324
Freed Israeli hostages held by Hamas were terrified IDF airstrikes would kill them
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
324 points (95.5% liked)
News
23262 readers
5390 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, sometimes, yes. That is how war works.
People don't generally kill people for shits and giggles. They do it because they think something is so important that it's worth killing for. The tricky bit is of course that people tend to argue quite a lot about what falls in that category.
No one would criticize you if, when defending yourself from a random attacker, you accidentally pushed him off a ledge and he fell to his death, or even if you intentionally did it to save yourself.
War tends to be more complicated than that, but the vast majority of people can find some ends that will acceptable justify quite a lot of means.
I dunno. That's an easy line to cross for most military orgs. For me personally I couldn't live with it.
We should be counting the cost before making choices that end up murdering innocent people simply because we're afraid of them.
so as long as you feel it justified, killing is ok?
if China were to just shell Taiwan with phosgene in order to break the island defenses, that would be fine? I mean, in this hypothetical it was required for China to liberate their island, and China does inherently believe that they are the rightful owners of Taiwan.
what about nukes? if Russia says it had enough in Ukraine and nuke Kyiv, is that acceptable? because by your logic it is.
because to those respective people, these atrocities are in the goal of something worth committing them for.
your argument boils down to; "if someone did something, they must have good reason to have done so, and how can we criticize them for that?"
Either you believe that killing can be justified in a non-zero set of circumstances, or that it can never be justified.
The vast majority of people fall into the first camp, and most in the second camp will change their minds when a gun is pointed at them.
You seem to be ignoring the existence of objective reality and responding to the strawman of literally everything just being subjective vibes, which isn't worth the time it'd take to respond further.
This isn't about "objective reality" though, it's about subjective thought. You present a case that justifies killing that has no bearing on the situation. Israel is not under existential threat from Hamas, no matter what rhetoric they spawn. They're not fighting for life, for existence. They're killing to control. To have ultimate say of everything in what they perceive as their domain. That's not self-defense, that's aggression, pure and simple.
You can justify self-defense when your life is truly in danger, but that wasn't the case. The case was that they found an excuse to kill people to justify their own authority. To blame someone else for all the evils of the world, and take no blame themselves. They killed for the glory, for the power, for the control. Not for defense. That's a cheap excuse to shield from objective reality.
Yes, but we're not talking about accidentally killing someone who's attacking you, we're talking about willfully ignoring the lives of those in the way of you and the person you're trying to kill.
First war or exposure to a history book?