• trebuchet@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      125
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      From the article’s sub headline: ”Palestinians in Beit Hanoun were instructed by Israeli army to leave their homes and head for city centre. Hours later, the city centre was targeted”

      • Melkath@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        61
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because Israel is fucking evil. Not Jews. Israel.

        Why is Israel evil?

        Extensive grooming by America.

          • Melkath@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            27
            arrow-down
            18
            ·
            1 year ago

            Boiling it down to the system that has been in place for the last 30-40 years? Yes they do.

            They take the money. They take the weapons. They are told to use the weapons. They use the weapons on Palestine.

            Here, maybe I won’t get completely eviscerated for this one. Israel is Vader. The US is Palpatine.

            Israel was never forced to turn evil, but the US has the carrot and Israel keeps reaching for it.

            As a result, they have spent decades torturing and murdering innocent people. Small wonder a resistance formed.

            Now flash back to Iraq. America made Osama Bin Laden a national hero. America’s existence is the result of guerrilla warfare. I was taught by American education that America did it first. I know we didn’t.

            Anyway, America went into Iraq, helped install Saddam, rewarded Osama for being effective in installing Saddam, then Al Queda started doing things we didn’t like and we got stuck in war with Iraq for decades.

            The parallels between America’s involvement with Iraq and America’s involvement with Israel are astounding to me.

            • breakfastmtn
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Huh? Osama bin Laden was 11 when Saddam Hussein became vice president of Iraq. He was in university when the president resigned and Hussein became president and then was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan during the early years of his rule. Al-Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before the US invasion - and didn’t even exist until a decade after Hussein became president.

              • Melkath@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                14
                ·
                1 year ago

                I love you.

                Let’s start here. You’re a great fact checker.

                Osama Bin Laden was celebrated by the Regan administration for uprooting soviet interests in the region, no?

          • Pennomi@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            50
            ·
            1 year ago

            The thing about that is there never was an era where war crimes were punished consistently.

            • rammer@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              32
              ·
              1 year ago

              In fact the modern post-WW2 era is about as good as it gets. And that is indeed not much.

                • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think generally it’s more akin to your average legal proceedings. The plebs who commit war crimes will face the full extent of the law, but when wealthy entities or nations do it they will often get away with it.

                  When it comes to charging the losers, even with the Nazis and the Nuremburg trials there was a significant amount of opposition from people within the Allied nations against prosecuting them. Actually, in an article about Ben Ferencz (the guy who worked hardest to make the Nuremburg trials happen) I read about a Nazi tried in the UK, Winston Churchill personally donated towards this Nazi’s defense and then had his execution commuted down to life, then later only ~20 years. By the end of the war Churchill was vehemently against the Soviets and chomping at the bit to invade them, I think this gave him sympathy towards Nazis who had been fighting Soviets. I’ve since been unable to find the guy’s name, though.

                  • Black_Gulaman@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I didn’t know that about Churchill. Thanks for the TIL. But yes, you are correct there’s a class divide when meting out justice. Though I do not fully understand that thing about not prosecuting leaders of the losing party in a war. is this maybe because the victors somehow feels some form of connection to the other side’s leaders simply because they consider themselves as “sparring partners” during the course of the war? And of course, they were not in the field themselves fighting for their lives and somehow they just view all of these as a sort of boardgame or like a D&D campaign with maps and miniature figures of tanks and army battalions. Obviously, these are just guesses of mine and I confess that I do not have a great knowledge of politics during wartime.

          • RaincoatsGeorge@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            24
            ·
            1 year ago

            The playbook is to just claim its propaganda. The internet is so supersaturated the average person can’t vet it as true or false.