Equally, are we going to pretend that bombing a school which is not a Hamas HQ and then, after the news comes out that they killed 10s of children, telling us it was a Hamas HQ is not something the IDF would do?

Does it really makes sense to trust the guys who chose to blow up a building full of children when they give us an unverifiable self-serving justification for their action?!

Even if you are partisan and in your heart of hearts feel deeply that Israel are the good guys, how can you be sure they've investigate enough and know with enough certainty that that's a Hamas HQ to take a decision that they know is highly likely to result in dead children as collateral damage (assuming you are unable to question the morality of those who think dead children as collateral is acceptable)?

The Death Penalty in the the US has a huge system in place not just to judge a possible perpetrator but also of appeals to try and make sure a single person is not executed if he or she turns out to be innocent and even then death is a highly exceptional and rare penalty, so how would it be fine to kill a bunch of innocent children on a non-existent standard of proof (the killers are judge, jury and executioner) that their school contains a Hamas HQ, with no appeals, no independent verification, no nothing but the word of the very people who think dead children is morally accepetable as collateral.

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

And despite that system we execute plenty of innocent problem on death row 😬

[–] Aceticon 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah, don't get me started on that.

The point being the implied extraordinary difference in the value of innocent human life under even the American system in States that have the Death Penalty (who value it less that most of the Western World which does not have the Death Penalty in great part because even in the best system with such penaly innocents die) and that of the IDF which will blow up Palestinian children and then state it was a Hamas target, the system for determining that being opaque and without independent oversight (i.e. they care very little with avoiding taking innocent lives).

And my argument is even assuming the claims of those places being high value Hamas targets are believed genuine by those making them rather than the claims being just "easy excuses" used quite independent of reality: I'm merely just pointing that if you genuinelly want to avoid kill innocents whilst trying to get the guilty you have quite a complex process to avoid as much as possible that errors happen, and external oversight to avoid that bad people bypass or abuse the power to kill innocents.

None of that is there.

[–] bobble -1 points 1 year ago

I dont trust either of them. Honestly if there werent us citizens their we should probably just stay out of it. On one side you have the oppressive idf and on the other you have people who are not just trying to liberate Palestinians but are also killing people regardless of their copability in their oppression. Why cant we just agree that both are bad?

[–] S_204 -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're right, trust the Islamic jihadists who have stolen so much aid from their own people that the UN had to step in and stop providing.

The leadership of Hamas was on Lebanese TV the other day saying they know civilians will die because of their actions, they intend on attacking again and again regardless of that. I'm paraphrasing but it was pretty wild to see.

[–] Aceticon 1 points 1 year ago

That often repeated false dichotomy doesn't stop being a bullshit falacy no matter how much the cheerleader taking sides repeat it.

Distrusting the IDF is not the same as trusting Hamas, not even close, not even in the same universe.

If the IDF was trustworthy you wouldn't need need to fall back to such "if you're not with us you're against us" propaganda spiels.