Not sure why you get downvoted. EU censors quite a bit. I can't read about 10 Telegram channels that I could access just 3 years ago, and the list is growing.
All due to "vioalted laws of [my country]". (said near-east related channels have nothing to do with my country, government just doesn't want me to read them)
Some people deemed "russian assets" are not just censored, but stripped of ability to leave EU and prevented from being able to live in EU at the same time by financial sanctions, etc. Of course this doesn't happen to actual politicians in power, for whatever reason those never get sanctioned by EC, despite doing more "damage" than random blabberheads on twitter.
"EU" doesn't censor anything, there isn't even any authority nor infrastructure that could do that.
Individual countries, like Spain, does have a bunch of censorship though, this is pretty clear and evident already. But I think if you want to share something useful or even informative, you need to add what country this experience of yours is about, because it's not true in any/every EU country.
Wars aren't supposed to be even. By this logic, the Nazis were the victims of WWII, and the Coalition was extremely evil in the Gulf War. And if Israel wants to be "better", it should just disable its air defenses to let Hezbollah "catch up".
If we're interested in an actual end to the violence, the focus should be on enforcing UNSC 1701. It's not like Israel can just ignore attacks against it.
Germany lost fewer civilians than Poland or the Soviet Union, so not really victims by that logic.
And while it's true that German civilian casualties were a couple orders of magnitude higher than American civilian casualties, the war wasn't fought in the US, so it's not really a fair comparison.
While not directly relevant to the Israel/Lebanon conflict, it's probably also worth drawing a distinction between casualties of war and state-sanctioned killing outside the scope of combat.
Germany killed six million Jews in the Holocaust.
The Allies tried and executed ten high-ranking Nazi officials, including six civilians.
By that measure, the ratio of civilian killings is at least a million to one.
> the war wasn't fought in the US, so it's not really a fair comparison
What's unfair about it? In both cases, one side suffered less civilian harm because there wasn't much fighting in its own territory.
I think the point stands that "Israel must be bad because it only lost 2 civilians" makes as little sense as "the Nazis must be good because they lost a lot more civilians than Western allies".
If a framework for trying to judge morality penalizes states for effectively protecting their own civilian population, then it's a very bad framework.
Actually, wars are not supposed to be driven by "Dahiya doctrine" or "Rafah model" either, if we're talking about what wars are supposed to be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
And yeah, if you look at 1:1000 civilian or 1:500 child kill ratio and you respond with "wars are not supposed to be even", well... what to even say. Actually there's a proportionality and distinction rule to follow, which is supposed to prevent this. When Israel kills 1 child or more per every active combatant... then that was apparently violated.
Maybe explain how does killing 20 000+ children and counting help Israel? Or how burning/blowing up entire villages and cities in Lebanon and Gaza help them? They did this to hundreds of villages in 1947-48 and that created the whole problem they have now. Continuing the same strategy is supposed to solve it? Seems like Israel got inspired by the whole Nazi style "preventive security" thing.
Heinrich Himmler: "The best political weapon is the weapon of terror... we do not ask for their love; only for their fear." (looks like Himmler could have coauthored Dahiya doctrine and would be fond of it, if still alive by then)
You're also not supposed to initiate aggressive wars against your neighbors either, like Israel did against Syria, Iran, and many others in the past with its "pre-emptive" strikes.
If Israel wants to be better, maybe they should not intentionally murder 10s of thousands of children as a policy (20-300 allowed killed civilians per strike in a population where half of it is children).
You're listing a lot of standard anti-Israel talking points which aren't relevant to the thread. Setting aside all the tangents and returning to the topic at hand -
> if you look at 1:1000 civilian or 1:500 child kill ratio and you respond with "wars are not supposed to be even", well... what to even say
You're not making an argument here. Again, do you think the Coalition was extremely evil in the Gulf War, considering the 1:100 or so ratio there? How about when NATO bombed Yugoslavia, with an "infinitely bad" casualty ratio of 1:0? Does that make NATO infinitely evil?
> Actually there's a proportionality and distinction rule to follow, which is supposed to prevent this.
The principle of proportionality has nothing to do with how many of their own civilians the military in question has lost.
West bank and Gaza were never under full Palestinian control since 1967 both were under brutal occupation or blockade + contant Israeli meddling into internal affairs.
Last year (March 18) Israel killed 174 children and 412 people in total in a day when violating a Jan 19 ceasefire to restart the genocide. Then proceeded to starve hundreds to death and severely compromise health of tens of thousands during the following months, while killing 1000s of aid seekers, that they forced into killing fields under starvation, like this:
Only signal is that whoever is in the subject DN (highly) probably signed the code. There's 0 signal about trustworthiness of the code in the signature. Thrustworthiness signal is in the behavior/reputation of the signer.
Pretty sure there were historically a lot of apps that stole peoples contact lists and were signed properly. Certainly in the Android world.
Not used does not mean not usable. Primary school aged children used MS-DOS without any documentation in 1990's. Pretty sure randomly selected people would be able to use modern Linux distro, when pre-installed just like windows are.
US president, holding nukes and saying things like "whole civilization will die tonight" is just state terrorism of the worst kind, ... so far, yes. It may become a war crime of genocide. Not sure why should I or anyone wait and see, before issuing sweeping comments about all of america, which made this possible, by working hard to building up the military capable of doing it and giving power to nutjob issuing the threats.
Be sure that this US threat is not just against Iran, it's a US threat aginst the entire world, and it will be taken as such by many, you war crime justifying tool.
Also pretty telling, that you're using intl. law to justify US attacks, instead of using it for what their purpose was,... which is to limit the ways in which states execute war. The same thing Israel was doing to justify murdering 20 000 children in Gaza, just constantly finding "loopholes" and using it retroactively to justify every single thing they did that someone contensted.
Some people deemed "russian assets" are not just censored, but stripped of ability to leave EU and prevented from being able to live in EU at the same time by financial sanctions, etc. Of course this doesn't happen to actual politicians in power, for whatever reason those never get sanctioned by EC, despite doing more "damage" than random blabberheads on twitter.
It's a mess.
reply