this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
875 points (100.0% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
11836 readers
802 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It most certainly is true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas
Doesn't excuse the Israeli administration, but Hamas 100% uses human shields, schools included.
I will need to see concrete evidence that these people were, in fact, members of the terrorist resistance before I believe claims that they were. However, we are currently assuming that all claims of terrorists being present are true for every strike. I would like you to know that I selected these strikes at random.
I will ask again: what is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
I read earlier this year that Israel considered 100 civilian deaths for one Hamas fighter a fair trade. I can't find the exact article, but it was about their use of AI in deciding targets. According to this article a "10% failure rate" is totally acceptable. So, anywhere between 9-1 and 100-1 is within parameters. Children are a points multiplier.
I couldn't find the article i was looking for, and it's basically a rhetorical nswer to a rhetorical question. So, please take my cheek with a grain of salt.
The question they asked is in presumption for this to be true.
Your non-answer speaks volumes.
What is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
If you don't know, the rational answer is 0 for the same reason why we dont let suspected pedophiles adopt children as a sacrifice to catch a bigger pedo ring.
The question is kind of bullshit though. It's meant to either get the other side to have an emotional response and say none or to be what you want perceived as a piece of shit and give a number. Let's try it on another question.
How many child deaths are permissible before we ban bicycles? Cars? Jump rope? Pools? If it's not 0, how dare you sir or ma'am. We're talking about children here!
There is a reason certain buildings are off-limits unless it starts being used by the opposing force's fighters. How would you fight a war against someone if they could just strike from an ambulance and then drive off, scott-free?
Also just want to throw out there that this type of thing is exactly what those who would use human shields want you to do. "Back off or we will put more civilians in front of us." Then they will publicize the aftermath to help their propaganda war.
Acceptable child to terrorist death ratio is legitimately 2:1 and accept 3:1 only if we get to eat the children afterwards.
Do you have the coupon?
I am also anti war so yes. I also dont judge life based on age but emotional sentiment does spread the ideal of stop killing eachother please.
The practice you described while i know this true in the US it may not be legal or moral elsewhere
I believe Europe has specifically forbidden “entrapment”
Entrapment: Law enforcement must avoid entrapment, which involves inducing someone to commit a crime they would not otherwise have committed. This is generally illegal in Europe and could lead to cases being thrown out in court.
Governements can interpret laws however they want but i am pretty sure that some of that baiting is considered entrapment.
Feeling tempted to buy drugs is not a crime, acting on it is. If the undercover cop wasn't selling they may not have gotten tempted at that exact point of weakness.
Realistically it probably depends more on your lawyer and the jury then the letter of law though. Thats seems The same anywhere.
I was not still not convinced that did not count, so i did some research. In the example your given, not having the predisposition to buy drugs appears a valid defence.
"In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests.
The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime.
The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime."
In Germany its a lot more strict
"In German law, it is normally forbidden to induce or persuade someone to commit a crime or to attempt to do so. However, the German Federal Court of Justice has held that entrapment by undercover police agents is not a reason to stay the case per se."
And then there's the UK which is vague as fuck?.
"The main authority on entrapment in England and Wales, held to be equally applicable in Scotland, is the decision of the House of Lords in R. v. Loosely (2001). A stay is granted if the conduct of the state was so seriously improper that the administration of justice was brought into disrepute. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the Court will consider, as a useful guide, whether the police did more than present the defendant with an unexceptional opportunity to commit a crime."
And then there is the european convention on humans rights which appears more option then law.
"Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights has been interpreted as forbidding prosecution of acts induced by undercover officers. In the case of Teixeira de Castro v Portugal, the European Court of Human Rights found that the prosecution of a man for drugs offences after being asked by undercover police to procure heroin was a breach of the defendant's rights under Article 6 as the investigating officers's actions "went beyond those of undercover agents because they instigated the offence and there is nothing to suggest that without their intervention it would have been committed."
Gaza is one of the most densely populated areas on the planet....
There's no where anyone can be that doesn't have a shit ton of civilians around, and due to the treatment of people who live in Gaza by Israel.... A lot of people in Gaza are children.
That's the whole reason the international community has been saying for almost a year you can't just flatten everything.
But they keep doing it. Because Israel sees civilian deaths in Gaza as a feature, not a bug.
Cool wikipedia article. But you should check out current reality sometime.
From you first link:
Your own excerpt says they were accused, and that it has not been recognized as Human Shielding.
Where as I'm certain I've seen videos of the Israeli military walking naked Palestinians through mine fields, shelled buildings, and into tunnels. I will not look it up again, I just simply wanted to point out that you're terrible at reading.
The wiki says they are accused of it but lists many reports which found no evidence of this. In the current conflict there are apparently a couple of cases with hostages.
The big problem with most of these claims is that it's "proximate" shielding being alleged, which is not when you are literally shielding someone (as in the recent cases with Israel using Palestinians, and assumedly those with Hamas using the hostages), but when you are just sat at home, in school, whatever, going about your usual business totally unaware. But you are a "shield" because the enemy decides they want to attack something near you.
This quote really sums up the rhetorical strategy:
It is a trick so that Israel can avoid responsibility for it's actions. I'm not saying you are supporting Israel or denying their crimes (I know you explicitly didn't), but this rhetoric is WAY more common than genuine instances of human shielding, which thus far has primarily been done by Israel, not Hamas.
Likewise, this isn't excusing Hamas. Fuck them. But aside from the case with the hostages (didn't check the reference but I trust it), there is very little evidence that Hamas does this. Most of the time it is an outright deception.
Edit: this is from the report cited by wikipedia:
So clearly it does happen. But cases are rare and on both sides of the conflict
Mate, they lob unguided rockets in roughly the right direction. They are not targeting jak shit.
Ballistics can be predicted and modeled, I'm sure they can do the math for targeting. There's a lot of room for errors, but don't assume they're just just blind firing.
The human shield lie is dead. The majority of structures in Gaza have been bombed and rendered uninhabitable. Israel is just destroying everything indiscriminately and killing anything that moves outside the designated camps.
Was Hamas using over half of all structures in Gaza as operating bases? Get real.
It's already known that Hamas uses tunnels, why would they even be in the buildings at this point? This is just a campaign of total destruction.
Don't spread genocide denial.
Why would they still roof knock if they indiscriminately bomb everything?
They stopped roof knocking as standard policy back in October. Try to keep up.
Odd that I still see new videos of bombings all the time, from 10 different angles and crowds watching the buildings get hit... I wonder how they knew about the upcoming hit.
Odd that you're just ignoring the literally stated policy of Israel. Stop with your genocide denial. They've already told us what they are doing.
They seem to have been wrong about roof knocking specifically (new term for me) but still informing people and evacuating civilians? Or attempting to?
The entire strip is being bombed! They just force Palestinians to play musical chairs in fucking tents as they're driven from one impromptu camp to the next. Anyone outside the camps is sniped.
It's all lies. Israel is just doing genocide.
They aren't bombing the tunnels, they're just blowing up hospitals and apartments and schools. The tunnels are unaffected.
Well firstly, the point of the bombing campaign is to make Gaza uninhabitable. The tunnels are irrelevant to that.
But more importantly, the tunnels are too deep to bomb and they don't know where the tunnels even are. At best they can bomb tunnel entrances, the tunnels themselves require deep penetration to attack directly.
Israel also uses human shields.
But even if hamas did, that doesn't mean it is the case here. Just like how it wasn't the case when they said there is a military base under a hospital, only to find a single tunnel used to smuggle in medicine after they completely bombed it down, including its residents.