231–240 of 695 posts
When a foreign country kills US citizens, it's terrorism. When the US kills foreign civilians it's collateral damage or a UI disaster ... business as usual.
Intent and regret tells you what someone will do in the future.
When a foreign country kills US citizens, it's terrorism. When the US kills foreign civilians it's collateral damage or a UI disaster ... business as usual.
Equating an accidental shootdown of a civilian plane during a war, with the intentional killing of civilians as a stategy employed by e.g. jihadist is deeply disingenuous.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isreal has been trying to keep their morals for decades using defensive measures. They constructed probaby best in the world air defense systems to protect their civilians daily. They could just send one rocket for one they were targetted by instead and Gaza would be inhabitable decades ago. So when they were rewarded for their restraint on 7 Oct with savagery I'm not really surprised that huge part of the world give…
[flagged]
However, if we really were to do this comparison. The Israelis have have been way to nice. The Palestinians have been on the loosing side of 4-5 wars - its unprecedented. To the victor goes the spoils, thats how it is in the real world.
If there is cause for a Palestinian state, then there is also cause for a Jewish state. Problem is the Palestinians rejects this notion and want the Jewish state gone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a good point, why didn't they seek visual confirmation first?
Another US ship was attacked by Iraqi Exocet missiles beyond visual range on the same region just one year before. US had also attacked Iran assets in the year before after one US ship was damaged by Iranian mines. Tensions were very high.
Wasn't this in Iranian territorial waters. I don't quite see how that held up as a justification for the retaliations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine is pretty low on civ casualties. Look at Gaza, or the Iraq/Vietnam invasions compare numbers (civ casualties AND time it took) and then draw conclusions on the use of the word genocide. I also would abstain from using "russians" (or USAers, or Israelis) when referring to actions of the respective govts. Keeps the discussion cleaner of generalizations wrt people that may totally not suppor…
If you watch combat footage from eastern Ukraine, you will learn that many frontline towns and villages have been completely leveled by artillery. See for example[1]. And I don't have to mention Bucha[2] and other war crimes. The relatively low civilian casualty count isn't because "Russians are so noble", but because: 1. Frontlines are static, giving civilians plenty of time to evacuate 2. Civilians actually have wh…
> The relatively low civilian casualty count isn't because "Russians are so noble"
I was not arguing their nobility, I was saying the word genocide may have been to easily used in Ukraine's case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That’s a stupid comparison because the USSR intentionally shot down a plane without trying to contact it and then didn’t cooperate at all on search efforts. I don't know much about either incident, but your summary sounds exactly what the OP is saying: "Here are the reasons the Russians did it. It's different, because they're evil". One side was lying about thinking it was a spy plane, but the other side legitimate…
> "Here are the reasons the Russians did it. It's different, because they're evil" No. The OP was talking about generally thinking that the Russians are evil and the US is great. Whereas the comment you're replying to gave specific malicious things that happened in the Russian case and didn't in the US case. The difference between the way people acted in the two cases is clear and doesn't require any particular polit…
What's wild to me is the assumption that Iran would suddenly launch a single F-14 fighter to attack a ship. Was there no moment where they thought "maybe there has been a mistake?" - like where Stanislav Petrov chose to interpret the Soviet early warning system telling him an ICBM was incoming as being a result of some faulty instruments.
Granted the stakes were slightly different - downing one airliner is less severe than risking starting a global nuclear annihilation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're seriously suggesting that attacking unarmed civilians intentionally, killing parents in front of their children and then kidnapping the children, slaughtering defenseless party-goers, etc. is what I any resistance movement would do, that's ridiculous. If Hamas would only have attacked military targets, there would be no legitimacy to Israel's actions. However, what actually happened was that they attacked p…
To paraphrase JFK, those who make peaceful resistance impossible make violent resistance inevitable.
Hamas’ and Palestinian Jihad’s violence is a predictable response to Israel’s abandonment of two-party talks and its right wing’s ascendency within its politics. That doesn’t justify gunning down kids at a concert.
Similarly, the IDF levelling much of Gaza in retribution was a predictable repercussion of killing Israeli civilians, including children. That doesn’t make their deaths fair.