hh93

Rule #6 of the international humanitarian law:

Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Attacks shall be directed solely against legitimate military targets.

If you look up the definition of military targets you will see

"In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage."

You can ask pretty much every lawyer that Hamas actually made the hospitals into legitimate targets under the Geneva Conventions. The only party that clearly broke that law without a doubt is Hamas.

I liked the one a while ago about making every blind person able to see again for exactly 6 hours before they go blind again

That sounded just viciously cruel

The backups aren't unless you specifically set it up which I guess most people don't

So what's the Alternative?

Hamas made the hospital into a legitimate target in a war by using it like that.

Can't evacuate, can't bomb, can't go in on foot - why are people always saying what they don't want but never what the Alternative is?

Should Hamas be rewarded for using their most vulnerable civilians as a shield like this?

Liberals are always the first to fall in line with fascists - the first regional governments of the Nazis in Germany was supported by libertarians and pro-economy-parties, a couple of years ago. 3 years ago the Neo-Liberal party in Thuringia accepted to govern as a minority-government when the only party supporting them was the far-right AfD with a leader that you can legally call a fascist and that is under surveillance by the Verfassungsschutz for being a danger to democracy.

The CDU (moderate-conservative party) in Germany also won't work with either the left party nor the AfD but their local politicians are already getting very close with the AfD.

If someone's claiming "both sides" in a political issue that's usually a sign that they won't oppose the fascists when they try to grab the power

People are critical of Israel here, too.

When Netanjahu pushed for his justice reform there were a lot of articles pointing that out. Very regularly people spoke up against the settlers-movement.

Israel for sure is not a white knight in this conflict but given that it's a war that Hamas clearly started in the worst possible way and that Hamas is misusing their civilians as shields to produce public outcry when those people they hold hostage around their command centers die it's hard to see how while still shitty in the big picture Israel is clearly in the right in this specific war right now.

Let's hope that the Israeli people kick out Netanjahu asap (since they still can other than the people in Gaza that have no chance to kick out Hamas without outside intervention) and that there is a way to find a peaceful 2 state solution - but saying stuff like the statement that was banned won't help with peace either as it's just a wish to flip the war on the other side and genocide all the Jews from Israel.

Fueling hate against a group of people like this is not protected by freedom of speech in Germany in general. If someone repeated that statement of the Israeli minister about flattening Gaza with an atomic bomb in Germany that probably would also be illegal. This now is just making it clear where the line that's always been there is in this conflict.

Wie Böhmermann letzten so schön meinte: nachzusehen in der ZDF Mediathek unter www.youtube.com

Dieses deplubizieren ist echt ein Witz

Denke ist schon ein Unterschied wenn man zu einer Situation dazu kommt und darüber berichtet oder halt wie in dem Vorwurf vorher bescheid weiß und nichts tut.

Wenn man als Journalist über eine Gang berichtet und davon erfährt dass nächste Woche ein Banküberfall stattfinden soll und man zur Tatzeit vor Ort ist um den zu filmen ohne vorher irgendwem bescheid zu geben ist das schon maximal fragwürdig.

Testing the waters before sending more is a good tactic

What if they send more and Hamas intercepted it as they did with this one?

I'm not living in the US but in a county with a working prison system. It's just that a lot of people on here (and reddit) are completely okay with it because they don't seem to see prisoners as humans to be rehabilitated but more like some abstract beings to be punished so whatever happens to them seems to be okay for them

Autofahrys wenn eine Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung existiert

Recency bias at work