this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2023
248 points (77.1% liked)

World News

39102 readers
2365 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I doubt anyone thinks they are the good guys, but there are multiple trying to justify blatant war crimes and thinking they should be able to operate with immunity because they have civilians in the cross fire.

Im also doubting some "intellectually honest" people on both sides if the arguement. Well, with this CF all six sides of the arguement...

[–] EndlessApollo@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Who is doing that? Who is saying it's justifiable for Hamas to use a hospital as a base? The only thing remotely close to that I've seen is people saying that a group like Hamas is an inevitable byproduct of Israeli occupation. Everyone knows putting a garrison in a hospital is shit, what's disturbing is how many people think that justifies murdering every civilian in there

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's the only place they could make a garrison, any other building Israel even remotely thinks is related to terrorism is summarily obliterated. If you leave people two options and one isn't plausible you can't be all too surprised they choose the other option.

The US spent 20 fucking years fighting in Afghanistan which also had hospital garrisons, I don't seem to remember a pattern or practice of leveling them though. In fact the hospital that was destroyed kicked off a three party international review, the us apologized and paid the families. Israel on thee other hand said fuck it let's go bomb hospitals.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I have unfortunately seen comments trying to justify it- mostly around them not having a choice (edit: oh look, one just replied), or because otherwise they would be bombed, or its ok because Israel isn't good either. Whats more disturbing is my comment responding asking if they just justified a war crime because they said it was ok because they would be attacked otherwise got downvoted something like 20 times. Im also aware that isn't exactly a peer reviewed study.

I fully agree on your comment regarding how worrying it is how many people think killing them all is ok. No, it is a war crime to garrison a hospital, and it removes protection from that hospital but your response still has to be proportional and in a way that minimizes damage and civilian casualties. They could put a sniper in every window, rockets on the roof and you still can't level the building.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

That's understanding not justification. Saying they get why it was done is not at all the same as saying it's morally or logically correct.

It specifically does not remove protections, it makes limited military intervention legal. I agree with the rest but that phrasing makes it seem like anything is on the table when it isn't.