Israel is trying to pull a “if the glove doesn’t fit, you must acquit” sleight of hand here.
Even if it were a Hamas command center, that does not justify withholding food and medicine from the hospital.
Even if it were a Hamas command center, that does not justify conducting their brutal attacks on civilians elsewhere.
Even if it were a Hamas command center, that does not justify destroying the infrastructure that civilians require in order to survive.
They are going to make sure there is a command center there, because their entire narrative has become that if Hamas uses civilians as human shields (even if there is literally not enough space for civilians to go anywhere else anyways), then Israel is justified killing civilians.
That’s is false on its own, but more importantly, they are not only attempting to kill Hamas, they are also attempting to kill and displace large numbers of civilians, and we know this because their own government ministries and employees are putting together reports and doing news interviews about how they should displace Palestinians from Gaza.
They would not be making those reports and statements if they thought the government was against it; that would be career-ending. They feel comfortable making those reports and statements precisely because they know that their government is on board with that. They are getting people comfortable with hearing it, for when they actually do it.
I saw them taking a BBC journalist in and pointing out a “Hamas Stash”, it was like one gun, some shoes, and a pile of blankets. If that’s the stuff you think you’re fighting against then you’re ok, calm down, stop sniping medical staff.
Definitely. Humanity is fucked. I have this username name because I had some extremly bad people fucking with me and no cops would help me. So now I hate America. I used to look at older people meant to help and guide with tears in my eyes and no one did shit.
Community is a lie where I am.
Now I have thick skin and a hardened personality and couldn’t give a shit about anyone or USA or Police.
It’s a fake community of real monsters only out for themselves and the power they can get to dominate others.
Cops won’t help you or I because we’re not the capitalist class. It’s even worse if you’re a minority. And same with most other people, unfortunately.
I live in small town South Dakota where people like to imagine they’re friendly, but they’re some of the most fucked up people you’ll ever have the displeasure to meet. I have the bad luck genetically to look like “one of the boys,” and so other men have disclosed to me their most unhinged thoughts and opinions, thinking I’ll agree. Don’t let them fool you – they’d absolutely commit murder or worse to get what they want.
I often think the best chance we’ve got is to curate a small group of people and live apart from all this. And what my husband’s been through too when he was a child, it makes me enraged. It’s like he says, humans are the most fucked up animal on the planet, and literally everything on earth would be better with us out of the picture.
That’s simply not true. If you hide ammunition, fighters amongst civilians, to use the as meat shield or their deaths as propaganda, they become collateral damage.
It’s horrible, but Hamas is counting on this! They could avoid this, by not hiding behind their own people.
Targeting civilians specificaly is a war crime.
EDIT: please, do explain how it’s ok to hide behind civilians… sorry, this doesn’t help
True, they (israel government) fucked up the place, in so many ways. They’re not the only actors, but they’re the ones with most power and possibilities.
They are still effing up, because we’re talking about men of war with stupidly large guns, afraid (with good reason) for their whole people, who maybe know victims, know a hostage… everybody knows what happens when warriors are mad… so why the fuck poke that bear?
There’s no good move. If israel doesn’t react, hamas will attack again, because hamas wants to exterminate every jew, not peace. If they react, they have to take out civilians because hamas uses them as human shields. And now with all that rage, the most racists and extremists from each side will have a chance to assuage their bloodlust.
Hamas have ruined Gaza’s future in a way that, in almost 3 decades of following this conflict, I never thought would be possible. And the racists in Israels government are living their wet dream.
so if hamas is exploiting civilians for their own protection, they should kill their victims too? cool dude. you’re totally not justifying killing civilians! it’s not technically a war crime, so its fine! fuck. off.
What is it with beehaw users and being super eager to kill kids?
Youre the 5th Ive seen who is just so damn excited to excuse killing civilians. You understand thats not a normal thing for rational adults to want, yes?
oh, sorry, did you not say killing crowds of civilians in the hopes that a hamas member was among them was a totally excusable act, and labelled as just unfortunate collateral damage in war?
I could have sworn you said that, but my lemmy app does bug out sometimes, maybe I clicked on the wrong comment.
So you dont think killing crowds of innocent people in the hope that there might have been a terrorist among them is excusable?
If you hide ammunition, fighters amongst civilians, to use the as meat shield or their deaths as propaganda, they become collateral damage.
Huh. Weird, that looks like your text copy and pasted right here, where you say that killing civilians under the claim of targeting “hidden fighters” among their ranks is excusable collateral damage of war.
Same argument used to defend the atomic bombing of hiroshima, another well known war crime. The city had a well established military headquarters and arms depot, tucked away in the center of civilian housing and business, after all. Just more collateral damage, right?
No, see, cause Im not some sadistic loser, I understand you can address threats in a crowd without killing the crowd.
There are plenty of non lethal incapacitation weapons that are specifically designed for hostiles surrounded by civilians. There are plenty of options for not killing innocent people that arent “guess I gotta die!”
You arent being argued against in bad faith, youre just being argued against by decent human beings. I know, shocking for you, but normal folk arent excited to kill palestinians.
that frankly isn’t the situation that we’re dealing with. the idea that israel either has to let Hamas operate unchallenged or kill civilians is a vast oversimplification of how conflict works, and giving the IDF blanket permission to kill civilians if it also hurts Hamas is fucking monstrous. you suck.
all civilian casualties are inadmissible. its not wrong, its a moral imperative, and one that the state of Israel is blatantly disregarding. the framing that “okay, these civilian causalities are okay” is fucking monstrous, and gives a ready made excuse for Israel to escalate violence in Gaza.
You’re right, the Israeli should just say “too bad guys, they have hostages, we can’t shoot in that direction, check mate” and let hamas slaughter them
the scenario you’re imagining doesn’t exist. this isn’t a rock paper scissors thing, where Israel either shoots through hostages to kill insurgents or dies themselves. if Hamas is hiding amongst civilians, they aren’t attacking Israel, they’re hiding. if they’re attacking Israel, they aren’t in a crowd of Palestinian civilians. the IDF does not need to have a shootout with civilians in the crossfire to protect its people. the IDF does not need to bomb civilian residences to wage war against an insurgency.
you are so willing to conflate the two, assume that Israel must kill or be killed themselves. that is a fucking falsehood. there is so fucking much a military force can do to defend against attack that doesn’t involve shelling apartment buildings, shooting into crowds, and otherwise being monsters.
for what it’s worth i think we’ve about exhausted what can be said on this topic past your own comment; i don’t think further responses between you and @khalic will really go anywhere and i’ve already nuked a bunch of the discussion downthread because it devolved completely.
No one is saying “all these civilian casualties are ok”, stop oversimplifilying the situation.
I know it’s tempting to make blanket statements about moral imperatives from your armchair, religion has been doing that to us for centuries, but it turns out the real world is actually full of moral dilemmas, where there IS no outcome where no one dies, and all you can do is pick the least bad option.
“All civilian casualties are inadmissible” is the coldest of cold takes, right there next to, “well I don’t think anyone should have a war at all!” Like, great, thanks, why didn’t anyone think of that?
i don’t think anyone should have a war at all. there, are you happy? i’m frankly uninterested in litigating what hypothetical circumstances under which it might be okay to kill a civilian.
I would argue a blanket statement of “killing civilians is always reprehensible” is a vast oversimplification of how conflict works.
Yeah, it sucks, war sucks, and it often turns out that the least bad option involves a decision where innocent people die. I know it feels like a hot take to say we shouldn’t give blanket permission to kill civilians, but it turns out no one is claiming that.
This thread makes it clear that lemmy commenters are not equipped to debate the vanilla trolly problem, let alone the Iranian/Palestinian conflict.
“killing civilians is always reprehensible” as a moral statement has nothing to do with the mechanics of conflict. i’m telling you what i believe. giving room for acceptable civilian casualties in a moral framework provides a ready made justification for bad actors, that so long as they present a situation as looking enough like the acceptable kind of civilian casualty then its fine that an innocent person was killed.
i am taking issue with the rhetoric of acceptable casualties. no. there are only casualties, and they are all horrific. rhetoric that is not an explicit condemnation of war can be used as a justification for it.
Anytime you are doing any kind of military or police action within a civilian area there is always the risk of unintended civilian harm.
If police and military forces took this doctorine that any amount of risk is too much then they simply would be unable to operate.
There has to be a certain amount of acceptable civilian risk and that should be proportional to the threat you are attempting to stop.
Just to clarify, I’m not advocating that Israel is taking acceptable risks. But I am advocating that those risks will always exist with ANY police or military action and the primary debate is over where the red line of acceptable/unacceptable is.
Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas in the world, it’s also majority landlocked and has been under a naval and air blockade for nearly 2 decades.
You can make the case about the selection of which some specific civilian areas Hamas utilizes are intended to maximize the outage if struck, but ultimately there is NOWHERE inside Gaza that isn’t a civilian area, period. It’s just a matter of degrees i.e. retail shops vs schools.
Just looked at the gaza satellite map to be sure. There are kms of fields between the border and most cities. They’re cowards hiding behind their people.
Those are literally watched by automated and remote control machine guns, as well as 24/7 surveillance drones.
So you’re military strategic insight is to sit in an open field, just outside of range of the remote control 50 cal turrets, and wait for the drone to drop a PGM?
Feel free to browse my comment history. I’m no apologist for terrorists acts, but I’m also not blind to the realities on the ground, and what obstacles any opposition militant group within Gaza would have to plan around.
No, I’m saying that any military strategy has to operate around it’s own operational and environmental constraints, and the capabilities and obstacles of the opposing force.
Whatever you’re opinions are on any conflict, you should still understand that rational actors will respond accordingly to their constraints.
Rational doesn’t mean moral, it means they have a clear mission and objective, and a plan to achieve it.
You’re suggesting that instead of being combat effective, they should instead suicide themselves by operating in an open field in close proximity, and with no cover, to a vastly superior force. That would be irrational.
Who gives a fuck if it’s combat effective when it kills your people? If you’re not fighting for the lives of your people? What are you fighting for? In the case of Hamas, the answer is in their charter: kill all jews. They admit it themselves ffs.
I’m providing an extremely high level and simplified outline of the operational and strategic constraints for militants operating within Gaza, not moral commentary on it.
If you want my opinions, or moral judgments, feel free to browse my comment history. Jump into any of those conversations if you disagree.
Sorry, I get your point. It’s getting late here, I got carried away. You are right, it’s a tactically valid choice, but I really hope I’d kill myself before I do something like that, but life can fuck you up real bad so who knows…
Hamas could argue that the IDF is hiding behind their civilian population as well. It’s simply not a coherent defense for indiscriminate violence, you can’targue that one side is collateral damage and the other are victims.
Israel claims they are only striking “based on intelligence” but its obvious from the reports inside Gaza that this is not true, they’re bombing at random with the explicit goal of punishing Gazan civilians for being blockaded in Gaza with Hamas.
Australia has a lot of distributed grid capacity. Some of the highest rooftop solar numbers (to the point where curtailment is an issue). And this stuff with vehicle-to-load/vehicle-to-grid capacity is a possible way to continue doubling down on that stuff.
It's a weird market. If they play their cards right, Australia -- particularly because of its mineral resources -- will become a huge part of a green energy transition. Though they'll have to commit quite seriously to make it happen.
Decentralizing the grid is a great way to build resilience. It saves lives. But it's tough when you have private capital natural monopolies, especially vertically-integrated ones (as is the norm in the US), in charge of operation. You have to align incentives towards lowering cost, improving resiliency, and meeting growth. Rather than incentivizing giant, absurd capital investment, discouraging maintenance and infrastructure, and pitting the utilities against consumers.
I can't help but smell an orphan crushing machine somewhere in this story. Or maybe just a regular old BEV ad. But this kind of stuff really does need to be the future if we want our species to survive.
Great news everyone! Hopefully the system works well and other cities will follow suit. I know in the USA (in the few places we do have public transit) the argument for keeping fares is always 1.we don’t want to pay taxes for that and 2.if we charge that’ll keep the vagrants from using it. Two arguments that make no sense at all, 1. We already pay taxes for the public transit, why pay more to actually use it? And 2.anyone who has used public transit knows the fare doesn’t keep vagrants out.
In the short term, there’s also a lack of capacity. Fares function as a limiter on the number of people using it. Too many people for your capacity? Raise prices. Spare capacity? Lower prices.
This can be solved by increasing capacity, but it takes time to figure out what the capacity necessary actually is and then buying more trains/buses and hiring/training drivers.
My home city of Riga tried to do that after success in Tallinn. The mayor thought of releasing special Riga cards to residents. The issue was that many people come to Riga for work from other cities, towns and villages and they got angry to pay for transport. So mayor said to declare themselves in Riga instead of their home towns. That caused an uproar from town councils as that meant that they will lose all the tax income and won’t be able to provide local services. And Riga is already home to a third of the country’s population, so town budgets are overstretched.
In the end the government had to step in and ban the whole thing. The end.
They (under Epic Games) fired half their workforce. More specifically pretty much everyone who wrote for Bandcamp Daily. Thats about the only change so far.
Attacking SUV drivers is precisely the wrong way to go about reversing the surrender of the public realm to the automobile and it is exactly the right way to start another immature culture war , alienating a lot of potential allies in the fight to reclaim out streets .
Exactly this. There are some clear use cases for cars and even for SUVs (possibly only if you literally live or work on a large farm). There’s no case for driving an SUV in a city. It’s antisocial behaviour at best and actively threatening at worst!
It makes the roads safer and that saves lives. It reduces pollution, saving more lives. It also saves space. That doesn’t save lives, granted, but it’s still a good thing.
If we accept any use cases for cars (and I do, personally), even if it’s primarily in the short to medium term while we build better urban infrastructure, then we should also advocate for those cars to be as small, as safe and as clean as possible.
A street filled with VW Golfs instead of Land rovers, still afforded the vast majority of space in town, still given priority at every turn and still transporting one or two people at a time, doesn’t move us much further forwards .
As is covered in the article, explaining the environmental impact of SUVs to SUV owners does not change their mind or encourage them to get a different car; it is effectively ignored.
So that is where ideas like the deflators come in, you make it more inconvenient, maybe that will work where polite discussion did not.
To be honest, I’m sick of trying to politely persuade people to stop killing other people with their idiotic cars. All cars are bad, yes. SUVs are the worst. It’s perfectly reasonable to try to solve a wicked problem by going for the worst offenders first.
Dude, i don’t know what to twll you but IMO ramen noodles are friggin’ expensive here compared to the US. 4 for 1$ VS 1 for .75/.90€… ramen noodles aint the go to here for cheap eats.
Hands are actually pretty easy to injure, and modern medicine is the reason most of us get to keep them all our lives. I've known enough farmers and construction workers who are missing digits to assume a significant number are likely to be from injury in agricultural or hunting contexts. Frostbite would be another easy source of injury depending on climate.
While I could see a possible religious practice coming out of reverence for injured hands contributing too, this seems like the age old archeology practice of assuming anything is intentionally done for religious reasons if they don't have a neat and tidy singular explanation.
This is so depressing…
I knew it would be bad, but not this bad. Only comfort I can take is in the fact that they’ll have to form a coalition with other major parties. Most of them already flat-out denied working together with the PVV (Partij Voor de Vrijheid - Party For Freedom) but we’ll see how much of that will remain true.
Hopefully the coalition will break and we’ll have new elections in a year or so.
I can’t see a coalition of PVV, NSC, BBB and VVD serving the full 4 years. NSC and BBB are completely new, and the last time PVV was in a coalition they let it fall…
They don’t need the BBB though. PVV, NSC and VVD should be good for an 81 seat majority.
But yes, I pretty much expect the coalition to fall within a year or two (should they manage to get a coalition to begin with). The question is who will cause the fall and who will be scapegoated. I wouldn’t be surprised if they’ll be positioning themselves for this inevitability from the start.
I allow myself to spend 4 hours per year in the presence of my brother. I do it so my parents can have the family together for Christmas dinner. Other than that we have not communicated in 5 years.
theguardian.com
Top