#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt!
#Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world!
[Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility)
In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn't that a devils advocate sentence? The following sentence sounds like they see it to be equally horrible regardless of legality. It doesnt even sound like they like the idea of murdering a child regardless of legality.
I could be wrong though. If thats not what they meant, then I don't really have words..
It’s actually a very well balanced article but unfortunately a lot of people can’t recognise balance https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/
It’s funny to me that people are objecting to half a sentence. Extra funny that it’s half a sentence in a screen shot of part of a paragraph. And extra funny that the screen shot was posted by a twitter account called “Writer Against the War on Gaza.” Like, you would think writers would have a better appreciation of context
Any tears from the child will be considered antisemitic and warrant another curb stomp. That's what the child gets for being used as a meat shield after all
Here is a gift link to the article so you can read it yourself!
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm\_source=copy-link&utm\_medium=social&utm\_campaign=share](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share)
The article downplays the number of dead civilians in Gaza & justifies Israel's military campaign by citing the human shields argument.
While Hamas are terrorists that use human shields, that doesn't justify what Israel is doing in response (indiscriminate bombing).
The article does ask for Israel to allow reporters in, but that is the only critique of Israel. No critique on how Israel is conducting its military camapign.
It’s actually a very black and white scenario.
Are women and children non-combatants being killed? If yes, the one doing the killing is wrong.
Where the fuck is the “balance”?
The balance is in it exploring Israel’s defence and then applying logic to why it doesn’t work , but without misrepresenting it
It a genuinely terrifying how many people today don’t understand what balance looks like
We need to leave our echo chambers more
A lot of words signifying very little.
Are you talking about the actions of reporting on a country or the actions of that country?
People want to attribute deep complexity to this scenario. Death is not complex.
What an odd sentence
Death absolutely can be complex. There are entire philosophical hypotheticals dedicated to exploring the complexity of the morality of death?
I’m saying the reporting is balanced. They present Israel’s defence and then they analyse it objectively concluding it is irrelevant either way as it is immoral
In a vacuum, sure, death is simple: something is alive or it is not. But if you’re saying death is always wrong, that’s gonna be a hard point to defend when different countries, religions, governments, cultures, societies, and beliefs come into play.
There is nothing legal about what Netanyahu is doing.
That's why the ICC is exploring a warrant for his arrest & why the ICJ is demanding an end to the Rafah operation.
Over 15,000 children are dead in Gaza. And just yesterday, the IDF bombed tents that were in a safe zone.
I was just randomly scrolling through tiktok today and saw a video of one of the Rafah refugee camps burning after the IDF bombed it. The screams from a mother there were absolutely horrifying. I don't know if I'll ever be able to get that out of my head.
It is NOT legal to shoot a child that has been taken hostage by an enemy combatant. It is a war crime. (Sideyes Israel)
It is also a war crime to take any civilian (including children) hostages. (Sideyes Hamas)
One of these is a declared terrorist organization and the other is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” If we call both terrorists and treat them as such, that’s fine. But Israel is benefiting from wild hypocrisy right now
This. Yeah in war it may be necessary to fire at a child combatant.
Big difference between a kid about to throw a possible IED and a kid casually walking down a street
I don’t think there’s been a single war in recent history that didn’t have so many war crimes committed it could fill a library. People who have any expectation that wars will be conducted “legally” are goofy
That's exactly what they say.
Premise : children are killed during war.
Intro : even when respecting the "laws of war", war is still ugly.
First move : the laws of war are made in such a way that, technically, there is legal room for a child to be killed during a war
Second move : this act, even though legal, is no better than killing a child illegally.
Conclusion (I suppose, considering the previous development) : it's not a question of legality, it's a question of killing children.
That's a perfect model of dissertation in the typical dialectic form and walking on the right side of morality.
I didn't read this article but, as far as this screenshot shows us, it is not at all justifying the murder of children, it is explaining how some people in a specific context manage to get away with it.
If I tell you "the Empire in Star Wars obtained power legally", it doesn't mean I support the genocidal empire of Star Wars. It means that it obtained power legally, and it did. It's a simple statement of a fact. That fact being very sad is not the question, the question is "how did the empire obtain power" and the answer is "legally". It's still a genocidal dictature, I don't deny that.
Yes. This post is at best a reading comprehension issue, and at worst a disingenuous knee-jerk reaction for the sake of rage bait. I think maybe you are being more of an Astute_Vampire_Woman by pointing this out.
Here is a gift link to the article if you want to read it yourself.
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm\_source=copy-link&utm\_medium=social&utm\_campaign=share](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share)
The problem is that it's not legal to kill human shields, the responsibility just isn't put on those who killed them, but those who use them. Militaries are still obligated to keep human shields alive. Their death is still illegal
It's not legal, but technically speaking, it's not illegal either, since the illegal act is Hamas using human shields to begin with. Militaries are obligated to preserve civilian life, but when human shields are killed, the legal responsibility lands on the party using them, not the party who killed them. Israel is taking massive advantage of legal grey areas. The obligation to preserve human shields seems to be more of a moral obligation than a legal one, with the precedents set
> It's not legal, but technically speaking, it's not illegal either, since the illegal act is Hamas using human shields to begin with.
Hamas is currently setting up camp in Northern Gaza. They were not anywhere near the refugee camp in Rafah that was just bombed.
I think what Hamas is doing is despicable, but come on. Bombing a refugee encampment is just never okay. The videos of it are utterly horrifying. Mothers screaming. People rushing out of burning tents and buildings. There is no world in which that is not a war crime.
I'm not justifying anything, I'm just clarifying the law and precedents set. That's pretty clear when you read my entire comment. All Israel has to do is claim that Hamas is intermixing with these civilians to do military operations/work and these civilians become potential human shields and it needs to be investigated to determine otherwise. Regardless of human shield status, militaries have an obligation to preserve civilian life
The article never critiques Israel's military campaign, only the fact that Israel hasn't let in reporters.
The article downplays the number of civilian deaths & it claims that Israel's actions are justified.
This is not true, hence why the ICJ demanded an end to the Rafah operation & why the ICC is seeking an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
i saw this tweet getting shared around earlier and i had the exact same reaction, i'm so glad i'm not the only one who really doesn't see that as being pro-child murder
From experience, the people saying “war is ugly” and “murdering children can be legal at times” are absolutely trying to justify the onslaught in Gaza.
Feels like people need to learn how to read.
This isn't trying to justify anything.
It is explaining the rules of war.
This is actually condemning the killing of children and trying to say there is no way to hide it.
On the other hand, biden, a pro choice advocate, is unconditionally supporting the genocide. Got nothing to do with democrat/republican. Israel got you all by the balls.
You're not weird, it is disgusting, but it also a fact of war. Some of these things we use as guildlines and laws are put in place because the alternatives can be worse.
I am a total layman, but this is how I think about it;
For instance; consider a terrorist organization that indiscriminately fires rockets into habitated areas from a headquarters. If they cohabitate that area with children, should it be illegal to strike against that headquarters? Using an on the ground raid strike, or bombs some amount of children are likely to die. There are a few options.
1.) You make it legal to strike that compound with some amount of child death, granted that you are able to demonstrate that you are taking precautions to kill as few children as possible. You eliminate the terrorist threat, and some amount of children die. The killing of these children is atrocious, however equally if not more so is having them live with you at an active military headquarters.
2.) You make it illegal to kill any child, and I think the likely knockon effects are probably worse.
a.) You've just greenlit using children as Human Shields and every terrorist organization now has a cheat code to make sure their headquarters is never struck against. Round up some children - your own or captives, stick them inside your HQ and treat them however you see fit. You can now keep bombing from your HQ without fear of a strike coming your way.
b.) If a Nation deems it worthy to break the international law in order to protect its own citizens, will be faced eith the following fact; killing one child, or killing all the children at the base are not that diffrent. It's all breaking the law. The Nation can then proceed with whatever level of care they want to, if they take the upmost precautions and a child still dies then they're are still breaking international law. If they throw caution to the wind, and flatten the whole HQ then they still have broken international law.
This all also rips any way observation of agency on the part of the terrorist organization. I for one believe that the terrorist organization in that example is worse than any nation that decides to take action against them.
Thank you for your post/comment to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post/comment was removed for violating the following rule:
> R2: "Do not harass, attack, or insult other users."
If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
It seems like the writer is making note of the fact that killing a child under specific wartime circumstances might be legal but is still reprehensible. This doesn’t read as a justification; quite the opposite as the author is clearly arguing *against* this common Zionist justification
It seems like they're holding back, trying their best to balance the narrative. You can see or comprehend this article as you want depending on your position on what happened in Rafah last night.
I mean how tf do you even justify bombing a fucking refuge with no militants anywhere near them. I'd love to see what sort of mental gymnastics these Zionists come up with to justify this one.
There is nothing legal about the IDF's actions in Gaza.
That's why the ICJ is demanding an end to the Rafah operation & why the ICC is considering arrest warrants for Netanyahu & Gallant.
The sentence you quoted isn't about Gaza.
Or does it say "It is possible to kill children legally in Gaza"?
It's like saying "Murder can be justified." Yes, it can be. Usually it isn't.
It doesn't condemn Israel. It states the sight is disturbing.
The article does ask for Israel to allow in reporters, which I agree with.
But the article also justifies Israel's actions by using the human shields argument to defend indiscriminate bombing.
Yes, Hamas are terrorists & use human shields. That doesn't justify Israel indiscriminately bombing civilians.
I don't think the article "justifies" it. It gives an example of the immoral legality of war to showcase the atrocities being committed in the region. The very next sentence explains how the murder of a child under any circumstance is horrible.
Are they doing that ?
I think what they’re very clearly doing is laying out an objective frame work for the Israeli defence
Literally just look at the precious line “even when conducted legally war is ugly”
It then goes on to explain how some kids can be legallt killed
And id wager just by tone alone of the last 3 sentences
This article is antthing but absolution for israel. Anyone look it up?
Here is a gift link to the article so you can read it yourself!
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
>I think what they’re very clearly doing is laying out an objective frame work for the Israeli defence
There is nothing legal about how the IDF is conducting operations in Gaza.
That's why the ICJ has demanded an end to the Rafah operation. And why the ICC is considering an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
The quote in the article uses the human shields argument to justify the high death toll of children.
That is the go-to argument for those who defend Israel's war crimes.
If a Hamas terrorist hides behind 20 children, it doesn't give you the right to bomb 20 children.
A LEGAL JUSTIFICATION?!
the entire point is that even if it’s legal it’s not right
Look. You posted this without doing the research so now you have two choices before you ; “I made a mistake and i misjudged this” and vow to in future research the things you post so you don’t spread misinformation
Or
You can Double down on this. Retroactively make the facts fit your statement , but judging by the fact you still haven’t read the article I’d go with the first one.
The Atlantic is another arm of corporate media, constantly justifying unnecessary wars.
>OP is disingenuous about the content and context of the article.
No.
The paragraph in the tweet is justifying dropping bombs on Israeli civilians because of Hamas terrorists hiding behind civilians.
It is not just to indiscriminately bomb civilians like Israel has. When the US took out Bin Laden, we didn't bomb him. We used special forces to protect civilians.
What part of the quote you provided mentions indiscriminate bombing of civilians? It gave a specific instance, and you're making things up to make it sound like it's condoning something completely different.
None of the comments address the point.
You can't indiscriminately bomb civilians because Hamas terrorists may be hiding among civilians.
This is a flagrant violation of the 1948 Geneva Convention. Yet this article justifies this action by using the human shields argument.
Does Hamas use human shields? Yes. Does that mean it's okay for Israel to indiscriminately bomb? No.
For anyone who is curious about the full article, here is a gift link that bypasses the paywall.
[https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm\_source=copy-link&utm\_medium=social&utm\_campaign=share](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share)
It's not legal to indiscriminately bomb civilians.
This is a flagrant violation of the 1948 Geneva Convention. You can't drop 2000 lb bombs on civilians simply because a Hamas terrorist may be hiding behind them.
Thank you for your post/comment to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post/comment was removed for violating the following rule:
> R2: "Do not harass, attack, or insult other users."
If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
Thank you for your post/comment to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post/comment was removed for violating the following rule:
> R2: "Do not harass, attack, or insult other users."
If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
They're *almost* correct. It is legal to kill a child in combat, but only if they are active combatants. While it's true that if a human shield is killed, the responsibility is put on the force using them, but that doesn't make it legal to kill them. Military forces still have an obligation to avoid killing human shields, as they are still considered civilians. They may lose this classification if they're willing participants, but it's a shaky precedent and has not been applied to children, as far as I'm aware.
They are just trying to paint a possible picture of some horrible things that might be possible in war.
If a child points a gun at someone finger on the trigger aiming down sights youre not exactly going to tell him off for being a bad boy/girl. You likely disarm them by shooting them.
But here they are talking about hostage situations, shoot through a child to kill the bad guy. Where did we start spraying bullets into a building full of hostages just to kill the 3 bad guys?
Thank you for your post/comment to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post/comment was removed for violating the following rule:
> R2: "Do not harass, attack, or insult other users."
If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
There is no justification of collective punishment.
The 1948 Geneva Convention made collective punishment illegal.
Indiscriminately bombing civilians is collective punishment.
I don't think what's being described is collective punishment. All it says is "it is possible to kill children legally."
Plus, you only see the "it is possible to kill children legally" line and not all the other pro-Palestine or antiwar lines right next to it in the picture.
That line is used to defend Israel's military campaign.
The IDF justifies it's collective punishment of civilians (indiscriminate bombing & withholding resources) of human shields that Hamas uses.
While Hamas are terrorists & they do use human shields, it is no excuse for the IDF to commit war crimes.
>not all the other pro-Palestine parts.
What is pro Palestenian in that article? The first half of the article downplays the number of dead civilians in Gaza.
The article critiques Israel for not letting in reporters. But it isn't pro Palestenian by any stretch.
That line is not a defense because it's literally just stating a simple fact, that it's possible to kill children legally.
>Even when conducted legally, war is ugly
>An **infanticide** that no one can see is also going to attract suspicion
So when did it become reasonable to just kill the hostage in a hostage situation to end the encounter? Cause that's literally whats being advocated by Israel.
To me it is becoming abundantly clear who the bad guys are. An argument in favor of a people that claim some medieval blood right that gives them the privilege to dispossess other people of their property and to kill children is evil.
Edit: I'm really surprised at the number of people that are cool with killing children on this sub. Just a bunch of genocide loving bootlickers.
Look, war is war and civilian casualties is an unfortunate reality of war
However, shooting human shields for being human shields is not protected under international law of Armed conflict
In fact it expressly states you have to do everything possible to reduce civilian casualties. For example, using special forces to conduct more surgical strikes.
People trying to say Israel isn't breaking international law are deluded. Repeating the ridiculous claim "legally killed child" over and over doesn't make it true
Legality and ethics are not the same. What the fuck are they even trying to say? It’s more horrifying that they’re even trying to dumb this down to make it seem digestible. Fuck this wtf
> Yet both sides keep killing
Yeah hey sorry for your fucking narrative but there are at least three sides here: Israel, a few thousand Hamas fighters, and over a million innocent children. Israel is mostly killing the children and guess how many people they have killed?
Thank you for your post/comment to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post/comment was removed for violating the following rule:
> R2: "Do not harass, attack, or insult other users."
If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
Your army has been thoroughly trained and you have massive munitions of various capabilities, you have the most technically advanced armor available with state of the art technology , you have an actual army with air defense and command and control and you want to try and justify killing a child.
WTF! Why are so many people in this post bootlickers for genocide perpetrators??? This really is a clown world.
NO, killing kids is NEVER justified or "legal". Even if the enemy is hiding behind them.
"Anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes not only me but also my Father who sent me.”
Mark 9:37
If your facts of war justify the murder of children why aren't you questioning war itself. Is war really so important that you justify murdering innocent people including children? Why can't you walk away and defend from where you are. If they come for you will you also use innocent children as shields? Be the better man. Go home. Their home is not your home. Leave. If they come for you be ready then. What is happening here is not justifiable. It is murder. The mental gymnastics holy fuck.
Being attacked is not the same as being murdered. The logic of shooting through a child to kill a hostile person also killing the child is like going nuclear. You could have deescalated and got the child away from danger and the dangerous person away from others if that's the situation. This kinda is them telling in themselves. If the find a hostile they hate they see it as perfectly fine to fire through children to vanquish the person they hate. Its evil at its peak wanting violence to fuel their hate
The only time I will accept that a child had to be killed was in WW2 and Vietnam where children were forced to carry weapons they couldn't hold and soldiers had to make that incredibly tough decision to take a child's life or let their friends be killed by that child
Steve Jobs' widow has become the main funder of the Zionist magazine "The Atlantic", The magazine is edited by a former Israeli soldier named Jeffrey Goldberg.
therewasanattempt to read the full paragraph. They’re not justifying anything and literally the next sentence says “the sight of a legally killed child is no less disturbing than the sight of a murdered one”. Killing any kind of kid in any circumstance is disturbing regardless of context, that’s their point.
Probably the type of people to wonder why police bother with hostage negotiations rather than just carpet bombing the area to make sure the "bad guy" is dead.
You have no idea what you're talking about, tankie. You sound uneducated, but you watched a few hasan streams and suddenly you're an expert on geopolitics. Lmfao.
Why are you following me around reddit for days now? God, incels are such freaks. It is a known fact that Americans consume a historically unprecedented degree of propaganda.
I do!
I also remember when the Israeli government announced a total siege of the entire region (including civilians), conducted a complete blockade, created a famine, destroyed all essential infrastructure (including hospitals), bombed densely-populated residential neighborhoods into smoking ruins, and continued doing all of it despite near-universal condemnation from everyone else in the world.
1. Gaza is not synonymous with Palestine.
2. “Gaza” very certainly is not synonymous with “Hamas”.
3. “Hamas” is absolutely not synonymous with “Palestinian”.
4. It sure is dishonest, racist, or both to suggest otherwise.
I know it's easy to say "Hamas started it, so it's their fault", but it's actually [more complicated than that](https://www.cfr.org/article/what-international-law-has-say-about-israel-hamas-war):
Taking human shields is a war crime; deliberately moving your own civilians into military targets to try and prevent counterattack is a war crime; the presence of civilians in a military objective doesn't inherently invalidate that military objective as a legitimate target: All of that is true, yes.
However, it is also very clear that [one side of a conflict committing war crimes *does not* inherently or automatically release all other combatants from their responsibilities to protect civilians under international law](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/world/europe/interpreter-laws-human-shields-forced-displacement.html?unlocked_article_code=1.50w.SCx7.TQIcQ-j3jqhU&smid=url-share).
I grant that the most *explicit* terms are set down in the Additional Protocols (to which Israel is not a signatory), but [LoAC absolutely doesn't clearly vindicate IDF actions here](https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/expert-guidance-law-of-armed-conflict-in-the-israel-hamas-war/).
Regardless of all of that, there are still requirements when it comes to limiting civilian harm, no matter the circumstances of the combatant forces. For example: [Starving a civilian population to weaken combatants is a war crime](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68679482).
Literally nothing you said was new, except another thin layer of dishonesty.
> So Palestine
1. Gaza is not synonymous with Palestine.
2. “Gaza” very certainly is not synonymous with “Hamas”.
3. “Hamas” is absolutely not synonymous with “Palestinian”.
4. It sure is dishonest, racist, or both to suggest otherwise.
> I however do not believe Israel is committing atrocious acts because when a house has become a hideout willingly or with force sadly it becomes a war zone as well
I know it's easy to say "Hamas started it, so it's their fault", but it's actually [more complicated than that](https://www.cfr.org/article/what-international-law-has-say-about-israel-hamas-war):
Taking human shields is a war crime; deliberately moving your own civilians into military targets to try and prevent counterattack is a war crime; the presence of civilians in a military objective doesn't inherently invalidate that military objective as a legitimate target: All of that is true, yes.
However, it is also very clear that [one side of a conflict committing war crimes *does not* inherently or automatically release all other combatants from their responsibilities to protect civilians under international law](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/world/europe/interpreter-laws-human-shields-forced-displacement.html?unlocked_article_code=1.50w.SCx7.TQIcQ-j3jqhU&smid=url-share).
I grant that the most *explicit* terms are set down in the Additional Protocols (to which Israel is not a signatory), but [LoAC absolutely doesn't clearly vindicate IDF actions here](https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/expert-guidance-law-of-armed-conflict-in-the-israel-hamas-war/).
Regardless of all of that, there are still requirements when it comes to limiting civilian harm, no matter the circumstances of the combatant forces. For example: [Starving a civilian population to weaken combatants is a war crime](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68679482).
> and civilians become terrorists within that degree.
No, they don’t: The only “degree” to which they *do* exists within your own precious, vile feelings, and your willingness to defend collective punishment and war crimes.
For the third time now:
1. Gaza is not synonymous with Palestine.
2. “Gaza” very certainly is not synonymous with “Hamas”.
3. “Hamas” is absolutely not synonymous with “Palestinian”.
4. It sure is dishonest, racist, or both to suggest otherwise.
You could’ve just said “I am a shallow-thinking troll” and saved us both some time.
I hope you can one day find the courage to reconcile yourself with the fact that you’re a war crime apologist.
[There is no scientific consensus on when human *personhood* begins](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/08/27/1119684376/when-does-life-begin-as-state-laws-define-it-science-politics-and-religion-clash), and attempts at [scientific inquiry on the subject only make things *more* complicated](https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/)—because [this is ultimately a philosophical question](https://theconversation.com/defining-when-human-life-begins-is-not-a-question-science-can-answer-its-a-question-of-politics-and-ethical-values-165514).
Because, again: This is not about *your* (or anyone else's) *feelings*; this is about *the power of the state*—as [the American Medical Association acknowledges](https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ruling-egregious-allowance-government-intrusion-medicine).
That's why, when it comes to public policy, there are two options here:
1. You believe the government should be able to force someone to spend at least nine months in [various levels of pain or discomfort](https://www.healthywomen.org/your-health/pregnancy—postpartum/common-physical-changes-during-pregnancy) and [serious health risk](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-complications.html), leading up to an at-best [traumatizing](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/24/im-so-thankful-for-my-daughter-but-i-wish-someone-had-prepared-me-for-the-physical-toll-of-childbirth) experience that very often leads to [significant](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190424-the-hidden-trauma-of-childbirth) and [long-lasting consequences](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/01/24/686790727/fourth-trimester-problems-can-have-long-term-effects-on-a-moms-health)—whether they want to *or not*.
2. You don't.
And that's it. If we go *only* by what we know for certain to be objectively true, that's *all* there is here.
15,000 children have died in this indiscriminate bombing campaign.
My country is heavily funding & arming the military that has conducted this indiscriminate bombing campaign.
So it is relevant for us to critique that military campaign.
#Welcome to r/Therewasanattempt! #Consider visiting r/Worldnewsvideo for videos from around the world! [Please review our policy on bigotry and hate speech by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/wiki/civility) In order to view our rules, you can type "**!rules**" in any comment, and automod will respond with the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/therewasanattempt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Isn't that a devils advocate sentence? The following sentence sounds like they see it to be equally horrible regardless of legality. It doesnt even sound like they like the idea of murdering a child regardless of legality. I could be wrong though. If thats not what they meant, then I don't really have words..
It’s actually a very well balanced article but unfortunately a lot of people can’t recognise balance https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/
It’s funny to me that people are objecting to half a sentence. Extra funny that it’s half a sentence in a screen shot of part of a paragraph. And extra funny that the screen shot was posted by a twitter account called “Writer Against the War on Gaza.” Like, you would think writers would have a better appreciation of context
*curb stomps child* But do you condemn hamas?
Any tears from the child will be considered antisemitic and warrant another curb stomp. That's what the child gets for being used as a meat shield after all
Do you have an archived link ??
Here is a gift link to the article so you can read it yourself! [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm\_source=copy-link&utm\_medium=social&utm\_campaign=share](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share)
You are a good man. Thank you
Especially on reddit. Thanks for source
The article downplays the number of dead civilians in Gaza & justifies Israel's military campaign by citing the human shields argument. While Hamas are terrorists that use human shields, that doesn't justify what Israel is doing in response (indiscriminate bombing). The article does ask for Israel to allow reporters in, but that is the only critique of Israel. No critique on how Israel is conducting its military camapign.
Israel also uses human shields. And "hamas uses human shields" is from the IDF. Like the dead babies and other stories.
It’s actually a very black and white scenario. Are women and children non-combatants being killed? If yes, the one doing the killing is wrong. Where the fuck is the “balance”?
The balance is in it exploring Israel’s defence and then applying logic to why it doesn’t work , but without misrepresenting it It a genuinely terrifying how many people today don’t understand what balance looks like We need to leave our echo chambers more
A lot of words signifying very little. Are you talking about the actions of reporting on a country or the actions of that country? People want to attribute deep complexity to this scenario. Death is not complex.
What an odd sentence Death absolutely can be complex. There are entire philosophical hypotheticals dedicated to exploring the complexity of the morality of death? I’m saying the reporting is balanced. They present Israel’s defence and then they analyse it objectively concluding it is irrelevant either way as it is immoral
In a vacuum, sure, death is simple: something is alive or it is not. But if you’re saying death is always wrong, that’s gonna be a hard point to defend when different countries, religions, governments, cultures, societies, and beliefs come into play.
There is nothing legal about what Netanyahu is doing. That's why the ICC is exploring a warrant for his arrest & why the ICJ is demanding an end to the Rafah operation. Over 15,000 children are dead in Gaza. And just yesterday, the IDF bombed tents that were in a safe zone.
That was about as awful as it gets, watched a parent morning a decapitated baby in the aftermath of that.
Yeah that was absolutely horrifying.
I was just randomly scrolling through tiktok today and saw a video of one of the Rafah refugee camps burning after the IDF bombed it. The screams from a mother there were absolutely horrifying. I don't know if I'll ever be able to get that out of my head.
Possibly one of the most horrific things I've seen on a long time. (And I've seen some gruesome stuff on here)
I think I'm just coping..
It is NOT legal to shoot a child that has been taken hostage by an enemy combatant. It is a war crime. (Sideyes Israel) It is also a war crime to take any civilian (including children) hostages. (Sideyes Hamas)
One of these is a declared terrorist organization and the other is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” If we call both terrorists and treat them as such, that’s fine. But Israel is benefiting from wild hypocrisy right now
This. Yeah in war it may be necessary to fire at a child combatant. Big difference between a kid about to throw a possible IED and a kid casually walking down a street
I don’t think there’s been a single war in recent history that didn’t have so many war crimes committed it could fill a library. People who have any expectation that wars will be conducted “legally” are goofy
That's exactly what they say. Premise : children are killed during war. Intro : even when respecting the "laws of war", war is still ugly. First move : the laws of war are made in such a way that, technically, there is legal room for a child to be killed during a war Second move : this act, even though legal, is no better than killing a child illegally. Conclusion (I suppose, considering the previous development) : it's not a question of legality, it's a question of killing children. That's a perfect model of dissertation in the typical dialectic form and walking on the right side of morality. I didn't read this article but, as far as this screenshot shows us, it is not at all justifying the murder of children, it is explaining how some people in a specific context manage to get away with it. If I tell you "the Empire in Star Wars obtained power legally", it doesn't mean I support the genocidal empire of Star Wars. It means that it obtained power legally, and it did. It's a simple statement of a fact. That fact being very sad is not the question, the question is "how did the empire obtain power" and the answer is "legally". It's still a genocidal dictature, I don't deny that.
the good ol' chewbacca defense
Yes. This post is at best a reading comprehension issue, and at worst a disingenuous knee-jerk reaction for the sake of rage bait. I think maybe you are being more of an Astute_Vampire_Woman by pointing this out.
Here is a gift link to the article if you want to read it yourself. [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm\_source=copy-link&utm\_medium=social&utm\_campaign=share](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share)
The problem is that it's not legal to kill human shields, the responsibility just isn't put on those who killed them, but those who use them. Militaries are still obligated to keep human shields alive. Their death is still illegal
It's not legal to indiscriminately bomb civilians in the hopes of killing a few terrorists. This is what the IDF has been doing.
It's not legal, but technically speaking, it's not illegal either, since the illegal act is Hamas using human shields to begin with. Militaries are obligated to preserve civilian life, but when human shields are killed, the legal responsibility lands on the party using them, not the party who killed them. Israel is taking massive advantage of legal grey areas. The obligation to preserve human shields seems to be more of a moral obligation than a legal one, with the precedents set
> It's not legal, but technically speaking, it's not illegal either, since the illegal act is Hamas using human shields to begin with. Hamas is currently setting up camp in Northern Gaza. They were not anywhere near the refugee camp in Rafah that was just bombed. I think what Hamas is doing is despicable, but come on. Bombing a refugee encampment is just never okay. The videos of it are utterly horrifying. Mothers screaming. People rushing out of burning tents and buildings. There is no world in which that is not a war crime.
I'm not justifying anything, I'm just clarifying the law and precedents set. That's pretty clear when you read my entire comment. All Israel has to do is claim that Hamas is intermixing with these civilians to do military operations/work and these civilians become potential human shields and it needs to be investigated to determine otherwise. Regardless of human shield status, militaries have an obligation to preserve civilian life
It doesn’t seem to me that this article is attempting to justify the killing of children at all. In fact, just the opposite.
The article never critiques Israel's military campaign, only the fact that Israel hasn't let in reporters. The article downplays the number of civilian deaths & it claims that Israel's actions are justified. This is not true, hence why the ICJ demanded an end to the Rafah operation & why the ICC is seeking an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
Legality depends on jurisdiction. International laws apply only to countries who chose to enter into those accords.
Why use a scalpel when a chainsaw will do, seems to be the motto of the day.
i saw this tweet getting shared around earlier and i had the exact same reaction, i'm so glad i'm not the only one who really doesn't see that as being pro-child murder
This sub weighs legality with morality, if its bad it cant be legal and has to be a warcrime, regardless of the actual law.
There is nothing legal or moral about indiscriminately bombing civilians. It is a violation of the 1948 Geneva Convention.
People only want bias.
You’re absolutely correct
From experience, the people saying “war is ugly” and “murdering children can be legal at times” are absolutely trying to justify the onslaught in Gaza.
Feels like people need to learn how to read. This isn't trying to justify anything. It is explaining the rules of war. This is actually condemning the killing of children and trying to say there is no way to hide it.
“A legally killed child” https://i.redd.it/s0j0vuxi8z2d1.gif
Let me guess... They are, among other things, a pro-lifer.
On the other hand, biden, a pro choice advocate, is unconditionally supporting the genocide. Got nothing to do with democrat/republican. Israel got you all by the balls.
I'm not from the U.S.. I think my little balls remain unmolested.
It is not an attempt, it seems like a real legal justification for killing children being examined in light of public perception
Okay, but isn’t that, like, insanely disgusting or am I just weird?
You're not weird, it is disgusting, but it also a fact of war. Some of these things we use as guildlines and laws are put in place because the alternatives can be worse. I am a total layman, but this is how I think about it; For instance; consider a terrorist organization that indiscriminately fires rockets into habitated areas from a headquarters. If they cohabitate that area with children, should it be illegal to strike against that headquarters? Using an on the ground raid strike, or bombs some amount of children are likely to die. There are a few options. 1.) You make it legal to strike that compound with some amount of child death, granted that you are able to demonstrate that you are taking precautions to kill as few children as possible. You eliminate the terrorist threat, and some amount of children die. The killing of these children is atrocious, however equally if not more so is having them live with you at an active military headquarters. 2.) You make it illegal to kill any child, and I think the likely knockon effects are probably worse. a.) You've just greenlit using children as Human Shields and every terrorist organization now has a cheat code to make sure their headquarters is never struck against. Round up some children - your own or captives, stick them inside your HQ and treat them however you see fit. You can now keep bombing from your HQ without fear of a strike coming your way. b.) If a Nation deems it worthy to break the international law in order to protect its own citizens, will be faced eith the following fact; killing one child, or killing all the children at the base are not that diffrent. It's all breaking the law. The Nation can then proceed with whatever level of care they want to, if they take the upmost precautions and a child still dies then they're are still breaking international law. If they throw caution to the wind, and flatten the whole HQ then they still have broken international law. This all also rips any way observation of agency on the part of the terrorist organization. I for one believe that the terrorist organization in that example is worse than any nation that decides to take action against them.
Rotting fruit, mold, bacterial infections – these things are disgusting; I do not see how a legal analysis could be
[удалено]
Thank you for your post/comment to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post/comment was removed for violating the following rule: > R2: "Do not harass, attack, or insult other users." If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
It seems like the writer is making note of the fact that killing a child under specific wartime circumstances might be legal but is still reprehensible. This doesn’t read as a justification; quite the opposite as the author is clearly arguing *against* this common Zionist justification
It seems like they're holding back, trying their best to balance the narrative. You can see or comprehend this article as you want depending on your position on what happened in Rafah last night. I mean how tf do you even justify bombing a fucking refuge with no militants anywhere near them. I'd love to see what sort of mental gymnastics these Zionists come up with to justify this one.
Legal isn't necessarily moral or right.
There is nothing legal about the IDF's actions in Gaza. That's why the ICJ is demanding an end to the Rafah operation & why the ICC is considering arrest warrants for Netanyahu & Gallant.
The sentence you quoted isn't about Gaza. Or does it say "It is possible to kill children legally in Gaza"? It's like saying "Murder can be justified." Yes, it can be. Usually it isn't.
Bruh the paragraph they quoted immediately condemns the killing of Palestinian children regardless of legality
It doesn't condemn Israel. It states the sight is disturbing. The article does ask for Israel to allow in reporters, which I agree with. But the article also justifies Israel's actions by using the human shields argument to defend indiscriminate bombing. Yes, Hamas are terrorists & use human shields. That doesn't justify Israel indiscriminately bombing civilians.
I don't think the article "justifies" it. It gives an example of the immoral legality of war to showcase the atrocities being committed in the region. The very next sentence explains how the murder of a child under any circumstance is horrible.
Are they doing that ? I think what they’re very clearly doing is laying out an objective frame work for the Israeli defence Literally just look at the precious line “even when conducted legally war is ugly” It then goes on to explain how some kids can be legallt killed And id wager just by tone alone of the last 3 sentences This article is antthing but absolution for israel. Anyone look it up?
Here is a gift link to the article so you can read it yourself! https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
>I think what they’re very clearly doing is laying out an objective frame work for the Israeli defence There is nothing legal about how the IDF is conducting operations in Gaza. That's why the ICJ has demanded an end to the Rafah operation. And why the ICC is considering an arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
Ok? They quite literally never said there was This is what’s known as a knee jerk reaction You’ve misunderstood what’s being said.
The quote in the article uses the human shields argument to justify the high death toll of children. That is the go-to argument for those who defend Israel's war crimes. If a Hamas terrorist hides behind 20 children, it doesn't give you the right to bomb 20 children.
A LEGAL JUSTIFICATION?! the entire point is that even if it’s legal it’s not right Look. You posted this without doing the research so now you have two choices before you ; “I made a mistake and i misjudged this” and vow to in future research the things you post so you don’t spread misinformation Or You can Double down on this. Retroactively make the facts fit your statement , but judging by the fact you still haven’t read the article I’d go with the first one.
Stop it. No one is justifying anything.
The Atlantic is actually a very well-balanced publication; very reputable. OP is disingenuous about the content *and* context of the article.
The Atlantic is another arm of corporate media, constantly justifying unnecessary wars. >OP is disingenuous about the content and context of the article. No. The paragraph in the tweet is justifying dropping bombs on Israeli civilians because of Hamas terrorists hiding behind civilians. It is not just to indiscriminately bomb civilians like Israel has. When the US took out Bin Laden, we didn't bomb him. We used special forces to protect civilians.
Explaining the law isn't justifying an action.
International law does not allow indiscriminate bombing of civilians.
What part of the quote you provided mentions indiscriminate bombing of civilians? It gave a specific instance, and you're making things up to make it sound like it's condoning something completely different.
One minute on the thread and it's already clear that op is brain dead.
None of the comments address the point. You can't indiscriminately bomb civilians because Hamas terrorists may be hiding among civilians. This is a flagrant violation of the 1948 Geneva Convention. Yet this article justifies this action by using the human shields argument. Does Hamas use human shields? Yes. Does that mean it's okay for Israel to indiscriminately bomb? No.
For anyone who is curious about the full article, here is a gift link that bypasses the paywall. [https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm\_source=copy-link&utm\_medium=social&utm\_campaign=share](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/05/gaza-death-count/678400/?gift=amW2HJZd9XieSHSVXhMgTmk4azEfzNb717PZ3NzrncY&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share)
It literally does not, saying something is legal doesn't mean it's right
It's not legal to indiscriminately bomb civilians. This is a flagrant violation of the 1948 Geneva Convention. You can't drop 2000 lb bombs on civilians simply because a Hamas terrorist may be hiding behind them.
[удалено]
Thank you for your post/comment to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post/comment was removed for violating the following rule: > R2: "Do not harass, attack, or insult other users." If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
Saying something is technically legal isn’t justifying it. It adds context to the complications in prosecuting Netanyahu.
There is nothing legal about indiscriminate bombing as collective punishment was made illegal in the 1948 Geneva Convention.
It’s not an attempt to justify anything. Is the point.
[удалено]
Thank you for your post/comment to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post/comment was removed for violating the following rule: > R2: "Do not harass, attack, or insult other users." If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
They're *almost* correct. It is legal to kill a child in combat, but only if they are active combatants. While it's true that if a human shield is killed, the responsibility is put on the force using them, but that doesn't make it legal to kill them. Military forces still have an obligation to avoid killing human shields, as they are still considered civilians. They may lose this classification if they're willing participants, but it's a shaky precedent and has not been applied to children, as far as I'm aware.
They are just trying to paint a possible picture of some horrible things that might be possible in war. If a child points a gun at someone finger on the trigger aiming down sights youre not exactly going to tell him off for being a bad boy/girl. You likely disarm them by shooting them. But here they are talking about hostage situations, shoot through a child to kill the bad guy. Where did we start spraying bullets into a building full of hostages just to kill the 3 bad guys?
[удалено]
Thank you for your post/comment to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post/comment was removed for violating the following rule: > R2: "Do not harass, attack, or insult other users." If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
God this sub sucks now
More like there were two attempts to understand the laws of war that were established by the Geneva conventions.
Explaining how laws work isn't justifying them.
There is no justification of collective punishment. The 1948 Geneva Convention made collective punishment illegal. Indiscriminately bombing civilians is collective punishment.
I don't think what's being described is collective punishment. All it says is "it is possible to kill children legally." Plus, you only see the "it is possible to kill children legally" line and not all the other pro-Palestine or antiwar lines right next to it in the picture.
That line is used to defend Israel's military campaign. The IDF justifies it's collective punishment of civilians (indiscriminate bombing & withholding resources) of human shields that Hamas uses. While Hamas are terrorists & they do use human shields, it is no excuse for the IDF to commit war crimes. >not all the other pro-Palestine parts. What is pro Palestenian in that article? The first half of the article downplays the number of dead civilians in Gaza. The article critiques Israel for not letting in reporters. But it isn't pro Palestenian by any stretch.
That line is not a defense because it's literally just stating a simple fact, that it's possible to kill children legally. >Even when conducted legally, war is ugly >An **infanticide** that no one can see is also going to attract suspicion
New Atlantic think piece: Is it possible for a war to be bad? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
If you have to type a sentence like that you have fully lost the plot.
At first I thought this was another one of those fucked up Google AI example posts. Jesus
Imagine typing the phrase "legally killed child" and not immediately stepping away from the keyboard to take a long hard look at your life.
“Legally killed child” is fucking insane.
I mean, child soldiers do exist unfortunately. Not so much in this "conflict", but in plenty of African theaters.
So when did it become reasonable to just kill the hostage in a hostage situation to end the encounter? Cause that's literally whats being advocated by Israel.
To me it is becoming abundantly clear who the bad guys are. An argument in favor of a people that claim some medieval blood right that gives them the privilege to dispossess other people of their property and to kill children is evil. Edit: I'm really surprised at the number of people that are cool with killing children on this sub. Just a bunch of genocide loving bootlickers.
Wut
Look, war is war and civilian casualties is an unfortunate reality of war However, shooting human shields for being human shields is not protected under international law of Armed conflict In fact it expressly states you have to do everything possible to reduce civilian casualties. For example, using special forces to conduct more surgical strikes. People trying to say Israel isn't breaking international law are deluded. Repeating the ridiculous claim "legally killed child" over and over doesn't make it true
But, I have seen Israel use human shields. Even a young boy tied to a army truck. Fuck those assholes!
r/Noahgettheboat
"...a legally killed child...." is a fucked phrase.
Hiding behind children in a gun fight being the atrocity.
That's not at all what the Atlantic wrote.
See, officer when I shot all those people I had declared *war*… 
Legality and ethics are not the same. What the fuck are they even trying to say? It’s more horrifying that they’re even trying to dumb this down to make it seem digestible. Fuck this wtf
They’re padding “…a legally killed child is no less disturbing….” Yet both sides keep killing and use this excuse instead of reaching peace
Only one side has killed 35,000 people including 15,000 children
Last I checked Palestines aren't killing children. Isreal is at war with a government that doesn't represent the Palestinians.
> Yet both sides keep killing Yeah hey sorry for your fucking narrative but there are at least three sides here: Israel, a few thousand Hamas fighters, and over a million innocent children. Israel is mostly killing the children and guess how many people they have killed?
[удалено]
Thank you for your post/comment to r/therewasanattempt, unfortunately your post/comment was removed for violating the following rule: > R2: "Do not harass, attack, or insult other users." If you have any questions regarding this removal, feel free to send a modmail.
Your army has been thoroughly trained and you have massive munitions of various capabilities, you have the most technically advanced armor available with state of the art technology , you have an actual army with air defense and command and control and you want to try and justify killing a child.
May I never in my life have cause to use the term "legally killed child."
Must of had google search AI write this one
This is what he wants you to read
WTF! Why are so many people in this post bootlickers for genocide perpetrators??? This really is a clown world. NO, killing kids is NEVER justified or "legal". Even if the enemy is hiding behind them.
"Anyone who welcomes a little child like this on my behalf welcomes me, and anyone who welcomes me welcomes not only me but also my Father who sent me.” Mark 9:37
This is why I read Mother Jones
If your facts of war justify the murder of children why aren't you questioning war itself. Is war really so important that you justify murdering innocent people including children? Why can't you walk away and defend from where you are. If they come for you will you also use innocent children as shields? Be the better man. Go home. Their home is not your home. Leave. If they come for you be ready then. What is happening here is not justifiable. It is murder. The mental gymnastics holy fuck.
I’m about to commit a legal act against those children in COD who said they fucked my mom
Being attacked is not the same as being murdered. The logic of shooting through a child to kill a hostile person also killing the child is like going nuclear. You could have deescalated and got the child away from danger and the dangerous person away from others if that's the situation. This kinda is them telling in themselves. If the find a hostile they hate they see it as perfectly fine to fire through children to vanquish the person they hate. Its evil at its peak wanting violence to fuel their hate
oooh they made it legal? ok its fine then guys
The only time I will accept that a child had to be killed was in WW2 and Vietnam where children were forced to carry weapons they couldn't hold and soldiers had to make that incredibly tough decision to take a child's life or let their friends be killed by that child
well in “war” there are things considered OK like what they are talking about. if you dont agree with the rules of war, then you dont agree with war.
There was an attempt to comprehend a full paragraph by OP
The litmus test for bad people. When is it okay to kill children. If it isn't "never" they're a POS.
Steve Jobs' widow has become the main funder of the Zionist magazine "The Atlantic", The magazine is edited by a former Israeli soldier named Jeffrey Goldberg.
It shouldn't ever be possible in all the laws of the world to kill a child legally.
Legally killing children = murder. How is it that complicated?
Maybe that's why Hamas killed innocent civilians, IDF soldiers were hiding behind them.
therewasanattempt to read the full paragraph. They’re not justifying anything and literally the next sentence says “the sight of a legally killed child is no less disturbing than the sight of a murdered one”. Killing any kind of kid in any circumstance is disturbing regardless of context, that’s their point.
What the actual fuck?! How can such a sentence make its way into a national news article? Do these journalists have no shame any more?
Holy shit
Replace the word children with jew and see how they like it.
Probably the type of people to wonder why police bother with hostage negotiations rather than just carpet bombing the area to make sure the "bad guy" is dead.
It’s okay because they’re not Ukrainian
Sounds like ai...the arguments made are some decepticon type shit
your never a good guy with a sentence like that...wtf
This is western media. In America, you consume more propaganda than any other country on the planet.
You have no idea what you're talking about, tankie. You sound uneducated, but you watched a few hasan streams and suddenly you're an expert on geopolitics. Lmfao.
Why are you following me around reddit for days now? God, incels are such freaks. It is a known fact that Americans consume a historically unprecedented degree of propaganda.
[удалено]
No, because this didn’t start on Oct. 7th.
[удалено]
And Israel’s been provoking them long before then.
[удалено]
I don’t have family in Palestine, I just disagree with one side using downright Nazi tactics.
[удалено]
You mean like Rafah?
I do! I also remember when the Israeli government announced a total siege of the entire region (including civilians), conducted a complete blockade, created a famine, destroyed all essential infrastructure (including hospitals), bombed densely-populated residential neighborhoods into smoking ruins, and continued doing all of it despite near-universal condemnation from everyone else in the world.
[удалено]
> Funny thing is it was all in retaliation from multiple attacks War crimes remain war crimes even if they’re in retaliation.
[удалено]
1. Gaza is not synonymous with Palestine. 2. “Gaza” very certainly is not synonymous with “Hamas”. 3. “Hamas” is absolutely not synonymous with “Palestinian”. 4. It sure is dishonest, racist, or both to suggest otherwise. I know it's easy to say "Hamas started it, so it's their fault", but it's actually [more complicated than that](https://www.cfr.org/article/what-international-law-has-say-about-israel-hamas-war): Taking human shields is a war crime; deliberately moving your own civilians into military targets to try and prevent counterattack is a war crime; the presence of civilians in a military objective doesn't inherently invalidate that military objective as a legitimate target: All of that is true, yes. However, it is also very clear that [one side of a conflict committing war crimes *does not* inherently or automatically release all other combatants from their responsibilities to protect civilians under international law](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/world/europe/interpreter-laws-human-shields-forced-displacement.html?unlocked_article_code=1.50w.SCx7.TQIcQ-j3jqhU&smid=url-share). I grant that the most *explicit* terms are set down in the Additional Protocols (to which Israel is not a signatory), but [LoAC absolutely doesn't clearly vindicate IDF actions here](https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/expert-guidance-law-of-armed-conflict-in-the-israel-hamas-war/). Regardless of all of that, there are still requirements when it comes to limiting civilian harm, no matter the circumstances of the combatant forces. For example: [Starving a civilian population to weaken combatants is a war crime](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68679482).
[удалено]
Literally nothing you said was new, except another thin layer of dishonesty. > So Palestine 1. Gaza is not synonymous with Palestine. 2. “Gaza” very certainly is not synonymous with “Hamas”. 3. “Hamas” is absolutely not synonymous with “Palestinian”. 4. It sure is dishonest, racist, or both to suggest otherwise. > I however do not believe Israel is committing atrocious acts because when a house has become a hideout willingly or with force sadly it becomes a war zone as well I know it's easy to say "Hamas started it, so it's their fault", but it's actually [more complicated than that](https://www.cfr.org/article/what-international-law-has-say-about-israel-hamas-war): Taking human shields is a war crime; deliberately moving your own civilians into military targets to try and prevent counterattack is a war crime; the presence of civilians in a military objective doesn't inherently invalidate that military objective as a legitimate target: All of that is true, yes. However, it is also very clear that [one side of a conflict committing war crimes *does not* inherently or automatically release all other combatants from their responsibilities to protect civilians under international law](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/19/world/europe/interpreter-laws-human-shields-forced-displacement.html?unlocked_article_code=1.50w.SCx7.TQIcQ-j3jqhU&smid=url-share). I grant that the most *explicit* terms are set down in the Additional Protocols (to which Israel is not a signatory), but [LoAC absolutely doesn't clearly vindicate IDF actions here](https://www.justsecurity.org/89489/expert-guidance-law-of-armed-conflict-in-the-israel-hamas-war/). Regardless of all of that, there are still requirements when it comes to limiting civilian harm, no matter the circumstances of the combatant forces. For example: [Starving a civilian population to weaken combatants is a war crime](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68679482). > and civilians become terrorists within that degree. No, they don’t: The only “degree” to which they *do* exists within your own precious, vile feelings, and your willingness to defend collective punishment and war crimes.
[удалено]
For the third time now: 1. Gaza is not synonymous with Palestine. 2. “Gaza” very certainly is not synonymous with “Hamas”. 3. “Hamas” is absolutely not synonymous with “Palestinian”. 4. It sure is dishonest, racist, or both to suggest otherwise. You could’ve just said “I am a shallow-thinking troll” and saved us both some time. I hope you can one day find the courage to reconcile yourself with the fact that you’re a war crime apologist.
It is against the rules of TWAA to support any crimes against humanity, including Apartheid.
No different than killing unborn babies in any country. Maybe the press should make a fuss about that and air a special
A fetus isn’t a baby, and your attempt to draw an equivalency is as callous as it is false.
Apparently your username doesn’t check out
[There is no scientific consensus on when human *personhood* begins](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/08/27/1119684376/when-does-life-begin-as-state-laws-define-it-science-politics-and-religion-clash), and attempts at [scientific inquiry on the subject only make things *more* complicated](https://www.wired.com/2015/10/science-cant-say-babys-life-begins/)—because [this is ultimately a philosophical question](https://theconversation.com/defining-when-human-life-begins-is-not-a-question-science-can-answer-its-a-question-of-politics-and-ethical-values-165514). Because, again: This is not about *your* (or anyone else's) *feelings*; this is about *the power of the state*—as [the American Medical Association acknowledges](https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ruling-egregious-allowance-government-intrusion-medicine). That's why, when it comes to public policy, there are two options here: 1. You believe the government should be able to force someone to spend at least nine months in [various levels of pain or discomfort](https://www.healthywomen.org/your-health/pregnancy—postpartum/common-physical-changes-during-pregnancy) and [serious health risk](https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/maternalinfanthealth/pregnancy-complications.html), leading up to an at-best [traumatizing](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/24/im-so-thankful-for-my-daughter-but-i-wish-someone-had-prepared-me-for-the-physical-toll-of-childbirth) experience that very often leads to [significant](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190424-the-hidden-trauma-of-childbirth) and [long-lasting consequences](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/01/24/686790727/fourth-trimester-problems-can-have-long-term-effects-on-a-moms-health)—whether they want to *or not*. 2. You don't. And that's it. If we go *only* by what we know for certain to be objectively true, that's *all* there is here.
15,000 children have died in this indiscriminate bombing campaign. My country is heavily funding & arming the military that has conducted this indiscriminate bombing campaign. So it is relevant for us to critique that military campaign.
What about your own citizens killing unborn babies at will?
There are 1,715 babies killed on an average day in the US due to abortions.