this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
175 points (92.7% liked)

World News

39046 readers
2464 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for adding that. I'm not sure that I feel the first point applies here (I can see that people might argue otherwise) but the second point seems like a slam dunk.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

The second point applies to both - a combatant also entered as a civilian and received aid pretending to be a civilian.

One doesn't justify the other - the way i could legitimize it is by saying the hot squad dropped their disguise before engaging... like sending their own flag up the pole. Would need to review prior to saying if it was correct or not.

The arguement against the first section is that those protections apply to civilians and non combatants - conviently left out of their statement. The (pretty solid IMO) arguement is that combatants do not fall under this protection, and terrorists never do, abd these were still designated combatants including possibly carrying arms and planning ops. The room also looks oddly cleaned for three dead people including at least one head shot.