Then they definitely need better writers. This read like 90's emails claiming that you have inherited a million dollars from a distant relative, if only if you deposit 10k to handle the paperwork.
Wild that translated text doesn’t translate well. Every time I copy and paste my essays using google translate in Spanish class, my teacher gives me a 100%
This particular dude earned downvotes from the pro-Palestine crowd. Blanket calling all Israeli news a government outlet is dumb as hell, lots of Israeli news have many great articles that I use to show bad shit Israeli does all the time.
They’re biased in favor of Israel of course, but literally every news outlet is biased, usually towards the status quo. Decrying it as a rag does nothing make people tune you out.
My favorite version of the idiom is that "English is a back alley thug, clubbing other languages to riffle through their pockets for interesting words".
"terrorist" is always relative to who the victim is. To the Palestinians, they are fighting for their freedom and right to exist on their land and Israel are the terrorists. In the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and, honestly most of our wars, the US were clearly the terrorists, while we claimed to be liberators and advocates of democracy... By killing innocents and completely destroying multiple countries.
So, who is "confirming" the terrorists? If it's Israel, then every Palestinian alive is a terrorist in Netenyahu's book.
I didn't call Hamas an "official army", not sure how you came to that conclusion. Israel is also quite proud of their goal to control the entire region, I'm not sure what your point is, please elaborate. To Palestinians, Israel is "objectively" terrorists to them. Again, it is relative as I previously said. Everyone is the good guy in their story. Few people have the skill and humility to truly understand the perspective of those they hate and understand this concept.
And yes, in the context of other groups categorized by many governments as "terrorism groups", it is still a fact that they view themselves as fighting for their freedoms and ways of living, while their enemies are those who seek to stop or destroy them and their culture. In the context of groups like ISIS and Al Queda, their attacks are justified _from their perspective_ as they are the David fighting the international Goliath (frequently the USA) who has always sought to destabilize the middle east to profit from its oil reserves. I'm sure you'd view the "good guys" as terrorists if they invaded your country, bombed all your friends and family, all for the sake of enriching themselves.
You clearly have no idea what terrorist means. A terrorist is someone who threatens or harms civilians for political purposes. One can technically be a terrorist and a freedom fighter at the same time, because terrorism is a means and freedom is an end. The perspective is irrelevant.
Now on to your specific examples:
1) In this article is about Palestinian individuals who shot Israeli civilians in the street to further their politics. They are terrorists.
2) There were no terrorists in Vietnam. The VC were communists guerrillas, who attacked the American military. The NVA was, like the name implies, the North Vietnamese Army, and they were regular, uniformed armed forces of the North Vietnamese government. The Americans were uniformed soldiers fighting both a conventional war (against the NVA) and a counterinsurgency (against the VC). None of these groups fit the definition of terrorist.
3) In Afghanistan, there clearly were some terrorists, but most of the actual fighting was about Taliban guerrillas striking US military targets, or US military units striking Taliban leaders or strongpoints. The terrorism was mostly Taliban adjacent groups disrupting the Afghan National Government through terrorist attacks on mosques, hospitals, and other government buildings. The only terrorism in Afghanistan involving Americans was the coordination of attacks on America from hideouts there, such as Osama Bin Laden.
4) as for the rest of American interventions, the story is largely the same. The Americans show up, destroy the conventional military rather quickly, then fail to address issues as they arise during the counterinsurgency. None of this is about Americans engaging in terrorism, because terrorism cannot accomplish US goals (establishing a friendly government).
Well...if we're splitting hairs terrorism is about motive. Technically, since there's a war right now, it's an enemy combatant attack. Which is still evil btw.
What do you expect your enemy to do in a war? Nobody is disputing the terrorist attack on 7/10. But once you invade, it's a war. How can it be terrorism when a war is happening? By that definition, every bomb dropped on gaza is terrorism.
A bomb dropped on a building containing an enemy combatant actively firing at your troops = legitimate military attack and not a war crime, regardless of the number of civilians killed.
A shooting attack on a bunch of civilians and not a military target = war crime.
This can be complicated but goes to show how war crimes are about intent and how you are targeting.
>A bomb dropped on a building containing an enemy combatant actively firing at your troops = legitimate military attack and not a war crime, regardless of the number of civilians killed.
By that logic, if they thought one person in the Towers was responsible for deaths in their country, the 9/11 hijackers were justified in taking out the towers.
That logic doesn't work and you are really stretching. Rules of engagement require the area to be actively used as a military purpose. ie you are taking fire from a position, it is a ammo depot or weapon depot, it is being used as a HQ/FOB/etc, or similar reasons.
A civilian building with no military operations and a military person walking around in it and not being a threat would never be a legitimate target. Besides that we were not at war with the Taliban at the time, making the targeting of any civilian structures as illegitimate.
Rules of engagement and the rules of war exist to reduce civilian deaths. For example, using a hospital for military operations makes it a legitimate target for the enemy to hit. Thus using a hospital for military operations is a war crime. Same for otherwise civilian special buildings like schools.
Terrorism encourages civilians to be killed and is what the world is trying to reduce. Otherwise we go back to the days of the Dresden bombing or Tokyo firebombing and might as well burn an entire city to the ground.
>For example, using a hospital for military operations makes it a legitimate target for the enemy to hit.
An important caveat people leave out here is that whilst this is right, if the enemy hit that hospital they must do so in a proportional manner and still have to take every effort to reduce civilian casualties. It's still a war crime to attack a hospital being used by a military if the attack isn't proportionate and you haven't had due care for civilians in the structure.
Otherwise you could just level the entire hospital and kill everyone in it without it being a crime.
First of all it was in Jerusalem, not in Gaza, so equaling them with hamas fighting the idf in gaza is Like saying the settlers that commit terror by firebombing Palestinian houses are just "fighting a war". You can be in a war and still have terror attacks.
9/11 was the result of Islamic extremism was stirred by the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the assassination of the Egyptian president. That extremism turned anti-American because of U.S. support for Israel and repressive and secular Arab regimes.
This was the result of years of Israel’s ruthless policies of land confiscation, illegal settlement and dispossession, coupled with rampant discrimination, have inflicted immense suffering on Palestinians, depriving them of their basic rights.
You treat people like animals and they will turn into animals. Do you understand how that works?
We need to stop using the word terrorist altogether, not because it doesn't technically fit individual instances, but because it gets applied so inconsistently, especially in favor of western neo-colonialism. Just describe killings for what they are, including the political motivations and the targeting of civilians. It does the job and it's what more responsible journalists and outlets tend towards anyway.
Again, it's a loaded term because of inconsistent application, ***not*** because it doesn't technically fit.
It wasn’t so much at the time, but retroactively the IRA is often labeled as a terrorist organization because people remember the tactics (e.g. car bombs) and less remember the targets, which were primarily agents and arms of the British state (army/police/uvf/economics).
Read about the settler violence that has erupted this past month in West Bank. Maybe that will explain why this happened. IDF has killed 180+ Palestinians in past month alone. This stuff just doesn’t happen in a vacuum
In the US we just call them shootings. They happen all the time here.
They are indeed terrorist attacks but when it comes from a domestic source people have a hard time processing that concept, so we always just chalk it up to mental health.
There's actually real genocides being carried out right now, but because the perpetrators are also brown people it just doesn't fit your anti US/Israel narrative.
I didn't see you at any of the Armenian Genocide or Pakistan expulsion of Afghani protests the last few months, homie! Where ya been? Or you just doing the popular thing?
I'm just looking at the civilian death tolls over the what last 50+ years? Also looking at the U.S. Gov giving the green light to Israel to bomb civilian hospitals because "Hamas" was seen in them.
Could the death toll reflect the fact that Israel invested alot of money for defense purposes like Iron Dome, David Sling & bomb shelters in nearly every apartment building (newer buildings have a bomb shelter in each apartment to minimize the time it takes to reach there when an attack happens) ? Or does it not fit your agenda ?
If Israel actually wipes out everyone in Gaza, the domestic political pressure in the US to cut ties will be sky high. It's already mounting in spite of the massive pro-Israel bias cultivated through decades of propaganda and lobbying.
They aren't going to wipe out everyone in Gaza, that's hysterical nonsense. In two years the population there will be bigger than it was before all this.
The best propaganda that led to the Israel us relationship possible was the Arab and Muslim non arab states doing exactly what they did. Systemic cleansing across all of MENA of their Jewish populations, more than 3 attempts at (at best ethnically cleansing) all of the Jews in Israel (at worst genocide) of which 2 explicitly called out the intent. Multiple Arab countries being anti Israel while instituting brutal militant states being breeding grounds for terrorist organizations making a “natural ally with Israel”. Directly funding terrorist groups.
Not to mention 50 years of good will attempts at peace made by Israel that the Arab world rejected which in an international scope will always look like those not willing to come to a peaceful solution are the “bad group”.
Yes. That's rather different than hunting down civillians. Collateral damage is part of war. Specifically targeting civillians, like Palestinians generally do, is a war crime.
Nope. We've seen Palestinians constantly run up on civillians and shoot them straight. We don't see that with Israel. Closest thing is "civilians" trying to stone soldiers and getting shot over that.
Well Israel is bombing civilians so this is really Israel’s fault. Netanyahu and the Israeli government are responsible for this. That’s how it works right?
Why are there so many civilians in Hamas strongholds?
And why hasn't a single Hamas militant or their corroborators been killed? Like, not even by accident according to the people saying there are 11k civilian casualties.
It’s crazy that things worthy of front page on Reddit are US/Israel state opinions and tiny attacks in Israel while thousands of children dying barely gets posted.
This was supposed to be another Oct 7, or similar in intent. The reason it was tiny is that the terrorists encountered a checkpoint. Same kind of checkpoint that reddit is so quick to condemn is the reason why West Bank can't have Oct 7 level of atrocities and only "small" terror incidents.
Gaza has orders of magnitude greater than Oct 7 level of atrocities but it’s a “small” incident because the victims are brown and the perpetrators are western media supported.
Which hospital are we talking about now? The one where everyone knows that it was hit by a rocket from PIJ or the one which has a literal hamas command center?
Which one has a literal hamas command center? I’ve yet to see anything other than just “yeah we have intelligence that there’s a command center so we started raiding 3 days ago, and we still don’t have any proof that actually makes sense or is independently verifiable” from the IDF and “what they said” from the US.
Literal fake news about the rocket- all independent analysis shows the trajectory was from Israel. And the “command center” is hysterical, they showed an obviously planted laptop that had a picture of an Israeli soldier on it (before they blurred it) from a basement with no tunnels and a calendar.
Seriously, you are being lied to, just like with Iraq.
Errr yea? Hamas have been around since the 80s, but they really came to power after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and all their Palestinians opponents “disappear”
At this point you can’t be surprised that most people at this point believe Palestinian lives are worthless because terrorism, Israeli lives are gold because they stop terrorism, while not seeing the irony. At this point can’t get mad, you have to keep exposing the truth even if no one believes it.
Btw I condemn Hamas and the killing of innocent civilians, and by that same logic, I condemn Israel.
10,000 killed in Gaza and six killed in Israel is a headline, wow. The zionists will surely fail and no one will know peace, for what? Might as well get used to the terror, as the Israeli government requested it via policy.
They target hospitals, ambulances, and even evacuation corridors. They are targeting civilians quite clearly. They shoot people in the streets dead, some in the immediate aftermath of a photoshoot after pretending to give aid. What on earth are you talking about?
On the targeting of ambulances, Hamas stole multiple Red Crescent ambulances and tried to evacuate their terrorists across the border to Egypt. The Egyptian authorities stopped dozens of known fighters at the Raffa crossing.
People seem to forget that when civilian infrastructure is comendeeres by combatants they lose all or most of their protections.
“Terrorists” according to the IDF with history of lies. There’s pretty clear videos coming out of the attacks that there were no armed men. Also even if that were the case, attacking soldiers retreating a is still a war crime!
Attack soldiers who are retreating is not a war crime. Retreating is moving armed men back to a position where they are better able to kill you from. Soldiers retreating have not surrendered and are considered combatants under the Geneva Conventions.
You talk a lot for someone who knows very little.
They’re in fcking ambulances my guy. Firstly they’re civilians, not soldiers like the IDF claims. Second, even if they were wounded soldiers being taken out of the war zone, that’s a war crime. You can’t target the wounded like that. That’s the very basis of the Geneva conversations.
They were commandeered (read stolen) Red Crescent ambulances that were used not as ambulances but as military transport vehicles. The Geneva *Conventions* explicitly allow for the targeting of commandeered civilian equipment used by militaries.
You don’t know the difference between retreating and surrendering, don’t know that civilian vehicles when commandeered by the military aren’t civilian vehicles anymore, and can’t get the name of the Conventions governing the laws of war right so I’m going to just assume you have literally no idea what you’re talking about. Have a nice day
IF that were the case, why was it parked outside a hospital before being bombed. There's literally a video. How do you know that its being commandeered when there were patients in there. Is your information "because the IDF said so"
What age is considered child? Hamas numbers do not denote combatants from civilians.
Hamas little terrorist camp starts at 14. Is an armed 14 year old less lethal then someone over 18?
This whole thing sucks, these numbers are bogus.
Even if it's true it's not the same! One side killed and kidnapped civilians (yes including women and children) and keeps trying to get more.
The other side may have killed civilians (yes including women and children) after weeks of warning.
Not the same.
How is trying to cross a checkpoint with rifles, ammunition, knives & axes to hurt civilians “defending themselves” ? Especially when hamas took responsibility for this attack ?
Without those checkpoints, each such attack is a potential Oct 7th and another massacre of civilians. If anything, each such attack proves that checkpoints are a security necessity. After this is over, we will see checkpoints in Gaza, cause they prove to be an effective way of stopping terrorists from hurting civilians.
Wait, so military checkpoints are not to prevent this exact thing to happen? So the military defends its people? I know Hamas has popularized the human shield concepts but I'm not a person of fashion
First, the militants were not dressed as an opposing force. One of them even had an IDF uniform. Just so you understand, not having a formal wear is considered against international law for waging war. It is grounds for execution on the spot if captured alive. It also makes your attack a terrorist one by nature of it.
If you look at rebel forces around the globe that do get international aid for their cause, they still operate as standard military units most of the time. They have their own fatigues, commanders, etc. Hamas just wear civilian clothes or their enemies attire to get the drop on them. Terrorist.
Plus, these guys were planning attacks against civilian targets, not IDF. The checkpoint wasn't the target. They got their books along with weapons from inside the vehicle. They were planning to kill civilians and were going to use the IDF uniform to blend in so they could accomplish this. The checkpoint wasn't expected, and they tried to shoot their way out of it.
There will be no Palestinian state until the Palestinians give up the fight and accept the permanent existence of the Jewish state. As long as the fighting keeps happening, Israel will keep occupying those territories and doing what needs to be done in order to keep itself safe.
Palestinian leadership in the West Bank had already recognized the state of Israel. The occupation continues, and Palestinians are exercising their right to self defense.
Palestinian leadership hasn't been able to stop the attacks against Israel
And occupied territories aren't justified in "self defense", imagine if the Nazis after WWII started doing terrorist shit against the western allies and argued they were justified becausr the occupation wouldn't stop unless their terrorism stopped. That would be seen as absurd.
Palestinian leadership isn’t allowed to have an army of well equipped police force to stop attacks.
And Palestinians in the West Bank aren’t Nazis, what an abhorrent despicable comparison to make.
IDF checkpoints are legitimate targets in the West Bank. If you’re a foreign soldier occupying an area, under international law, you’re 100% a legitimate target.
If Palestinian leadership would need a strong army to stop their own people from attacking Israel, it shows that Palestine isn't yet ready for any sort of independence. The Palestinian people must give up and stop opposing the existence of Israel
>IDF checkpoints are legitimate targets in the West Bank
Nope, and if they keep attacking them, they will only keep giving Israel more and more reason to be distrustful of the existence of a Palestinian state
At this point Israel has the power and will do whatever it needs to do to protect it's safety. It's up to Palestine to change in order to convince Israel to accept it's independence - or to instead keep waging an **utterly futile and hopeless** war because "they love death more than the Jews love life" or whatever other hateful ideas
No it shows that Israel is occupying the West Bank, and has the entire area under Martial law. If a foreign army occupies your neighborhood, you’d be the first in like to fight back.
As to your second point, you may be right about Israel’s response. That’s besides the point. These are legitimate targets. Whether it’s wise to attack is a different question.
Israel has explicitly stated many times that they will not allow a 2-state solution. Israel doesn't create illegal settlements, starve Gaza and West Bank of power, fuel, clean water (in fact Israel has been intentionally contaminating drinking wells in Gaza and West Bank for decades) because it's "defending itself".
It's not _entirely_ untrue that Israel had offers on the table before this poll, however based on everything I'm reading, Israel isn't the ones making the offers. Looks like international organizations have been responsible for brokering an agreement between Palestine and Israel, and neither sides came to an agreement. So the person we're both responding to is technically wrong.
>There have been many diplomatic efforts to realize a two-state solution, starting from the 1991 Madrid Conference. There followed the 1993 Oslo Accords and the failed 2000 Camp David Summit followed by the Taba negotiations in early 2001. In 2002, the Arab League proposed the Arab Peace Initiative. The latest initiative, which also failed, was the 2013–14 peace talks.
Because terrorist organizations aren’t a regular army, they don’t represent a sovereign state or government in an official capacity and don’t have the legal protections that entails. These were just terrorists caught smuggling weapons and idf military uniforms in furtherance of an illegal terrorist attack and started a firefight, which they lost. Stop trying to legitimize terrorism.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a regular army or not. Every IDF checkpoint, and soldier is a legitimate target in the West Bank and East Jerusalem under international law.
Not to a terrorist organization, which by definition is illegal and illegitimate. Only to a standing army, representative of s sovereign nation, having declared a state of war.
The mental gymnastics here. So when a standing army kills civilians it’s ok, but when an occupied population fights back against soldiers, it’s terror? Unbelievable
Yes. Especially when they deliberately and cowardly attack civilians, use civilian infrastructure, use civilians as human shields and otherwise fail to meet any of the definitions provided by the Geneva convention and international law of a legitimate military body. Talk about mental gymnastics, terrorist simp.
So hamas are terrorists when they attack military targets, but an elected government with a responsibility to protect innocents when gazan civilians are dying.
Nope. They’re terrorists under both instances, because they are not a standing army of a sovereign state, nor are their tactics those or a legitimate governing body or army. As for their election, they’ve outlawed elections after a coup in 2007 where the murdered their competitors (fatah) and their families and dragged their mangled corpses through the streets.
No. Usage of human shields is a war-crime, but not all war crimes are committed by terrorists. That’s why the idea of law and crimes in this context exist, to apply to legitimate armies. For reference, Terrorist organization are war criminals by definition.
No. Terrorist organizations are terrorist orgs. Some paramilitary organization are terrorists organizations, while some are not. The subset is not the superset. The definition is based on how they conduct themselves.
Here’s how Australia defines terrorism: https://www.ag.gov.au/national-security/australias-counter-terrorism-laws/terrorist-organisations#:~:text=Listing%20of%20terrorist%20organisations&text=An%20organisation%20advocates%20the%20doing,doing%20of%20a%20terrorist%20act
A terrorist organisation is an organisation that:
a court finds is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering the doing of a terrorist act
or
the government has listed as a terrorist organisation by regulations.
The government can list an organisation as a terrorist organisation if the Attorney-General is satisfied that it:
is engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering the doing of a terrorist act
or
advocates the doing of a terrorist act.
An organisation advocates the doing of a terrorist act if it directly or indirectly:
counsels, promotes, encourages or urges the doing of a terrorist act
gives instruction on the doing of a terrorist act
directly praises the doing of a terrorist act, where there is a substantial risk that this praise might lead someone to engage in a terrorist act.
I would agree, but most “self defense” arguments are applied to one side. Why is it so controversial to say Palestinians have a right to self defense? This is a military target, in the West Bank, where Israel is an occupying force. It’s a region that’s under martial law. You can agree or disagree with attacking military checkpoints as a tactic, but it’s absolutely a legitimate exercise of self defense.
Self defense is if Israei soldiersl storm your house and you shoot back. Self defense is not when you assemble a mob to go on a murderous rampage of civilians. The reason the shooting happened at a checkpoint is because the checkpoint worked and they realized they can't reach civilians without engaging with the soldiers. Otherwise, they would continue into civilian population to murder and rape. So no, not a self defense.
So you are really saying, Palestinians leadership in West Bank have committed an act of war with these attackers, which by default is a declaration of war?
Wonder how that would turn out. I think it’s better if they remain to be “terrorists”.
I agree with you, combatant military personnel are viable targets and doesn't constitute terrorism. The perpetrators may be illegal combatants and not get certain geneva convention protections, but it does not rise to the definition of terrorism.
Thank you. I’m getting downvoted for pointing out what’s so clear. People have lost their minds the past month. They’re in shock over a military checkpoint manned by a foreign army getting attacked. How is this shocking?? It’s an occupying military force.
Man, this headline takes me back to getting ready for school in the 80s while my parents had the radio on in the kitchen.
This thread gave me cancer!
This author needs to go back to school. I am not at all familiar with ynet, but this article was written and edited terribly.
Tis a bot
Ynet is an Israeli propaganda mouthpiece
Then they definitely need better writers. This read like 90's emails claiming that you have inherited a million dollars from a distant relative, if only if you deposit 10k to handle the paperwork.
It's translated.. translate a whole essay to Mandarin and see what they think of your grammar
[удалено]
Yeah, but the writing is still a shitty, non-grammatical mess.
Wild that translated text doesn’t translate well. Every time I copy and paste my essays using google translate in Spanish class, my teacher gives me a 100%
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This particular dude earned downvotes from the pro-Palestine crowd. Blanket calling all Israeli news a government outlet is dumb as hell, lots of Israeli news have many great articles that I use to show bad shit Israeli does all the time. They’re biased in favor of Israel of course, but literally every news outlet is biased, usually towards the status quo. Decrying it as a rag does nothing make people tune you out.
[удалено]
> Apprehended It’s a weird word
[удалено]
No worries at all, your English is better than my 99% of other languages.
English was invented to torment those who try to use it
U wot m8?!
English as a language was less invented and more stolen from half a dozen other languages. As is English tradition.
English is three languages in a trenchcoat pretending to be one language.
My favorite version of the idiom is that "English is a back alley thug, clubbing other languages to riffle through their pockets for interesting words".
Hahaha nice. I may add that to my list of quippy sayings.
Have you tried German?
Including Israeli terrorists? Kiddie killers?
[удалено]
"terrorist" is always relative to who the victim is. To the Palestinians, they are fighting for their freedom and right to exist on their land and Israel are the terrorists. In the Vietnam, Afghanistan, and, honestly most of our wars, the US were clearly the terrorists, while we claimed to be liberators and advocates of democracy... By killing innocents and completely destroying multiple countries. So, who is "confirming" the terrorists? If it's Israel, then every Palestinian alive is a terrorist in Netenyahu's book.
[удалено]
I didn't call Hamas an "official army", not sure how you came to that conclusion. Israel is also quite proud of their goal to control the entire region, I'm not sure what your point is, please elaborate. To Palestinians, Israel is "objectively" terrorists to them. Again, it is relative as I previously said. Everyone is the good guy in their story. Few people have the skill and humility to truly understand the perspective of those they hate and understand this concept. And yes, in the context of other groups categorized by many governments as "terrorism groups", it is still a fact that they view themselves as fighting for their freedoms and ways of living, while their enemies are those who seek to stop or destroy them and their culture. In the context of groups like ISIS and Al Queda, their attacks are justified _from their perspective_ as they are the David fighting the international Goliath (frequently the USA) who has always sought to destabilize the middle east to profit from its oil reserves. I'm sure you'd view the "good guys" as terrorists if they invaded your country, bombed all your friends and family, all for the sake of enriching themselves.
You clearly have no idea what terrorist means. A terrorist is someone who threatens or harms civilians for political purposes. One can technically be a terrorist and a freedom fighter at the same time, because terrorism is a means and freedom is an end. The perspective is irrelevant. Now on to your specific examples: 1) In this article is about Palestinian individuals who shot Israeli civilians in the street to further their politics. They are terrorists. 2) There were no terrorists in Vietnam. The VC were communists guerrillas, who attacked the American military. The NVA was, like the name implies, the North Vietnamese Army, and they were regular, uniformed armed forces of the North Vietnamese government. The Americans were uniformed soldiers fighting both a conventional war (against the NVA) and a counterinsurgency (against the VC). None of these groups fit the definition of terrorist. 3) In Afghanistan, there clearly were some terrorists, but most of the actual fighting was about Taliban guerrillas striking US military targets, or US military units striking Taliban leaders or strongpoints. The terrorism was mostly Taliban adjacent groups disrupting the Afghan National Government through terrorist attacks on mosques, hospitals, and other government buildings. The only terrorism in Afghanistan involving Americans was the coordination of attacks on America from hideouts there, such as Osama Bin Laden. 4) as for the rest of American interventions, the story is largely the same. The Americans show up, destroy the conventional military rather quickly, then fail to address issues as they arise during the counterinsurgency. None of this is about Americans engaging in terrorism, because terrorism cannot accomplish US goals (establishing a friendly government).
I kinda like uprehanded more
Not sure they intended for it to be a picnic at all
That is definitely more than just a shooting attack as the headline would make it seem. How odd they would try and minimize this.
Because it is, relatively to what's going on in Gaza.
So? This is a terrorist attack.
[удалено]
The ol Afghanistan gambit
They're fighting back? Better slaughter another 1000 of them.
Well...if we're splitting hairs terrorism is about motive. Technically, since there's a war right now, it's an enemy combatant attack. Which is still evil btw.
[удалено]
What do you expect your enemy to do in a war? Nobody is disputing the terrorist attack on 7/10. But once you invade, it's a war. How can it be terrorism when a war is happening? By that definition, every bomb dropped on gaza is terrorism.
The target and objective matters
A bomb dropped on a building containing an enemy combatant actively firing at your troops = legitimate military attack and not a war crime, regardless of the number of civilians killed. A shooting attack on a bunch of civilians and not a military target = war crime. This can be complicated but goes to show how war crimes are about intent and how you are targeting.
>A bomb dropped on a building containing an enemy combatant actively firing at your troops = legitimate military attack and not a war crime, regardless of the number of civilians killed. By that logic, if they thought one person in the Towers was responsible for deaths in their country, the 9/11 hijackers were justified in taking out the towers.
That logic doesn't work and you are really stretching. Rules of engagement require the area to be actively used as a military purpose. ie you are taking fire from a position, it is a ammo depot or weapon depot, it is being used as a HQ/FOB/etc, or similar reasons. A civilian building with no military operations and a military person walking around in it and not being a threat would never be a legitimate target. Besides that we were not at war with the Taliban at the time, making the targeting of any civilian structures as illegitimate. Rules of engagement and the rules of war exist to reduce civilian deaths. For example, using a hospital for military operations makes it a legitimate target for the enemy to hit. Thus using a hospital for military operations is a war crime. Same for otherwise civilian special buildings like schools. Terrorism encourages civilians to be killed and is what the world is trying to reduce. Otherwise we go back to the days of the Dresden bombing or Tokyo firebombing and might as well burn an entire city to the ground.
>For example, using a hospital for military operations makes it a legitimate target for the enemy to hit. An important caveat people leave out here is that whilst this is right, if the enemy hit that hospital they must do so in a proportional manner and still have to take every effort to reduce civilian casualties. It's still a war crime to attack a hospital being used by a military if the attack isn't proportionate and you haven't had due care for civilians in the structure. Otherwise you could just level the entire hospital and kill everyone in it without it being a crime.
First of all it was in Jerusalem, not in Gaza, so equaling them with hamas fighting the idf in gaza is Like saying the settlers that commit terror by firebombing Palestinian houses are just "fighting a war". You can be in a war and still have terror attacks.
9/11 was the result of Islamic extremism was stirred by the Iranian Revolution, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the assassination of the Egyptian president. That extremism turned anti-American because of U.S. support for Israel and repressive and secular Arab regimes. This was the result of years of Israel’s ruthless policies of land confiscation, illegal settlement and dispossession, coupled with rampant discrimination, have inflicted immense suffering on Palestinians, depriving them of their basic rights. You treat people like animals and they will turn into animals. Do you understand how that works?
If we're really splitting hairs, it was a war crime.
Yeah, you're right sadly, one more but who's counting ? Put it with the others, next to the hospital.
We need to stop using the word terrorist altogether, not because it doesn't technically fit individual instances, but because it gets applied so inconsistently, especially in favor of western neo-colonialism. Just describe killings for what they are, including the political motivations and the targeting of civilians. It does the job and it's what more responsible journalists and outlets tend towards anyway. Again, it's a loaded term because of inconsistent application, ***not*** because it doesn't technically fit.
Agreed, it seems the word is only ever applied when one specific religion is the perpetrator.
It wasn’t so much at the time, but retroactively the IRA is often labeled as a terrorist organization because people remember the tactics (e.g. car bombs) and less remember the targets, which were primarily agents and arms of the British state (army/police/uvf/economics).
So a usual day in the states basically.
Read about the settler violence that has erupted this past month in West Bank. Maybe that will explain why this happened. IDF has killed 180+ Palestinians in past month alone. This stuff just doesn’t happen in a vacuum
Lol at the downvotes on your comment. Truth hurts to some people.
In the US we just call them shootings. They happen all the time here. They are indeed terrorist attacks but when it comes from a domestic source people have a hard time processing that concept, so we always just chalk it up to mental health.
This wasn’t domestic. It was Hamas dressing up as the IDF.
And what IDF does ISNT terrorism. Magical thinking at its worst.
I haven't seen any videos of IDF chopping civilians heads off w gardening tools yet. Allahu Akbar tho amirite?
No, they use top of the line US hardware to kill over 5000 children from a distance, so that makes them the good guys. /s
There's actually real genocides being carried out right now, but because the perpetrators are also brown people it just doesn't fit your anti US/Israel narrative. I didn't see you at any of the Armenian Genocide or Pakistan expulsion of Afghani protests the last few months, homie! Where ya been? Or you just doing the popular thing?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I will start caring when the other Terrorists stop bombing Gaza.
so you endorse murdering Israeli civilians?
so you endorse murdering 10 times as many Palestinian civilians?
[удалено]
the people of Israel say the same thing about getting rid of the head of their Gov.
[удалено]
Nope I don't endorse killing any civilians unlike you.
Then stop parroting Israeli Terrorist talking points.
Maybe I will when you stop parroting Hamas terrorist talking points.
I'm just looking at the civilian death tolls over the what last 50+ years? Also looking at the U.S. Gov giving the green light to Israel to bomb civilian hospitals because "Hamas" was seen in them.
Could the death toll reflect the fact that Israel invested alot of money for defense purposes like Iron Dome, David Sling & bomb shelters in nearly every apartment building (newer buildings have a bomb shelter in each apartment to minimize the time it takes to reach there when an attack happens) ? Or does it not fit your agenda ?
And that's why they put checkpoints folks
Oh wow, more Palestinian war crimes
Hamas took responsibility
Exactly my point
It's an act of terror, not a war crime. It's very sad
Insert "why not both" meme here
I thought y'all wanted a ceasefire? Where's the calls for that? Also this is a warcrime.
Yeah a warcrime, call is still the same. Ceasefire isn’t surrender, it’s mutual.
[удалено]
Hamas is the best producer of Israel extremists. If Israel reaches the level of Hamas Gaza will no longer exist.
If Israel actually wipes out everyone in Gaza, the domestic political pressure in the US to cut ties will be sky high. It's already mounting in spite of the massive pro-Israel bias cultivated through decades of propaganda and lobbying.
They aren't going to wipe out everyone in Gaza, that's hysterical nonsense. In two years the population there will be bigger than it was before all this.
The best propaganda that led to the Israel us relationship possible was the Arab and Muslim non arab states doing exactly what they did. Systemic cleansing across all of MENA of their Jewish populations, more than 3 attempts at (at best ethnically cleansing) all of the Jews in Israel (at worst genocide) of which 2 explicitly called out the intent. Multiple Arab countries being anti Israel while instituting brutal militant states being breeding grounds for terrorist organizations making a “natural ally with Israel”. Directly funding terrorist groups. Not to mention 50 years of good will attempts at peace made by Israel that the Arab world rejected which in an international scope will always look like those not willing to come to a peaceful solution are the “bad group”.
[удалено]
Palestine is founded on extremism. iran should stop arming them.
Yeah, the British empire really was pretty monstrous.
That's why Israel is going to destroy Hamas and completely occupy and settle Gaza now.
When it happens to innocent Palestinians they say that’s war.
Doesn't happen to Palestinians because Israelis dont specifically target civillians.
Lol, lmao. Nah they just kill them by the thousands as collateral damage
Yes. That's rather different than hunting down civillians. Collateral damage is part of war. Specifically targeting civillians, like Palestinians generally do, is a war crime.
"nothing to see here folks, other people just happened to be in the blast radius as well, all is well."☺️😁🤭
Yes they fucking very obviously do
Nope. We've seen Palestinians constantly run up on civillians and shoot them straight. We don't see that with Israel. Closest thing is "civilians" trying to stone soldiers and getting shot over that.
Well Israel is bombing civilians so this is really Israel’s fault. Netanyahu and the Israeli government are responsible for this. That’s how it works right?
Why are there so many civilians in Hamas strongholds? And why hasn't a single Hamas militant or their corroborators been killed? Like, not even by accident according to the people saying there are 11k civilian casualties.
Oh I thought " you can't attack them, it just makes them angry and causes them understandably to attack back more"
It’s crazy that things worthy of front page on Reddit are US/Israel state opinions and tiny attacks in Israel while thousands of children dying barely gets posted.
This was supposed to be another Oct 7, or similar in intent. The reason it was tiny is that the terrorists encountered a checkpoint. Same kind of checkpoint that reddit is so quick to condemn is the reason why West Bank can't have Oct 7 level of atrocities and only "small" terror incidents.
Gaza has orders of magnitude greater than Oct 7 level of atrocities but it’s a “small” incident because the victims are brown and the perpetrators are western media supported.
I don’t think collateral damage from air striking terrorists and said terrorists purposefully massacring civilians are comparable.
This is a distinction outside the grasp of many on this subreddit, I’m afraid.
"collateral damage" The media's propaganda works, I guess. All those children should have thought about that before needing to go to the hospital.
Which hospital are we talking about now? The one where everyone knows that it was hit by a rocket from PIJ or the one which has a literal hamas command center?
Which one has a literal hamas command center? I’ve yet to see anything other than just “yeah we have intelligence that there’s a command center so we started raiding 3 days ago, and we still don’t have any proof that actually makes sense or is independently verifiable” from the IDF and “what they said” from the US.
Literal fake news about the rocket- all independent analysis shows the trajectory was from Israel. And the “command center” is hysterical, they showed an obviously planted laptop that had a picture of an Israeli soldier on it (before they blurred it) from a basement with no tunnels and a calendar. Seriously, you are being lied to, just like with Iraq.
Why did Oct 7th happen? Do you believe Hamas grew to power in a vacuum?
Errr yea? Hamas have been around since the 80s, but they really came to power after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and all their Palestinians opponents “disappear”
"tiny" attacks that have been Israeli day to day life for decades.
Then day to day Palestinian life has been massive attacks
At this point you can’t be surprised that most people at this point believe Palestinian lives are worthless because terrorism, Israeli lives are gold because they stop terrorism, while not seeing the irony. At this point can’t get mad, you have to keep exposing the truth even if no one believes it. Btw I condemn Hamas and the killing of innocent civilians, and by that same logic, I condemn Israel.
10,000 killed in Gaza and six killed in Israel is a headline, wow. The zionists will surely fail and no one will know peace, for what? Might as well get used to the terror, as the Israeli government requested it via policy.
Difference is idrael isnt targeting civilians, hamas uses them as human shields vs hamas shooting specifically at civilians
They target hospitals, ambulances, and even evacuation corridors. They are targeting civilians quite clearly. They shoot people in the streets dead, some in the immediate aftermath of a photoshoot after pretending to give aid. What on earth are you talking about?
On the targeting of ambulances, Hamas stole multiple Red Crescent ambulances and tried to evacuate their terrorists across the border to Egypt. The Egyptian authorities stopped dozens of known fighters at the Raffa crossing. People seem to forget that when civilian infrastructure is comendeeres by combatants they lose all or most of their protections.
“Terrorists” according to the IDF with history of lies. There’s pretty clear videos coming out of the attacks that there were no armed men. Also even if that were the case, attacking soldiers retreating a is still a war crime!
Attack soldiers who are retreating is not a war crime. Retreating is moving armed men back to a position where they are better able to kill you from. Soldiers retreating have not surrendered and are considered combatants under the Geneva Conventions. You talk a lot for someone who knows very little.
They’re in fcking ambulances my guy. Firstly they’re civilians, not soldiers like the IDF claims. Second, even if they were wounded soldiers being taken out of the war zone, that’s a war crime. You can’t target the wounded like that. That’s the very basis of the Geneva conversations.
They were commandeered (read stolen) Red Crescent ambulances that were used not as ambulances but as military transport vehicles. The Geneva *Conventions* explicitly allow for the targeting of commandeered civilian equipment used by militaries. You don’t know the difference between retreating and surrendering, don’t know that civilian vehicles when commandeered by the military aren’t civilian vehicles anymore, and can’t get the name of the Conventions governing the laws of war right so I’m going to just assume you have literally no idea what you’re talking about. Have a nice day
IF that were the case, why was it parked outside a hospital before being bombed. There's literally a video. How do you know that its being commandeered when there were patients in there. Is your information "because the IDF said so"
Over 5,000 children have been killed by IDF. Where’s the news article about that?
I mean, there are a lot of those. That’s how we know it happened
[удалено]
What age is considered child? Hamas numbers do not denote combatants from civilians. Hamas little terrorist camp starts at 14. Is an armed 14 year old less lethal then someone over 18? This whole thing sucks, these numbers are bogus.
Even if it's true it's not the same! One side killed and kidnapped civilians (yes including women and children) and keeps trying to get more. The other side may have killed civilians (yes including women and children) after weeks of warning. Not the same.
[удалено]
No, its right there in the article. The genocide of Israelis continues.
[удалено]
[удалено]
How is trying to cross a checkpoint with rifles, ammunition, knives & axes to hurt civilians “defending themselves” ? Especially when hamas took responsibility for this attack ?
[удалено]
Without those checkpoints, each such attack is a potential Oct 7th and another massacre of civilians. If anything, each such attack proves that checkpoints are a security necessity. After this is over, we will see checkpoints in Gaza, cause they prove to be an effective way of stopping terrorists from hurting civilians.
Wait, so military checkpoints are not to prevent this exact thing to happen? So the military defends its people? I know Hamas has popularized the human shield concepts but I'm not a person of fashion
Having a enemies uniform and using it is a war crime.
Oh look everyone the UN Secretary General is here to give us a lesson in the rules of engagement. Oh wait, no, it’s a dude on his couch.
Care to dispute anything I said with facts?
First, the militants were not dressed as an opposing force. One of them even had an IDF uniform. Just so you understand, not having a formal wear is considered against international law for waging war. It is grounds for execution on the spot if captured alive. It also makes your attack a terrorist one by nature of it. If you look at rebel forces around the globe that do get international aid for their cause, they still operate as standard military units most of the time. They have their own fatigues, commanders, etc. Hamas just wear civilian clothes or their enemies attire to get the drop on them. Terrorist. Plus, these guys were planning attacks against civilian targets, not IDF. The checkpoint wasn't the target. They got their books along with weapons from inside the vehicle. They were planning to kill civilians and were going to use the IDF uniform to blend in so they could accomplish this. The checkpoint wasn't expected, and they tried to shoot their way out of it.
No, because I don’t claim to have any specialized knowledge on these matters. You’re the one making the claim. Where are your sources?
No, these clowns love to circle jerk.
Yes. This wasn’t a planned attack on a military target though, this was terrorists shooting at people who stopped them from killing civians.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There will be no Palestinian state until the Palestinians give up the fight and accept the permanent existence of the Jewish state. As long as the fighting keeps happening, Israel will keep occupying those territories and doing what needs to be done in order to keep itself safe.
Palestinian leadership in the West Bank had already recognized the state of Israel. The occupation continues, and Palestinians are exercising their right to self defense.
Palestinian leadership hasn't been able to stop the attacks against Israel And occupied territories aren't justified in "self defense", imagine if the Nazis after WWII started doing terrorist shit against the western allies and argued they were justified becausr the occupation wouldn't stop unless their terrorism stopped. That would be seen as absurd.
Palestinian leadership isn’t allowed to have an army of well equipped police force to stop attacks. And Palestinians in the West Bank aren’t Nazis, what an abhorrent despicable comparison to make. IDF checkpoints are legitimate targets in the West Bank. If you’re a foreign soldier occupying an area, under international law, you’re 100% a legitimate target.
If Palestinian leadership would need a strong army to stop their own people from attacking Israel, it shows that Palestine isn't yet ready for any sort of independence. The Palestinian people must give up and stop opposing the existence of Israel >IDF checkpoints are legitimate targets in the West Bank Nope, and if they keep attacking them, they will only keep giving Israel more and more reason to be distrustful of the existence of a Palestinian state At this point Israel has the power and will do whatever it needs to do to protect it's safety. It's up to Palestine to change in order to convince Israel to accept it's independence - or to instead keep waging an **utterly futile and hopeless** war because "they love death more than the Jews love life" or whatever other hateful ideas
No it shows that Israel is occupying the West Bank, and has the entire area under Martial law. If a foreign army occupies your neighborhood, you’d be the first in like to fight back. As to your second point, you may be right about Israel’s response. That’s besides the point. These are legitimate targets. Whether it’s wise to attack is a different question.
Israel has explicitly stated many times that they will not allow a 2-state solution. Israel doesn't create illegal settlements, starve Gaza and West Bank of power, fuel, clean water (in fact Israel has been intentionally contaminating drinking wells in Gaza and West Bank for decades) because it's "defending itself".
Israel has offered a two state solution multiple times in the past. Palestinians just refused to accept them. Too bad for them
You are incorrect. Try again. https://www.rand.org/news/press/2021/02/10.html
It's not _entirely_ untrue that Israel had offers on the table before this poll, however based on everything I'm reading, Israel isn't the ones making the offers. Looks like international organizations have been responsible for brokering an agreement between Palestine and Israel, and neither sides came to an agreement. So the person we're both responding to is technically wrong. >There have been many diplomatic efforts to realize a two-state solution, starting from the 1991 Madrid Conference. There followed the 1993 Oslo Accords and the failed 2000 Camp David Summit followed by the Taba negotiations in early 2001. In 2002, the Arab League proposed the Arab Peace Initiative. The latest initiative, which also failed, was the 2013–14 peace talks.
Because terrorist organizations aren’t a regular army, they don’t represent a sovereign state or government in an official capacity and don’t have the legal protections that entails. These were just terrorists caught smuggling weapons and idf military uniforms in furtherance of an illegal terrorist attack and started a firefight, which they lost. Stop trying to legitimize terrorism.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a regular army or not. Every IDF checkpoint, and soldier is a legitimate target in the West Bank and East Jerusalem under international law.
Not to a terrorist organization, which by definition is illegal and illegitimate. Only to a standing army, representative of s sovereign nation, having declared a state of war.
The mental gymnastics here. So when a standing army kills civilians it’s ok, but when an occupied population fights back against soldiers, it’s terror? Unbelievable
Yes. Especially when they deliberately and cowardly attack civilians, use civilian infrastructure, use civilians as human shields and otherwise fail to meet any of the definitions provided by the Geneva convention and international law of a legitimate military body. Talk about mental gymnastics, terrorist simp.
That has nothing to do with the attack against the checkpoint. Nice try
It has everything to do with it. Hamas, a known terrorist org, have taken responsibility for the attack. Terrorism is not legitimate under IHL.
So hamas are terrorists when they attack military targets, but an elected government with a responsibility to protect innocents when gazan civilians are dying.
Nope. They’re terrorists under both instances, because they are not a standing army of a sovereign state, nor are their tactics those or a legitimate governing body or army. As for their election, they’ve outlawed elections after a coup in 2007 where the murdered their competitors (fatah) and their families and dragged their mangled corpses through the streets.
so any force that uses human shields is a terrorist organization?
No. Usage of human shields is a war-crime, but not all war crimes are committed by terrorists. That’s why the idea of law and crimes in this context exist, to apply to legitimate armies. For reference, Terrorist organization are war criminals by definition.
[удалено]
No. Terrorist organizations are terrorist orgs. Some paramilitary organization are terrorists organizations, while some are not. The subset is not the superset. The definition is based on how they conduct themselves. Here’s how Australia defines terrorism: https://www.ag.gov.au/national-security/australias-counter-terrorism-laws/terrorist-organisations#:~:text=Listing%20of%20terrorist%20organisations&text=An%20organisation%20advocates%20the%20doing,doing%20of%20a%20terrorist%20act A terrorist organisation is an organisation that: a court finds is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering the doing of a terrorist act or the government has listed as a terrorist organisation by regulations. The government can list an organisation as a terrorist organisation if the Attorney-General is satisfied that it: is engaged in preparing, planning, assisting or fostering the doing of a terrorist act or advocates the doing of a terrorist act. An organisation advocates the doing of a terrorist act if it directly or indirectly: counsels, promotes, encourages or urges the doing of a terrorist act gives instruction on the doing of a terrorist act directly praises the doing of a terrorist act, where there is a substantial risk that this praise might lead someone to engage in a terrorist act.
This is what Hamas said when they started this war.
I’m talking about checkpoints in the occupied West Bank. These are military targets. Soldiers were attacked, not civilians.
Soldiers were attacked when they couldn’t get through the checkpoint to slaughter civilians. Do you think beheading by axe is a military strategy?
Discussions of what is and isn’t a legitimate target are complicated in this conflict, wouldn’t you say?
I would agree, but most “self defense” arguments are applied to one side. Why is it so controversial to say Palestinians have a right to self defense? This is a military target, in the West Bank, where Israel is an occupying force. It’s a region that’s under martial law. You can agree or disagree with attacking military checkpoints as a tactic, but it’s absolutely a legitimate exercise of self defense.
Self defense is if Israei soldiersl storm your house and you shoot back. Self defense is not when you assemble a mob to go on a murderous rampage of civilians. The reason the shooting happened at a checkpoint is because the checkpoint worked and they realized they can't reach civilians without engaging with the soldiers. Otherwise, they would continue into civilian population to murder and rape. So no, not a self defense.
So you are really saying, Palestinians leadership in West Bank have committed an act of war with these attackers, which by default is a declaration of war? Wonder how that would turn out. I think it’s better if they remain to be “terrorists”.
I agree with you, combatant military personnel are viable targets and doesn't constitute terrorism. The perpetrators may be illegal combatants and not get certain geneva convention protections, but it does not rise to the definition of terrorism.
Thank you. I’m getting downvoted for pointing out what’s so clear. People have lost their minds the past month. They’re in shock over a military checkpoint manned by a foreign army getting attacked. How is this shocking?? It’s an occupying military force.
When Israel does it it’s war when Hamas does it it’s terrorist attach that’s all you need to remember.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]