Why is it “trying to defend the indefensible” when manipulation and lying by omission get called out as people here keep spamming “look the IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when it’s actually 3 terrorists (one affiliated with Hamas, two with Islamic Jihad) that got killed?
You’re free to argue about the morality of assassinating three terrorists in a hospital. But it’s scummy to leave out the affiliation to try to mislead and gather more sympathy for the terrorists that got assassinated.
Why is it “trying to defend the indefensible” when manipulation and lying by omission get called out as people here keep spamming “look the IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when it’s actually 3 terrorists (one affiliated with Hamas, two with Islamic Jihad) that got killed?
All of that is entirely irrelevant. They could’ve gone after the reanimated corpse of Hitler but it would still be a war crime. I’m not sure why you fail to understand this simple yet vital point.
You’re free to argue about the morality of assassinating three terrorists in a hospital.
There’s nothing to argue. It’s immoral and illegal. End of story.
But it’s scummy to leave out the affiliation to try to mislead and gather more sympathy for the terrorists that got assassinated.
“But they were super, super bad guys” is a pathetic excuse. Do you posses a functioning moral compass?
Is it? If it was irrelevant, you wouldn’t need to leave it out to gather support for the assassinated terrorists. You perfectly know that the reaction would have been different if OP hadn’t left it out, which is why you still insist on leaving it out, and yes, that is scummy.
Every reputable outlet is not leaving out that crucial detail:
No target can have a high enough value to justify committing a war crime over. If you disagree, you’re attempting to justify something that should never be justified by anyone who would consider themselves a moral person. Sort yourself out.
No target can have a high enough value to justify committing a war crime over.
Then you shouldn’t have any issues with detailing that the three were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists when you refer to this incident instead of maliciously saying “IDF killed 3 Palestinians”?
You’re confusing me with someone else, or trying to put words in my mouth.
I’m referring to how commenters on c/world have been referring to this as “IDF killed 3 Palestinians” today thanks to this misinformation campaign.
you want to try and control the narrative but that’s not how this works
That’s… false? I’m not the one actively leaving out the fact that the 3 killed were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists, which the AlJazeera article even admits. And I’m not the one trying to bury this detail with downvotes to keep the false “IDF killed 3 random Palestinians” narrative alive a little longer.
You believe that no one should be assassinated like that, whether they are a terrorist or not, that’s perfectly fair. (so I suppose you hate the way the US assassinated Osama Bin Laden too?)
But then, why do you feel that the affiliation should not be brought up? You should test your beliefs and go ask on c/asklemmy: “Is it morally wrong to assassinate three Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists hiding in a hospital?”.
Yes, when you’re trying to defend the indefensible, this is exactly the kind of pathetic response I’d expect to read. Be better.
Why is it “trying to defend the indefensible” when manipulation and lying by omission get called out as people here keep spamming “look the IDF killed 3 Palestinians” when it’s actually 3 terrorists (one affiliated with Hamas, two with Islamic Jihad) that got killed?
You’re free to argue about the morality of assassinating three terrorists in a hospital. But it’s scummy to leave out the affiliation to try to mislead and gather more sympathy for the terrorists that got assassinated.
All of that is entirely irrelevant. They could’ve gone after the reanimated corpse of Hitler but it would still be a war crime. I’m not sure why you fail to understand this simple yet vital point.
There’s nothing to argue. It’s immoral and illegal. End of story.
“But they were super, super bad guys” is a pathetic excuse. Do you posses a functioning moral compass?
Is it? If it was irrelevant, you wouldn’t need to leave it out to gather support for the assassinated terrorists. You perfectly know that the reaction would have been different if OP hadn’t left it out, which is why you still insist on leaving it out, and yes, that is scummy.
Every reputable outlet is not leaving out that crucial detail:
Yes, it is.
No target can have a high enough value to justify committing a war crime over. If you disagree, you’re attempting to justify something that should never be justified by anyone who would consider themselves a moral person. Sort yourself out.
Then you shouldn’t have any issues with detailing that the three were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists when you refer to this incident instead of maliciously saying “IDF killed 3 Palestinians”?
You’re confusing me with someone else, or trying to put words in my mouth.
I understand you want to try and control the narrative but that’s not how this works.
I’m referring to how commenters on c/world have been referring to this as “IDF killed 3 Palestinians” today thanks to this misinformation campaign.
That’s… false? I’m not the one actively leaving out the fact that the 3 killed were Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists, which the AlJazeera article even admits. And I’m not the one trying to bury this detail with downvotes to keep the false “IDF killed 3 random Palestinians” narrative alive a little longer.
You believe that no one should be assassinated like that, whether they are a terrorist or not, that’s perfectly fair. (so I suppose you hate the way the US assassinated Osama Bin Laden too?)
But then, why do you feel that the affiliation should not be brought up? You should test your beliefs and go ask on c/asklemmy: “Is it morally wrong to assassinate three Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists hiding in a hospital?”.
You’re ranting at me like I’m responsible for the content generated by other people. Weird.