“No country is without sin” *mentions a civil war*

Wow, yeah, having struggled for our independence more than 100 years ago is what you’re going with with this whataboutism, when we’re discussing WAR CRIMES?

Wow what a great argument, definitely showed me my place, yeah. /S

Why didn’t I answer your garbage attempt at rhetoric? Because you’re ignoring actual international law to defend Israel’s despicable attack on civilians. Something my country has NEVER done.

Which country’s military? Because I’m more than willing to bet your country has killed innocents too, even if by accident

Finland. Go ahead and dig dirt. We have such a cruel and bloody history and we never do what we say or listen to laws. /S

I see you weren’t the reading comprehension guy in the military. But since you need it directly spelled out for your crayon eating ass to understand - yes, the Israeli government is committing genocide

You don’t seem to understand what reading comprehension is, nor understand the existence of people who absolutely refuse to admit to Israel’s warcrimes. Like the war crime they committed with this indiscriminate bombing, which can’t be limited as international law requires.

International law is international law. And Israel is breaking it.

Edit oh and I’m not **ex-**military until I’m 60. Also, I was the company’s quartermaster, which very much is a reading job for the most part.

but making silicone requires mixing two parts together and then casting your toys before they start to cure. I’d imagine Tupperware is an injection molding process instead.

And corn and potatoes are farmed very differently, seeing as one is underground and one is not. Same industry, more or less, though. In my humble opinion.

I too might be interested. Someone should make a documentary comparing Tupperware and dildomaking.

You’re seriously saying “they deserve the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ treatment” while Israel is actively escalating the conflict?

I have never defended genociders

Oh okay. So where have I done that? In assuming that 3000 civilians who were harmed weren’t exclusively Hezbollah? Which would be an utterly ridiculous claim seeing how many literal children there are involved.

So… you’ve never defended genociders. Then let’s see if you will. Is Israel committing a genocide in Gaza?

You think only military personnel were killed in WW2?

I’ve actually been in the military and have had training on what is and isn’t legal to do in armed conflict. Have you?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12

Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks

Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those: (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

© which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

Oh right, you’re just another troll backing the bullshit of another person who started this thread, I see, I didn’t pay attention to the username. Apologies, terribly.

So just read the comment again and input him where I say “you”.

Like I said, you don’t have any logic here. Some things are mutually exclusive.

That’s a good note. Although you can of course use a condom, but yeah.

I think Tupperware makes glass containers with silicon lids as well though, so again… just shape and size, really.

Like would you consider farming corn to be a different industry than farming potatoes? Some of the machines are probably different yeah, but it’s all “agriculture”, innit?

I think they’re implying this mostly hit Hezbollah members, not than none of the victims were innocent.

Based on… what exactly?

The clear implication is that “number of Hezbollah member > victims = no innocent victims.”

And then you instantly jump into defending genocide. Holy fucking shit I honestly can’t communicate with words how disgustingly pathetic I find that.

No, I’m not gonna engage with your whataboutism and start arguing with you about how “Hezbollah deserved this absolutely pathetic terrorist attack.”

“Brought it on himself brought it on himself”

You fuckers still haven’t realised that Hammurabi’s law makes the whole world blind, huh? That was almost 4000 years ago, ffs. Read a book, preferably a modern one and not some tome of propaganda from thousands of years ago.

You’re literally defending the death of a 9-year old girl. You have to be sick in the fucking head to do that. Honestly.

You’re genuinely pathetic enough to try and imply that none of the victims are innocent?

I loathe “people” like you.

I kinda don’t love how you’re unable to imagine that your b-grade logic would make Israel any less of a terrorist state.

Trying to assert the problem of induction into anything when faced with shitty things your people have done is honestly just shitty rhetoric. Like trying to play hide and seek with a 2-year old who thinks if they close their eyes no-one can see them.

You fail to stand behind your OWN WORDS.

YOU wrote:

the attacks are extremely targeted, thus not random at all

And

People in the vicinity are not harmed

This wasn’t Israeli outlets saying these things. It was YOU. I’m having an issue with YOUR statements, which you’re desperately trying to run away from.

So the attacks are extremely targeted, and don’t harm “people in the vicinity”. Those are your statements. Then how come a 9-year old girl among others is dead? (And 3000 people injured?)

Sexuality is on a spectrum, because the opposing ends aren’t mutually exclusive. You can do both. What you can’t do is have a cake AND eat it. Because if you eat the cake, you won’t have it. See?

Have you ever driven a car? You come to a crossing where you can go left or right.

If you go left, you didn’t turn right, and if you turn right, you’re turning away from left.

The choices are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You seem to be really struggling to understand what that means.

Just a reminder, it’s YOUR assertion that these were “extremely targeted, no accident”.

So you yourself have said that Israel bombed and killed civilians on purpose. That’s a crime against humanity. Terrorism.

Fuck terrorist scum like whoever did this cowardly pager attack. Disgusting pos.

Some things are really that binary, when they’re MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Even in the real world, you can’t have you cake AND eat it too. Do you not understand what that means?

You can’t claim “it was extremely targeted, but all the civilian casualties were an accident, even though the accidental things happened on purpose.”

It’s like saying “up is down”. Some things are mutually exclusive.

I keep underlining these things so even a cowardly whataboutist would understand.

You have to choose one, there is no middle-ground as these are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE (you may need to Google the term): was the strike “extremely surgical”? If it was, then the 3000 injured plus ~10 dead, including children, are dead on purpose.

OR

Israel indiscriminately bombs civilians.

There’s no middle option here, no matter how much you’d like for there to be. Either Israel targeted civilians or didn’t care they’d end up killing them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Bibi’s bedroom window and killed both him and, unbeknownst to them, some child that was with him.

Bibi is fucking kids at night? I thought he couldn’t get more disgusting for fucks sake.

Someone’s personal bedroom has a bit more of what is known as “a reasonable expectation of privacy” than… *literal marketplaces. To pretend you don’t understand the difference is pathetic.

And no-amount of your garbage propaganda will change the fact that you’ve tried asserting mutually exclusive things to be the case. Like propaganda usually does, claiming literally impossible things.

You CAN NOT answer the question. Was it extremely targeted and Israel killed a child on purpose, or did Israel attack so indiscriminately that it killed several innocents and harmed thousands of innocents.

It can’t be both. And I know Netanyahu is a scumbag politician, but I’m sure even his personal bedroom wouldn’t fit 3000 people.

So which is it? Extremely targeted (meaning these civilians are dead on purpose) or wildly uncaring (an indiscriminate bombing)?

Hey @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org, you were saying that “these were extremely surgical strikes, people in the vicinity weren’t harmed”?

Thousands of people injured, all guilty of something ofc, because Israel would never do an attack which might harm innocents. Right? /S

You can’t have it both ways.

Either it was “very surgical” and still killed a small girl (ie the girl was targeted) OR Israeli attack methods are so indiscriminate and poorly aimed they end up killing INNOCENT CHILDREN.

It’s one or the other.

These attempts at defending indiscriminate attacks on civilian population are fucking disgusting. I genuinely don’t know how you sleep at night when you’re defending the death of a 9-year-old girl.

More like “you want to kill a soccer player who did something very bad to you. You get a soccer ball and plant it full of explosives. You leave it on a football pitch. Not even necessarily the one the player you’re trying to kill uses. Just a pitch. Any pitch. Then you hope that the first person to touch the ball and explode is the person you intended. You end up killing several innocents and injuring hundreds.”

Despite all your shitty propaganda, THE STATEMENTS ARE STILL MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can’t be “extremely surgical attacks” which accidentally kill innocent children.

That’s like saying you’re a vegan who eats meat. Doesn’t fucking work.

So was Israel’s attack “extremely targeted” and they 'chose* to kill a 9-year-old-girl OR were these terror attacks so uncontrolled and chaotic that a child died on accident?

It’s EITHER OR.

No, it can’t be both.

You say that “people in the vicinity are not harmed.” Either the 9-year-old-girl was targeted, or she wasn’t. If she was harmed, it was according to you, a targeted strike at her, or she would not have been harmed.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Either she was harmed on accident by a bomb which did end up harming innocents, or she was targeted on purpose. THOSE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE STATEMENTS.

I’ll engage with your shitty whataboutism after you answer which it is: were the bombs “surgical” and killed a 9-year-old girl on purpose, or were they sloppy attacks which caused civilian casualties on accident?

Customary international humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby traps – objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use – precisely to avoid putting civilians at grave risk and produce the devastating scenes that continue to unfold across Lebanon today. The use of an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate, using a means of attack that could not be directed at a specific military target and as a result would strike military targets and civilians without distinction. Human Rights Watch

So which is it? “People in the vicinity are not harmed” or “whops we killed a kid”?

Can’t fucking be both, can it?

True. Who would want a 9-year-old-girl as kitchen personnel?