Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 903 posts

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#141

Post by hutzlibu »

riku_iki wrote: post #136
hutzlibu wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are seriously demanding of a mother who lost her children to shut up? Would you demand the same of an israeli Mother?

I said "think hard", not "shut up", then she may realize that Hamas role in death of her kids is significant, and she is a puppet for Hamas propaganda. The same is relevant to you btw.

I am a puppet for Hamas, because I say killing of children is bad and the IDF should not give up restraint while operating in densely populated ares? Ok then, I got your opinion. But in my world, things are not so black and white.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#142

Post by riku_iki »

tamimio wrote: post #112
iddan wrote: post #13

[flagged]

[flagged]

> Hamas is part if the resistance that by international law have all rights to fight the occupier by any means necessary including armed struggle

But not by deliberately targeting civilians.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#143

Post by riku_iki »

hutzlibu wrote: post #141
riku_iki wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said "think hard", not "shut up", then she may realize that Hamas role in death of her kids is significant, and she is a puppet for Hamas propaganda. The same is relevant to you btw.

I am a puppet for Hamas, because I say killing of children is bad and the IDF should not give up restraint while operating in densely populated ares? Ok then, I got your opinion. But in my world, things are not so black and white.

[flagged]

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#144

Post by riku_iki »

Chris2048 wrote: post #109
deadbabe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The target is Hamas "Two Thirds of Gaza War Dead Are Women and Children" -- https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15503.doc.htm

that person didn't provide source of information. Likely this is data from local authorities, aka Hamas.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#145

Post by hutzlibu »

jules-jules wrote: post #134

[flagged]

Maybe because the discussion is not of very high quality? Look how many downvotes there are already, it is an emotional topic and yes, even here people are having problems with maintaining a civil debate about a controversial topic. And others don't want all that flame war here, so they flag it, simple as that.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#146

Post by za3faran »

riku_iki wrote: post #135
za3faran wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as there was no clear evidence that Shireen Abu Akleh was killed by israeli snipers before they admitted it many months down the line? There are countless videos and accounts of unarmed old men and young boys being sniped by them.

[flagged]

In what's happening today, it's not hard to identify who is killing tens of thousands of civilians indiscriminately.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#147

Post by tzs »

sschueller wrote: post #11
deadbabe wrote: post #5

[flagged]

"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…

A couple weeks or so ago after some UN official was in the news for resigning in protest over what was happening in Gaza and called it a genocide, NPR interviewed someone who has actually prosecuted genocide cases and asked him if the UN official was right.

According to the prosecutor he didn't think a case could be made. The key is that "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" part.

To prove that you need statements from officials that show they intended such destruction, and those need to be officials that also had the means to carry out or cause to be carried out that destruction. Prime ministers and generals, for example.

If someone is going after legitimate military targets but a lot of members of some national, ethnical, racial or religious group is getting killed as collateral damage that is not enough to support a genocide charge. You need to statement of intent.

He added that there is a genocide case that can be made in the region--against Hamas. They have stated their intent to wipe out a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, and thousands of their attacks on Israel over the last 20+ years have been directed at purely civilian targets.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#149

Post by hutzlibu »

riku_iki wrote: post #143
hutzlibu wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a puppet for Hamas, because I say killing of children is bad and the IDF should not give up restraint while operating in densely populated ares? Ok then, I got your opinion. But in my world, things are not so black and white.

[flagged]

"I don't think we discussed this topic. What kind of restrain you are talking about now? "

Well, it surely is possible you did not read it, but just look above in the thread:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38746724

"Israel's defense minister said he has "released all restraints" on the Israel Defense Forces' troops in their fight "

Militray restrain means watching where you are shooting - and not shooting if the danger of civilian deaths are too high. The IDF officially given up on using restraint - and the number of civilian deaths and among them many, many children show it.

So fighting terror with terror? That's what it seems to me. And being called a puppet for one side, because I critize both sides - is just a very typical thing for this whole debate.

Re: Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, report claims

#150

Post by Qem »

tzs wrote: post #147
sschueller wrote: post #11

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…

A couple weeks or so ago after some UN official was in the news for resigning in protest over what was happening in Gaza and called it a genocide, NPR interviewed someone who has actually prosecuted genocide cases and asked him if the UN official was right. According to the prosecutor he didn't think a case could be made. The key is that "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religio…

> According to the prosecutor he didn't think a case could be made. The key is that "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such" part.

Moreno Ocampo, the former ICC prosecutor interviewed, actually said the opposite you're claiming. See https://www.aljazeera.com/program/upfront/2023/12/1/former-i...

Post reply on HN