An analysis of shell fragments shows Israel used U.S.-made white phosphorus munitions in an attack that a rights group says should be investigated as a war crime.
So you’ve retreated from “War crime, dipshit” to “flimsily veiled warcrime, plus the IDF make aggressive statements”, and silence on the “wrong country”. That’s progress, given the context in which most people think any use of white phosphorous is a crime.
The thin veil is what they hastily tossed over the warcrime… after repeatedly lying about not doing it, and repeatedly promising not to do it… For definite not warcrimes reasons
Sure - I used a kitchen knife to stab up a school, but I’m allowed a kitchen knife, dummy - what’s the problem?
Terrible analogy. There is a mental component to the crime of murder, but without the mental component, the crime is manslaughter.
It’s more like the difference between “possession of a firearm” (legal, under some circumstances) and “possession of a firearm with intent to cause harm” (illegal, in the UK for example)
The mental component is there - the intent is to firebomb Palestinians, the implausibly thin veil is to preserve US support. The analogy is perfectly relevant.
I’ve got no interest in running down every warcrime of a country that’s committing them out in the open, and has a decades-long history of committing this exact warcrime, lying about it, promising not to do it again, then repeating the process while spouting genocidal rhetoric and killing thousands of children.
So you’ve retreated from “War crime, dipshit” to “flimsily veiled warcrime, plus the IDF make aggressive statements”, and silence on the “wrong country”. That’s progress, given the context in which most people think any use of white phosphorous is a crime.
No - it’s a warcrime, dipshit.
The thin veil is what they hastily tossed over the warcrime… after repeatedly lying about not doing it, and repeatedly promising not to do it… For definite not warcrimes reasons
Sure - I used a kitchen knife to stab up a school, but I’m allowed a kitchen knife, dummy - what’s the problem?
Terrible analogy. There is a mental component to the crime of murder, but without the mental component, the crime is manslaughter.
It’s more like the difference between “possession of a firearm” (legal, under some circumstances) and “possession of a firearm with intent to cause harm” (illegal, in the UK for example)
The mental component is there - the intent is to firebomb Palestinians, the implausibly thin veil is to preserve US support. The analogy is perfectly relevant.
To firebomb Palestinians living on Lebanese farms? OK dude but you have to prove it.
I’ve got no interest in running down every warcrime of a country that’s committing them out in the open, and has a decades-long history of committing this exact warcrime, lying about it, promising not to do it again, then repeating the process while spouting genocidal rhetoric and killing thousands of children.
Zero credibility.