101–110 of 903 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
How do you know that? I know that many people fall into this pattern, but like I said, we lack the concrete examples in this case.
At the beginning of the conflict I noticed my feed was fully leaning towards supporting Israel, even if it was only the posts of 3 people. Somehow the 30+ people demanding the stop to the bombing of civilians didn't really start appearing until late November. They were posting the entire time, but Meta's algorithm decided not to show it to me.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends on the context. I very much agree, that I cannot take anyone seriously talking about human right abuse and not ever condemning Hamas. But I don't think that one has to say it everytime, when critizing deaths of children. And we don't know the concrete examples in question.
> one has to say it everytime, when critizing deaths of children. One should propose plan to solve problem without those deaths, or his words just become propaganda.
A mother whose childs have just been killed and who never supported Hamas in any way absolutely has the right to critize the bombings that killed her family, without having to present a working geopolitical plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> one has to say it everytime, when critizing deaths of children. One should propose plan to solve problem without those deaths, or his words just become propaganda.
Erm, no? A mother whose childs have just been killed and who never supported Hamas in any way absolutely has the right to critize the bombings that killed her family, without having to present a working geopolitical plan.
[flagged]
Nearly 7 times the amount of people than died in 9/11, and using illegal tactics such as starvation, along with hateful/genocidal rhetoric ("We are fighting human animals", "put to death men and women, children and infants").
Is it relevant that there are a lot more Palestinians left to suffer; Or does that make it more urgent to end it?
Here's one definition of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention It doesn't mention anything about percentages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Children have always been treated differently because they are fully and absolutely dependent on their care givers. A puppy and a grown dog don’t actually apply here because we’re talking about humans and not dogs. It’s not even appropriate to make that comparison here.
It just means you're selfishly unconcerned with the consequences of collateral damage up until it might be something that could figure out a way to waltz over and bite back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"People have somehow been convinced a small amount of civilians being killed relative to the whole population is somehow a “genocide”" Per UN definition[1]: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: - Killing members of the group; - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members…
The target is Hamas. Some innocents are dying, but the intent isn’t to deliberately kill them. And there is no evidence any of those other criteria are even happening.
"Two Thirds of Gaza War Dead Are Women and Children"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"People have somehow been convinced a small amount of civilians being killed relative to the whole population is somehow a “genocide”" Per UN definition[1]: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: - Killing members of the group; - Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members…
For contrast is there a conflict where people have been killed that doesn't meet that definition of genocide?