this post was submitted on 22 May 2025
187 points (97.5% liked)
World News
35969 readers
826 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well he was but a simple innocent civilian enthousiastically participating in the genocide of all Palestinians. Killing such an innocent person is inexcusable.
"You don't understand, the people working on the Death Star just had a job to do and to follow its orders. It's not any one of their fault that it blew up planets. RIP the brave workers on the Death Star I and Death Star II."
Good point, and a perfect centrist take (not that I'm accusing you of being centrist). They should have a centrist viewing and commentary of the whole star wars series. Like mystery science theatre 3000.
? Who said he was innocent
Was he a civilian who was murdered or was he an active participant in a brutal mass murder of Palestinian women children and men, covered by countries which are participants in the genocide?
Anyways, the second amendment exists to combat tyranny.
Just want to step in here and say that no interpretation of the second would cover a civilian killing a foreign diplomat, no matter how tyrannical 😂
Being employed by an embassy doesn't magically make you a diplomat my guy. Not saying that the 2nd would cover it in any case, but still.
He is by definition a civilian that was murdered. Legal definitions do not care about our political opinions. It appears to be very likely he was a civilian who deserved to be murdered but that does not change the definition
excellent point, killing innocent civilians is very wrong. As is starving them and abusing them for 80 years. All those things, just plain wrong, no matter the reasoning.
civilian /sĭ-vĭl′yən/
noun
This is not the legal definition of civilian.
International law is a myth that imperialsists use to murder indigenous resistance fighters, it's not a real legal regime that actually applies universally.
There is no legal definition because there is no law, I think that's pretty clear at this point.
It is according to DuckDuckGo
But the definition changes based on who you ask. What is more relevant is whether they are part of a beligirent force akin to ISIS but worse.
This is a dictionary definition. Non-combatant ISIS members are also civilians. Whether they deserve to die or not has no legal bearing. Im unsure why that is considered controversial.
Because this is a "rule" which is never applied to any signature to the Geneva Convention. It is solely brought up to virtue signal in favor of the empire.
These days Israel is publicly bombing Hamas government officials for the crime of being in their finance ministry and nobody bats an eye. They are bombing journalists inside of hospitals for doing journalism and it is a-ok.
This is what my username is a reference to.