this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
116 points (97.5% liked)
World News
35968 readers
710 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean he’s still a civilian and it it’s still murder but yeah hard to feel sad about it
He served in the IDF for three years before his current role. Now he worked diplomatically for the Apartheid to aid in ethnically cleansing all Palestinians.
It is truly terrible that this person who dedicated his life to dispossessing and murdering Palestinians was killed.
Literally the opposite of what I said. How do you go from ‘hard to feel sad about it’ to ‘ it’s truly terrible’?
Do you struggle with understanding sarcasm through text?
Well he was but a simple innocent civilian enthousiastically participating in the genocide if all Palestinians. Killing such an innocent person is inexcusable.
"You don't understand, the people working on the Death Star just had a job to do and to follow its orders. It's not any one of their fault that it blew up planets. RIP the brave workers on the Death Star I and Death Star II."
? Who said he was innocent
Was he a civilian who was murdered or was he an active participant in a brutal mass murder of Palestinian women children and men, covered by countries which are participants in the genocide?
Anyways, the second amendment exists to combat tyranny.
He is by definition a civilian that was murdered. Legal definitions do not care about our political opinions. It appears to be very likely he was a civilian who deserved to be murdered but that does not change the definition
civilian /sĭ-vĭl′yən/
noun
This is not the legal definition of civilian.
It is according to DuckDuckGo
But the definition changes based on who you ask. What is more relevant is whether they are part of a beligirent force akin to ISIS but worse.
This is a dictionary definition. Non-combatant ISIS members are also civilians. Whether they deserve to die or not has no legal bearing. Im unsure why that is considered controversial.
Because this is a "rule" which is never applied to any signature to the Geneva Convention. It is solely brought up to virtue signal in favor of the empire.
These days Israel is publicly bombing Hamas government officials for the crime of being in their finance ministry and nobody bats an eye. They are bombing journalists inside of hospitals for doing journalism and it is a-ok.
This is what my username is a reference to.