Israeli air strikes on a so-called “humanitarian zone” in southern Gaza’s al-Mawasi killed at least 40 people on Tuesday, according to health authorities in the enclave.
The strikes targeted at least 20 tents sheltering displaced Palestinians in the coastal area near the city of Khan Younis.
Eyewitnesses told AFP that at least five rockets fell in the area, with emergency services saying the strikes created craters up to nine metres deep.
I mean it’s not like one is the most moral army in the world and the othet is a terrorist organization fighting their oppressors. Wonder which people expect to not shoot or use human shields
I mean it’s not like one is the most moral army in the world and the othet is a terrorist organization fighting their oppressors. Wonder which people expect to not shoot or use human shields
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moral_equivalence
Moral equivalence is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used in political debates. It seeks to draw comparisons between different, often unrelated things, to make a point that one is just as bad as the other or just as good as the other. It may be used to draw attention to an unrelated issue by comparing it to a well-known bad event, in an attempt to say one is as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn’t as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy.
…
The “not as bad as” argument is always popular with people who know perfectly well they’re doing something immoral. Being fully aware of this problem, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it, and they do so by pointing to other, usually worse, immorality. It is practically synonymous to the idea of “the lesser of two evils”.
Not responding further. I’m in no way accusing anyone of justifying anything, I’m quoting the appropriate section of the article relevant to the fallacy.
It’s how they describe themselves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purity_of_arms
The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property. — Spirit of the Israel Defense Forces
Not responding further. I’m in no way accusing anyone of justifying anything, I’m quoting the appropriate section of the article relevant to the fallacy.
No shit, all you’ve done is say hamas bad so idf okay then get upset when everyone points out that’s not an argument.
Even here you’ve done nothing but try to take the moral high ground in an area you clearly need to educate yourself more on.
I said nothing of the sort. Please cite where I said IDF ok :) yet another attempt to lie about my position.
It’s still a fallacy, no matter how you want to slice it.
Go away.
