I see, so we're just believing that it's "faulty AI" rather than deliberate decisions? When it comes to war crimes, it's not the fault of the AI.
You can't prosecute an AI. - Israel probably
The original article had some really damning lines. Israel is beyond barbaric they try to bomb suspects inside of their family homes instead of trying to target active combatants
“We were not interested in killing [Hamas] operatives only when they were in a military building or engaged in a military activity,” A., an intelligence officer, told +972 and Local Call. “On the contrary, the IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option. It’s much easier to bomb a family’s home. The system is built to look for them in these situations.”
Killing as many civilians as possible is modus operandi for israelis.
There are so many things that were horrifying about the US's prosecution of the Global War on Terror, but at least when confronted with the same problem the US was like, "what if we invented a knife missile that can hit a guy in the driver's seat of a car without hurting anybody standing next to the car?" whereas the IDF took the position that a 100:1 ratio of innocent bystander to presumed militant is totally acceptable (in an environment where fully half of those innocent bystanders are children to boot). Just absolutely ghoulish levels of inhumanity.
No. That's not killing "as many as possible". That's accepting civilians around the official to be killed. If anything it's extremely targeted attack. Killing as many as possible would be carpet bombing the whole thing and calling it a day.
fucking bootlickers man, what makes a person such a fascist apologist
Being raised by propaganda will do that.
Still a war crime.
Images after bombing, the area was essentially carpet bombed. There have been thousands of more bombs dropped since this article. The IDF wouldn't function without western support. This is plausable deniability, they can kill substantial numbers of people and blame it on this system or 'collateral damage'. They have to maintain an image at least somewhat. So they kill as many as they can get away with.
The Israeli state has made it clear for years they don't believe in the long-term existance of Palestine. This is part of their project to eliminate as many Palestinians as possible to more easily take territory.
IDK slaying 100 civilians per target sounds like a fuckload of war crimes if you ask me.
If they can track them then they can wait. This is the definition of a proportionate force war crime.
"Error prone" is a funny way to say "Working as designed"
Sounds like the equivalent of US drone strikes.
Yeah, but US drone strikes aren't so intense on one small area or group of people
What do you mean? There's a whole generation of Yemeni children afraid of Sunny days because those are the days that people die. I'm a place that gets 300+ days of sunshine a year.
We we're much worse.
It’s not a genocide. Not defending what we’ve done, but I don’t think it’s fair to compare to genocide
I would fully disagree. We targeted civilians, not in war zones at functions like weddings, funerals and other explicitly civilian gatherings. We (the US) had the intent to kill civilians, and our tolerances for civilian casualties were an order of magnitude larger than what the IDF is using.
If anything it's not comparable because what we did was worse.
Thank you for knowing history and at least trying to educate others from it. People here are so willing to bend definitions and ignore events that were far worse just so it can fit their narrative.
It's 100% comparable. We're talking about collateral budgets for strikes. That's exactly what happened in both of these scenarios.
It just so happens they have different budgets, but they both had allowances for allowing innocent people to be killed alongside potential targets. On one hand it's plus one two three maybe even five allowable collateral on a target. On the other hand it's 100. But it's the same thing
It's either okay to kill civilians or it's not.
Plus one two three...?! I'd laugh if I didn't know we were talking about innocent lives lost, and far more than +3. Or are you seriously going to tell me that 28k civilian casualties per year in Afghanistan didn't happen. And USA was there for 6 years. IRAQ am too afraid to look up.
I'm not omniscient I don't know everything that happened. But I do know the published ROE included a collateral budget for different strikes of one to two. 3 to 5 with extra approval for at least one theater of operation that I'm aware of
And for others it was decided it was within rules of engagement and washed their hands. Here's a video from when USA killed those two Reuters reporters. Just skip to 17:05 and see the the casualty report from ground troops. Killed 11 civilians, one small child (in reality there were two)... for what? But this case was thrown out as "they acted within rules of engagement". It's just a shit excuse so no one is to be blamed when innocent people die and this video here shows just how frivolously they shot. One of the soldiers drove over a dead body and started laughing. Other guy said "well it's their problem bringing child to a combat" when it's them who engaged random group of people on the street.
I'm not sure I follow your argument. Yes it's a terrible thing. Collateral damage should not be the cost of war. Especially when we're fighting an asymmetric war. The occupying force should have stricter rules of engagement, no collateral allowed. They are after all the dominant occupying force
This entire discussion started when somebody compared US rules of engagement towards the current Israeli rules of engagement. Is the genocide terrible Yes absolutely. It is comparable however, to previous US military engagements. This is not to absolve the guilt of the current actions, but to castigate the previous actions
Argument is that I am not convinced what Israel is doing is genocide and it's completely comparable to what USA and other countries did when it was also not called genocide. Collateral casualties are sad, but no war is without them. Whether war is bad or not is not ever arguable, but people can't agree on Coke vs. Pepsi, let alone religion or other subjects so there will always be wars.
All the starving people in Yemen would disagree with the not genocide comment. Like in Palestine, a religious nationalist is committing atrocities with full US support.
How can you bend definition of genocide so much as to excuse yourself but blame Israel at the same time. Here's a refresher for you.
If you still believe the "Hamas" bullshit, you literally don't have a brain
The crap Israel spins about Hamas is all a pile of horse shit so they can carry out their Manifest Destiny conquer of the middle east and purge the "holy land" and cleanse it from the "lesser people" and establish a rule of "god's chosen", that's literally what Zionists have believed for over ~70 years
Hamas is literally better than most of the governments and "freedom fighters" the united states finds itself in bed with
Was this AI programmed by the fucking Israeli Peter Gibbons?
I see, so we're just believing that it's "faulty AI" rather than deliberate decisions? When it comes to war crimes, it's not the fault of the AI.
You can't prosecute an AI. - Israel probably
The original article had some really damning lines. Israel is beyond barbaric they try to bomb suspects inside of their family homes instead of trying to target active combatants
Killing as many civilians as possible is modus operandi for israelis.
There are so many things that were horrifying about the US's prosecution of the Global War on Terror, but at least when confronted with the same problem the US was like, "what if we invented a knife missile that can hit a guy in the driver's seat of a car without hurting anybody standing next to the car?" whereas the IDF took the position that a 100:1 ratio of innocent bystander to presumed militant is totally acceptable (in an environment where fully half of those innocent bystanders are children to boot). Just absolutely ghoulish levels of inhumanity.
No. That's not killing "as many as possible". That's accepting civilians around the official to be killed. If anything it's extremely targeted attack. Killing as many as possible would be carpet bombing the whole thing and calling it a day.
fucking bootlickers man, what makes a person such a fascist apologist
Being raised by propaganda will do that.
Still a war crime.
Images after bombing, the area was essentially carpet bombed. There have been thousands of more bombs dropped since this article. The IDF wouldn't function without western support. This is plausable deniability, they can kill substantial numbers of people and blame it on this system or 'collateral damage'. They have to maintain an image at least somewhat. So they kill as many as they can get away with.
The Israeli state has made it clear for years they don't believe in the long-term existance of Palestine. This is part of their project to eliminate as many Palestinians as possible to more easily take territory.
IDK slaying 100 civilians per target sounds like a fuckload of war crimes if you ask me.
If they can track them then they can wait. This is the definition of a proportionate force war crime.
"Error prone" is a funny way to say "Working as designed"
Sounds like the equivalent of US drone strikes.
Yeah, but US drone strikes aren't so intense on one small area or group of people
What do you mean? There's a whole generation of Yemeni children afraid of Sunny days because those are the days that people die. I'm a place that gets 300+ days of sunshine a year.
We we're much worse.
It’s not a genocide. Not defending what we’ve done, but I don’t think it’s fair to compare to genocide
I would fully disagree. We targeted civilians, not in war zones at functions like weddings, funerals and other explicitly civilian gatherings. We (the US) had the intent to kill civilians, and our tolerances for civilian casualties were an order of magnitude larger than what the IDF is using.
If anything it's not comparable because what we did was worse.
Thank you for knowing history and at least trying to educate others from it. People here are so willing to bend definitions and ignore events that were far worse just so it can fit their narrative.
It's 100% comparable. We're talking about collateral budgets for strikes. That's exactly what happened in both of these scenarios.
It just so happens they have different budgets, but they both had allowances for allowing innocent people to be killed alongside potential targets. On one hand it's plus one two three maybe even five allowable collateral on a target. On the other hand it's 100. But it's the same thing
It's either okay to kill civilians or it's not.
Plus one two three...?! I'd laugh if I didn't know we were talking about innocent lives lost, and far more than +3. Or are you seriously going to tell me that 28k civilian casualties per year in Afghanistan didn't happen. And USA was there for 6 years. IRAQ am too afraid to look up.
I'm not omniscient I don't know everything that happened. But I do know the published ROE included a collateral budget for different strikes of one to two. 3 to 5 with extra approval for at least one theater of operation that I'm aware of
And for others it was decided it was within rules of engagement and washed their hands. Here's a video from when USA killed those two Reuters reporters. Just skip to 17:05 and see the the casualty report from ground troops. Killed 11 civilians, one small child (in reality there were two)... for what? But this case was thrown out as "they acted within rules of engagement". It's just a shit excuse so no one is to be blamed when innocent people die and this video here shows just how frivolously they shot. One of the soldiers drove over a dead body and started laughing. Other guy said "well it's their problem bringing child to a combat" when it's them who engaged random group of people on the street.
I'm not sure I follow your argument. Yes it's a terrible thing. Collateral damage should not be the cost of war. Especially when we're fighting an asymmetric war. The occupying force should have stricter rules of engagement, no collateral allowed. They are after all the dominant occupying force
This entire discussion started when somebody compared US rules of engagement towards the current Israeli rules of engagement. Is the genocide terrible Yes absolutely. It is comparable however, to previous US military engagements. This is not to absolve the guilt of the current actions, but to castigate the previous actions
Argument is that I am not convinced what Israel is doing is genocide and it's completely comparable to what USA and other countries did when it was also not called genocide. Collateral casualties are sad, but no war is without them. Whether war is bad or not is not ever arguable, but people can't agree on Coke vs. Pepsi, let alone religion or other subjects so there will always be wars.
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
All the starving people in Yemen would disagree with the not genocide comment. Like in Palestine, a religious nationalist is committing atrocities with full US support.
How can you bend definition of genocide so much as to excuse yourself but blame Israel at the same time. Here's a refresher for you.
Ok, here’s a refresher for you
Pretty sure that's a feature, not a bug. Evil fucks.
Something that surprised me is the sheer size of a "family home" in Gaza.
We're not talking an apartment or even a house. We're talking a decent sized apartment building. Six floors or so. A hundred people.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-68400463
If you still believe the "Hamas" bullshit, you literally don't have a brain
The crap Israel spins about Hamas is all a pile of horse shit so they can carry out their Manifest Destiny conquer of the middle east and purge the "holy land" and cleanse it from the "lesser people" and establish a rule of "god's chosen", that's literally what Zionists have believed for over ~70 years
Hamas is literally better than most of the governments and "freedom fighters" the united states finds itself in bed with
Was this AI programmed by the fucking Israeli Peter Gibbons?