KillingTimeItself

invasion colloquially would be considered a more official declaration of war, idk if israel has acknowledged this, and if lebanon hasn’t acknowledged this at all themselves, than i feel like calling it a literal invasion is probably a little bit presumptuous here.

Is the headline factually wrong?

Usually when someone says “sends troops” to another country it’s to help after an earthquake or flood or fire or something.

idk about this one chief, isn’t it usually “sends aid” or “send aid” do you have any examples of this?

like to be clear here, you’re claiming that the NYT title is biased, but then proposing an equally biased term to replace it. I would rather the title just be neutral. The headlines are useless anyway.

edit: removed a weird bit.

i’m not saying that it has to be either, i just don’t think that calling it a genocide, when you could call it literally hundreds of other things that would be so vastly more accurate than this specific statement, would be a lot more responsible.

But even past that, i’m not convinced that this is going to count as genocide, since genocide would traditionally be an ethnic cleansing, and i feel im not being uncharitable here using that as a definition, considering how many times i’ve seen people call it ethnic cleansing. I have not seen sufficient evidence that demonstrates that as anything more than significant war crimes. Many war crimes even, but not genocide.

That is why the Un definition is as broad as it is.

and to be clear, you aren’t wrong here, you’re correct, but again, they literally haven’t fucking ruled it on it yet (to my knowledge, maybe im dumb and stupid lol) i can’t begin to state how concerning it is that you’re calling it a genocide before this ruling has even been made, it’s SO incredibly presumptuous.

The Germans genocided the Slavs and they never had any intention of wiping them out (the survivors were meant to become slaves). Europran colonizers committed genocide against North Americans and wiping them out was just a side effect, not the point.

is this the legal ruling on the cases here? Or are we just making statements here.

Also wiping out the native americans from north america was not a “side effect” that was most definitely a secondary if not primary intention. We literally fought with them over this. That wasn’t just an accidental woopsie daisy.

yeah, and if we take a look at south africas case, it’s not “genocide” it appears that it has reasonable extent to be genocide. Which are two different things.

You’re doing guilty until proven innocent here, which, is weird. Even weirder, when i see people calling for the literal denazification of israel.

As far as the two requirements go here, those are two very broad, and not very specific statements, genocidal acts is incredibly broad, so broad in fact that the vast majority of things that would apply, are probably not genocide. Intent is a lot clearer, but then you also have to consider military and governmental intent, rather than just personal statements. Civil intent is also a big problem here as well. I’m not convinced that the majority of israel literally wants to ethnically cleanse palestinians. Or that the governmental figures do to begin with, albeit they aren’t doing themselves a favor when they say super sus shit like that either.

Though this is also the middle east, and from my knowledge, this kind of death toll and fighting is not unusual? They tend to have very aggressive opinions on this stuff for some reason.

so in summary here, you’ve basically said, well, it sort of looks like a duck, and the sound it makes is vaugely similar to a duck, so this weird silhouette behind the sheet here must be a duck, there is no possible alternative in this situation.

Also. wouldn’t it follow, that if the evidence were SO telling in this case, that this legal case would probably be over a little bit quicker than it seems to be taking right now? It’s weird that we’re even deliberating on the verdict before it’s happened, and it’s even weirder that you seem to be 100% confident about it, even though im assuming you have basically the same knowledge level that i do on it.

Maybe i’m wrong, and you’ve written a PHD dissertation on conflict in the middle east, and have extensively studied israel and it’s history, but i’m going to go out on a limb here and say since you’re yelling at me on lemmy, you probably haven’t.

Notice how im not 100% confident on the statements i make? Even though i’d be pretty willing to bet money on this, i’m still not going to authoritatively state it either. It’s not really that hard to just, not be so aggressive about something this vile.

i mean, up to 10% is quite a bit. That’s still 90% of the population existing though, so i’m not sure that’s to the levels of genocide, as defined by uh, genocide. Which would be ethnic cleansing.

If we’re going by existing figures, that’s like what, 2.5% of the population. I feel like famines have probably killed more people, and that war has most definitely contributed more deaths to this as well.

A process where people were meaningfully enfranchised wouldn’t need to rely on something so abstract as votes.

how is this one supposed to work? Just curious, since voting seems to be the only real method of direct representation, unless you’re suggesting a global at will military force, which, would be a thing.

well yeah, you don’t want everyone to have veto power, because then nothing happens ever. The idea behind a few people having veto powers to is to establish some sort of protection for the big players, since they’re likely to be the most contested, though depending on how you set up the legislation and member functionality of it this may not be relevant at all.

TBF i have little to no knowledge of how the UN works, just that it is a thing.

i have no clue, but i would assume it’s native to twitter if they’re pushing it that hard, either that or someone is paying a lot of money for that captcha access lol.

yeah, invasions are normal under war. That’s how they work.

I guess i’m mostly just confused why we care about the clarification here, 90% of war is getting a one up on your enemy, either via readiness, attrition, or technological advantage.

they’re not white though, they’re Slavic/Ukrainian.

in fact, this is why we refer to that part of europe as “eastern europe” even though, there’s no significant distinction.

and what they’re allowed to do with military aid.

to be clear, israel receives US military aid as well.

That’s probably why palestine isn’t as much of a concern. They’re just two different conflicts here. We’ve been a pseudo ally with ukraine since the dissolution of the USSR, and so has europe more broadly, we all have stuff to lose there.

The same is also probably true for israel, though to different extents, and likely very different reasons. I couldn’t tell you much about it though.

if you look at it from this perspective, it’s perfectly and wholly consistent.

man some of these comments are so hard to understand.

You can’t fight against a militia that you created? So you can’t do war at all now? Russia can’t invade countries like Switzerland and Finland due to them having a lot of military presence?

The US can’t fight russia if they decide to invade the US since the US arguably had some influence over the death of the USSR being a superpower at the time of the coldwar.

Who cares if they in part created that millitia, it should only matter if one side wants to aggress the otherside, otherwise all bets are off. If both sides want to sit there and engage in military posturing, they’re free to do so, if one wants to aggress the other, they’re free to do so.

I see people saying that lebanon, and palestine are allowed to defend themselves, and i don’t think anybody disagrees, but it implies that you either think neither of these countries have a capable military force, or that israel is somehow not allowed to defend itself? Which either means you think israel is the aggressor in every instance here, all the way back to the founding of israel, which seems like an odd position to hold because that would be theoretically easy to fact check. Or that israel shouldn’t do anything in response to getting attacked because they have a bigger stronger military or something?

can you fill me in on what im missing here?

wait until you hear about how the middle east handles war

but to the IDF? this is no mere delusion, they do have a guarantee that they won’t be bombed, because they have the iron dome, they can do what they want.

the iron dome is literally not a guarantee that you can’t be bombed, i think the iron dome has had a 90% effectiveness thus far, but don’t quote me on it.

And besides, if you destroy the anti air, like we did in operation sandstorm, you can’t exactly stop it.

Or better yet, pull a hopeless diamond and simply fly stealth bombers over. (assuming that works of course)

if you want to argue that they don’t have these capabilities, sure, that’s literally how asymmetrical warfare works though.

How do you call 10% of the population (already more than all Hamas members) dying anything other than a genocide?

uh, simple. The definition of genocide as defined in the dictionary is an “ethnic cleansing” and if we assume this to be the “correct” definition, for the sake of argumentative purpose here.

It must follow, as defined that if the conflict were to stop, that israel would stop killing Palestinians. Since this has been going on for like 80 years or something, it’s hard to say, but i think it’s probably fair to say that israel would stop killing people if they came to a peace agreement.

However, this changes a little bit if we pull into the definition of genocide as defined by the UN or something, which is a lot more broad, likely due to legal deliberation, this is extremely common. Now i don’t know of any ruling from the ICC the ICJ, or the UN that classifies this as a “genocide” though i know the ICJ has said that this could very well be genocide. And that the ICC has pushed a warrant containing multiple war crimes for netanyahu.

Though to be fair, i haven’t read into anything the UN has said on this conflict specifically, so i could be mistaken there just due to sheer ignorance lol.

I know numerous “countries” have claimed as such, but i believe that very few have specifically stated as such, there has been a lot of public outcry, and im sure a number of politicians against this. But to my knowledge, only south africa has stated that this “is a genocide” however accurate that quote is, though to be fair again, i don’t know much about this one either.

what are the statistics for ethnic deaths here anyway? How far up the chain have we gotten?

Which one? Clearly anything Hamas does is justified retaliation

im pretty sure internationally recognized terrorism isn’t considered to be justified or retaliation, but it’s the middle east, so that’s something that sort of just, happens sometimes. That would probably explain why israel is reacting so violently.

China and the USSR were at war due to being invaded.

the chinese leg of the conflict is particularly goofy.

China had two, or three parties at one point, all fighting for control over the country. There was the communist party (backed by the soviets) There was the democratic party (backed by the US) and then there was also japan doing it’s thing trying to take over china as well.

Prior to this there was the russo japanese war, which was an equally big shitpost, the russians having been fucking broiled by the japanese over it, though a different story.

holy shit this entire fucking thread is brain dead dude.

Im pretty sure the V2 literally didn’t exist before they invaded poland. I’m 95% sure that’s the joke here.

beheading? What the fuck happened in the twelve hours since this was first reported on. I’m so confused.

hezbollah is related to palestine now? Or have they killed like 10000 Lebanese people already?