178
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
178 points (97.8% liked)
World News
31838 readers
479 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
He wasn't a combatant and he hadn't killed anyone. He was an innocent bystander and even the IDF admit it.
Not sure why you put so much energy into making up a fake scenario.
To be honest this scenario takes me less energy than the idea that one side is indiscriminately killing and torturing 100% innocent people purely based on their tribe. I still believe 95% of the stories are biased or missing important context but I can accept that there are going to be outliers that are plain evil even within context. For example the actions on oct 8 were plain evil even within context. If you can justify those actions as reasonable you can justify these actions as reasonable.
Looking at someone being tortured and your first thought is "must have done something to deserve this". That's fucked up.
And then you immediately tell everybody else this thought. "This guy probably deserved it!" You did not take a couple of seconds to check whether your theory is contradicted by the article. You victimized the guy again with your baseless accusation, but you did not think or care about that.
Your excuse for this? Can't accept the IDF soldiers being ontologically evil. Yeah me neither pal, it's a childish concept. There are actual material reasons for the cruelty. If you want to steal someone's land, you need to drive them out, and being cruel is a tried and true method to achieve this. No need to invoke good and evil, and no need to invent your own reality.
But of course, you do not afford the same to Hamas. No elaborate theory-crafting in this instance. There you have no problem declaring them just plain evil.
What flavor evil are you?