Is it even worth reading anymore after so many lies?
Israeli journalists can’t really say anything else…
In one notable incident, the ultra-orthodox leftwing journalist Israel Frey posted a video saying Kaddish (the Jewish prayer for the dead) for the victims of the Hamas slaughter and Palestinian civilians under fire in Gaza.
Soon afterwards, an anonymous user of the Telegram messaging platform published his address, which was shared widely by rightwing groups, and a mob turned up outside, lobbing fireworks at his windows, forcing him to flee with his family. He is now in hiding.
Soon afterwards, an anonymous user of the Telegram messaging platform published his address, which was shared widely by rightwing groups, and a mob turned up outside, lobbing fireworks at his windows, forcing him to flee with his family. He is now in hiding.
Wow, attacking Jew, that’s very antisemite.
So they’re now doing pogroms on their own people.
They’re racist against the actual Palestinian race Jews that lived there for 100s of years because they look like Arabs and not like the European jews. They probably think Mozes was a white dude.
israel is such a massive racist hypocrisy meme that movies that made me go “wow that’s completely unrealistic humans would never be that stupid” now makes me go “yeah that makes sense”.
Reminds me of what happened to the teacher who shared the cartoon of mohammed.
The problem isn’t any of the religions, it’s the far right extremists.
That’s why their actions are so similar, the religion honestly doesn’t matter at that point
religion itself is a fire accelerant
The problem isn’t any of the religions
Have you… read any of the texts?
It’s okay to say some of the shit in these religions is morally reprehensible on its face and not just because someone is interpreting it wrong.
The point is that every religion has problematic shit, because when they were made up society was less developed then now.
And back then when a new religion showed up, the major one usually tried to stamp it out with violence. So any new religion that wasn’t also violent, got wiped out pretty quickly.
The problem with religion is the tiny percentage who are far right extremists insisting that rules from over a thousand years ago need to be followed by everyone, and exactly by their interpretation. Not the vast majority who take the general message but understand shits changed since it was written.
Like, you get that right?
I thought I was being clear, but lots of people don’t seem to be getting it…
Society was no less developed 3000 than it is now. When you look at “modern society” they are no better than the Nazi’s in 1940 standing right behind another genocide for decades. Our society is morally bankrupt.
Humans are humans. Humans have not changed. We have funny phones and clothes now, but our hands brains and eyes are exactly the same as 3000 years ago.
That’s crazy how Jainism is still around then with tenets like non violence.
Anyway, I wonder if you realize you just implied that the far right extremists of any given religion are interpreting their religion correctly (i.e. closer to the original author’s intent) by virtue of being violent.
Like I said, it’s fine to just say a religion is morally bankrupt.
Wow, an example of a religion made up primarily of isolated monks that make up about 0.05% of world population…
Weird how that’s the most common example you could think of.
But I’m not getting into a slap fight about this. Which seems to be what your looking for, so you might get want to look elsewhere
Na I think you just realized you accidentally argued the problem IS the religions.
Its quite blatantly obvious nobody who comkits atrocities in the name of the text actually reads the texts. If they did they wouldn’t find time to do the atrocities or generally spread chaos.
“Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
Isis and Hamas are literally doing what their holy book tells them to.
I’m open to other interpretations of what that verse means but it seems pretty clear to me.
This verse is about going to war with people who broke a peace treaty. You skipped the parts before that.
As for the polytheists who have honoured every term of their treaty with you and have not supported an enemy against you, honour your treaty with them until the end of its term. Surely Allah loves those who are mindful ˹of Him˺.
Religion is just one of the tools used by fascism. Another lever of power to be bent and broken to ensure absolute control.
I’m not saying this story isn’t true. But keep in mind this source has a heavy pro-Israel bias. I’d prefer to see a more independent source present this story.
Even if it is true, it’s still a hospital. Israel isn’t demonstrating that it’s being used exclusively by Hamas to commit acts of terror.
If an enemy is hiding behind a human shield, that’s not an excuse to shoot the hostage.
The rules of war do not state it has to be used exclusively to commit attacks to be a legal target.
Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]
While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action.[41]
Reading through these threads since the Hamas attack, this point is lost on 99% of people here.
Newsflash - combatants don’t just get to set up shop in a church or hospital to have their opponents throw up their hands in defeat.
People bitch at Israel but don’t say a god damn thing about Hamas effectively painting a target on the building they occupy.
Why do you guys keep comparing what a terrorist organization does compared to a government?
If you are doing the same things as terrorists, then you are a terrorist organization and not a government.
Hamas is both a terrorist group and the government of the Gaza strip. I’m surprised that fact escaped you
Hamas is a “government” the same as the taliban or Al Qaeda.
IIRC Israel regularly attempts to warn people before striking to give non-combatants time to leave and makes a point of NOT using their citizens as human shields.
That different enough for you?
Different flavors, one can do whatever because everyone already despises them, the other is trying for plausible deniability.
Mocha vs french vanilla
That’s an awful lot of words to say “shoot the hostages.”
The rules of war aren’t about perfection, they’re very much a do not let perfect be the enemy of good, and filled with compromises to do less evil.
If you want protections for medical staff you have to clear a section of ground for them that isn’t used for war.
It’s important to realize these rules were agreed to in order to try to prevent total war. Where carpet bombs flattened entire cities like what happened in Dresden.
War is horrific. Those that wage war unleash hell. We cannot make war logically or compassionate. We can try to afford safety nets for those to help others and reduce harm in war. However, the rules do not elimt harm for “innocents.” They simply offer a way to have less civilian casualties by doing things like not running a command center out of a hospital.
It’s important to realize these rules were agreed to
Who agreed? The same countries that selectivity pick and choose which international laws to adhere to and invade the hague for those they dislike?
Can you point at anyone in Russia or US tried for war crimes yet? who the fuck are these rules for, just for internet points?
deleted by creator
Am i justified in killing the baby someone is using as a hostage to kill the hostage taker?
The Geneva convention says yes. It’s it moral, no. However our current agreed upon rules for war would allow it.
This is actually a good question.
Law of War is often referred to as the law of armed conflict (LOAC). This is what is permissively legal to do, if you are engaged in conflict.
The Rules of Engagement (ROE) are directives regarding the exact circumstances United States (US) forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement.
Has the hostage takers used force such as firing a weapon to take the hostage? Did they fire at US forces? Did they deploy munitions of any type? Has there been an escalation of combat or have they disarmed? Is there an immediate threat to the hostage? Have they threatened to kill the hostage? Are they retreating or advancing? Are the hostages prisoners of war? Are they being provided the required treatment for POWs?
All of these and many more can determine the rules of engagement for US forces.
The ROE is separate to the rules of war and not all forces have the same methodology. In fact some nonUS forces may receive no training for LOAC or ROE.
Finally, the current interpretation post 9-11 is that those that do not follow the LOAC are not legally combatants and therefore do not have to be provided the protections that they would if they were legally combatants. So, if they engage in war in a way that does not follow the legal methods they may not hide behind the protections.
Was it actually the Hospital or the parking lot ?
deleted by creator
Why is this hard for people to understand?
Here to commiserate 🖖
The original source of the attack was from Hamas…so there’s that. And most sources outside these two bubbles tend towards the misfired missle from Gaza as the most likely explanation.
It could be that the IDF is possibly lying.
What’s an IOF?
Israeli Offence Force
Ahh, i see. Thanks.
