this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
372 points (74.7% liked)
Political Memes
5087 readers
4080 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Pretend huh. Still not willing to admit it?
How many soldiers does it take to change a location to a military target?
Is it a percentage? Is it their presence at all?
Ok, does that apply to Israeli hospitals or public venues that had soldiers there as guards?
If the attack on those venues is terrorism by virtue of the civilians there, but not a legitimate military strike despite the soldiers being there, then at the very least, bombing hospitals and refugee camps is terrorism too even if a few soldiers and weapons are found.
Executing human shields is monstrous, and "look what you made me do" is the language of abusers.
Someone using something as a human shield makes it into a human shield. Requires just one.
Could be as few as one. Which is why there's zero tolerance for using such locations.
It's the same rule for everyone.
There's two related issues. Killing civilians and using civilian cover to conduct warfare. Both are despicable.
Right, though I'd put more blame on those, you know, using human shields. They're the ones putting the humans between you and your enemy to begin with.
Given the demographics of those killed by Israel are squarely in line with the civilian population broadly (i.e. there's no meaningful over-reprentation of Hamas, which we'd expect from purposeful targeted attacks against them), you'd apply your arguments consistently and defend Hamas attacking the IDF within Israel with similar civilian casualty rates (putting aside the whole national service, everyone is a combatant thing), right?
...right?
Thought not.
Why would I defend either side killing civilians..?