this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
1260 points (96.2% liked)

News

23639 readers
3440 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because it is extremely disingenuous to frame it like this. Even in this hypothetical scenario, you absolutely have the responsibility to try to save that innocent person's life as well as your own.

While we could imagine hypothetical scenario where killing civilians is justified, it is pretty clear that is not the scenario Israel is facing right now.

[–] CosmicCleric 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because it is extremely disingenuous to frame it like this.

The hell it is, that's just an excuse for not wanting to answer the question.

My question gets down to the crux of the point, where the arguing from all of us comes from, and what should be done next comes from. And it needs answering.

Even in this hypothetical scenario

It's not hypothetical, it's happening right now, in real time, in front of us.

you absolutely have the responsibility to try to save that innocent person’s life as well as your own.

So does that mean you attack or not attack the person trying to kill you? Who's life is more important, your own, or the person being used as a shield?

While we could imagine hypothetical scenario where killing civilians is justified, it is pretty clear that is not the scenario Israel is facing right now.

Well, Israel has to go into Gaza to destroy Hamas, and Hamas is using Palestinian citizens for shields, so that's exactly the scenario Israel is facing right now.

You can't hand-wave that away, because it's uncomfortable to deal with.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, the carpet bombing campaign has been Israeli troops going into Gaza. Oh wait, no it hasn't they have been amassing reservists at the border.

This includes multiple of my relatives who are Israeli reservists. Obviously I do not want them to be put into harms way, but I fail to see how carpet bombing a place where 2 million people live does that. Perhaps you have some magical insight that my Jewish reservist relatives don't.

Starving them out, cutting off water, power to hospitals... this isn't pre-emptively attacking terrorists using human shields, its cruel and unusual collective punishment, and even the govt. leaders of Israel don't bother to try to justify it when they are actually asked. Their response to these questions from journalists haven't been "these are human shields." The response has been "you didn't talk about dresden in WWII." Just disgusting.

[–] CosmicCleric 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, the carpet bombing campaign has been Israeli troops going into Gaza. Oh wait, no it hasn’t they have been amassing reservists at the border.

You don't see the carpet bombing as a step one and step two, which is coming very soon, is Israel actually going into Gaza with force, with all those reservists they called up?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, but I don't understand how carpet bombing protects them or helps them rescue hostages. They will still be in grave danger if they enter gaza, perhaps even more danger in this environment. It's hard to pick out any military doctrine that suggests otherwise. This has been a repeated criticism of this type of military activity, across campaigns all over the world and recent history. I supposed you could compare it to allied bombing of axis forces, but I would argue that those campaigns were carried out as part of a much more stringently determined military strategy, rather than as a per reactionary action.

[–] CosmicCleric 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

They will still be in grave danger if they enter gaza, perhaps even more danger in this environment.

The opposite, actually. There would be less places for Hamas to attack/sniper from, and easier to see the battlefield and all the participants in it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Yes, I can acknowledge the tactical logic of it. But this strategy hasn't played out very well in just about every modern conflict ever.

[–] CosmicCleric 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Perhaps you have some magical insight that my Jewish reservist relatives don’t.

All I was trying to do was get a conversation going on the ethics of attacking someone who's using third-party innocence as shields, and not literally pass judgment on what's going on on the ground today, just using it as an example for the overall ethical discussion.

There was a scifi book I read some decades ago they had the exact same scenario, and I was just trying to get input from today's Humanity to see if it jives with the solution that the author of the novel had come up with.

People are being too emotional and defensive to have these kind of conversations though it seems.

I was just trying to create content on Lemmy for us to read.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you want to talk about ethics on Lemmy, go create an ethics discussion community or host your own server. Discussing "ethics" in the context of Israel's actions and policies is something that I have done over and over and over, unproductively. In less tense times, it is usually stuff like "should driving on highways be illegal on saturdays around the orthodox community?" and stuff like that.

If you come onto a thread that is specifically about what is going on Israel right now, and say "I'm just trying to have an ethical discussion," it comes off as extremely disingenuous. I'm sorry.

[–] CosmicCleric 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you come onto a thread that is specifically about what is going on Israel right now, and say "I'm just trying to have an ethical discussion," it comes off as extremely disingenuous. I'm sorry.

You're taking my words out of context of the whole conversation that's happening, and being intellectually dishonest.

I was speaking about that question, as a "jumping off point" to the larger discussion on what's happening in Gaza right now.

Again, no it's not disingenuous because it covers what's being discussed in the very same topic. It's real time and it's happening.

You cannot hand wave that away as much as you want to. Both can be true, and allowed.

You're just being emotional and defensive when you don't need to be, to protect your team.

I'm not attacking your team, I'm just trying to have a conversation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

De-railing a conversation is a very well recognized form of logical fallacy. De-railing a thread is considered very poor etiquette on internet forums. I'm sorry for assuming we were having a conversation about the topic of the thread.

[–] CosmicCleric 1 points 1 year ago

De-railing

One person's derailing is another person's continuing and/or expanding.

I’m sorry for assuming we were having a conversation about the topic of the thread.

I accept your apology.