this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
1256 points (87.8% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9404 readers
289 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 55 points 9 months ago (4 children)

And if it turns out that the accusation Hamas was using the basement as a command post is true, is that the new bottom?

[–] [email protected] 140 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Using the hospital for anything other than helping people is a bottom. They are both trash entities.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 9 months ago (9 children)

And fun fact: bombing/attacking a hospital is not a war crime per the Geneva Conventions Article 52, if it is being used as a military objective.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Might be a fun fact but it is not correct. Article 52 of the fourth convention is not related to hospitals. Article 52 of the 1st additional protocol is related to hospitals and it does not mean what you are saying it does. Geneva conventions do not define war crimes, that definition is given in the ICC Rome statutes.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 9 months ago (9 children)

Fair enough. The ICC Rome Statute specifically refers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. But per the ICC Rome statute on war crimes, Article 8, Section 2, Subsection (b), Clause (ix), the following is a war crime: "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected,provided they are not military objectives;"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Still the collateral damage needs to be proportional and adequate measures need to be taken to minimise civillian casualties.

So at least they would need to be able to evacuate. But Israel intentionally destroyed ambulances, cut water, electricity, fuel and communications, so it is impossible to evacuate the hospital. Israel did everything to make sure the civillian casualties will be high and that is nothing but a war crime and heinous murder.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

https://www.newarab.com/news/israel-gives-hospitals-gaza-hours-evacuate

According to the Hamas propaganda Israel literally gave a one month head start on that demand when they did not control the area around the hospital.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I mean, that makes a certain degree of sense, because if using protected places as a place to put one's military operations doesn't remove that protection, then it would become a common strategy to intentionally use vulnerable civilians as shields in that manner, and since no military is realistically going to just let their opponent attack them without a response when capable of delivering one, such a scenario would just lead to the whole idea of places like hospitals being protected being abandoned.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 9 months ago

That's exactly what Hamas does. No better than Al-Qaida.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Oh ok phew. I didn't know it wasn't a war crime per the Geneva convention article 52. Keep bombing those infants, baby! Woohoo!

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago

So glad Israel is the good guy here!

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago

We will have to see. Both sides have all the incentive to lie.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I mean what's worse: using a human shield, or deciding "nah fuck them kids shoot through them anyway."

[–] [email protected] 45 points 9 months ago (26 children)

What if they were shooting your kids while hiding behind their own? Would you let them keep doing it while insisting that reprisals are off limits?

[–] [email protected] 52 points 9 months ago (20 children)

Yeah, this is the problem I'm having with people picking sides. It's a giant crap-pile of the worst of humanity. People act like there's a good side. Nah, everything's a mess of generational hatred and I hate it all.

There needs to be a cease-fire. Hamas needs to release all hostages and then be permanently removed from power in Gaza, and Israel needs to help the Palestinians rebuild what has been destroyed, burry their dead with dignity and respect, and heavily compensate the families of those who have died.

The whole thing is out of control

[–] [email protected] 21 points 9 months ago (4 children)

There was a ceasefire, then Hamas attacked. Hard to rebuild trust after that.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Well said. The only angels here are the innocents being slaughtered. The belligerents are all devils.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago

There's an infinite spectrum between "not shooting children" and "letting the other guy shoot yours"

Also, this "oh we're so much better and civilized" act really falls short when it has to be explained to you why shooting children is still bad even when you do it.

[–] 257m 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Hamas barely has any power against Israel and two wrongs don't make a right. Killing children is off limits period. Dosen't matter who is hiding behind them. Also the children are not Hamas's kids. If you decide to shoot a innocent child you deserve go to hell there is no buts.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (8 children)

Hamas barely has any power against Israel

Indeed. It would be nice if they would acknowledge the reality of their situation. Maybe they would release the hostages, lay down arms, and sue for peace, if they acknowledged as you do that they don't have any hope against winning against Israel with violence.

the children are not Hamas’s kids.

The children that they hide behind are Palestinian children. Hamas is the government of Gaza and every citizen there is under their jurisdiction and control until they are deposed; i.e., "theirs."

two wrongs don’t make a right

War is always ethically shitty, but I see no other option for Israel at this point. If they don't meet violence with violence and achieve meaningful objectives to keep themselves safe in response to Hamas' mass slaughter, it's just begging for more of the same in the future. War is what happens when deterrence fails, perhaps this will serve as an example to those who would consider attacking Israel next time of the consequences.

If you decide to shoot a innocent child you deserve go to hell there is no buts.

Israel's intention is not to shoot children being used as shields. It is to neutralize the one shooting from behind them, even if there's significant risk of hitting a human shield. This devalues the strategy and discourages such people from using human shields in the future. It's the same reason one does not negotiate for hostages, it encourages future hostage taking. You let this be a viable strategy that deters reprisal, expect more of it.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Hamas barely has any power against Israel

I mean this is demonstrably untrue considering the attack where they killed and kidnapped hundreds of innocents.

That doesn't make Israel's response even remotely justifiable of course. But Hamas is not some plucky rebel group throwing pebbles. They're dangerous and need to be removed from power in a method that doesn't kill babies.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (2 children)

False dilemma. There are ways to react that don't involve shooting children.

Even if there weren't, I wouldn't say "yeah shoot some children."

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

You're misrepresenting my position. It's, "yeah definitely shoot the terrorist, try to avoid shooting their hostages if you can."

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Wouldn't proportionality be a thing here? Reprisals would be acceptable if they did not result in a disproportionate loss of innocent civilians. Unfortunately it seems like Palestinian children's lives are much cheaper than Israeli lives. I hate saying it because I think all children deserve protection regardless of the actions of the people in power, be it hamas or idf.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Still not a good reason to kill babies...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I would resign on the spot if I ever got an order like that. I don't care if Nazis are resurrecting Hitler in the basement of the hospital, I can't trade babies and children as acceptable collateral.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)