You’ve justified the murder of journalists, whether this one was murdered or not. It was attempted murder, which carries all of the intent of a successful murder. And we’re seeing the video precisely because of survivorship bias. The 300 or so other journalists the IDF have murdered in the last 2 years were not so lucky.
Give your head a wobble mate, you’re literally out here justifying the murder of press in war zones.
Give your head a wobble mate, you’re literally out here justifying the murder of press in war zones.
They won’t get it, the good-vs-bad is so rooted so deeply in their thought process that they don’t even realize it. At this point it’s just cheering for every death of a “bad guy”. It was bad when it started with celebrating the deaths of “terrorists”, then collateral damages started to be fine as well, as long as the target died too, and somehow we ended up here, where full on war crimes and genocides against civilians are okay, as long as they are the so-called bad guys or in the way of a mission against them.
It’s honestly sickening. They are all human beings, and we all bleed all the same. Just because someone’s been born in a Hezbollah-controlled shithole, or is working for an irrelevant Russian TV outlet, they don’t deserve to die, and it doesn’t make their death acceptable.
I could ask you to point to where you think I justify killing but what a waste of time it would be, asking questions to people so fucking deep in the political delirium.
"A terrorist state bombing the mouthpiece of another terrorist state.
Can’t say I’m overwhelmed with emotion" - murvel
You said that, that’s your own words. How is one supposed to interpret that exactly other than being okay with just the attempted murder of a member of the media who is covering genocide?
So you think that when a propagandists from one terrorist state gets killed by another terrorist state, that it’s not ok? Because dude has a press badge?
Yes, I think that is not ok. Do you think it’s ok? To kill an unarmed video team using a guided bomb?
Where do you get that moral code from? You’re surely not claiming to be religious or rational?
By the way, most states are engaged in terrorism in one way or another. The US most certainly is a terrorist state. So you’re saying anyone should be able to bomb journalists from any country? Which countries are exempt?
Yes, I think that is not ok. Do you think it’s ok? To kill an unarmed video team using a guided bomb?
Where do you get that moral code from? You’re surely not claiming to be religious or rational?
They stated that they were bombing that bridge. Mouthpiece went over to the area they knew Israel was targeting…this isn’t about moral code. If that was a bullshit Fox news “journalist” doing this to Iran would you cry foul?
By the way, most states are engaged in terrorism in one way or another. The US most certainly is a terrorist state. So you’re saying anyone should be able to bomb journalists from any country? Which countries are exempt?
Any journalist worth their salt, isn’t going to areas that have been stated will be bombed. They don’t because they’re not idiots.
If that was a bullshit Fox news “journalist” doing this to Iran would you cry foul?
Yes, I absolutely would. I don’t wish Fox news journalists dead, as disgraceful as they are. Though I doubt any of them would have the courage to report from a war zone.
Any journalist worth their salt, isn’t going to areas that have been stated will be bombed. They don’t because they’re not idiots.
That’s not how it works in the Geneva conventions, though. The reason it doesn’t work like that is because then any aggressor state can simply designate an area for bombing if they want to keep the press away from it, then they can commit any and all kinds of crimes against humanity there with zero civil oversight. Also, let’s say Mugabe had killed journalists in an area because he had warned he was going to attack there, we all would’ve cried foul. So that’s not the rule.
The rule is really simple and clear: don’t target noncombatants.
Edit: another thing, can you show me any evidence that this journalist knows the bridge was about to be bombed? I find that incredibly difficult to believe, so I can’t just take that on faith sorry.
You’ve justified the murder of journalists, whether this one was murdered or not. It was attempted murder, which carries all of the intent of a successful murder. And we’re seeing the video precisely because of survivorship bias. The 300 or so other journalists the IDF have murdered in the last 2 years were not so lucky.
Give your head a wobble mate, you’re literally out here justifying the murder of press in war zones.
They won’t get it, the good-vs-bad is so rooted so deeply in their thought process that they don’t even realize it. At this point it’s just cheering for every death of a “bad guy”. It was bad when it started with celebrating the deaths of “terrorists”, then collateral damages started to be fine as well, as long as the target died too, and somehow we ended up here, where full on war crimes and genocides against civilians are okay, as long as they are the so-called bad guys or in the way of a mission against them.
It’s honestly sickening. They are all human beings, and we all bleed all the same. Just because someone’s been born in a Hezbollah-controlled shithole, or is working for an irrelevant Russian TV outlet, they don’t deserve to die, and it doesn’t make their death acceptable.
How incredibly disheartening that was to read
So no.
And no, I’m not justifying anything.
I could ask you to point to where you think I justify killing but what a waste of time it would be, asking questions to people so fucking deep in the political delirium.
Your first comment.
You don’t care he was bombed because he’s “the mouthpiece of a terrorist state”.
Comes out with a spicy take, then tries to walk it back when it shows an ass of themselves.
I hate lemmy, I swear I really do.
Read the first comment you damn illiterate. I swear you fucks are so blinded by hatred that you interpret shit however you like…
"A terrorist state bombing the mouthpiece of another terrorist state.
Can’t say I’m overwhelmed with emotion" - murvel
You said that, that’s your own words. How is one supposed to interpret that exactly other than being okay with just the attempted murder of a member of the media who is covering genocide?
That I don’t care would be the sane interpretation, but then again I am talking with fucking lunatics
Says the insane man.
I doubt anyone is convinced that I’m hateful or illiterate.
Seems like a pretty fair paraphrasing of
Or is there some hidden meaning you think should be obvious?
Is that the exact quote? No!? Oh because that’s your dumb shit interpretation.
I doubt anyone is convinced that I’m a dumb shit.
Seems like a pretty fair paraphrasing of
Or is there some hidden meaning you think should be obvious?
So you think that when a propagandists from one terrorist state gets killed by another terrorist state, that it’s not ok? Because dude has a press badge?
I understood their post just fine.
Yes, I think that is not ok. Do you think it’s ok? To kill an unarmed video team using a guided bomb?
Where do you get that moral code from? You’re surely not claiming to be religious or rational?
By the way, most states are engaged in terrorism in one way or another. The US most certainly is a terrorist state. So you’re saying anyone should be able to bomb journalists from any country? Which countries are exempt?
They stated that they were bombing that bridge. Mouthpiece went over to the area they knew Israel was targeting…this isn’t about moral code. If that was a bullshit Fox news “journalist” doing this to Iran would you cry foul?
Any journalist worth their salt, isn’t going to areas that have been stated will be bombed. They don’t because they’re not idiots.
Yes, I absolutely would. I don’t wish Fox news journalists dead, as disgraceful as they are. Though I doubt any of them would have the courage to report from a war zone.
That’s not how it works in the Geneva conventions, though. The reason it doesn’t work like that is because then any aggressor state can simply designate an area for bombing if they want to keep the press away from it, then they can commit any and all kinds of crimes against humanity there with zero civil oversight. Also, let’s say Mugabe had killed journalists in an area because he had warned he was going to attack there, we all would’ve cried foul. So that’s not the rule.
The rule is really simple and clear: don’t target noncombatants.
Edit: another thing, can you show me any evidence that this journalist knows the bridge was about to be bombed? I find that incredibly difficult to believe, so I can’t just take that on faith sorry.