Liberals love to say communists are violent, and then say shit like this.
The beauty of the rules based order is that it does a magic transmutation where nothing done legally can be violent whereas everything done illegally is violent by definition
But also "legally" means "I, the protagonist of the universe, want to do it and as the self-appointed arbiter of such things formally say I get to do it as a treat" and "illegally" means "I do not like this and as the supreme arbiter of the universe unilaterally say it's bad and super not cool."
Is it true that if someone takes a kid hostage, you're justified in killing the kid? Sounds fucked up, the idea that killing someone who is doing Bad Things is more important than protecting the life of an innocent child. Hmm. Not sure about this "international rules based" order the crackers keep talking about.
i don't think it is written in the statutes that you can. Israeli lawyers argue for their right to & to designate human shields as 'consensual'
Israel isn't party to Hostages Convention eitherOne of the really fascinating things about October 7th was that Israel's top priority was openly "preventing Hamas from getting in", with all other considerations, like the preservation of Israeli life, coming second. Then you read stories about helicopters firing missiles without targeting carefully or those girls in tanks firing on kibbutz homes without a clear idea of who is inside, and it becomes an inevitable conclusion that the civilian death toll (such as it even existed, since there was a heavy military presence there) was almost entirely Israel's fault on an immediate level, even before getting into "Their policies made the attack inevitable" and such
stories about helicopters firing missiles without targeting carefully or those girls in tanks firing on kibbutz homes without a clear idea of who is inside
Does anyone have a 'reputable' (i.e. Western or at least Al Jazeera) source for both of these? I need to show some people.
Discussion of the helicopter story, linking directly to a Hebrew article on it: https://thecradle.co/articles-id/11993
And a version of the tank story, though you can even find writers on Haaretz complaining about it: https://thecradle.co/articles-id/15975
Also Reuters if they don't belive the other source
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-inquiry-finds-oct-7-hostage-likely-killed-by-friendly-fire-2024-04-05/
This is so psychopathic. Why would anyone care about a system of laws which permits killing a child? Who in the world cares about the distinction between "legally killed child" and "murdered child"? Who could read that sentence and think anything other than "whatever laws they are referring to are utterly worthless"?
Next time a shooter attacks a school in Uvalde they should just send a drone strike, it's legally justified after all.
Imagine an editor reading this and saying "now this is top notch journalism, let's publish!"
An infanticide that no one can see is also going to attract suspicion.
Then what the fuck has been happening? 15,000 dead kids isn't infanticide? Its been clear as fucking day to see from the start and throughout the history of Israel's occupation of Palestine. We're way beyond the point of growing suspicious. Fuck these people...
The whole human shields thing is pure projection. We've seen plenty of examples of isntreal doing it but none of Palestinians doing it. They'll bomb a fucking hospital and claim that hamas was storing weapons there and therefore hamas was using the people as human shields.....but then they can't produce any convincing evidence that there were weapons there in the first place.
Always projection. The west kills kids and don't want to feel bad about it so blame the fucking people getting killed. Classic.
We've seen plenty of examples of isntreal doing it
That's the other thing; the fact that isntraelis do it means that Hamas would go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties, so why would Hamas intentionally use human shields? The fact that the IOF believe that they can make effective use of human shields means that they know it would stop Hamas firing on them because Hamas would try and minimize civilian casualties.
Um, sweaty, if you know the law it is actually okay to murder children. Try reading a book sometime.
Whoever wrote that should be ground into a fine paste as slowly as mechanically possible
Maybe I'm wrong but I feel like more and more people are finally realizing that our entire system is dog shit from top to bottom.
If you can't fight your enemy without killing children (and this is legal), then why are we so judgy about "terrorists"?
I know that 15.000 dead children is bad optics but what if each of these kids were human shields, jumping to take a bullet for Mr. Hamas? That would also explain why the IOF hasn't been able to get Hamas yet, as they need to mow down these legions of kids first just to get a clear shot.
Actually they've been selectively bred to evolve teleportation, this way they can be much better human shields jumping from one bullet to another 100m away at the blink of an eye
I was listening to NPR the other night, and a guest explained that the reason that 2/3 of people killed in Gaza are women and children is that Hamas used them all as human shields
If I'm elected these people will be thrown into a wood chipper.
