I could ask you to point to where you think I justify killing but what a waste of time it would be, asking questions to people so fucking deep in the political delirium.
"A terrorist state bombing the mouthpiece of another terrorist state.
Can’t say I’m overwhelmed with emotion" - murvel
You said that, that’s your own words. How is one supposed to interpret that exactly other than being okay with just the attempted murder of a member of the media who is covering genocide?
So you think that when a propagandists from one terrorist state gets killed by another terrorist state, that it’s not ok? Because dude has a press badge?
Yes, I think that is not ok. Do you think it’s ok? To kill an unarmed video team using a guided bomb?
Where do you get that moral code from? You’re surely not claiming to be religious or rational?
By the way, most states are engaged in terrorism in one way or another. The US most certainly is a terrorist state. So you’re saying anyone should be able to bomb journalists from any country? Which countries are exempt?
Yes, I think that is not ok. Do you think it’s ok? To kill an unarmed video team using a guided bomb?
Where do you get that moral code from? You’re surely not claiming to be religious or rational?
They stated that they were bombing that bridge. Mouthpiece went over to the area they knew Israel was targeting…this isn’t about moral code. If that was a bullshit Fox news “journalist” doing this to Iran would you cry foul?
By the way, most states are engaged in terrorism in one way or another. The US most certainly is a terrorist state. So you’re saying anyone should be able to bomb journalists from any country? Which countries are exempt?
Any journalist worth their salt, isn’t going to areas that have been stated will be bombed. They don’t because they’re not idiots.
If that was a bullshit Fox news “journalist” doing this to Iran would you cry foul?
Yes, I absolutely would. I don’t wish Fox news journalists dead, as disgraceful as they are. Though I doubt any of them would have the courage to report from a war zone.
Any journalist worth their salt, isn’t going to areas that have been stated will be bombed. They don’t because they’re not idiots.
That’s not how it works in the Geneva conventions, though. The reason it doesn’t work like that is because then any aggressor state can simply designate an area for bombing if they want to keep the press away from it, then they can commit any and all kinds of crimes against humanity there with zero civil oversight. Also, let’s say Mugabe had killed journalists in an area because he had warned he was going to attack there, we all would’ve cried foul. So that’s not the rule.
The rule is really simple and clear: don’t target noncombatants.
Edit: another thing, can you show me any evidence that this journalist knows the bridge was about to be bombed? I find that incredibly difficult to believe, so I can’t just take that on faith sorry.
Yes, I absolutely would. I don’t wish Fox news journalists dead, as disgraceful as they are. Though I doubt any of them would have the courage to report from a war zone.
That’s impressive, considering that war doesn’t work that way.
That’s not how it works in the Geneva conventions, though. The reason it doesn’t work like that is because then any aggressor state can simply designate an area for bombing if they want to keep the press away from it, then they can commit any and all kinds of crimes against humanity there with zero civil oversight.
Not how that works at all. A journalist is a civilian, targeted attacks on civilians is against the convention, not attacks on infrastructure (unless it’s a hospital or school), bridges are %100 allowed to be attacked. Even the USA let’s civilians know they’re going to be doing massive bombings usually as a courtesy to the country they’re attacking.(Dunno if they still do since the orange turnip took power though).
Also, let’s say Mugabe had killed journalists in an area because he had warned he was going to attack there, we all would’ve cried foul. So that’s not the rule.
The rule is really simple and clear: don’t target noncombatants.
They didn’t target non-combatants they targeted a bridge. This is the same shit a lot of insane dictators do, stuff a bunch of military shit in heavily populated civilian areas, then cry foul when civilians get killed. What you’re doing is saying, if you strap civilians to your planes then they’re no longer weapons or infrastructure of war. You don’t get to bend the rules and cry foul.
Edit: another thing, can you show me any evidence that this journalist knows the bridge was about to be bombed? I find that incredibly difficult to believe, so I can’t just take that on faith sorry.
Israel does this a lot, they also do roof knocking. This in no way defends the terrorist state of Israel. It’s just pointing out facts.
Also in this thread people have already called out that the munitions used are not shrapnel bombs like this journalist suggested, it’s a standard high yield explosive designed to destroy infrastructure, not kill people. If it was a shrapnel bomb it would have gone off above the ground, just like the HIMARs rounds that Ukraine uses to inflicte mass casualties to russian forces when they’re all clumped together.
So no.
And no, I’m not justifying anything.
I could ask you to point to where you think I justify killing but what a waste of time it would be, asking questions to people so fucking deep in the political delirium.
Your first comment.
You don’t care he was bombed because he’s “the mouthpiece of a terrorist state”.
Comes out with a spicy take, then tries to walk it back when it shows an ass of themselves.
I hate lemmy, I swear I really do.
Read the first comment you damn illiterate. I swear you fucks are so blinded by hatred that you interpret shit however you like…
I doubt anyone is convinced that I’m hateful or illiterate.
Seems like a pretty fair paraphrasing of
Or is there some hidden meaning you think should be obvious?
"A terrorist state bombing the mouthpiece of another terrorist state.
Can’t say I’m overwhelmed with emotion" - murvel
You said that, that’s your own words. How is one supposed to interpret that exactly other than being okay with just the attempted murder of a member of the media who is covering genocide?
That I don’t care would be the sane interpretation, but then again I am talking with fucking lunatics
Says the insane man.
Is that the exact quote? No!? Oh because that’s your dumb shit interpretation.
I doubt anyone is convinced that I’m a dumb shit.
Seems like a pretty fair paraphrasing of
Or is there some hidden meaning you think should be obvious?
So you think that when a propagandists from one terrorist state gets killed by another terrorist state, that it’s not ok? Because dude has a press badge?
I understood their post just fine.
Yes, I think that is not ok. Do you think it’s ok? To kill an unarmed video team using a guided bomb?
Where do you get that moral code from? You’re surely not claiming to be religious or rational?
By the way, most states are engaged in terrorism in one way or another. The US most certainly is a terrorist state. So you’re saying anyone should be able to bomb journalists from any country? Which countries are exempt?
They stated that they were bombing that bridge. Mouthpiece went over to the area they knew Israel was targeting…this isn’t about moral code. If that was a bullshit Fox news “journalist” doing this to Iran would you cry foul?
Any journalist worth their salt, isn’t going to areas that have been stated will be bombed. They don’t because they’re not idiots.
Yes, I absolutely would. I don’t wish Fox news journalists dead, as disgraceful as they are. Though I doubt any of them would have the courage to report from a war zone.
That’s not how it works in the Geneva conventions, though. The reason it doesn’t work like that is because then any aggressor state can simply designate an area for bombing if they want to keep the press away from it, then they can commit any and all kinds of crimes against humanity there with zero civil oversight. Also, let’s say Mugabe had killed journalists in an area because he had warned he was going to attack there, we all would’ve cried foul. So that’s not the rule.
The rule is really simple and clear: don’t target noncombatants.
Edit: another thing, can you show me any evidence that this journalist knows the bridge was about to be bombed? I find that incredibly difficult to believe, so I can’t just take that on faith sorry.
That’s impressive, considering that war doesn’t work that way.
Not how that works at all. A journalist is a civilian, targeted attacks on civilians is against the convention, not attacks on infrastructure (unless it’s a hospital or school), bridges are %100 allowed to be attacked. Even the USA let’s civilians know they’re going to be doing massive bombings usually as a courtesy to the country they’re attacking.(Dunno if they still do since the orange turnip took power though).
They didn’t target non-combatants they targeted a bridge. This is the same shit a lot of insane dictators do, stuff a bunch of military shit in heavily populated civilian areas, then cry foul when civilians get killed. What you’re doing is saying, if you strap civilians to your planes then they’re no longer weapons or infrastructure of war. You don’t get to bend the rules and cry foul.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67327079
Israel does this a lot, they also do roof knocking. This in no way defends the terrorist state of Israel. It’s just pointing out facts.
Also in this thread people have already called out that the munitions used are not shrapnel bombs like this journalist suggested, it’s a standard high yield explosive designed to destroy infrastructure, not kill people. If it was a shrapnel bomb it would have gone off above the ground, just like the HIMARs rounds that Ukraine uses to inflicte mass casualties to russian forces when they’re all clumped together.