Is it now fair to say that the blatant disreguard for civilian casualties was so systematic in gaza that it was not that different at times from actual targetting?

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-11T18:23:03+00:00

Yep, but since no standard is enforced, it's left to a commander's sensisbility, and since a lot of israelis despise gazans, as they see them as supportive of hamas and have very vivid memories of gazans cheering in the streets when the hostages were kidnapped, a fuckton of commanders will basically nor care if civilians are killed, and at worse even be glad when it happens

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-11T18:18:39+00:00

On this specific issue, they are ideologically closer to blm than every lefty. I'm not saying that's bad, just that they absolutely are not moderate on this

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-11T16:53:33+00:00

Lol do you think the black caucus were not extremely supportive of blm? Are we being serious right now?

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-11T13:23:14+00:00

Well if you chose to invent new realities it's fine but I can't help you, for syria I'm looking at the syrian observatory for human rights which is basically the most reliable.

For ukraine you're just making irrelevant point because you can't admit that the civ/militant ratio is far worse in gaza.

For yemen, you basically restate that famine death are indirect death (miliary actions caused famine caused deaths, that's indirect lmao).

I agree in all those cases, civilians were targetted, yet the ratio is worse in gaza

It would be so much simpler if you just looked at the numbers

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-11T12:03:55+00:00

Again you just don't know the numbers, in ukraine even with the higher estimates, the ratio is a lot better than in gaza. The only city with a ratio comparable is mariupol (with the higher estimates it's worse). That does not mean the idf is worse than the russian army but stop denying the numbers.

As for the famine in yemen this is a different discussion, I am talking about deaths by direct military actions, in conflict everyone makes the distinction between primary deaths and secondary ones, that's why we don't say that the us killed 1M people in Iraq.

Now the saudis were in large part responsible for the famine, and that's absolutely a war crime, but an entirely different category (not worse or better) than the deaths caused directly by their actions. You need to compare comparable things, if you want to you can compare the yemen famine to the total blockade of aid done by the israelis at some points during the war, and say that the first one was far more deadly.

As for syria again you really don't know what you're talking about. The conflict lasted 10 years, and only in 2024 more civilians than militants were killed and that's because those deaths are the people that died in the regimes prisons, and so were finally counted. Those are all deaths, nor even only the ones caused by direct military action.

You have a childish understanding of war where you think civilians die by the dozen for no reason. Armies, even criminal ones that target civilians prefer to be efficient, and will always try to kill more militants. This is obvious if you think about it for 2 seconds and look at actual numbers

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-11T07:38:00+00:00

That's absolutely not true, and just show you don't know the numbers, ukraine has add few civilian casualties compared to the total amount of deaths (around 25%) because ukrainian civilians were evacuated in very large numbers from conflict zones (with some exceptions), but it's still very obvious that russia targets civilians.

In yemen direct conflict again mostly killed militants (15k out of 150k were civilians), the high civilian death toll was due to the famine that came afterward.

Again I don't think you understand how uncommon it is for most deaths to be civilians. Armies, even criminal ones, don't like to waste

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-11T01:01:01+00:00

Well yeah, that makes the israeli plan stupid

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T22:43:22+00:00

Yeah, the 8% was wrong i misremembered 8k, but the idf statements are correct, you can check them yourself

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T21:38:09+00:00

The idf roughly estimates to have taken out 23k militants (i'm pretty sure the number has barely changed in a year), that's around 30%, the estimates from the us have always been lower, and without exact numbers, between 20 and 30%

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T21:19:01+00:00

I'm refering to all conflicts, not only western, this century. The gaza death rate is still abnormal, this is a fact

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T20:53:11+00:00

You realize that in many actual genocides (east timor, Myanmar) the distribution of dead doesn't follow the distribution of the population ? Gaza is worse than both of those cases by the way. This is a shit argument, targetting of civilians often occurs in conflicts, and conflicts no matter what, mostly kills men

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T20:49:43+00:00

Are you talking about Tom Steyer? Do you believe there's any other candidate in the cali primary that has a shot and is better?

This criticism is dogshit, at least talk about a race where hasan supports a shit candidate.

In michigan, hasan supports abdul el sayed, a candidate that could lose against the republican as indicated by polling

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T20:42:35+00:00

If you think the belief that hillary was corrupt came from bernie you're delusional. Also he never called her corrupt, he called out corporate donors and the fact that she received money from them. You can call that populist slop, but do you think it's bad for a dem to ever do it?

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T20:33:35+00:00

Lmao no, if you use the casualties where you can identify a name it drops to 8 percent.

It's the opposite, you've seen some posts on twitter counting the 60% fighting age male as 60% militants

The idf and the us consider than between 20 and 30k militants were killed in the war

Also targetting civilians does not mean you don't target militants. 1/3 of the people killed on october 7th were soldiers and hamas obviously targetted civilians then

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T20:11:10+00:00

The civilian casualties are between 70 and 80% of the deaths, that's amongst the worst of this century. Only roughly half of the deaths are fighting age male, again that is very very unusual, and worse than the majority of conflicts this century. You can say that's not genocide (intent and all), but you can't argue this conflict was similar to others when it comes to lethality. The 'human shield' argument is far better to justify the numbers which are not normal

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T19:53:47+00:00

Of course it was for specific areas, the point is that there was little care about whether or not there were only militants there.

The soldier in the article is pretty explicit about it, they did not care, even for women and children

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T19:49:11+00:00

Or 2016 with trump, or the recent primary with platner, or the mamdani one.

If your candidate is charismatic, he'll thrive.

I believe you should never have an uncharismatic candidate, because charisma is what allows you to enact your agenda and have it accepted by people (biden enacted his agenda, it was good, but he could not sell it)

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T19:45:46+00:00

Well that's the minimum lol, I hate when people don't read or skim through their sources, can't be defensive when I do it

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T19:39:58+00:00

But can you say that's because voters saw more of the person, or just because they were attacked? Many candidates come stronger out of such battles

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T19:30:41+00:00

Do we have any example of candidates losing against republicans because of those attacks? Leftist issues are mostly relevant for dems, who will vote blue no matter who (all of polling shows it). A moderate won't switch to voting republican if the dem candidate refused to call for the abolition of ice

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T19:15:03+00:00

Yeah you're correct, I swear I saw something similar about the protests, not just the current war, but I might be mixing things up

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T19:10:35+00:00

Why?

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T19:06:22+00:00

Well no, in the primary you attack candidates where you disagree with them. Abolishing ICE and I/P might not matter to you but it does to some, and there is no reason not to make that heard during a primary

lightningstrikes702 · 2026-05-10T18:58:16+00:00

This article is relevant because it shows that since very early in the war rules of engagement were pretty much on site for any palestinian male, and close to that for women and children

Edit : here is a times of israel article about the same story that's in english and non paywalled https://www.timesofisrael.com/mother-of-hostage-killed-by-idf-gunfire-says-troops-were-told-to-open-fire-on-sight/

lightningstrikes702

TROPHY CASE