That's a single story from a few years ago. There's been plenty of violence against Israelis since; we very rarely see those stories here. Why should we have daily discussions about one-sided anti-Israel stories, and almost none of the opposite? Not to mention very little about other conflict around the world.
There are a lot of casualties on both sides of conflicts around the world. It is a bit suspicious when certain communities want to focus almost exclusively on one side of one conflict, while also leaving out any context about the terrorists that started the conflict and fight in civilian clothing.
They somehow manage to find uniforms when they do parades. In any case, the principle of distinction merely requires combatants to wear distinguishing marks. Hypothetically if they ran out of uniforms, they could use something as simple as colored armbands.
It's a basic tenet of IHL which is essential for the protection of civilians in a war zone. If the pro-Palestinian community was genuinely focused on the well-being of Gazans, they would have extremely concerned about this particular war crime, and would have urgently tried to get Hamas to stop from disguising as civilians.
So the 20 thousand children killed in Gaza should have been wearing what kind of uniform to avoid behind killed? Just so I understand correctly.
>>would have urgently tried to get Hamas to stop from disguising as civilians.
So if the international community somehow pressured Hamas to wear uniforms, IDF would kill fewer children? Or they would stop their policy on waiting until a suspected Hamas combatant returns home and then blowing them up along with their family?
I just feel like that's such a dishonest, morally bankrupt take. For every single Israeli killed in the October attack, Israel has killed 20 children. But hey, Hamas militants don't wear uniforms sometimes, damn I wish the world would talk more about this war crime too.
I'm just trying to think of when my own country was under German occupation and 2 millions of our citizens were killed by Nazis - if internet was around back then I'm sure someone would have said that it's really suspicious no one talks about how our resistance forces don't walk around the streets in their uniforms or you know "at least wear an armband". If only anyone really cared about our well being surely someone should have pointed it out, maybe UK could have sent some strongly worded letters to the underground leaders to just wear uniforms when outside, then(and only then) talking about the genocide would finally be fine.
Civilians don't have to wear distinguishing marks, combatants do if they care about the laws of war and protecting the civilian population.
Just blaming Israel for all civilian harm, when it's Hamas that started the war and disguises as civilians, isn't going to help. If you care about limiting civilian harm, you should be focused on ensuring Gaza has a government that doesn't keep starting wars, or at least put on uniforms before they attack Israel. Maybe even letting civilians shelter in bunkers, rather than reserving them for terrorist use only.
Can you name a single conflict in a comparable urban setting, against terrorists that dressed as civilians, that definitely had a better civilian casualty ratio? Or are you just holding Israel to an impossible standard that no military in the real world is capable of?
> For every single Israeli killed in the October attack, Israel has killed 20 children.
It doesn't make any sense to try to judge morality based on casualty ratios. By this logic, the Nazis were the good guys in WWII, and Israel would be the good guys if they'd just turn off all their pesky air defenses.
>>Or are you just holding Israel to an impossible standard that no military in the real world is capable of?
I'm sure I can name a few militaries in the world that would manage to not shoot at a marked ambulance and kill the medics inside. And a few others that actually manage to successfully prosecute their soldiers raping and torturing captured enemies, not have the prosecutors let them free as heroes of the nation.
>>Just blaming Israel for all civilian harm, when it's Hamas that started the war and disguises as civilians, isn't going to help
And why is that? I think if we continue sanctioning Israel as much as we can that will help. If we keep putting pressure on Israel to let journalists in, that will help.
>>By this logic
I don't know what logic that is. The ratio alone doesn't make you good or bad.
> By this logic, the Nazis were the good guys in WWII, and Israel would be the good guys if they'd just turn off all their pesky air defenses.
Can you elaborate on this? I thought that the Nazis were pretty obviously the "bad guys" due to committing genocide and mass casualties (combatant and civilian) while trying to expand their borders.
> It doesn't make any sense to try to judge morality based on casualty ratios.
Really, even the ratio of civilian casualties, or ratio of civilian casualties to combatant casualties? Those seem pretty relevant to morality in my book, but I might be misunderstanding.
I think we're mostly in agreement? I agree civilian casualty ratios can be meaningful signals about morality, provided that we account for context (e.g. whether civilians are trapped in a warzone or able to evacuate) and are careful to draw apples-to-apples comparisons.
But the parent wasn't really comparing these ratios; it was closer to a "total deaths on either side" sort of comparison. Usually the implied message is that in a conflict between two sides, the side that killed more must be less moral. That dubious logic would suggest e.g.
- The Nazis were morally superior to Western Allies, since the Western Allies killed more Germans than the reverse.
- The Coalition was extremely evil in the Gulf War, since Iraq suffered several orders of magnitude more casualties.
- Israel is bad partly because it goes to extreme lengths to protect its people (Iron Dome, bomb shelters everywhere, etc.). Letting more of its people get killed would "even out the scales" and suddenly make Israel's military operations more moral.
>>Usually the implied message is that in a conflict between two sides, the side that killed more must be less moral.
And you decided that this is an argument I'm making and decided to argue against that, instead of what I'm actually saying - which sure, would lead to the nonsensical logical conclusions that you wrote.
What makes Israel a state worthy of condemnation is the fact that they target civilians on purpose. That they shoot at medics, deny food supplies, shoot rockets at refugee camps, hospitals, schools, they shoot at little kids playing around, they torture their prisoners, they use AI to guess which person needs to be eliminated and they blow them up with their families to maximise casualties - and all of the above happens without any oversight or consequence for any people involved. The 20k children dead is a consequence of all of these decisions, the number itself isn't what makes Israel bad - it's how they got to it, through a culmination of decades of decisions on how they see Palestinians - as subhuman scum needs to die. There is no effort to protect civilian life, and IDF saying otherwise is just lying.
But I feel like you're keen to say that Israel is "defending" itself and Gaza is a narrow urban zone, so of course it can't be done any other way.
Let me maybe ask you this, just to satisfy my own curiosity more than anything - if Israel decided to kill everyone in Gaza, based on the assumption that since Hamas doesn't wear uniforms anyone can be a militant so this is justified, would you just go "yeah that's fair"? Or would you just make some argument about how no army in the world would do better.
I suspect that this is less driven by users and more driven by institutions. Banking trojans distributed via sideloading are a big problem. Banks are unhappy that their users are getting their shit stolen because some other app is squatting on 2fa codes or whatever. They'd rather that their apps are not installed alongside apps that are more likely to be malware given that there isn't a private channel for auth codes for the vast majority of users.
F-Droid is a teeny store and requires extra steps like open sourcing such that it is not an appealing vector for malware authors.
Either you want to target the Play store so that you can get a wider install base but need to deal with tighter controls or you want to distribute flagrantly malicious stuff to people for banking trojans or whatever via social engineering to get them to sideload. F-Droid doesn't help with either of these things.
Trump has been the protagonist of US politics for ten years. Maybe this "actually he really has this all planned out" idea was viable in 2017. But in 2026? We've got years and years and years of examples of how Trump makes decisions. He is not playing 4d chess.
The gatekeepers for the humanities are not the academics. The gatekeepers are the archives and the funding bodies.
AI won't be terribly effective at helping somebdoy publish novel history if they aren't willing and able to go to a bunch of archives all over the world and dig through physical boxes.
maybe humanoids because tools already designed for human likes? if you send specialised robot it cannot use wrench or climb a ladder... you have to redesign everything
reply