• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    “It was against the rules of engagement for the IDF," Hecht says.

    As if they haven’t been encouraging this as normal practice.

    • sndmn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      The only rule is “Don’t get caught committing war crimes”

      Kind of explains all the dead journalists.

    • APassenger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      Marijuana use in the US isn’t just against policy, it’s against the law. But without enforcement, does a policy or law mean anything?

      I’m not anti-marijuana, I’m saying enforcement is what determines a law or policy’s effectiveness.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        Weeeeeeeeeeeak argument right there. “It’s still illegal ferederally” while pointing to a law that is only just barely limping on with its federal justification.

        I get that the distinction is legally valid, and that you’re highlighting the slowness of Federal law, but you’re not really contributing significantly to the conversation here.

        Particularly given that the topic of this thread is war, not recreational drug usage.

        • APassenger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          My point was simple: a law or policy, unenforced, is neither law nor policy.

          We all know it to be true but then some pause and give a pass to platitude of “against policy.” Same applies to US police.

          I’m not changing the topic. I’m saying people need to challenge these statements more vocally.

          Edit to add: You’re saying I said things I didn’t, missing the point, and have derailed an important point of agreement.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            That’s true, but policy or law, even when unenforced, still leaves absolute scope for those rules to be clamped down on.

            • APassenger@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Are you in any way saying that their official “policy” is something they’re going to enforce? Because that’s a big swing from where you started this branch.

              I think you need to pick a side and stay there. I’m not saying this from a combative standpoint. I just want you to pick.

              Otherwise this looks like just scoring points and not a conversation.

              Do you believe the IDF will enforce their engagement policy?

              Edited briefly for clarity and tense.