Most active commenters
  • cempaka(5)
  • wahnfrieden(3)
  • HideousKojima(3)

←back to thread

358 points impish9208 | 13 comments | | HN request time: 0.994s | source | bottom
Show context
GordonS[dead post] ◴[] No.41879865[source]
[flagged]
HideousKojima ◴[] No.41882464[source]
>branding freedom fighters as terrorists

I mean bombing government buildings (which is what landed Mandela in prison) is definitely what most people would consider terrorism, or treason, or similar things. Now you can argue that Mandela's actions were justified because Apartheid was evil (and I agree that it was evil) but that's entirely different than arguing that he was just a poor victim of the racist SA government who was imprisoned because he wanted to end Apartheid.

The problem is that people feel morally uncomfortable arguing that it's ok to bomb government buildings (and similar actions) when your cause is just, because that raises all sorts of other moral quandaries that most people don't want to (or refuse to) face. So they pretend like Mandela and his party were perfect angels practicing non-violent resistance like MLK so they can avoid the moral quandaries raised by suggesting that terrorism is ok for a just cause.

replies(4): >>41882657 #>>41884045 #>>41885361 #>>41885391 #
1. cempaka ◴[] No.41882657[source]
Is the IDF dropping bombs on apartment buildings in Beirut "terrorism"?
replies(3): >>41882822 #>>41883556 #>>41885392 #
2. wahnfrieden ◴[] No.41883287[source]
The decisions about which buildings to bomb are made by AI in order to select targets faster than humans can generate and review them manually. When you say making individual decisions, you mean through AI automation. This info comes from primary sources.

Showing restraint with atomic weapons is hardly a pass for lesser violence

3. kombine ◴[] No.41883771[source]
> Example: They have the nuclear weapon, so they could end Gaza in one day.

Are you being serious here?

4. hashbig ◴[] No.41883968[source]
That's not how collateral damage works. The moral and legal responsibility is on the one dropping the bombs. As horrible as the US wars were, when we decided to kill Bin Laden, we sent a special operations team at night instead of flattening entire villages in Pakistan.

The indiscriminate killing that Israel is doing in Gaza and Lebanon is unprecedented since the second World War. Justifying it will normalize civilian casualties in future wars that with be disastrous for everyone.

replies(2): >>41884162 #>>41884679 #
5. wahnfrieden ◴[] No.41884162{3}[source]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...
replies(1): >>41884595 #
6. cempaka ◴[] No.41884559[source]
Okay, well then if government buildings house any members of the IDF or apartheid South Africa's military, then certainly they are also legitimate targets and it is not "terrorism" to destroy them with bombs? Or, conversely, the label must also be applied to IDF sorties?
replies(1): >>41884695 #
7. cempaka ◴[] No.41884595{4}[source]
Wow, naming the Skynet targeting system "Gospel" puts a particularly Satanic flourish on the whole thing.
8. cempaka ◴[] No.41884610[source]
What percentage of Gaza, would you say, has to be leveled and carpet bombed before you would no longer characterize the Israelis as "limiting collateral damage"?
replies(1): >>41888079 #
9. HideousKojima ◴[] No.41884679{3}[source]
>That's not how collateral damage works.

Not according to the Red Cross:

https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-hospitals-during...

Otherwise protected targets like hospitals lose their protected status if they're used as a base of military operations or for other similar purposes.

And the US didn't send a spec ops team to get Bin Laden because they were worried about the Geneva Conventions. They sent one because they wanted to make absolutely certain that they got their target (see Bin Laden's escape at Tora Bora in 2001 for an example of this) and because they were operating in Pakistan so showing up with a whole brigade or carpet bombing the compound wouldn't have gone over well with the Pakistani government. It already didn't go over well with just a surgical strike by spec ops, it would have been much worse if it was done by a larger show of force.

10. HideousKojima ◴[] No.41884695{3}[source]
>Okay, well then if government buildings house any members of the IDF or apartheid South Africa's military, then certainly they are also legitimate targets and it is not "terrorism" to destroy them with bombs?

Only if you ignore the distinctions between what was essentially a civil war fought by insurgents (like in Apartheid South Africa) and a war between two sovereign powers.

replies(1): >>41884914 #
11. cempaka ◴[] No.41884914{4}[source]
And how is that distinction relevant to whether a given act should be labeled "terrorism" or not?
12. aprilthird2021 ◴[] No.41885392[source]
The poster seems to be arguing that what we consider "terrorism" can be justified sometimes, but people have a need to whitewash their heroes rather than perform these justifications, so I think he is on your side
13. wahnfrieden ◴[] No.41888079{3}[source]
Total nuclear annihilation. They consider their restraint against doing the temptation laudable