• UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate how fucking ugly boomer art is. Why do newspapers still publish this schlock?

      Because boomers are still the target consumers for it. grillman

      • Orcocracy [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh, for even a slightly-leftish newspaper in my area targeted for an audience aged below 65. I might actually pay for one if it existed, but newspapers like that were fucking rare even before the 2000s print media collapse.

  • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    1 year ago

    The sheer fucking gall of using the moral high ground to criticise your enemy for using human shields then bragging about killing the enemy and his human shields and crying at people to condemn that same enemy. Who said rhetoric in politics was dead?

  • Lurker123 [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Thank god it says hamas on his suit. I wouldn’t have been able to tell what this was about otherwise, as I have no ability to recognize current events, cannot read the text where he says “how dare Israel attack civilians”, and cannot recognize the Palestinian flag.

    Like seriously this is some Ben garrison tier labeling

  • SpaceDogs@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    They cry “human shields” because they claim Hamas is hiding in hospitals, refugee camps, churches, etc. which then justifies them massacring civilians because Hamas was among them. I saw a guy on twitter come up with the hypothetical that “if your family was being held hostage in a house but the kidnappers also had six children in there, would you really be okay with the government/military standing back and saying “we can’t do anything, there are kids in there.”” I mean, why would I want the government to bomb the place my family is being held hostage in? That would literally get them killed and, unlike the hypothetical guy, I’m not an asshole who thinks innocents can and should be collateral damage.

    • lil_tank@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      They cry “human shields” because they claim Hamas is hiding in hospitals, refugee camps, churches, etc. which then justifies them massacring civilians because Hamas was among them.

      Which is absurd since Hamas is just regular Palestinians who are part of this group so they don’t “hide” in hospitals they… just are there or not. I know it’s a low hanging fruit at this point but imagine if Russia bombed an hospital and said “well they were hiding UAF soldiers there” they would instantly see how ridiculous that claim is

    • Juice [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      if your family was being held hostage in a house but the kidnappers also had six children in there, would you really be okay with the government/military standing back and saying “we can’t do anything, there are kids in there

      I know liberals have zero object permanence , but its like he forgot what you were talking about when he started his argument, and then forgot how he began his argument by the end. Shit like this has got to be AI only a predictive text algorithm or someone with Alzheimer’s has that little awareness, unless he just likes imagining scenarios where his whole family gets killed

  • Utter_Karate [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    Even if I were to completely buy into the idea that they use innocent civilians as human shields… It’s really fucked up that it never works. Even if this racist cartoon caricature was 100 % true to life, with Hamas literally strapping innocent babies to their bodies… It should work, right? If I was trying to fight the most evil man who ever lived for the most justified reason anyone can possibly imagine and he held out a baby in front of him, I sure would not punch through the baby.

    Even taken at face value (which is kind of a big ask for this cartoon), trying to kill this man with a bomb is you commiting a crime against humanity.

  • Munrock ☭@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    1 year ago

    I notice the racial stereotyped physical features of jewish people has gone out of fashion, but the Palestinian still has the resentful, swarthy monobrow and distinctive nose.

  • Beat_da_Rich@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Can’t wait for the day these racist cartoons are in the history books as an example of Amerikkka’s fascist dehumanizations, right next to the Nazis’.

    • supersolid_snake@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but libs of the future will just narcissisticly point to it as how much we have progressed as they are doing a contemporaneous genocide. These people have no shame, a history book won’t bother them.

  • Hagels_Bagels@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I feel really irritated by this human shields narrative, mostly because it is so stupid and baseless that I honestly don’t know how to address people who believe it. I feel the same way now as I did when the world was bombarded with this crap in 2014.

    How can anyone read into any aspect of the conflict on any day and come to the honest conclusion that the IDF’s campaign is justified, all because every Palestinian civilian fatality is a “human shield”? How come I’ve never heard a Zionist provide a concrete definition of a human shield?

    Human shields have been used in conflicts before. The example that comes to mind for me is in former Yugoslavia when Bosnian Serb forces held UN peacekeepers as hostages inside barracks to deter NATO from bombing them. That is a legitimate example of a human shield. In this example, the hostages deterred bombing, and there were also negotiations which took place to secure the release of those UN hostages.

    In contrast in Gaza, any civilian who dies from a bombing is retrospectively labelled as a “human shield”, and most of the time no information is provided as to who the target of the bombing was, nor whether civilians were forced to remain in the vicinity of said target. We are just expected to believe that all hit buildings surrounding the hospitals they terrorise contained a legitimate military target. Same with bakeries. Same with ambulances. Same with refugee camps. Surely that is evidence enough that they’re not human shields? If the Israeli forces are not deterred by these “human shields”, then they either cease to be or never were, human shields.

    Whenever they drop a bomb, the whole world is just expected to believe that the civilian wasn’t a civilian, or that the building was a Hamas base, or that it contained rockets, or that there was a tunnel entrance inside the building, or that there is a tunnel somewhere underneath it, or that it was used to fire rockets. The term “human shield” in this context has something to do with skewing the validity of all of the victims.