• Daniel Quinn
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    11 months ago

    How the hell did we get to the point that saying “maybe you should stop indiscriminately bombing the hell out of civilians” was at all controversial?

    • cygnus
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s obviously a misrepresentation of the opposing point of view, whether you agree with it or not. It’s more like “Imposing a ceasefire prevents Israel from retaliating against Hamas killing 1200 civilians”.

      • grte
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        11 months ago

        I wouldn’t call it a misrepresentation. That’s the form of retaliation they’ve decided to take, so if you are of the opinion that preventing Israel from seeking that retaliation is bad, you have to be fine with indiscriminate bombing of civilians.

        • cygnus
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          11 months ago

          Using loaded words like “indiscriminate” that carry a specific wartime meaning is not helpful in this case. The bombing of Dresden was indiscriminate. Israel using PGMs on specific buildings is not. Plus, the bombings aren’t even the main reason for public outcry — it’s the blockade (rightfully so).

          • grte
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            11 months ago

            What are we trying to be helpful about, exactly? Nearly 20k dead over the course of a couple months is plenty indiscriminate.

            • cygnus
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              11 months ago

              Where did you get that 20k figure?

                • cygnus
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  10
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I like how I get downvoted just for asking for a source. That article has mixed feelings about the reliability of the 20k estimate, but even if it’s only half that, it’s a lot of dead civilians.

                  The problem faced by the IDF is in fighting an insurgent force that deliberately embeds itself into the civilian population of a very densely-populated area with shoddy building quality. There’s basically no way to fight Hamas without innocent Palestinians getting caught in the crossfire. I do think Israel has made its point and am glad that most of the world is pushing for a ceasefire now.

      • acargitz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        Arguably, after these many thousands of deaths, we can call the “retaliation” part of the equation satisfied.

  • IninewCrow
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    11 months ago

    What is this medieval Europe? So the argument against a ceasefire is to just keep bombing, killing, rounding up people, destroying buildings and basically bombing everything to nothing is the answer.

    It’s not just for Israel … it’s a showcase for the world … if Israel can get away with conducting a war in whatever way they please, what is to stop others from doing the same? Without rule of international law equally applied to everyone … what’s to stop others from starting the same thing?

    If the war and killing and bombing just continues unabated … then we are no better than our ancestors a thousand years ago. We may have progressed technologically but we’ve hardly evolved from our war like, fearful, and short sighted ancient mentality.

    CBC youtube link

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nztec51yLv0

  • Avid Amoeba
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    The statement made through this vote feels close to my views on the issue.