|
Soylent Pudding posted:In all the talk about Palestinian desperation it's worth remembering that Hamas is not the Palestinian people, even if Hamas claims otherwise Worth remembering Israel is also claiming otherwise
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 13:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
BUUNNI posted:Worth remembering Israel is also claiming otherwise And, with their backers, are claiming that if the million + children, elderly, and normal people trying to survive don't want to be bombed to death they should overthrow the heavily armed Iranian backed militant group. *This is what we call a paper thin excuse for ethnic cleansing
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 13:55
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:And, with their backers, are claiming that if the million + children, elderly, and normal people trying to survive don't want to be bombed to death they should overthrow the heavily armed Iranian backed militant group. By doing this the Israelis also gave permission for their citizens to be legitimate targets since they are technically responsible for selecting their genocidal state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 14:04
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:By doing this the Israelis also gave permission for their citizens to be legitimate targets since they are technically responsible for selecting their genocidal state. Uh, I don't see how that conclusion makes any sense based on the entire concept of "hamas is not all Palestinians" just like "not every Israeli is an active IDF military participant". You seem to be implying the opposite?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 14:35
|
|
|
The amount of propaganda flooding every single media outlet is unreal. I've never seen it this bad before except maybe post 9-11. I don't feel like I can trust anything right now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 14:36
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:By doing this the Israelis also gave permission for their citizens to be legitimate targets since they are technically responsible for selecting their genocidal state. It can never be repeated enough that protections from war crimes and for civilians are INCLUSIVE to as many as possible not EXCLUSIVE to as few as possible, no matter how many internet poster law people say that doing one weird trick removes human rights protections.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 14:38
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:Worth remembering Israel is also claiming otherwise Did I say otherwise? This thread clearly doesn't need to be reminded of this. I was speaking up because it felt like the "well they're desperate" talk was starting to push the line of saying massacred Israeli children deserved it because of Israel's policy of gradual genocide. Like whatever the gently caress this is: BUUNNI posted:By doing this the Israelis also gave permission for their citizens to be legitimate targets since they are technically responsible for selecting their genocidal state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 14:45
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:Uh, I don't see how that conclusion makes any sense based on the entire concept of "hamas is not all Palestinians" just like "not every Israeli is an active IDF military participant". You seem to be implying the opposite? It’s not supposed to make sense because it’s completely nonsensical. Israel shouldn’t claim that Gazans are responsible for the treatment they’re receiving because of the actions of Hamas.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 14:56
|
|
|
BUUNNI posted:By doing this the Israelis also gave permission for their citizens to be legitimate targets since they are technically responsible for selecting their genocidal state. I think everyone is misreading this. If Israel says that it's the Palestinians' fault because they should have overthrown their government, the corollary is that it's also now the Israelis' own fault because they should have overthrown their government. Not that it's actually valid, it's just a bad argument because it can be immediately turned around. What's good for the goose etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 14:58
|
|
|
Maera Sior posted:I think everyone is misreading this. If Israel says that it's the Palestinians' fault because they should have overthrown their government, the corollary is that it's also now the Israelis' own fault because they should have overthrown their government. What's good for the goose etc. Exactly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
Borscht posted:The amount of propaganda flooding every single media outlet is unreal. I've never seen it this bad before except maybe post 9-11. I don't feel like I can trust anything right now. Every third YouTube ad my household has been getting is someone explaining "sorry, but Facts and Logic say that a two state solution will never work" and other talking points. I should have started recording some of these, it's shocking. Anyway I bought YouTube Premium to shut it all up; well played, Google. Well played.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:05
|
|
|
This may be the hottest take of the thread but I love YouTube premium. It’s the only streaming service I have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:25
|
|
|
I wish I could go ad free on services like Tubi and Pluto because they are absolutely lousy with right wing garbage
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:26
|
|
|
Borscht posted:This may be the hottest take of the thread but I love YouTube premium. It’s the only streaming service I have. It really is a huge qol upgrade if you watch a lot of youtube. Well worth the cost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:27
|
|
|
I have the firefox add-on that removes ads on youtube completely
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:32
|
|
|
Borscht posted:This may be the hottest take of the thread but I love YouTube premium. It’s the only streaming service I have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:39
|
|
Dance Officer posted:I have the firefox add-on that removes ads on youtube completely
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:I have the firefox add-on that removes ads on youtube completely Which one is that? I tried ublock and it didn't work in YouTube.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:48
|
|
|
The purposeful targeting of civilians is a normal act in war. It is done by every single armed force on the planet, and the more formal the force, the more likely it will be covered up or glossed over. Civilians don't really matter to military planners, no matter how much they pretend. When it comes time, every single officer will channel LeMay and Cortez and slaughter half a city to take an objective that is nothing but ruins. That isn't saying it's ok, or that it's morally or ethically justified, but the focus on Hamas Re: civilian targets feels like a misdirect that benefits the narrative of BiBi. I'm not saying ignore it, I'm not saying it's cool and good, but the intentional focus on the symptoms, and not the disease, doesn't do anything worthwhile. And everyone focused on that aspect is ignoring that the IDF and Israeli Security Forces set the rules of engagement a long time ago. Everything Hamas has been accused of, Israel visited upon the Palestinians first. Except, like the US military, their PR and Information Warfare helped cover up them murdering children with suppressed 22s or providing armed escorts for 'settlers' to enter, murder, and steal homes and property. Or limiting vital resources to purposely induce disease and death. "There ain't no cowboys in this Connecticut Town"- there are no good guys. There are no moral combat actions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
yeah, what bulletsponge said
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:55
|
|
precious
|
bulletsponge13 posted:The purposeful targeting of civilians is a normal act in war. I believe you are conflating "purposeful targeting of civilians" and "not caring about collateral / military necessity to the point of cruelty" E: To be crystal clear, I mean this in respect to your statement that purposeful targeting of civilians is a normal act in war generally. I am not saying that in this specific war, Israel is just oopsy killing civilians. mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Oct 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I believe you are conflating "purposeful targeting of civilians" and "not caring about collateral / military necessity to the point of cruelty" There is no moral difference. If you clusterbomb a village, it's a purposeful military decision, regardless of how you frame it. Collateral damage is "A civilian was catching a ride in an APC that hits a mine"- something completely unforeseen and unpredictable. Bombing where people live, leveling cities, and bombing hospitals and critical infrastructure are all labeled collateral, but they aren't.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:There is no moral difference. I'm just never going to agree with you. Purposefully targeting and killing civilians is morally different from making a good faith effort at the individual level not to kill civilians and failing due to scale of war. Purposefully targeting and killing/wounding civilians for the purpose of killing civilians is murderous poo poo, and the people who dot that are murderers by any definition. A soldier trying very hard not to kill civilians, but who is part of a major combat operation where by state policy, the national leadership has accepted some level of civilian collateral is not the same as a murderer who takes time to try to kill and injure civilians. If a tank crew member shoots at a guy with an ATGM, and that shot also kills 3 civilians he can't see or doesn't identify one room over, that is not the same as a military planner deciding that he will bomb an entire building with 100 civilians inside that he knows about, just because there is one ATGM team in a window of that building. Saying the two are the same thing is letting murderers walk away with a clear conscience, because they aren't going to take that moral equivalence and say they're all bad guys, they use it to rationalize their crimes and murderous intent as something that everyone is doing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:12
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I'm just never going to agree with you. Purposefully targeting and killing civilians is morally different from making a good faith effort at the individual level not to kill civilians and failing due to scale of war. We aren't talking about individual soldiers, we are talking military leaders. Military planners target civilians targets as a strategy in war. Every single military to ever get fielded. We aren't talking accidentally killing a civilian because you missed a shot. We are speaking different scales. And those people already don't feel guilt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
Dance Officer posted:I have the firefox add-on that removes ads on youtube completely NewPipe still handles this quite well
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:30
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:We aren't talking about individual soldiers, we are talking military leaders. Military planners target civilians targets as a strategy in war. Every single military to ever get fielded. We aren't talking accidentally killing a civilian because you missed a shot. We are speaking different scales. Language like the below doesn't indict militaries effectively or reduce harm. It is the kind of argument that murderers use to justify their actions. "We all do this, it's normal, this is just how it is, oh well. If you didn't want to murder civilians, you shouldn't have joined or been drafted." bulletsponge13 posted:When it comes time, every single officer will channel LeMay and Cortez and slaughter half a city to take an objective that is nothing but ruins. Imagine this is your going to war speech: "Look, we purposefully target and kill civilians. It's what we do. Let's face it, it's what every armed force on the planet does. We all purposefully target and kill civilians. That is normal behavior, and every other leader to your left and right would do it, too. It is normal. It is just how the world works and how war works. So just remember that purposefully targeting and killing civilians is normal and everyone does it. Now, the only morally clean way out is to desert the forces or refuse orders, and if you do that I am prepared to have you formally punished by the state. Now let's go to war." That's a dogshit message! It is the message that gives cover to murderers and immoral and ethically bankrupt decision-making. It is a message that normalizes killing civilians and disregarding harm to civilians. Even if someone gave that speech with the hope in their heart of hearts that the whole military would lay down their arms and say no, they embrace pacificism, that would be just naïve and really crappy communication skills. Even if you believe that any given head of state is willing to engage in practices that have high levels of collateral damage to the point of being indiscriminate or outright targeting civilians, telling military leadership "it is normal to purposefully target and kill civilians" is in practicality a way to increase damage to civilians, not some pacifistic truth-telling that will make everyone lay down their arms and say "drat, makes you think."
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:35
|
|
|
They told millions of people to evacuate, then bombed the evacuation convoy. This isn't collateral damage, they knew what they were doing and have been doing this poo poo for over a decade now. Labeling it 'typical military collateral damage' is a loving disservice, and is whitewashing the history of war crimes the IDF has done. quote:Apologists, even of the pseudo-liberal variety, often argue that killings by the IDF are inadvertent, accidental, unintended, lacked willful intent, or were in legitimate self-defense. Even a skeptical cursory view of the findings of human rights organizations paint a very different picture offered by such apologists. Consider the Second Intifada where violence among Palestinians was more prevalent and heavily cited as reasons for enhanced security. Like, as bad as the US DOD is, we regularly prosecuted and convicted soldiers who did less than what the IDF does. As bad as Hamas is, and Hamas fully deserves to get crushed, using Hamas as an excuse to carry out war crimes and then argue its in self-defense is seriously hosed. IDF is a well trained and professional military. They know exactly what they are doing. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Oct 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Language like the below doesn't indict militaries effectively or reduce harm. It is the kind of argument that murderers use to justify their actions. "We all do this, it's normal, this is just how it is, oh well. If you didn't want to murder civilians, you shouldn't have joined or been drafted." Maybe I'm misunderstanding your meaning. You seem to think that they give a gently caress, when they are specifically trained not to. It is a normal part of military strategy, and taught in service schools with a wink wink caveat of "but try not to". But yet every single military strategist violates that directive and purposely targets both civilians and protected places. It was hyperbolic to say every officer, but you will find very few senior military leaders and planners who give more than a passing nod to the idea to limit civilian deaths. You can't level half a city and claim collateral damage. You can't bomb hospitals and call it a Whoopsie Doodle. The willful disregard of civilian casualties by military leaders isn't any different than purposely targeting them. And most militaries don't even bother keeping an accounting of civilians killed. We will probably end up disagreeing, which is fine- I still love and appreciate the input and conversation. I will also admit that I have a deep and lasting personal bias, because those assholes didn't have to see what they did. They didn't have to do the BDA. They got to sit at the CPA palace and write themselves up for a Legion of Merit and tell Stars and Stripes lies about how many enemies (Non-Americans) were killed. I think we might be talking a bit past each other- you seem to be focused on the Tactical, low level, individual unit, where I am looking towards the strategic, higher level. If I am misunderstanding, please don't think I am doing it to be argumentative.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:Military planners target civilians targets as a strategy in war. Every single military to ever get fielded. This is trivially ahistorical. Strategic bombing as a policy is less than a century old, and you bet your rear end that much of the history of warfare involved actors dogmatically avoiding civilian casualties, to the extent that there are even terms for military action that specifically targets or spills violence onto civilian populations for various deliberate or accidental reasons. "This is just how militaries get fielded" is a relatively recent, very narrow read. Factoring the economic effect of actually hitting a civilian population--rather than just conquering and ruling it--is pretty modern prospective. It has not always been like this, it does not have to be like this, and it quite possibly shouldn't be like this outside total warfare. tl;dr I think you're trying to make the argument that these actions are historically necessary or normal when it comes to military deployment, and that is actually very much not the case Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Oct 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
Targeting civilians predate strategic bombing. Heck, even if the action wasn’t aimed at them, an army on the march would loot everything on its path - “foraging” was how they fed themselves, there wasn’t much of a logistics train. If you want an example from classics, look at Carthage or the Gallic wars. Hell, the Trojans didn’t have a great time. The mongol invasions weren’t especially pleasant either from what I heard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Targeting civilians predate strategic bombing. Heck, even if the action wasn’t aimed at them, an army on the march would loot everything on its path - “foraging” was how they fed themselves, there wasn’t much of a logistics train. Yes, but we kinda discourage that now, and good luck using that as an excuse as a defense in a court martial.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
You even demonstrate in this post specific terminology for when a military needs to live off the Let's not even get into the questionable rhetorical usefulness of drawing comparisons to the actions of literally the Mongolian hordes You know drat well that Western military history, Indian military history, Chinese military history, etc all include long periods where the standards of conduct regarding civilian populations are quite high, to the extent that states that specifically targeted civilians or battles where significant punitive actions were taken are notable in the historical record in how they stand out. I don't know if it's worth arguing this since I'm fairly sure you are aware of this historical context. Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
At the strategic level, leader guidance matters. A president telling his armed forces “go purposefully target civilians; it’s just normal,” is rather different from a president telling the military “targeting civilians is illegal and you will be punished if you do it.” In the middle area is that if you are a country that has procedures to reduce harm at the tactical/operational level but you strategically insert yourself into a large number of sprawling conflicts, is your operational care just window dressing for your strategic desire to use lethal force overseas to impose your will? Is that model worse than a sloppy, indisciplined military that commits a lot more civilian abuse per engagement, but has only been in one war in the last 70 years or whatever? Maybe!
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:This is trivially ahistorical. Strategic bombing as a policy is less than a century old, and you bet your rear end that much of the history of warfare involved actors dogmatically avoiding civilian casualties, to the extent that there are even terms for military action that specifically targets or spills violence onto civilian populations for various deliberate or accidental reasons. The rape, pillage, and murder of the civilian populace was part of a soldiers pay for much of History in every area of pre-modern conflict. These actions ARE normal historically. Even ignoring strategic bombing- barraging a civilian populace was a normal. Infecting them with disease was normal. Having Cav ride down survivors was typical. The idea of widespread protection of civilians is largely a modern construct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 17:05
|
|
|
I don't think we're going to be able to agree. The history of warfare overwhelmingly involves war made for the purposes of statecraft where preservation and even creating favor with a civilian population is the entire war goal, even between ethnicities with longstanding grudges *points toward AD 900 through the Renaissance in Western Europe* some of the oldest remaining records of human language -- dating to the Sumerians -- involve written accounts of conduct of war between cities. Avoiding non-combatants is an ancient, ancient practice. it's going to be one of those cases where two people can live on the same planet but have completely different takeaways regarding a major part of the history of that planet Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Oct 14, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 17:08
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:The rape, pillage, and murder of the civilian populace was part of a soldiers pay for much of History in every area of pre-modern conflict. If we pull this back to the original context of the thread: what is the point you are trying to make anyway? Is it still that there is a component of necessity with respect to cruelty towards civilian populations in order to achieve war goals, arbitrarily? Scrolling back up and rereading a little bit, I'm trying to figure out what your point was or how that pertains to acceptability of action against civilians in the current conflict. To wit, why does anything Ghengis Khan did to advance his goals have anything to do with I/P, especially when there is ample counterexample of Western mercenary / city-state warfare in Italy, or the fifty years history around the English civil wars to consider regarding the benefits and norms around not targeting civilians?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 17:15
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I don't think we're going to be able to agree. The history of warfare overwhelmingly involves war made for the purposes of statecraft where preservation and even creating favor with a civilian population is the entire war goal, even between ethnicities with longstanding grudges *points toward AD 900 through the Renaissance in Western Europe* And war made for state craft STILL purposely targeted civilians to break the will of the people, and subjugate them. We also have ancient records of slaughtering civilians- people make rules, sometimes they try to follow them. Avoiding them is ancient, as is targeting them. Like I said, hyperbolic to say every officer- but to say civilians have been a target of every military action isn't. E- my point was that militaries only give a gently caress about civilians when it's convenient, and multiple people have said that is incorrect historically. It isn't. That was my point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
The line between civilians and military personnel also blurs in some historical period; uniforms only became a thing in what, the 1700’s?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:I don't think we're going to be able to agree. The history of warfare overwhelmingly involves war made for the purposes of statecraft where preservation and even creating favor with a civilian population is the entire war goal, even between ethnicities with longstanding grudges *points toward AD 900 through the Renaissance in Western Europe* But this all veers wildly from the topic at hand, which is that Israel is committing atrocities in Gaza and appears on the verge of taking things up a few notches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
The US so loved the civilians in its occupied territories that it killed a nice round million of them. Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, etc etc. Wars harm civilians en mass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2023 17:24
|
|