| coolbeans said: But you can't disregard that you're responding to someone who names Hezbollah though. Just saying "how would you feel if Russia maimed & blinded your mom like Israel did here?" misses an important component when you don't map out why they chose this action. When Russia's hypothetical reason is "funding Ukraine" then they look insane, but when you map on a closer comparison like mine then the moral calculus shifts. Like, if Russian intelligence found out a crate of new Samsung Galaxy Notes were being delivered to my hypothetical group of quasi-NATO mercenary crews that're shelling Russian towns, the intention becomes clearer. I'm still emotionally damaged from the attack, but the blame isn't only Russia now. -"Especially when Israel's response in force is to apply 1000+ times more damage than they sustained." But why is this 1000+ more damage by comparison though? Israel by default is going to sustain less damage in virtually any war b/c they're able to block most of the rockets coming in. It's sort of like we've flipped expectations of how a sovereign country is expected to operate against its adversaries. Like, as if because you're able to stop most of the indiscriminate bombing from hostile forces who carry genocidal intent you should... let it continue unless said hostiles are firing from an open field. That also doesn't mean a no-holds-barred approach is morally correct either, but what actually is proper fighting here? |
The person I responded to didn't even acknowledge the method used here, which is the primary reason a lot of people are reacting so strongly towards it. Some who normally don't even participate in political discussions are commenting how insane this sounds.
So don't you think focusing on morals or justification instead misses most of the point of this thread?
There is an Israel-Hamas war thread (or Ukraine thread) where that's already discussed.
I created this one primarily due to the method used.
"When Russia's hypothetical reason is "funding Ukraine" then they look insane"
The reason I went with "funding Ukraine" is that it makes for a much broader target enemy than just let's say a platoon that is actively engaged with Russia. I'm sure they're displeased with any nation providing any sort of support to Ukraine. And that's where it starts.
If the platoon is hurt, the politicians making these decsions will condemn the attack, but still continue to send funds and weapons
But if civilians are hurt (or even targetted) in their own country, it's going to be a very different matter.
What I think makes this method more terrifying than most forms of terror attacks we tend to see is the combination of potential anonymity, accesibility, and scale being essentially anywhere in the world.
Israel haven't officially taken responsibility for this (as far as I'm aware), but they're also seemingly not concerned with trying to hide it, because they'll be backed by USA essentially no matter what they do. (They shut off water for Paletsinean civilians for example, which is a war crime.)
But another group could potentially go through more hoops to make the source of the attack a lot more confusing.
And their reason for the attack could be anything, because they don't have to justify it to the world.
