[FireBeyond]

> to the point where they drop leaflets that say when they’re going to bomb a building and call cell phones in the area to tell the civilian population to get out

What about the times they tell the civilians to move to, say, Southern Gaza, because they're going to start bombing Northern Gaza more heavily, and then when they do, they increase bombing of Southern Gaza by 85%?

https://news.sky.com/story/gaza-war-satellite-data-shows-isr...

> it doesn’t take very long for a nation state to successfully complete genocide

I didn't realize you had to "complete" a genocide within a certain time limit. Besides, what's the rush? The global reaction so far is that there'll be loud words and fists thumped on tables, but that they'll let Israel do largely whatever it wants.

[kbenson]

I can think of many understandable reasons that might happen, so those facts without additional context don't mean much to someone that hasn't already had their mind made up, which is the problem with reporting them and expecting everyone to just see what you see as obvious.

[eNV25]

What are the justifiable reasons to specifically kill journalists with machine guns?

[kbenson]

Ah, because that's what was said that I was responding to?

See, this is the problem. I can't even point out that the way this is being communicated is counterproductive without you assuming I have some allegiance I'm expressing, and using a bad faith argument to try to get me to defend an assertion which is (as presented) undefensible.

I assume you feel this bad faith response is justified because you see a genocide and therefore why would you show constraint, but the other side is doing the same thing, for similar reasons, and nobody is actually trying to communicate, just yell at each other.

Congratulations on being the problem. I doubt you'll see yourself that way though, because again, why would you care how you're acting when you can tell yourself whatever you do is justified to stop a genocide?