World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
As I said, I think the vast majority of people who have lost a child do not ever want to debate whether the death was justified. Furthermore plenty of other people - Palestinian or otherwise - do not want to engage in a debate over Israel.
I have no idea how many people in the rest of the world agree with Israel, and it doesn't matter to me at all. I don't think it affects whether they are justified. There are plenty of things that are not justified even though they are very popular, and vice versa.
Sorry... you think moral justification does not depend on what the majority considers to be morally justified?
Where does it come from, your god?
Morality usually comes from some sort of first principles. Some are religiously inspired, but I think it's much better to start with one or more moral philosophers.
If we simply put it to a vote, then we would likely conclude that slavery was moral in the 18th century.
Which moral philosopher says that it's justified to kill thousands of children to achieve military goals?
Pol Pot springs to mind...
Plenty, going back at least as far as Augustine to modern writers like Michael Walzer.
Feel free to quote one of them saying so.
Philosophers rarely give good soundbites.
If you are actually interested in a summary of Just War theory and its critics, you can find one here.
A quick search shows that children are not mentioned.
Children are noncombatants, try searching for that.
How about you tell me where to look since I'm not your research arm?
And, again, I asked you about children. The fact that you keep pretending I'm not just indicates you're discussing this in bad faith.
Justifying the death of civilians implies justifying the death of children, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Likewise, the ICC bans "intentionally directing attacks against civilians". They do not specify children. Do you suppose that means directing attacks against children is legal according to the ICC? Of course not, because children are a subgroup of civilians.
Finally, I am not your research arm either. You asked me the names of relevant philosophers, I provided them. If you have follow-up questions about their ideas then I applaud your curiousity but you should probably just read what they wrote.
I know you want to pretend that children are not a special class, but there's a reason we treat children differently from adults and the reason that I am specifically talking about then since you are saying their deaths are justifiable.
The death of children is not treated as a special case by the ICC or Geneva conventions. If they are nevertheless protected, then it's not necessary to treat them as a special case.
I understand that you prefer to treat them as a special case, but I don't understand why you expect everyone else to share your preference.
You need to decide whether you're talking about philosophy or law, because you keep bouncing back and forth between the two.
Another way you are not here in good faith.
They heavily overlap.
If you look at that link, you'll find that many of the philosophical concepts ("proportionality", immorality of directly targeting civilians) are codified into law and enforced by the ICC.
Which makes sense, the Geneva conventions were written precisely because laws at the time did not cover wartime actions that were viewed as highly immoral.
Sure. Medicine and electronics also heavily overlap. They're in no way the same thing.
Now are you going to actually show a philosopher saying that it is justified to kill thousands of children in order to achieve a military objective or are you going to be honest and admit that no such philosopher, at least not one that is in any way widely-respected, would ever suggest such a disgusting idea?
Philosophers have justified killing civilians in order to achieve a military objective.
Children are civilians.
Therefore, philosophers have justified killing children in order to achieve a military objective.
By your logic, if the Geneva conventions do not mention "Palestinians" then they do not protect Palestinians.
You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians to achieve a military objective. All you have said is that it wouldn't be allowed for that to happen. Which doesn't mean it isn't justified.
Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths you put up earlier? Don't tell me to do the research myself, don't give me the law, quote the philosopher specifically advocating your upper limit cap.
Or just admit you were being dishonest. Either one.
And I don't think I ever will. As I said earlier, "There is no military goal that justifies killing "any amount" of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities."
I never provided an upper limit cap.
I said "we would consider 15,000 to 75,000 civilian deaths to be normal at this point."
Normal, as in "typical". Which is not the same as acceptable, it depends on whether you believe a "normal" war is acceptable.
As I suggested earlier, it's quite reasonable to take the pacifist position that even "normal" wars are not acceptable.
Israel's goal is to destroy Hamas. Every time they kill innocent children, they create more members of Hamas. Therefore, their goal is any amount of children including 100% of them.
Sorry, I'm not going to stop making this about children just because you don't want it to be.
So when do you think they should stop killing children before it is no longer justified?
Destroying Hamas means destroying the current leadership, so it can no longer function.
It's true that Israel is running the risk of inciting hatred and creating more fighters, but those future fighters won't be in Hamas. They will be in some other organization that replaces Hamas, just like Hamas replaced Fatah.
Where is that claimed? Or is that just your opinion?
These were Netanyahu's goals in October:
And these are Netanyahu's current goals:
You mean his goals keep changing? Hmm... seems like a constantly changing military objective would allow you to kill an unlimited number of children justifiably based on your reasoning.
In October, he said he wanted
Today, he says the Rafah operation is a significant step towards
The first two goals look unchanged.
There is no mention of hostages in my quote. Maybe he isn't interested in that any more, but it's entirely possible he mentioned it elsewhere and I didn't see it.
You mean the military that grows every time a child is killed. So this never ends and children never stop being killed.
No, Hamas forces are steadily getting smaller. If there are new recruits, they are not enough to make up for the losses.
If you won't even acknowledge what even The Jerusalem Post acknowledges, I can't help you. You're clearly not living in the real world.
https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-783159
Your link:
The article suggests that they can recruit in the future, and maybe they can. Or maybe Palestinian militants will join a different organization, as I suggested.
But for now, Hamas is definitely smaller than they were in October.
You either did not read the whole article or are dishonestly taking that line out of context.
This is also dishonest because we are not talking about "for now," we are talking about how this war will end, if it ever does.
You clearly have an honesty problem and I don't see why I should continue this discussion further.
You said the Hamas military is growing. It isn't.
You showed me an article that speculates about how it might grow in the future, but that doesn't mean it's growing now. It doesn't even mean it will grow in the future. It's just speculation.
As for how this war will end: I don't know and neither do you. You seem to think that Israel will kill 100% of Palestinian children but I don't believe that will happen.
Which is what we are obviously talking about when talking about reaching a military objective.
I am tired of your blatant dishonesty. This has all been about justifying Israeli genocide and I wish you had just been honest about that from the start.
Goodbye.
Are you suggesting that Israel cannot achieve its military objective?
Maybe so, but that does not mean that they intend to "kill all children" (or that doing so would be justified), despite your assertions.
I have been trying to follow this discussion, but this is taking it a bit too far...
Would it be rude to suggest a ceasefire?