CritFail

They aren't reaching military objectives. They are bombing schools and refugee camps with the intention of forcing the Palestinians to either leave Gaza or die.

We don't live in a Marvel-comic world of good versus bad. This is a terrorist organisation keeping a country hostage, versus a de facto autocrat with a doctrine to ethnically cleanse and reclaim Palestine for just inhabitation by jewish people.

In a population of 2.3 million, there are estimated between 20-30,000 Hamas fighters.

So far, Israel have killed 41,0000 Palestinians since last year. Going back further, Israel have killed 138,000, Palestinians since 1948 as they have slowly reclaimed Palestine.

And last time I checked, Hamas aren't in the West Bank, yet both IDF and Israeli settlers killed 642 Palestinians in the West Bank two months ago. How is that a military target?

There are utilitarian stances you can take on inadvertently killing civillians to achieve military targets with the aim of ending the war sooner, but this is just genocide.

Yeah, Hamas are bastards. They have not allowed elections and ruled dictatorially for a generation, and do not have a right to think they represent the people of Gaza. The innocent civillian Gazan population don't deserve to suffer as a result. Hamas have done horrible things, not building necessary bomb shelters from an oppressive Israel is one of them. The lack of bomb shelters in Gaza does not mean you or anyone should condone bombing of a civilian population. They had the nerve to talk to NYT to say they were getting PTSD from running over too many unarmed Gazan civilians with a bulldozer. Actions like this make Netanyahu, and the complicit IDF and encourageable Israeli voting population bastards.

That this needs to be spelled out is depressing.

Oh sorry, I misread the article. It turns out Israel bombed a school that was situated in a refugee camp. It was being used as a shelter, that's much better.

But I looked into it and apparently Gaza doesn't have bomb shelters, so it would be hard for Israel to bomb them, I suppose. Too expensive to build while embargoed and not prioritised by their government, I will strike that from my comment.

Why doesn’t Egypt open the border?

There are many reasons why they are reluctant. Do you think Egypt has the facilities to house and feed 2.2 million refugees? Does any country?

Why should Palestinians be forced to leave when Israel insist they will not allow them to return to their homeland?

Can you provide a source for this?

This attack was four days ago

For many months we have heard claims of imminent death starvation of millions and that evacuation from Rafah would be impossible. These claims didn’t materialize.

I mean, evacuation is impossible at this point isnt it? Where would they go? Back to the levelled north? Force their way into Egypt? The fact that they aren't all dead yet doesn't disprove that Israel's intent is to cause it, they just haven't finished yet.

That defence holds about such water as a colander. There is so much evidence to the contrary that it boggles the mind. They have bombed hospitals, schools, ~~bomb shelters,~~ kettled the entire population into a tiny parcel of land in the southernmost tip of the country while they finish levelling the rest of Palestine, and stopped all aid, journalists, water, and food entering the country. And then to add insult to injury they bomb the safe zones.

A country's right to defend itself does not extend to this. This isn't defence.

Do they expect the civilians with blown off limbs in bombed-out hospitals to walk to these not-so-safe zones? How do they expect the entire population to survive in these cramped conditions with no access to critical food, water, and medicine heading into winter? (Hint: they don't.)

Just think of the profit potential!

If Israel actually completes its mission and kills every man, woman, and child in Palestine, would that make the western powers any more inclined to call it genocide?

...So far, we still have the climate wars to come at some point in the next 75 years; plenty of lying opportunities for particularly motivated bastards there.

I understand an appreciate this point of view to an extent, it opens a door to medical practitioners offering this to patients as an easy option when they may recover, or to poor people who can't afford treatments in private care, knowing that NHS waiting lists mean they may never get free treatment before it is too late. Safeguards would be an absolute must, and would inevitably be abused without them.

However, whether it is legal or not to have a patient willingly end their life, it is an admittance that the person will have worse than acceptable end-of-life care if they die naturally under the current system. In Wes' opinion, people with a terminal or life-limiting condition should have limited or even no say in how they spend their remaining hours, days, weeks, months of life.

To take one of the more gruesome examples, people with bone cancer in their skull have to face months of medieval-grade torture, agonising spikes burrowing into their eyes and brain, lose their eyesight, and left to waste away in abject agony. A bone cancer victim's skull looks like this.

I don't think it is acceptable to say, "Sorry, the NHS wasn't able to detect it while it was treatable, but we won't let you end your suffering in a controlled, safe, and painless way. It would be inhumane to kill you."

Some people would rather take matters into their own hands, and this just results in suicides, in manners that are more painful to themselves and their friends and family who they will be afraid to tell, in case they try to stop them. Depending on the manner they choose, they may also inadvertently hurt others.

Bodily autonomy is a hot topic at the moment, and seeing as we have all been forced to endure life on this planet (for better or for worse), I think it's only fair to have some say in how we end our life.

So Wes is voting against a policy that would allow people to opt to die peacefully and on their own terms, rather than struggle through avoidable pain and anguish, costing the NHS more money to maintain the painful and diminished life of someone who doesn't want to be here anymore, perpetuating unnecessary costs on the NHS that, if saved, would then change Wes' mind about the whole thing? Sounds like a catch 22. Why do pets and even some livestock get to die quicker and with more dignity than people?

Weird

How to make spaghetti carbonara taste better:

Food evolutionary genetics have not yet developed to the point of being able to successfully grow a tongue on a portion of spaghetti carbonara. However, the Gordon Ramsay-Bolton at the Food Research Institute in Bologna has made some key breakthroughs in surgically attaching mature pig tongues onto the carbonara using surgical-graded pasta-based thread and using a butter salve rubbed directly onto the tongue which has resulted in better tasting carbonara. Based on initial trials on 1455 individual portions, results have shown that the tongue was rejected in 40% of cases, which can result in a bad-tasting spaghetti carbonara.