🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@thor Certainly can be problematic.. but I think it may be fairly innocent too... hard to say without being there.

@thor Im kinda on the fence between this being offensive and also perfectly nomal.

I mean on the one hand its perfectly normal for race and nationality to be seperate identities. A racially non-norwegian is in one sense (nationality) a norwegian, in another sense (race) not a norwegian... no issue there.

What worries me is it sounds like you are implying they equate race with nationality... they assume a non-racially-norwegian must also originally from another nation... that is troublesome if that is the case.

That said at the same time asking "where are you from" to mean "where is your ancestry from" would be perfectly ok.. i know int he USA if someone says that they usually are asking ancestry and not using it to imply they were imported... but even then not always.

@mjambon I mean, its worked brilliantly for them so far. Year after year they take more land for themselves and no one is stopping them...

@realcaseyrollins @mzan

> Well, I don’t see how bombing by land would result in more Palestinian casualties than bombing by air.

In and of itself it wouldnt. The difference is in the mentality. With IDF on the ground they would have more reason to completely flatten an area, to make sure no one is left to resist the troops ont he ground.

With a remote attack they cant retaliate because no one is there to retaliate against and they dont have the tech to send a bomb back with any accuracy.

Basically they can decide how much damage it does either way, the fear is with troops on the ground they will be motivated to kill more people for their own safety. My proposal is they taket he risk to solve the problem, even if that means more IDF killed in the short term it means fewer killed in the long term.. this implies that they resist the urge to blanket bomb though and I doubt they will.

@tatzelbrumm You can never go wrong with a princess bride quote :)

@futurebird

My guess is that if you have the right pheromone they would probably respond like you are an ant. Otherwise they will probably be agitated.

@floatybirb @GertyBz

@mzan

Its not like Israel makes an effort to avoid killing civilians either... they have often bombed such areas from afar when the risk to them was less immediate.

@realcaseyrollins

@tatzelbrumm I can not read hebrew, I dont know what it says.

@realcaseyrollins @mzan

And while it might put IDF at a bit more risk short term, overall it would save lives as it results in an actual resolution. bombing from afar and killing civilians indiscriminately, aside from being a war crime, only servers to enrage the people and empower hamas.. so int he end the death toll for the israelis will be higher.

@realcaseyrollins

How is blanket bombing an area not going to result in more pelstinian deaths.

But your right, there would be more israeli deaths int he short term.. but thats war.. you dont commit genocide/terrorism just so yoru own soldiers arent "at risk".. if that was acceptable might as well just nuke them and be done with it.

@mzan

@LouisIngenthron That is just so idiotic... dont get me wrong I'd love to see a valid reason to sue facebook (and im sure there are a few)... but that is just idiotic.

@realcaseyrollins

In a ground assult they can still just bomb it and move in.. blanket bomb an area, move in, secure, and take it for yourself.

Which is probably what they are scared they will do, especially given their track record of doing just that, and then keeping the land for themselves (ya know, rather than focusing on the hamas)

@mzan

@realcaseyrollins

A ground offensive can kill more people, it can kill less... it largely depends on how its executed... Since Israel used palestinian children as shields during similar encounters int he past I am sure they are scared that israel wouldnt go in and handle a ground offensive responsibly. I assume you saw the recording of where they were calling palestinians "animals" and how they were going to deprive them of water and electricity and all that.... Obviously they arent in the headspace to even know how to be less aggressive.

@mzan

@realcaseyrollins

Dude you dont need **more aggressive** tactics to get rid of Hamas, you need **less aggressive** ones... How do you think killing mostly civilians will ever get rid of hamas short of completely killing off the whole population (which is the land ownership jackpot).

Thats exactly why its so obvious they intentionally keep the hamas around... they have put **way** more effort and death in play than would have ever been neccesary. A proper attack would have ground units going in and eliminating the hamas directly, not blanket bombing neighboorhoods and cutting off electyrcity.

Plus going in and only targeting hamas means less civilians dead and thus **less** support for hamas in the first place.

@mzan

@realcaseyrollins

I think the people want a resolution for sure.. .the govt doesnt want hamas to go away, they have been their biggest ally, hamas has been the reason they were able to justify taking so much land.

@mzan

@mzan oh it will be resolved.. there just wont be any palestinians left alive on the other end of that "resolution"

@mjambon because its intentional.. if theyactually solved the problem then they couldnt justift stealing more land. I mean afterall what is easier stealing 60% of the land and having to force relocate an entire people... or eliminate the hamas and install a transitional govt? But they would never eliminate the hamas, the hamas is Israel's biggest ally, they keep doing exactly what Israel needs to justify their genocide.