politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Well if the article is correct, it's still aimed at the militants
What a great way to create more militants.
Oh yeah? I bet you can't even name one 20 year war on terror that never ended because you can't fight an ideology while also enabling the spread of that ideology through civilian casualties. Wait.
But seriously, it's like Israel looked at Afghanistan and decided the issue was there weren't enough civilian casualties. Which, yeah, if there's no civilians left then there's nobody left to radicalize, but I think there's a word for that and it rhymes with genocide.
In the days after after 10/7, we heard Israeli diplomats talk about how it was their 9/11. On the one hand, I get the comparison and how it explains the shock 10/7 has had on the Israeli phsyce. On the other hand, I get the 9/11 comparison and how it explains the emotional response of launching an impossible military canpaign that will result in a generation defining 20 year quagmire.
Seriously. Any time someone uses a 9/11 comparison to justify Israel's response, the immediate followup should be "how did the American response work out"?
Well, it's certainly not a fun subject to talk about but there's always a point where a threat of bullying, discrimination, violence, ethnic cleansing and eventually mass murder will eventually break a population. Take recent examples of Nagorno-Kharabag ending in a complete exodus with very few casualties, or Western Sahara where clear military superiority broke the resistance against annexation.
Regarding Afghanistan: one can certainly ask the question whether more violence or the threat of it could not have produced a better outcome. NATO tried to go cheap on manpower (compared to Germany and Japan for example), instead buying off warlords to compensate and mistakely thinking the more progressive forces in the country would become strong enough to take over at some point. Had they went in heavier with less regard for collateral damage, or have a soldier looking at every Pashtun all of thetime, the result could have been very different and, dare I say, better
Yes they are aiming militants, never said they’re consciously targeting the populace, just appalled at their indifference towards civilian deaths as ‘acceptable’.
The IDF/war council is seemingly a-okay if they have to kill 10, 50, 200+ civilians to get at Hamas mid-level commanders - is that okay with you?
Well if you agree that it's a question of how far you're willing to move the slider, it's a question of empathy. But when you say "aimed at the populace" that implies you believe they're using Hamas as an excuse to kill innocent civilians.
Do you honestly believe Israel would not prefer Hamas to assemble somewhere in the desert away from any civilians so they can take all of them out with a single bomb? Do you believe the Israelis would be sad if Hamas surrendered?
Again, the displayed indifference towards civilian suffering is the core issue. Declaring the south as a ‘safe zone’ pre-ceasefire was a moral move (with disasterous humanitarian results), but now the safe areas are capricious defined and aren’t static,
Regarding the “one bomb in the desert” question? Any other year, yes I’m sure they’d prefer that. But Bibi was already in serious legal trouble before Oct.7 and is openly deferring that issue until after the Hamas war. Keeping the conflict open, progressing slowly, or unresolved buys him time to find a way to stay out of jail.
Is this an excuse for wanton murder of Gazans? You tell me? Certain elements of the coalition have openly made statements that at best call for displacement of Palestinians. Cutting off fuel, food, and water to a region under blockade, while those people are displaced and simultaneously refusing to allow aid in is ghoulish.