Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza is thought by some to be "genocide", though it was far less destructive, more precise and not aimed at a civilian population as compared to the above
Is this how you win the arguments in your head? Your opponent uses the word "genocide", you concluded turning Gaza into rubble with kids and many more innocents underneath them doesn't fit the term "genocide", and you further conclude whatever claim your opponent is trying to make is wrong, and therefore there aren't a few hundred thousand dead civilians, ah the whole accusation is just fictional, they all actually lived happily ever after in peace and harmony (in your head).
Yeah yeah, people are still dying, and we're arguing about the definitions of words. How convenient. Whatever distraction helps you sleep at night, I suppose.
no, I am saying war is not genocide. And protecting your own civilians from very real death squads going on executing rampage is not "genocide" it's called war, which might be terrible but sometimes you can't evade
Neither was genocide, neither in outcome nor in intention.
You could argue about "mass killing" or some such. Dresden firebombings did not attempted to eliminate German nation as such. It does not matter how actual nazi try to frame it as similar to holocaust, it was not nearly close.
And same goes for Hiroshima. It was not an attempt to eliminate Japanese people out of existence.
> Israeli bombings of Gaza were far more precise and less directed at a civilian population
They were literally intentionally directed at civilian population. With special focus on healthcare workers. The attempt to starve them was intentional too.
Israel hasn’t gotten fire bombed or nuked. What’s the parallel with the WW2 Axis Powers here?
Israel's bombing campaign in Gaza is thought by some to be "genocide", though it was far less destructive, more precise and not aimed at a civilian population as compared to the above
Is this how you win the arguments in your head? Your opponent uses the word "genocide", you concluded turning Gaza into rubble with kids and many more innocents underneath them doesn't fit the term "genocide", and you further conclude whatever claim your opponent is trying to make is wrong, and therefore there aren't a few hundred thousand dead civilians, ah the whole accusation is just fictional, they all actually lived happily ever after in peace and harmony (in your head).
Yeah yeah, people are still dying, and we're arguing about the definitions of words. How convenient. Whatever distraction helps you sleep at night, I suppose.
no, I am saying war is not genocide. And protecting your own civilians from very real death squads going on executing rampage is not "genocide" it's called war, which might be terrible but sometimes you can't evade
You're talking about Hamas, right? hamas are the ones who tried to fight back against death squads and are now suffering the consequences of that?
Neither was genocide, neither in outcome nor in intention.
You could argue about "mass killing" or some such. Dresden firebombings did not attempted to eliminate German nation as such. It does not matter how actual nazi try to frame it as similar to holocaust, it was not nearly close.
And same goes for Hiroshima. It was not an attempt to eliminate Japanese people out of existence.
yes, that is my point. Israeli bombings of Gaza were far more precise and less directed at a civilian population
also the population was warned to evacuate in advance, nothing that the germans or japanese had the benefit of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-ta9To14yw
> Israeli bombings of Gaza were far more precise and less directed at a civilian population
They were literally intentionally directed at civilian population. With special focus on healthcare workers. The attempt to starve them was intentional too.
There was even open rhetoric about that.
2 replies →