261–270 of 968 posts
What is striking about these casualties, is many of the reported deaths also include large numbers of family members of the deceased, killed at the same time. So what is it then? The plausible deliberate targeting of the journalists mentioned? Or just, plain old indiscriminate bombing? Either ways, shame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
30k dead (from Hamas source) including at least 10k terrorists over a population of 2.2M is nowhere close to a genocide. Only hamas supporters are claiming it's a genocide.
Geneva Convention - article II: > 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: > (a) Killing members of the group; > (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; > (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physic…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has also been one of the deadliest wars for civilians in general. Also when you’re using such a loose definition of journalist obviously the deaths would be greater.
Are you saying this war has a higher civilian casualty ratio that other wars? Sadly history shows that civilians have been casualties of war at high rates compared to combatants. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey Dang, huge fan of HN. How do you reconcile HN's political neutrality and the fact that almost every overtly political story that hits the front page about certain subjects[1] are blatantly biased on one side? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39435324
I think it's a legit concern and it worries me too. We can only go by the articles that users submit, and then only the subset we see, which is a function of (a) randomness and (b) users bringing specific cases to our attention. If there's a bias in the stories that have made HN's front page, that bias is present in the underlying data (I mean this stream of articles) to begin with. Why might that be? Well, there are…
If there is no such thing as objective truth, then nobody has any foundation upon which to make any judgements, and therefore power alone becomes the ultimate arbiter or conflict.
The idea that there is no objective truth is a core tenet of fascism.
So in a "curious" place you would expect openness to new explanations, but you would also expect one-sided-ness because there is an objective truth to approach and the purpose of curiosity is to approach that truth.
If there is no objective truth, there is no reason to be curious.
If there is an objective truth, then there is no reason to complain about one-sided-ness because what matters is our best approximation of the truth.
A quote from Yale professor of history Timothy Snyder's book: On Tyranny
To abandon facts is to abandon freedom.
If nothing is true, then no one can criticize
power, because there is no basis upon which
to do so. If nothing is true, then all is
spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for
the most blinding lights.Earlier quoted context omitted.
Geneva Convention - article II: > 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: > (a) Killing members of the group; > (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; > (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physic…
So all the points in your list are qualifying October 7 attack from Hamas on Israel as a genocide attempt. I agree with you. Response to that is a war.
Seriously, think about what "just" war and multiple % civilian deaths mean, then for people who believe in New World Order / Great Replacement, why isn't this justification for the holocaust rather than the defense of Israel? I get the anger, but not the rationale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also worth seeing if there's a historical pattern of behaviour: "One Martyr Down: The Untold Story Of A Canadian Peacekeeper Killed At War" - https://legionmagazine.com/one-martyr-down-the-untold-story-... A Canadian Army Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener was assassinated after the IDF "accidentally" bombed a United Nations post that he was posted at - soon after he reported war crimes that he witnessed the IDF doi…
For context, Major Paeta Hess-von Kruedener emailed [1] days before saying that Hezbollah were using his positions and the IDF was being forced to fire on them out of "tactical necessity". This isn't as clear-cut as you're attempting to paint it. 1 - https://web.archive.org/web/20061010012455/http://www.canada...
A senior UN official, asked about the information contained in Maj. Hess-von Kruedener's e-mail concerning Hezbollah presence in the vicinity of the Khiam base, denied the world body had been caught in a contradiction.
"At the time, there had been no Hezbollah activity reported in the area," he said. "So it was quite clear they were not going after other targets; that, for whatever reason, our position was being fired upon.
"Whether or not they thought they were going after something else, we don't know. The fact was, we told them where we were. They knew where we were. The position was clearly marked, and they pounded the hell out of us."
---
This part states the area was being bombed prior to reports of Hezbollah activity in the area, so yes - the confusion will muddy it.
Nonetheless, he had recently reported IDF war crimes - and the IDF at minimum coincidentally was responsible for killing him; with this seemingly contradictory statement by a senior UN official.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Why not, if “losing that war” means being slaughtered and starved indiscriminately and pushed out of your homeland?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not, if “losing that war” means being slaughtered and starved indiscriminately and pushed out of your homeland?
Again, words have meanings even if you don't like them. There is nothing indiscriminate about Israel's actions, which somehow have not been able to match Hamas's one day total of slaughtered and raped civilians. War is awful and I hope that Hamas surrenders soon to end it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The rules of war are completely out the door when one side routinely pretends to be civilian, which is a war crime. Which is not to say it’s just to go committing whichever crimes you want, but discussing legal rights is largely pointless because it is immediately a lawless war.
No, one side of a conflict cannot ignore the rules simply because the other side does. It also seems an especially poor argument when one side is a nuclear-armed, highly modern military power and the other a lighltly armed militia.