You’re seriously saying “they deserve the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ treatment” while Israel is actively escalating the conflict?

I have never defended genociders

Oh okay. So where have I done that? In assuming that 3000 civilians who were harmed weren’t exclusively Hezbollah? Which would be an utterly ridiculous claim seeing how many literal children there are involved.

So… you’ve never defended genociders. Then let’s see if you will. Is Israel committing a genocide in Gaza?

You think only military personnel were killed in WW2?

I’ve actually been in the military and have had training on what is and isn’t legal to do in armed conflict. Have you?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12

Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks

Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those: (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

© which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

I think they’re implying this mostly hit Hezbollah members, not than none of the victims were innocent.

Based on… what exactly?

The clear implication is that “number of Hezbollah member > victims = no innocent victims.”

And then you instantly jump into defending genocide. Holy fucking shit I honestly can’t communicate with words how disgustingly pathetic I find that.

No, I’m not gonna engage with your whataboutism and start arguing with you about how “Hezbollah deserved this absolutely pathetic terrorist attack.”

“Brought it on himself brought it on himself”

You fuckers still haven’t realised that Hammurabi’s law makes the whole world blind, huh? That was almost 4000 years ago, ffs. Read a book, preferably a modern one and not some tome of propaganda from thousands of years ago.

You’re literally defending the death of a 9-year old girl. You have to be sick in the fucking head to do that. Honestly.

You’re genuinely pathetic enough to try and imply that none of the victims are innocent?

I loathe “people” like you.

Hey @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org, you were saying that “these were extremely surgical strikes, people in the vicinity weren’t harmed”?

Thousands of people injured, all guilty of something ofc, because Israel would never do an attack which might harm innocents. Right? /S

lol smh

Yes, that’s why you can’t respond with more than two words, but still have to reply, despite having to also avoid the topics of our language skills and what your comment at the start of this thread meant.

It really is weird that you have this pathological avoidance yet obsess over replying here.

We both know you read it. We both know which of us has more language skills, and we both know what you meant at the start of the thread.

You started this with “thats why it’s important to have a lot of cameras”, to which someone responded “so the cops can shut them off, like they did Afroman’s?”, to which you responded “cops wouldn’t…”

Then I entered the conversation, because you’ve asserted what cops would and wouldn’t do, showing just how much faith — wrongly, though — you have in the justice system.

You’re just really hard trying to ad hoc what you said, but unlike in real life, what has been said is actually on record, so bullshitting your way out of this doesn’t work as easily as with your mates in the pub.

Weird how you yourself commented on the “language barrier” and what you thought was an incorrect use of the English language, yet now have completely shut up about it, almost as if you’re avoiding comparing your language skills to mine. Perhaps because you don’t like feeling stupid?

Ah, so… what exactly is the reason that you think having video of cops makes you safe?

You’re trying to avoid seeming foolish. Like when you tried to correct my English.

So… how many languages do you speak?

You use “being on camera” to imply that since they’re on camera, they’ll face consequences for whatever they might do.

With law enforcement, that isn’t nearly as probable as you think. I hope you have those feeds recording to a server that isn’t located on the same premises, at the very least. Even if you have the material though, it usually doesn’t mean a thing. Cops can justify pretty much anything in the US, and the justice system tends to go their way. Sure, you can show a few examples of cops actually sentenced, but for each one, there’s at least a dozen cases of officers who got off scot-free or with a warning, and a hundred more who weren’t even investigated.

And as to your pitiful attempts at insults with your assumption that your English is better than mine? I’ve more than likely used English longer than you. More than you. In addition, I speak another language on a native level and several others on a customer service level. How many do you speak?

He specifically mentioned “in the context of the US”.

If he had been talking about any other English-speaking country, I’d say it would be somewhat irrelevant.

But it most certainly isn’t when talking about the US, especially southern US.

Well written. To add: “Boy” coming from a white person to a black man is even more offensive, what with all the chattel slavery history and whatnot.

A almost 50 year old man doesn’t want to look uncool on his bike.

Have you noted to him how fucking uncool it is for a grown man to think safety (especially of children) is uncool?

Takes just one slipup of someone, not even them, but just someone in traffic, and he will never forgive himself his shitty attitude.

I’m not trying to change th3 subject mr “cops won’t get away with anything in my house”

Now I realise it’s a different country, but here’s my personal experience.

https://www.hs.fi/suomi/art-2000009654524.html

In Finland. And no-one fucking believes me here. Despite having supreme court documents to show. And that’s only a part of the illegal shit I got them on, as they forcibly prevented me fron filming.

I’d say nice try, but it isn’t.

I keep making the same point. You can’t let go and stop replying out of like… spite, or something?

Nothing to it. I’m not trying to insult you, but guess you are me.

Good, some doubt. Now apply that towards the justice system.

With people I might have made feel stupid? It is rare, yeah, but on occasion. Shows a lot of character when it happens, though.

And you must be on really shaky grounds with any sort of an argument, meaning you probably have literally zero experience with the justice system. Bringing me back to how cops being able to get away with things they do in your house and you noticing them in your house aren’t mutually exclusive. (In this sentence, the preposition isn’t needed. But in the first one, the way it was formatted, it did call for a preposition. See example 3: “Time and Tru Midi Slip Skirt Comfort and style are definitely not mutually exclusive with this midi skirt.”)

they cannot get in and out of my house unnoticed.

This is very much not mutually exclusive with “getting away with things”.

You’re too optimistic about the justice system.

Yeah I think the name sort of hints at that, for anyone using their thinking muscles