Putin Unleashes Record Bombing in Ukraine as the World Watches Gaza
Putin Unleashes Record Bombing in Ukraine as the World Watches Gaza
Almost 90 bombs were dropped in one region in just 24 hours.
Almost 90 bombs were dropped in one region in just 24 hours.
Russia unleashed an unprecedented bombardment in southern Ukraine overnight in what local officials described as a “massive attack” in the conflict which has continued to rage even as the international community’s attention has moved to the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
The Ukrainian Internal Affairs Ministry on Monday morning said Russia dropped at least “87 aerial bombs on populated areas of the Kherson region - the largest number for all time.” At least eight people were also injured in other Russian strikes carried out in the Odessa region further to the west on Sunday night.
You're viewing a single thread.
- Russian: fighting an armed country and fueled by NATO members
- Israel: fighting. I mean BOMBING from their heated offices, civil without shoes and haven't sleep for 2weeks
Oh and between, Russia has been cut off from SWIFT, assets frozen if not stolen, etc etc... Israel? freepass
You can't make more cynical, and binary treatment, you can't
its true, they should both be getting the same, punitive treatment
Russia: fighting to expand their territory because they want a new world order led by them Israel: responding to their most terrifying act of terror ever happened on their land.
Reason matters, and a lot. Russia has no good reason to invade Ukraine, Israel has a very good reason to invade Gaza.
Theyre both violating the Geneva Convention...
There's no valid reason to violate that, that's the whole point of it.
Actually Israel isn't technically violating the Geneva Convention. When you co-locate civilian and military targets, the civilian infrastructure loses it's protections under the Convention.
The occupation of the West Bank is in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, article 49. This has been established by the International Court of Justice in a ruling from 2004. Israel's defense was indeed that the territory is disputed instead of occupied, but it's the only country that holds this position. Literally the only country in the world.
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Sources: Fourth Geneva Convention, ruling of the International Court of Justice (relevant are paragraphs 90-101)
The West Bank isn't at war. The Gaza Strip is. That's the area Israel pulled out of and evicted (some at gunpoint) every Jewish settler; even those who had been there since before the 1948 partition plan. They've respected the 1967 borders there with no settlements as a way to prove that pulling back to those borders would lead to peace and not constant terrorism and warfare.
Ok, how does that support your argument that Israel does not violate the Geneva Convention tho?
It doesn't, he just talked about how the west bank is not relevant to the geneva convention, and his point still stands in Gaza. Civilian and terror infrastructure is intertwined in Gaza, and that's his argument.
The withdrawal of settlers and forces from Gaza was not initiated until 2005, which is almost 40 years of illegal occupation. In 2007, the occupation was officially lifted and replaced with a blockade. And they did not pull out their forces and settlers to "prove" that "pulling back to those borders would lead to peace", it was to finally fulfill the duties they agreed on in the Egypt-Israel peace treaty from 1979. The Oslo Accords that resulted from that treaty only exist because Israel did not fulfill their promises after several decades, so there were talks again.
So how about he doesn't contort the narrative so hard that it makes my head spin?
Israeli left wing parties absolutely did pull out in the belief it would lead to peace. Their political coalition didn't have the support to do the same thing in the West Bank. They believed that if peace reigned on the strip, and violence continued in the West Bank it would justify a similar settlement eviction in the WB.
The current right wing coalition would have never approved the 2004 disengagement plan. And the violence that followed it is what brought them to power.
So... Just let Hamas use their human shields and keep launching rockets? And show terrorist groups around the world that it's effective? No thanks.
Lots of other countries manage to fight terrorism without violating the Geneva Convention and killing over 10,000 civilians...
Do you think Israel is just that incompetent they can't?
If so, how does it make sense to give a government so incompetent literal billions of dollars a year?
But regardless of why the fact is the Geneva Convention is being openly violated. Which is a precedent that hurts literally every human on Earth
Permanently Deleted
Well, that's your opinion, and I don't care much for Bidens opinion either.
Over the decades of his political career, the only times he's criticized Israels human rights abuses is to tell them it makes it harder for us to give them billions of dollars a year.
He doesn't care about murdered Palestinian citizens, he just wants to keep the pipeline going so US defense firms get funneled tax payer money.
Do you not know anything about his political history before 2008?
It's the same reason all American Presidents are "friendly" with Saudia Arabia, also. They have something we want.
Quick question bro but like what's the ratio of dead Palestinian kids we're shooting for that's gonna make em square? Because you can say "we got the bad guy" all ya want, but if you had to bomb a refugee camp 3x to do so, for example, well that brings up some moral qualms for a lot of people.
Permanently Deleted
Uh... Yes? Multiple multinational treaties are now in place that disallow indiscriminate carpet bombings
That was 500k civilian deaths with strategic bombing specific infrastructure, not indiscriminate; it would've easily been in the millions otherwise.
War has always been costly. Israel is keeping casualties low by comparison, considering Hamas literally governed and built Gaza for 15 years around the idea of using civilians as human shields.
A lot of " strategic bombing " was just to target civilians to cause terror. From the wiki: "Strategic bombing often involved bombing areas inhabited by civilians, and some campaigns were deliberately designed to target civilian populations in order to terrorize them and disrupt their usual activities."
Loo at this armchair warrior, giving his enlightened opinion about how Israel or any nation is justified in bombing civilians, old, young, women.
Try having bombs dropped on your head for a conflict you don't have a voice on. It's always the privileged assholes who think like this.
Permanently Deleted
Yes, wtf, bombing civilians is always wrong.
There's a massive difference between targeting civilians to kill, and having civilian casualties while bombing specific strategic targets.
Or do you think it'd have been better to not bomb strategic targets, letting Nazi Germany gain the upper hand and kill millions more?
Lemmy is just weirdly pro-Hamas and anti-Israel.
Don't get me wrong, I think what Israel is doing sucks, but what Hamas is doing is equally bad. This is really a both-sides situation.
Pro-Palestinians <> pro-Hamas
I'm sorry what is that symbol supposed to mean besides 'back and forth forever'?
Not equal
I've never seen that before. Where is that convention used?
This is a symbol for "not equal" in computer programming languages. It is used in some languages, such as BASIC and SQL
"not equals". It's a matter of taste. Some people prefer != instead. But you get the point. Sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians does not equate to support for Hamas.
Israel is killing many, many more Palestinians than Hamas is killing Israelis and it has been this way for decades.
Also, doing wrong when done "in retaliation" is still doing wrong.
Also, doing wrong when done "in retaliation" is still doing wrong.
So... We agree that Israel killing civilians in response to Hamas's attack is wrong, just as Hamas killing civilians in response to persecution by Israel is wrong?
Yep.
Weird how you misconstrue criticizing Israel's genocide with support for Hamas tho. Very concerning.
You left out the part where Israel has been murdering Palestinians and stealing their land for decades, and turned Gaza into an open air prison. That kind of thing pisses people off.
That still doesn't make any of this right.
You missed the part about Israel fighting Arabs and Palestinians for their very existence since 1948. It's not a simple situation. Whereas Ukraine is simply a megalomaniac trying to expand his power at all cost.
You missed the part where Arabs had been on that land for over a thousand years before the European Allies decided to sent their Jews back "home."
Also, fuck Putin.
You're missing the parts where Romans and Arabs colonized Judea, racism against Jews in the region were prevalent in Arab and reached a peak in Europe with WW2
It's easy to blame one side or the other depending on what you consider and what you don't. Maybe the solution is, I don't know, a two-state one that considers both?
Agreed.
All I'm saying is no one is innocent here except the civilians being executed at an appalling rate.
Palestine isn’t a country so it’s not their land
Also it was stolen from Israel a thousand years ago so they are just taking it back
Focus on the murdering part it’s bad enough that you don’t need to make up reasons
There is a difference between invading and turning Gaza into a concentration camp.
You'd think the Jews would know better.
Oh right, Gaza the concentration camp where children are forced to work with no pay, women are raped then killed and trains are used to carry people for 3 days without water/food to a gas chamber killing everyone.
Oh oops that was the Holocaust. Silly me, it's just that the media told me Gazans are experiencing the holocaust so I mixed the two up.
Israel brought the terror on themselves. They are literally committing genocide.
Also, Russia is fighting to maintain it's black sea port, which NATO interfered with. That territory has always been Russian, and only US propaganda claims otherwise. Want proof? Go look at the board games Diplomacy and Axis and Allies, based on WW1/2 respectively. Both show Crimea as Russia. Or just look at Wikipedia, for this and other easily verifiable facts.
Board games as proof? Crimea was part of the USSR sure ,but it was transferred to Ukraine so it's no longer part of Russia, nothing to do with Nato, Russia wants to expand and they should get fucked.
Did Russia agree to the transfer to Ukraine? And regardless, that's clearly not expansion, it's reclaiming lost territory.
Russia never owned those territories.
That was the USSR, which does not exist anymore.
Russia has no claim to Ukraine, no matter what their propaganda says.
Otherwise Italy should own most of Europe and Africa, since the Roman empire did.
And by your logic, Russia should be confined to the territories of Khanate of Kazan as conquered by Ivan the Terrible.
Russia is the same country as the USSR, minus the parts that left. They are a global superpower, like it or not they get a say in what happens globally. And the idea that a critically important part of a superpower can just be convinced to leave it is insane. What did America do when a large portion of our country (one which also contained all of our access to our southern waters, btw) tried to secede? We went to war with them. Russia is doing the same. Why is it wrong when they do it?
No because it was the USSR and they initiated the transfer, it absolutely is expansion since its not their territory. Reclaiming lost territory is such a terrible way to try and rationalize what Russia is doing. Unreal.....
If you go back further you had the Kyiv Rus there and it was Ukrainian plus parts of Russia were too.
Kievan Rus was Ukrainian?
The main part of it was on the part that is Ukrainian today, which is why the name is derived from Kyiv.
It was a multi ethnic state though. Russians of course wouldn't agree, but they are not exactly a reasonable voice on such things.
Yeah, I mean there's a reason the region became the USSR for a while, it's all very interwoven histories. There were times Ukraine was part of Russia, there were times Ukraine wasnt Russia but Crimea was, etc. The important thing is that Russia is clearly entitled to the area that has always been Russian, in some form or another.
The reason the region became the USSR was Russian imperialism and military power.
important thing is that Russia is clearly entitled to the area that has always been Russian, in some form or another.
That's not at all it. If anything Ukraine has not only the better claim to Crimea but also to some of the western parts of Russia than Russia itself.
Historically speaking.
Well, yes, but nobody is arguing America needs to surrender Hawaii or Alaska (or all of the other 48 states, tbh), even though they were both acquired via imperialism, and more recently than Crimea was. The fact is that Russia, just like America with Alaska/Hawaii, is capable of enforcing it's ownership claim of the region, and it's really not that unreasonable a demand to be making that the rest of the world consent to their ownership of it. It's just the price of peace. America is simply trying to stifle their trade potential by proclaiming that Ukraine, who is not remotely close to a threat to American power, is the legit owner of a highly powerful port.
I don’t support Israel, but the Russians attacked unprovoked. They’re not 1:1.