Why is Israel bombing civvies and not military installations? Sounds like a war crime to me!
(media.greatawakening.win)
🤢 These people are sick! 🤮
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (50)
sorted by:
So kill the innocent civilians - got it!
It is not ideal for sure. Remember this is the the Terrorists thought process for your exact outcry. So they are winning the hearts and minds of many and in a way supporting their actions! Your welcome to come up with a better plan and move it forward….
ok, like many of us here I think most if not all wars are planned by the globalists for reasons other than what is reported.
Not saying this one is different. But, if true that Palestinians embed themselves with civilians b/c they don't have a true military, how else would you suggest Israel set up a counter offensive without killing innocents?
Every country has a right to defend itself.
That being said I don't want US military or treasure used in this conflict.
You have it backward. A combatant has a positive obligation to separate its armed forces physically from its civilians. Human shields are a war crime. This would be, for example, mounting anti-aircraft guns on the roof of a hospital. The other combatant may legitimately attack military targets WHEREVER THEY ARE.
And, I think it is a universal principle that when one side throws away the rule book---as Hamas did with the deliberate targeting, capture, and deaths of civilians, mothers, fathers, and children---then there is only one rule book...and they have thrown it away.
Now, I begin to understand why God directed the Israelites to obliterate the Caananites. Of what are the Gaza people innocent? Harboring mass murderers? Nobody gets off the hook.
what did you infer from my post that is backwards? I was defending Israel's right to attack even though civilians are involved. It appears we are saying the same thing.
I apologize. My high blood pressure sometimes clouds my thinking. What I was attempting to clarify was that it really wasn't a question of Israel finding a better approach than also hitting civilians as collateral casualties---because it was an original obligation of Hamas not to create that problem.
There's a lot of agitation over Israel "committing war crimes," but the original war crime (use of human shields) was committed by Hamas. Every combatant has a clear right to target opposing combatant forces, however situated. I see a lot of confusion about the subject of war crimes in the Ukrainian context and I have become sensitized about it.
You are fine. I just wanted you to be aware that your position is stronger than you thought.
Well...... lets look at the attack. Was the attack directed and sent form the civilian markets?
Hamas is coming INTO Isreal. So... logically, one would STOP the invaders FIRST.
One would not BOMB civilians in an unrelated area prior to fortifying ones own line.
The attack, the surprise, the response... nothing makes reasonable sense no matter how one looks at it.
I agree with this statement. I just don't think the civilians being affected is the best argument, because it is somewhat hyprocritical for both sides.
I agree this is a setup, that is the argument we need to stick with. But, damn this will be much more difficult to turn public opinion on this one in comparison to ukraine. Even ukraine was tough for a while.
Where the attack was sent from has no relevance to how to proceed. All military targets are legitimate, no matter whence the originate.
To deal with the situation it would be necessary to (1) repel or kill the invaders, and (2) simultaneously eliminate their capability to attack from long range. There is no reason to wait for either measure. Doing so would be illogical.
There is no indication that Israel is bombing civilians by choice. If it bombs known or suspected Hamas operating units, it does not matter if civilians are present. Hamas has a positive obligation under either the Geneva or Hague convention to segregate its forces from its population. They do not get to use human shields, and the enforcement of that principle is that there is no war crime involved in shooting back at the enemy if they are embedded in the public.
The response makes perfect sense.
Umm...Where in my response, or in dumb_okie's comment say anything about killing innocent civilians?
He is stating a fact.
I guess science and fact's don't always agree.
You stick with the science, and I'll stick with the fact's...