You're viewing a single thread.
You didn't even say it was bad to use human shields at any point. Now I don't think you should be banned for it but it says a lot about your ethical standards and what it says is not good.
They constantly defend Israel. They know what they are doing
Absolutely! I just imagine that people want to be morally and intellectually consistent, so I think it's important to point out when they are not.
Of course maybe they think Hamas using "human shields" is fine too? Doubt it but at least that wouldn't be hypocritical
I don't need to. It is obviously implied by pointing out booby-trapping will harm palestinian civilians.
So you do denounce the IDF for using human shields? It's unclear when you seem to only focus on the portion of the blame that lies with Hamas
It is not unclear. It requires a basic understanding of words which you seem to finally have figured out.
Jeopardizing civilian lives, either by placing booby-traps or using them as shields are both warcrimes.
My stance has always been that all the violence is BS. I just hate that lemmy.world blatantly gives Hamas a pass.
A metaphor.
You in this thread:
both sides are committing war crimes but in only complaining about one, how don't you get that I'm mad at both of them!
You in that thread:
Yeah guys! I'm just saying ALL LIVES MATTER so why are all these BLM people mad?
I'm just saying why are black people getting a pass?
You, unironically.
It's a poor metaphor because the genocide being committed intentionally is worse
It is not unclear. It requires a basic understanding of words which you seem to finally have figured out.
If it only required a "basic" understanding why would so many people have been making the same point to you?
If a headline says "x group did a crime" and someone responds "y group are criminals" it is not at all obvious what this person's stance on x group is. If anything this reads like a deflection onto y group, so someone might infer that the responder supports x group or at least is more concerned about y group.
If the person says "yes, x group did do a crime but let's not forget y group are criminals too" then it is super clear what this person means. If you omit a response to the actual topic at hand you have no place getting mad when people assume you don't care about that.
Say "I denounce the IDF for using human shields"
He's not going to do that, because he does not actually believe that. He's talking about people "giving Hamas a pass" to cover up his real views on the matter, which is that he is aligned with Israel despite the fact they are committing a genocide.
Because unless it is stated explicitly it wasn't actually meant? So you understand how the ban was wrong then as I didn't explicitly say "the IDF are right to use palestinian shields" right? Thank you for agreeing with me.
It is a bit weird that even when asked directly you "both sides"-ed it, and this is also another deflection. I believe that you think that, but then why not just say it clearly?