You’re seriously saying “they deserve the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ treatment” while Israel is actively escalating the conflict?

I have never defended genociders

Oh okay. So where have I done that? In assuming that 3000 civilians who were harmed weren’t exclusively Hezbollah? Which would be an utterly ridiculous claim seeing how many literal children there are involved.

So… you’ve never defended genociders. Then let’s see if you will. Is Israel committing a genocide in Gaza?

You think only military personnel were killed in WW2?

I’ve actually been in the military and have had training on what is and isn’t legal to do in armed conflict. Have you?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12

Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks

Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those: (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

© which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

I think they’re implying this mostly hit Hezbollah members, not than none of the victims were innocent.

Based on… what exactly?

The clear implication is that “number of Hezbollah member > victims = no innocent victims.”

And then you instantly jump into defending genocide. Holy fucking shit I honestly can’t communicate with words how disgustingly pathetic I find that.

No, I’m not gonna engage with your whataboutism and start arguing with you about how “Hezbollah deserved this absolutely pathetic terrorist attack.”

“Brought it on himself brought it on himself”

You fuckers still haven’t realised that Hammurabi’s law makes the whole world blind, huh? That was almost 4000 years ago, ffs. Read a book, preferably a modern one and not some tome of propaganda from thousands of years ago.

You’re literally defending the death of a 9-year old girl. You have to be sick in the fucking head to do that. Honestly.

You’re genuinely pathetic enough to try and imply that none of the victims are innocent?

I loathe “people” like you.

Hey @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org, you were saying that “these were extremely surgical strikes, people in the vicinity weren’t harmed”?

Thousands of people injured, all guilty of something ofc, because Israel would never do an attack which might harm innocents. Right? /S

What you have is shitty slogans and zero thought. You’re a trumpet for NRA propaganda and you’re too dumb to even realise it.

The whole “security for liberty” shit you’re referring to? Actually means the exact opposite of what you’re trying to say.

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it’s a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.

WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it’s almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

Now which is a more real risk to the collective security of Americans, daily mass shootings or some fantasy where the government is “coming to take muh guns” and you end up living in some hills fighting a guerrilla fight against a military made up of your fellow nationals?

Gee, idk, should we ask the kids who survived Sandy Hook how they feel about it? (They’re old enough to vote now.)