no reason.

    There’s a point where you can stop measuring the cuntiness and just accept that they’re both well over the threshold of being a cunt. There’s no limit to the size of the cunt bucket. There’s no queue to get in.

    They’re both cunts and the world (and especially all the civilians in the local vicinity) would be better off without them.

    • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      Especially since there is no end to the actual conflict when there isn’t something done on both sides of the conflict.