Political Discussion and Commentary
A place to discuss politics and offer political commentary. Self posts are preferred, but links to current events and news are allowed. Opinion pieces are welcome on a case by case basis, and discussion of and disagreement about issues is encouraged!
The intent is for this community to be an area for open & respectful discussion on current political issues, news & events, and that means we all have a responsibility to be open, honest, and sincere. We place as much emphasis on good content as good behavior, but the latter is more important if we want to ensure this community remains healthy and vibrant.
Content Rules:
- Self posts preferred.
- Opinion pieces and editorials are allowed on a case by case basis.
- No spam or self promotion.
- Do not post grievances about other communities or their moderators.
Commentary Rules
- Don’t be a jerk or do anything to prevent honest discussion.
- Stay on topic.
- Don’t criticize the person, criticize the argument.
- Provide credible sources whenever possible.
- Report bad behavior, please don’t retaliate. Reciprocal bad behavior will reflect poorly on both parties.
- Seek rule enforcement clarification via private message, not in comment threads.
- Abide by Lemmy's terms of service (attacks on other users, privacy, discrimination, etc).
Please try to up/downvote based on contribution to discussion, not on whether you agree or disagree with the commenter.
Partnered Communities:
• Politics
• Science
view the rest of the comments
You simply don’t understand the requirements of intent for genocide, dolus specialis.
Incitement is not enough. There are people in Israel, who want a genocide, but it’s neither policy, nor are the acts conclusive.
The numbers of death attributed to starvation in Gaza amounts to less than a dozen. Compare that to what happened at the same time in Sudan.
Look, there’s undeniably a bunch of terrible stuff happening, but it’s not a genocide.
A music festival is not a valid military objective. You seem confused about this idea.
Maybe. Perhaps you can explain it to me? Why is the genocide scholar whose post I linked wrong, and you right?
I note you didn't comment on the ratio. It was a rhetorical point, you said the 1:3 ratio is good and presumably that this is evidence against genocidal intent. So to continue, the military objectives were the militants killed, unfortunately there was some collateral damage. According to your logic this is a totally legit explanation. I think that is wrong in both cases.