• nonailsleft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      Do you think Hezbollah gave her a pager? What was her father’s position within Hezbollah? Maybe he’s the one that fired some rockets that killed someone else’s kids recently

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        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

        • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          Although they did kill that girl (and others) on accident, the attack as a whole seems to have been far more surgical that what we usually see in this conflict (and dare I say, certainly more surgical than most attacks from Hezbollah)

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 month ago

            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.

            • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 month ago

              That’s a very childish way to look at it.

              Imagine if Hezbollah managed to send a missile right up Bibi’s bedroom window and killed both him and, unbeknownst to them, some child that was with him. Would you then conclude that it was an ‘indiscriminate’ attack? Would you not make a difference between that and say a carpet bombing where they just try to level the city block he’s in?

              Please use more caps and bold formatting in your posts

              • Dasus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 month ago

                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)?

                • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  The answer you seek is in my example: in the real world it’s not binary, it’s always a scale

                  btw I don’t understand why you’ve used so little formatting

                  • Dasus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    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.