TWeaK

Does someone in constant pain deserve to live?

That doesn't really work as a comparison, because it devolves into the question "does anyone deserve to live?"

The fact is, someone fooled by someone else doesn't deserve the consequences. The person who deceived them is the only one that "deserves" negative consequences.

My "personal attacks" are direct criticisms of your behaviour. I'm not calling you names, I'm calling you out for what you're doing.

This article is about IDF soldiers killing hostages. Your reponse was:

Friendly fire happens in war, especially with an enemy who uses civilians as shields and seeks to maximize civilian deaths for PR.

My reply was that these hostages did everything they could to demonstrate they weren't hostile, yet they were still executed by soliders. That is a war crime. There is no excusing that as friendly fire. Even if they weren't hostages, the IDF should not have executed them, and doing so was the crime of murder regardless of their affiliation.

That isn't the war crime of IDF leaders or of Bibi, that is the war crime of the soldiers that committed the act, and their commanding officers. The leaders only have a superfluous responsibility, easily obfuscated by varied interpretations of terminology. In other words, if you pass it off up the chain of command you end up with no one being responsible.

The thing happened. The person who did it is 100% responsible. The person in charge of the person who did it is also responsible, to some lesser degree. The person in charge of the military is also responsible, maybe not as much as the person who did it but perhaps more than their immediate commander, given the type of propaganda the person in charge passed down.

I think you're trying to pass up responsibility to those that won't face any of it, in an effort to exonerate those who are actually responsible on the ground.

My argument is that everyone involved is responsible and all of them should be held suitably to account.

How is the first thing I've said stupid? The Nuremburg trials were indeed groundbreaking, but they didn't really hold the most responsible to account. They stepped down the ladder and held the people they could to account.

And an ignorant electorate deserves the fall of their country.

No they don't. That is the epitome of victim blaming.

I'm not. I'm against all terrorism.

You are advocating in support of the IDF, even when they commit terrorist acts. You make excuses for the terrorist actions, bringing in other terrorist actions, as if one form of terrorism is justified in response to the other.

See I think the key point is that you assume at least half of all Gazans are guilty alongside Hamas because >50% of people in Gaza supported Hamas in the 2007 elections. Even assuming similar proportions now, I would argue that a large number of that supporting group are only the victims of propaganda, rather than organically and sincerely taking that position.

There were more than 2 million people in the Gaza strip, of which only 50,000 were members of Hamas. The rest are civilians, people who on one side face repression from Israelis and on the other face Hamas telling them they can make things better.

That sounds nice, but there’s nothing specific or actionable.

Ok, to be specific, I would like Israel to focus on military objectives only. Right now, they are deviating far beyond that and extending their rules of engagement, far beyond anything reasonable.

I would also like it if Hamas focused on military objectives. Attacking a music festival with a peace motif is heinous, particularly when it is down the road from a military base.

The Geneva convention already provides scope for dealing with bad actors who use civilian infrastructure for military purposes. Israel exploits this and attacks civilian infrastructure directly, using this exemption as an excuse without proving their postition is valid.

Meanwhile, Hamas completely ignores everything and also attacks civilians directly.

The methods are different, but the end result is the same.

In the first matchup, I would pick Musk over Thiel for being a bigger POS in general.

But Musk's acquisition of Twitter is in itself subservient to Theil's overarching political goals. One has been in the limelight more, but the other has caused more harm overall.

The worst person in tech is a choice between a bunch of people who are working together to make things worse for everyone else?

The Man Who Knocks meets the Man Who Knocks You Out.

Hamas took the opportunity of striking on the 50th anniversary of the last Yom Kippur war, and Bibi had no way of seeing that coming?