This comment was in response to someone expressing regret about joining .ml if I recall correctly
Edit: I'm convinced all this guy does is camp out in front of his computer and wait for an excuse to abuse what itty bitty power he has.
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
228 points (96.3% liked)
MeanwhileOnGrad
1337 readers
177 users here now
"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
Alternatively, a detailed blog post about Tankies.
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Understanding that any government declaration that Israel is committing genocide would necessarily require politically hazardous action in accompaniment, do you require that the majority of Western governments declare Israel is committing genocide, or only that a significant and credible portion of the legal and foreign policy institutions of Western governments declare as much?
Ideally I would want to see governmental acknowledgment, but I wouldn't call it a hard requirement. But ultimately it depends on the evidence presented, and on the people and institutions who agree/disagree with it. I can't really give you a more firm answer than that.
Alright, so what do you think about...
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-judges-intelligence-experts-call-halt-israeli-arms-sales-2024-04-04/
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-law-clerks-rare-anonymous-statement-decry-genocide-gaza-2024-05-29
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce48wpd08pgo
https://apnews.com/article/spain-israel-icj-genocide-case-67d4d9b8ecf6fd88e718319a5d93465a
https://time.com/6334409/is-whats-happening-gaza-genocide-experts/
At what point does the accusation of genocide towards Israel's behavior become plausible?
What about the Israeli government themselves claiming a (very dubious) 50/50 civilian-militant casualty ratio? We've flattened cities in WW2 with better casualty ratios than that.
What about prominent members of the Israeli government openly saying the intention is to commit genocide?
Regarding your initial set of links, I think it's clear that I don't consider these particularly credible. With that said, the accusation obviously has some degree of surface-level plausibility. But there's more to genocide than "people are being killed".
I don't have any issues with that. I know, that sounds callous but considering that urban warfare and sieges always have exceptionally horrific civilian death tolls even without one side (Hamas) very deliberately placing as many civilians between them and the enemy as they can, I'd argue that those numbers are actually exceptionally good.
Not for lack of trying. Civilian casualties were basically a non-concern for the Americans (this is also true of Israel), and the Brits very deliberately sought out attacked purely civilian targets in a terror bombing campaign (this is not). Me saying Israels conduct reminds me of the Allies in WW2 was not a commendation of either. I consider both to be necessary evils to eliminate the Nazis and Hamas respectively.
Ben-Gvir and his party certainly would like to turn it into a genocide, but coalition governments don't work that way. A public statement from one minor coalition member doesn't make something government policy. Otzma Yehudit has two ministers and six seats in the Knesset, they're very much not able to dictate government policy. The fact that they haven't been kicked out of the coalition over their remarks is concerning, but so far that's all it is.
If some of the most respected legal institutions of these countries aren't credible, what IS credible? Israeli spokespeople?
Claims of Hamas using human shields aside, the US claimed civilian casualty ratio in the War on Terror, in which we were (rightfully) condemned for being trigger happy, was .2%. The actual number was 15%.
50% is horrifying - and 50% is the lowest possible estimate, which relies on the IDF being more honest than the US government. Outside sources put the low estimate at ~63%, which assumes, like the .2% claim of the US, that all military-age males killed are enemy combatants, which is pretty fucking dubious at best. Upper estimates go north of 90%.
For reference, the October 7th terrorist attack, in which Hamas deliberately targeted civilians, had a civilian casualty ratio of ~75% according to the Israeli government (whose claims in this case are credible, considering the evidence presented and the difficulty of falsifying one's own casualties in the context of civilian reporting)
The Americans pursued strategic bombing, industrial and military targets, the Brits pursued terror bombing, choosing civilian targets that would demoralize the population. Israel is performing precision strikes on civilians. They're not trying to demoralize the population. They're attempting ethnic fucking cleansing. Fuck's sake, what do you put Israel's effective siege on humanitarian aid as? Is setting up starvation conditions in Gaza just being friendly?
How many members of the government need to express genocidal intent before you consider genocidal intent to be present? Do you apply this standard to all ongoing genocides?