I said it is likely that Israel targeted civilians.
I also said it is likely that many of their missions were properly done.
In a war like this it is fair to assume that the truth is likely in the middle.
Must watch: Hamas supporters burn Canadian flags on October 7
- Thread starter Conil
- Start date
I also said it is likely that many of their missions were properly done.
In a war like this it is fair to assume that the truth is likely in the middle.
It appears Israel attempts to do so but since Hamas controls the territory, they need to rely on Hamas, social media, and whatever sources they have in gaza. And Hamas has made clear that they will never discriminate between civilian deaths and military, both when talking about Palestinian dead and their victims in israel.
Israel, like every western military, assesses the information they have, the reliability of their information, and the risks during their process of decision making. There are cases where the information they have is incomplete and more civilians die than expected as we have seen in many American strikes over the years. Western militaries have lawyers there approving the strikes so even when mistakes are made, they are not a war crime unless there is intentionality.
Yes, many humans use actual data to form their opinions, not just their anti-semitic conspiracy theories like you did when you claimed a bunch of Biden hire were secretly Israeli citizens.
But if we were to discuss it, and if we were to make a judgement outside of the courts, then they need to present evidence that their strikes met the criteria for proportionality to be acquitted in the court of public opinion.But you just admitted that is a job for the courts, not for twitter
Of course that is something they wont.
But in a war with so much damage, they unfortunately wont be given the benefit of the doubt. .
A strike on it's own would be a war crime if they knew that there were too significant a civilian toll but chose to go ahead.
Genocide would require an extensive pattern of intentionally killing civilians because of their ethnicity.
If there was EVIDENCE that most israeli strikes violated their legal process, then an accusation of genocide would be easy to prove but as I've said repeatedly, that is a courts thing and does not rely on people like frank who obsessively search socials for posts that they think support their agenda.
They "need to"?
Sorry but the only "need" is for people like us discussing them is that although we can post our opinion, we should be willing to admit that we don't always have the information to know we are right.
If they dont want public opinion to accuse them of war crimes, then they do need to.
Willingness to admit that we dont always have the information to know we are right, includes, admitting that there may have been possible war crimes.
Which is what I have done.
Why do you keep lying about the Lancet?
The Lancet said using a ratio of combat deaths to overall deaths in poorly documented conflicts, it is likely there are a large number of dead BECAUSE OF THE CONFLICT and in addition to Israel, Hamas and gangs in gaza are playing a role.
But to a devout racist like you, you refuse to even admit that Arabs are capable of having culpability.
So you're now talking about manipulating public opinion instead of law and yes, the Palestinians do a much better job of capitalizing, especially on social media.
Everything in media is manipulation. Maybe your more comfortable with the term bias but most people are quite aware that messaging is often pushed with an agenda. That's why countries like Russia put so much into their troll farms.
Marshall McLuhan had a lot to say about it as have many since him. To paraphrase Von Clausewitz, media is diplomacy by other means.
And intentionally did not comment on anything at all written in that letter. Placing that letter in the letters to the editor section is not a validation. Nobody who was authorized to speak on behalf of the Lancet, did so.
Are you claiming that if trump wrote a letter to the Lancet and they published it, it means that they are vouching that what trump says is the truth? Because that is what you're claiming.
When you say 'random' you mean, the UN, ICC, ICJ, Amnesty, HRW, B'tselem, CBC, Haaretz and a million others.
So you never have to prove any claims that you were targeting a terrorist.
If Hamas shows up at the ICC and says 'we thought the rave was full of terrorists' you'd let them all free, right?
Your logic is fucked.
Hospitals and schools are civilian infrastructure, its terrorism to target them.
Warnings don't mean you can target civilians, you are obliged to make sure there are no civilians present before attacks.
If he read any serious publication and semi serious publication that included letters to the editor, he would quickly understand they they often print letters that are not line with their general direction as well as letters critical of articles.
His continued insistence AFTER we showed him the link and the cut and paste from lancet itself shows both a sad lack of knowledge that anyone over the age of 25 who is well educated should have as well as a lack of ability to understand even simple concepts [or just blinded with hate.
I'd say terb could use some rules about both trolls [Mitchell cough cough] and rules against people who to use a phrase buried someone in the rules are not engaged in sincere debate. However since the rules on hate speech are obviously not enforced, why bother.
The numbers will be much higher soon.
No food has entered Gaza in 2 weeks.
I'm sure you'll be excited with this news but also thinking how Israel should kill the people who reported this.
