Saying things like "worse" is just picking sides for no reason.
There's a point where you can stop measuring the cuntiness and just accept that they're both well over the threshold of being a cunt. There's no limit to the size of the cunt bucket. There's no queue to get in.
They're both cunts and the world (and especially all the civilians in the local vicinity) would be better off without them.
Britain's way of dealing with the IRA wasn't killing Irish people by the hundreds while hoping that some of them might be terrorists. Spain's way of dealing with ETA wasn't killing Basque people by the hundreds while hoping that some of them might be terrorists.
If you think that neither Britain or Spain would have been justified in brutalizing the Irish or Basque populations, but you think that Israel's disregard for the lives of innocent Palestinians is justified, you're just a racist tool.
To anyone both sides-ing this issue, you are flattening the genocide. This is an overwhelmingly lopsided conflict. One side has the funding and backing of the largest military presence the world has ever known. One side has caged and gated the other into increasingly smaller and smaller spaces, like literal concentration camps. This one side has decided that healthcare, housing, food, water, communications, etc are not important to provide to the people who they've effectively imprisoned. This side has people at the highest points of leadership calling for ethnic cleansing. This side has been called out by the UN for genocide.
The other side is fighting back on their land, among their own people, in a space that is one of the densest populations on the planet per square foot, in a place with no resources, cannot leave, must defer to settlers who take their property if they leave it due to threat. None of this is by their own choosing. Guerrilla warfare is a tactic used when asymmetry is stark and is often negatively criticised without context to its necessity. Both side-sing ensures that the asymmetrical nature of this conflict remains status quo.
But this is the most reasonable response.
If they realize that human shields aren't working, they won't use them and a more optimal number of people will be killed overall.
Also, any human shields you kill should be attributed to the people using those human shields.
Thats my take on this. I will agree to disagree with anyone who thinks otherwise.
PS: For all those replying: where did the words "Israel" and "Hamas" come from? I would like to bring to your attention that I didn't cover any details specific to the conflict anywhere above.. As far as I am concerned:
- Hamas is a terrorist organization
- civilians in Gaza are innocent
- Opinions about Israel are based entirely on Hamas reporting which could.be accurate or could be misinformation.
PPS: Lets play some mental games for a second.
Statement 1: X is mass murdering innocent people. And Y is trying to kill X.
Who is the bad guy and who is the good guy? X is bad Y is good.
Now let me reveal How X is mass murdering people.
Statement 2: X is doing so by putting those innocent people into the fire of Y on X.
You cannot tell me Y is worse than X after that. I don't say that we can't judge Y for attacking X under these circumstances, but X is never better than Y.
Using human shields makes you a war criminal. Attacking someone using human shields does not technically make you a war criminal, because it does not endanger civilians without furthering your "just" goal of killing that war criminal.
Please correct me if I am wrong. You still should consider if killing the war criminal is worth the cost and this does not mean civilians had it coming by any means.
anyone trying to make this very complicated seem this simple is the problem.... the truth is two groups of people hate each other and have been super shitty to each other for a long long long time. One group is going to destroy the other cause they can't get along. No one is right, no one is wrong. It's just the way that it is.... yeah, that's shitty. I didn't decide for things to be this way though.
How can you misunderstand propaganda The propaganda is : "they use human shield so when you shot at them we can't avoid killing civilians"
The lie being that this is binary choice, either shoot the terrorist killing the civilian or don't shoot and let the terrorist kill people. The reality is that you can also try to devise a tactic to outsmart them.
And no you're not fucking worse. If you take hostage and shot at the police when they enter and a civilian is killed in the firefight your 1000% getting charged for the death.
Btw the "rethoric" is a fucking UN reports
So many armchair generals on this site. Yes lets just kill Hamas and not kill anyone else, because it's just that simple. Mkay. Even better, lets just make them apologize and pinky promise not to do that again. That should be enough to solve the tensions in the region. You people think anyone gives a shit what war rules are when bullets are whizzing by? Am not trying to defend any side here, but I can't see anyone not trying to do their best to survive whatever shit is at hand.
This take is pretty dumb. If someone is taking hostages, and killing some hostages guarantees that the purpertrator can't take future hostages, it's a shorty but understandable tradeoff. In the context of of the Israel/Gaza conflict it is infinity more complex. Please read about the history of the region and the nature of the conflict.
