Did you see the video? This strike landed on farms in Lebanon, not cities in Gaza.
Furthermore, it’s legal to target people, but not civilians and also not civilian objects or forests. It is legal to use it as a smoke screen, for signalling or for illumination regardless of where it is used.
War crime. Maybe go read the Geneva convention, dipshit.
I suppose bombing civilian farms in the wrong country is an example of that superhuman self-control, and not an indiscriminate attempt to murder and generally fuck with as many Muslims as possible.
I have. Feel free to point out the clause which states that using white phosphorous as a smoke screen is ever illegal. If you don’t think this use was as a smoke screen, then I would like to see evidence before you go around calling people “dipshit”.
the wrong country
Hezbollah has been fucking with Israel since October the 8th.
superhuman self-control, and not an indiscriminate attempt to murder and generally fuck with as many Muslims as possible.
You know, there are acts in between “superhuman self control” and “genocide”, which is the accusation you’re making here. If Israel actually wanted to murder “as many Muslims as possible” you would not be seeing tens of thousands dead. Israel could carpet bomb the Gaza Strip and kill all 2 million inhabitants. You would not be seeing a couple of smoke shells being shot into southern Lebanon; you’d be seeing Bint Jbeil and other southern towns flattened. No, the IDF is not exercising “superhuman self-control” (I never said that, so maybe consider why you mentioned it) but they are exercising some level of restraint.
Israel’s use of white phosphorous as a smoke screen is as plausible as their claim that every Palestinian man woman and child being killed is Hamas. When the Israeli military had to commit they wouldn’t use WP in populated areas to the Israeli High Court of Justice in 2013. The use of WP in this manner is widely considered a warcrime with the flimsiest of veils draped over it.
There’s a gaping chasm between superhuman control and genocide - but I’m seeing a lot of genocidal rhetoric, action and dead or displaced Palestinians, and no evidence of restraint beyond the bare minimum which will allow for continued US support.
So you’ve retreated from “War crime, dipshit” to “flimsily veiled warcrime, plus the IDF make aggressive statements”, and silence on the “wrong country”. That’s progress, given the context in which most people think any use of white phosphorous is a crime.
The thin veil is what they hastily tossed over the warcrime… after repeatedly lying about not doing it, and repeatedly promising not to do it… For definite not warcrimes reasons
Sure - I used a kitchen knife to stab up a school, but I’m allowed a kitchen knife, dummy - what’s the problem?
Terrible analogy. There is a mental component to the crime of murder, but without the mental component, the crime is manslaughter.
It’s more like the difference between “possession of a firearm” (legal, under some circumstances) and “possession of a firearm with intent to cause harm” (illegal, in the UK for example)
The mental component is there - the intent is to firebomb Palestinians, the implausibly thin veil is to preserve US support. The analogy is perfectly relevant.
Did you see the video? This strike landed on farms in Lebanon, not cities in Gaza.
Furthermore, it’s legal to target people, but not civilians and also not civilian objects or forests. It is legal to use it as a smoke screen, for signalling or for illumination regardless of where it is used.
War crime. Maybe go read the Geneva convention, dipshit.
I suppose bombing civilian farms in the wrong country is an example of that superhuman self-control, and not an indiscriminate attempt to murder and generally fuck with as many Muslims as possible.
I have. Feel free to point out the clause which states that using white phosphorous as a smoke screen is ever illegal. If you don’t think this use was as a smoke screen, then I would like to see evidence before you go around calling people “dipshit”.
Hezbollah has been fucking with Israel since October the 8th.
You know, there are acts in between “superhuman self control” and “genocide”, which is the accusation you’re making here. If Israel actually wanted to murder “as many Muslims as possible” you would not be seeing tens of thousands dead. Israel could carpet bomb the Gaza Strip and kill all 2 million inhabitants. You would not be seeing a couple of smoke shells being shot into southern Lebanon; you’d be seeing Bint Jbeil and other southern towns flattened. No, the IDF is not exercising “superhuman self-control” (I never said that, so maybe consider why you mentioned it) but they are exercising some level of restraint.
Israel’s use of white phosphorous as a smoke screen is as plausible as their claim that every Palestinian man woman and child being killed is Hamas. When the Israeli military had to commit they wouldn’t use WP in populated areas to the Israeli High Court of Justice in 2013. The use of WP in this manner is widely considered a warcrime with the flimsiest of veils draped over it.
There’s a gaping chasm between superhuman control and genocide - but I’m seeing a lot of genocidal rhetoric, action and dead or displaced Palestinians, and no evidence of restraint beyond the bare minimum which will allow for continued US support.
So you’ve retreated from “War crime, dipshit” to “flimsily veiled warcrime, plus the IDF make aggressive statements”, and silence on the “wrong country”. That’s progress, given the context in which most people think any use of white phosphorous is a crime.
No - it’s a warcrime, dipshit.
The thin veil is what they hastily tossed over the warcrime… after repeatedly lying about not doing it, and repeatedly promising not to do it… For definite not warcrimes reasons
Sure - I used a kitchen knife to stab up a school, but I’m allowed a kitchen knife, dummy - what’s the problem?
Terrible analogy. There is a mental component to the crime of murder, but without the mental component, the crime is manslaughter.
It’s more like the difference between “possession of a firearm” (legal, under some circumstances) and “possession of a firearm with intent to cause harm” (illegal, in the UK for example)
The mental component is there - the intent is to firebomb Palestinians, the implausibly thin veil is to preserve US support. The analogy is perfectly relevant.
To firebomb Palestinians living on Lebanese farms? OK dude but you have to prove it.