• WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Israel’s use of white phosphorous as a smoke screen is as plausible as their claim that every Palestinian man woman and child being killed is Hamas. When the Israeli military had to commit they wouldn’t use WP in populated areas to the Israeli High Court of Justice in 2013. The use of WP in this manner is widely considered a warcrime with the flimsiest of veils draped over it.

    There’s a gaping chasm between superhuman control and genocide - but I’m seeing a lot of genocidal rhetoric, action and dead or displaced Palestinians, and no evidence of restraint beyond the bare minimum which will allow for continued US support.

    • FishFace@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So you’ve retreated from “War crime, dipshit” to “flimsily veiled warcrime, plus the IDF make aggressive statements”, and silence on the “wrong country”. That’s progress, given the context in which most people think any use of white phosphorous is a crime.

      • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No - it’s a warcrime, dipshit.

        The thin veil is what they hastily tossed over the warcrime… after repeatedly lying about not doing it, and repeatedly promising not to do it… For definite not warcrimes reasons

        Sure - I used a kitchen knife to stab up a school, but I’m allowed a kitchen knife, dummy - what’s the problem?

        • FishFace@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Terrible analogy. There is a mental component to the crime of murder, but without the mental component, the crime is manslaughter.

          It’s more like the difference between “possession of a firearm” (legal, under some circumstances) and “possession of a firearm with intent to cause harm” (illegal, in the UK for example)

          • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            The mental component is there - the intent is to firebomb Palestinians, the implausibly thin veil is to preserve US support. The analogy is perfectly relevant.

            • FishFace@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              To firebomb Palestinians living on Lebanese farms? OK dude but you have to prove it.

              • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I’ve got no interest in running down every warcrime of a country that’s committing them out in the open, and has a decades-long history of committing this exact warcrime, lying about it, promising not to do it again, then repeating the process while spouting genocidal rhetoric and killing thousands of children.

                Zero credibility.