Meanwhile, Israel killed an American activist, not even near a conflict zone, and nobody cared. Official response from US is also this. Being a US citizen only seems to matter when it's the brown...
Yet while Eygi’s killing made international headlines and sparked global condemnation, the killing of a 13-year-old Palestinian girl named Bana Laboom – on the same day, also near the city of Nablus – went largely unnoticed.
Yes, and I think you could see my point if you didn't interpret my words literally. While the article says that, it barely has gotten any recognition. It certainly has been ignored by the US...
Yes, and I think you could see my point if you didn't interpret my words literally. While the article says that, it barely has gotten any recognition. It certainly has been ignored by the US government and official channels, and it's been largely absent from social media and regular media attention. The attention it got is miniscule compared to when US citizens have gotten in trouble in other contexts.
Some other things I’ve learned by reading the news: American citizens have volunteered to fight in Ukraine. There are American citizens who are Israeli soldiers (dual citizenship). I think that...
Some other things I’ve learned by reading the news: American citizens have volunteered to fight in Ukraine. There are American citizens who are Israeli soldiers (dual citizenship).
I think that when someone volunteers to get involved in a foreign conflict, the US embassy isn’t necessarily going to do much for them?
Apparently you feel that reporting it in the news is insufficient, but I’m not sure what kind of response you’re hoping for and why.
Surely you can see the difference between an American protesting illegal settlements in the West Bank and Americans being members of a foreign military? Describing both those things as "getting...
Surely you can see the difference between an American protesting illegal settlements in the West Bank and Americans being members of a foreign military? Describing both those things as "getting involved in an ongoing conflict" is extremely disingenuous even if it's not technically untrue.
Yes, there are big differences, but I pointed at more extreme examples to make a point. The broad similarity I’m pointing at is deliberately taking risks by getting involved in a dangerous,...
Yes, there are big differences, but I pointed at more extreme examples to make a point. The broad similarity I’m pointing at is deliberately taking risks by getting involved in a dangerous, volatile foreign situation.
I actually think we should be horrified when Israel shoots protestors in the head even when they aren't US citizens, and the fact that the US doesn't even care to investigate in this circumstance...
I actually think we should be horrified when Israel shoots protestors in the head even when they aren't US citizens, and the fact that the US doesn't even care to investigate in this circumstance is not mitigated by the victim's decision to protest illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Well, there are also American citizens who are just trying to live their life and have been killed by Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon (The State Department even initially suggested he was not a...
Well, there are also American citizens who are just trying to live their life and have been killed by Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon (The State Department even initially suggested he was not a citizen but rather a legal permanent resident). Meanwhile, the US government has been dragging its feetin organizing evacuations for Americans stuck under this bombardment. It does not seem to be an issue of some people taking inordinate risk.
I think they were taking severe risks. It appears the US state department agrees? Here is the US state department travel advisory for Israel and Gaza, from July 31: For Lebanon, updated September...
If you choose to remain in Lebanon, be prepared to shelter in place should the situation deteriorate further. The U.S. Embassy strongly encourages U.S. citizens in Southern Lebanon, near the borders with Syria, and/or in refugee settlements to depart those areas immediately.
Do Not Travel to Lebanon due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping, unexploded landmines, and the risk of armed conflict. Some areas, especially near the borders, have increased risk. Read the entire Travel Advisory.
The US is attempting to arrange evacuations, but this looks like a “you ignored all the warnings and we can’t necessarily protect you” situation. Compare with people who try to ride out the hurricane despite evacuation orders.
I can't help but feel the goalposts are shifting here a bit. You started by saying it is reasonable for the US embassy to not be able to help if someone "volunteers to get involved in a foreign...
I can't help but feel the goalposts are shifting here a bit. You started by saying it is reasonable for the US embassy to not be able to help if someone "volunteers to get involved in a foreign conflict", then said "The broad similarity I’m pointing at is deliberately taking risks by getting involved in a dangerous, volatile foreign situation". And here you suggest that that "deliberate taking of risks" involves just existing within southern Lebanon and not leaving within one week when it is, by all accounts, extremely difficult to do so right now. Keeping in mind that many of these US citizens were likely present before the outbreak of hostilities (i.e. they have not upped and traveled there in the past two weeks), I don't really think that's a reasonable criteria for saying "they ignored all warnings" and now there is no expectation of help. I'll note that in the 2006 Lebanon-Israel war, for example, at this stage in the conflict (~1 week in) US Marines had already been deployed to aid in evacuating American citizens. They eventually evacuated over 15000 US citizens. I really don't think it is unreasonable to expect the US govt to make a more active effort in protecting its citizens abroad.
The alternative possibility is that the State Department has different priorities right now and that, while they could be doing more to help American citizens stuck in Lebanon, that has not been given the priority it should (imo) in furtherance of other strategic goals. In other words, it doesn't help our ally Israel to emphasize or make a big deal of the fact that their actions have killed American citizens and are endangering many more. I find the alternative possibility much more likely in this situation, given the geopolitical context. If Russia or Iran had killed American citizens with airstrikes or with sniper fire, I would expect, at the least, much more forceful condemnation by the government.
I was reacting to one sentence implying that it's not risky just to be in Lebanon, which I still think is a dubious assumption. I pointed to the latest advisory, but I actually would have...
I was reacting to one sentence implying that it's not risky just to be in Lebanon, which I still think is a dubious assumption. I pointed to the latest advisory, but I actually would have preferred to find an earlier one.
Maybe the Wayback machine can help? Here's a snapshot of how it looked on January 29. Apparently it was considered a "Level 3" risk:
Reconsider travel to Lebanon due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping, unexploded landmines, and armed conflict. Some areas, especially near the borders, have increased risk. Read the entire Travel Advisory.
Do Not Travel to:
Southern Lebanon due to the potential for armed conflict;
The border with Syria due to terrorism and armed conflict;
Refugee settlements due to the potential for armed clashes.
...
U.S. citizens should avoid demonstrations and exercise caution if in the vicinity of any large gatherings or protests as these have the potential to turn violent quickly and with little notice. Protesters have blocked major roads, including thoroughfares between downtown Beirut and the area where the U.S. Embassy is located, and between Beirut and Beirut Rafic Hariri International Airport.
Do Not Travel to Lebanon due to rising tensions between Hizballah and Israel. If you are in Lebanon, be prepared to shelter in place should the situation deteriorate. The U.S. Embassy strongly encourages U.S. citizens who are already in Southern Lebanon, near the borders with Syria, and/or in refugee settlements to depart.
Do Not Travel to Lebanon due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, kidnapping, unexploded landmines, and the risk of armed conflict. Some areas, especially near the borders, have increased risk. Read the entire Travel Advisory.
It doesn't seem right to say that people only had a week to leave when it was dangerous all along - even, officially dangerous. Some people will stay despite the danger, though.
More generally, I think we should distinguish between justice and good judgment. When someone ignores a sign and falls off a cliff, did they deserve the death penalty? No, despite what r/leopardsatemyface would have you believe. The "natural" penalties for bad judgment are often random and severely unjust. On the other hand: is it good judgment? No.
That doesn't necessarily mean no help is coming. Search and rescue operations often try to rescue people from the consequences of bad judgement, because we don't think people should die for making a mistake. It's still the right thing to do to make the world a little less unjust, though the rescuers have to be careful not to put themselves in too much danger.
Well, they were captured at the same time, but I just wanted to make sure people had full context, your quote alone could lead people to believe that all of these hostages were soldiers.
Well, they were captured at the same time, but I just wanted to make sure people had full context, your quote alone could lead people to believe that all of these hostages were soldiers.
Meanwhile, Israel killed an American activist, not even near a conflict zone, and nobody cared. Official response from US is also this.
Being a US citizen only seems to matter when it's the brown people that do something to you.
Did you read the article you linked?
Yes, and I think you could see my point if you didn't interpret my words literally. While the article says that, it barely has gotten any recognition. It certainly has been ignored by the US government and official channels, and it's been largely absent from social media and regular media attention. The attention it got is miniscule compared to when US citizens have gotten in trouble in other contexts.
Some other things I’ve learned by reading the news: American citizens have volunteered to fight in Ukraine. There are American citizens who are Israeli soldiers (dual citizenship).
I think that when someone volunteers to get involved in a foreign conflict, the US embassy isn’t necessarily going to do much for them?
Apparently you feel that reporting it in the news is insufficient, but I’m not sure what kind of response you’re hoping for and why.
Surely you can see the difference between an American protesting illegal settlements in the West Bank and Americans being members of a foreign military? Describing both those things as "getting involved in an ongoing conflict" is extremely disingenuous even if it's not technically untrue.
Yes, there are big differences, but I pointed at more extreme examples to make a point. The broad similarity I’m pointing at is deliberately taking risks by getting involved in a dangerous, volatile foreign situation.
I actually think we should be horrified when Israel shoots protestors in the head even when they aren't US citizens, and the fact that the US doesn't even care to investigate in this circumstance is not mitigated by the victim's decision to protest illegal settlements in the West Bank.
Well, there are also American citizens who are just trying to live their life and have been killed by Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon (The State Department even initially suggested he was not a citizen but rather a legal permanent resident). Meanwhile, the US government has been dragging its feet in organizing evacuations for Americans stuck under this bombardment. It does not seem to be an issue of some people taking inordinate risk.
I think they were taking severe risks. It appears the US state department agrees? Here is the US state department travel advisory for Israel and Gaza, from July 31:
For Lebanon, updated September 28:
The US is attempting to arrange evacuations, but this looks like a “you ignored all the warnings and we can’t necessarily protect you” situation. Compare with people who try to ride out the hurricane despite evacuation orders.
I can't help but feel the goalposts are shifting here a bit. You started by saying it is reasonable for the US embassy to not be able to help if someone "volunteers to get involved in a foreign conflict", then said "The broad similarity I’m pointing at is deliberately taking risks by getting involved in a dangerous, volatile foreign situation". And here you suggest that that "deliberate taking of risks" involves just existing within southern Lebanon and not leaving within one week when it is, by all accounts, extremely difficult to do so right now. Keeping in mind that many of these US citizens were likely present before the outbreak of hostilities (i.e. they have not upped and traveled there in the past two weeks), I don't really think that's a reasonable criteria for saying "they ignored all warnings" and now there is no expectation of help. I'll note that in the 2006 Lebanon-Israel war, for example, at this stage in the conflict (~1 week in) US Marines had already been deployed to aid in evacuating American citizens. They eventually evacuated over 15000 US citizens. I really don't think it is unreasonable to expect the US govt to make a more active effort in protecting its citizens abroad.
The alternative possibility is that the State Department has different priorities right now and that, while they could be doing more to help American citizens stuck in Lebanon, that has not been given the priority it should (imo) in furtherance of other strategic goals. In other words, it doesn't help our ally Israel to emphasize or make a big deal of the fact that their actions have killed American citizens and are endangering many more. I find the alternative possibility much more likely in this situation, given the geopolitical context. If Russia or Iran had killed American citizens with airstrikes or with sniper fire, I would expect, at the least, much more forceful condemnation by the government.
I was reacting to one sentence implying that it's not risky just to be in Lebanon, which I still think is a dubious assumption. I pointed to the latest advisory, but I actually would have preferred to find an earlier one.
Maybe the Wayback machine can help? Here's a snapshot of how it looked on January 29. Apparently it was considered a "Level 3" risk:
...
On July 31 it was raised to "Level 4":
It doesn't seem right to say that people only had a week to leave when it was dangerous all along - even, officially dangerous. Some people will stay despite the danger, though.
More generally, I think we should distinguish between justice and good judgment. When someone ignores a sign and falls off a cliff, did they deserve the death penalty? No, despite what r/leopardsatemyface would have you believe. The "natural" penalties for bad judgment are often random and severely unjust. On the other hand: is it good judgment? No.
That doesn't necessarily mean no help is coming. Search and rescue operations often try to rescue people from the consequences of bad judgement, because we don't think people should die for making a mistake. It's still the right thing to do to make the world a little less unjust, though the rescuers have to be careful not to put themselves in too much danger.
To be fair, Israel also killed a fair few of the hostages themselves.
Yeah, I mentioned that (with a source) a few months ago in a comment.
There's the full sentence if anybody wanted it.
What's the point of lumping POWs with civilian hostages, again?
Well, they were captured at the same time, but I just wanted to make sure people had full context, your quote alone could lead people to believe that all of these hostages were soldiers.
Fair enough.