476
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
476 points (94.2% liked)
World News
32282 readers
619 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
If that were true, then they would be sending in troops on the ground instead of indiscriminate bombings.
That not how that works the us tried that a few times in Afghanistan and the risk to their own people was too large compared to the lives saved which were next to none because of the hostage taking I know Israel is a shithole and Palestine is too but war isn't as simple as just send people
So it's better these children die than the soldiers killing them put their lives at risk?
From an outside perspective of course it isn't but when you are a part of the military and you have the responsibility over your comrades lives you will do anything to protect them including killing people who you don't know
Including commiting genocide and various war crimes?
I mean you have a point from a judicial standpoint and I'm not saying theyr behavior is ethical but I understand why they do what they do and i dprobablty do the same if it means my friends wouldn't have to risk their life
Anything? Like punishing soldiers who kill innocent civilians including children and journalists during times of relative "peace"? Because that would surely have gone a long way to reducing the deaths of your "comrades". Instead we have an Israeli sniper kill journalists and then the government says "they were armed with a camera".
No. They are not doing everything they can to protect their soldiers. They are not seeking peace. They are seeking silence and subjugation.
No, they decided after a while that Afghani civilians were not worth the equivalent of an American soldier. And that was several years after the invasion which took literally less than a month.
Then they switched to bombing via drone, and Obama got a Nobel Peace Prize for convincing us that significant civilian collateral is a totally acceptable practice and definitely not some form of negligence for human life.
Even then, it was during the post invasion state. After the Taliban had been mostly destroyed and left in a dismantled state.
Israel just started its slow Gaza ground invasion. Bum IDF just barely stepped into the Urban zone earlier this week, yet they've been bombing civilians for the past month.
Obviously I don't expect them to actually care about civilians or even the hostages, but I really wish they'd stop acting like they can't actually engage in a proper ground battle.
Although with the tank kills Hamas has somehow been achieving, maybe the IDF really does suck at ground battles.
In modern urban warfare, it's not very hard to down tanks with homemade (or I guess tunnel-made) rockets.
Right because they are responsible for keeping their soldiers safe
There are troops on the ground and the bombings are not indiscriminate, but on legitimate military targets.
What does the civilian:soldier death ratio need to be in order for it to be considered a 'legitimate military target'?
Honestly? As terrible as it sounds, it can be almost arbitrarily high if you look at the Geneva convention.
For example, a hospital can be targeted after nothing more than a warning if the hospital isn't used for humanitarian purposes only. There is no minimum duration specified between the warning and the attack.
Not that the Geneva conventions are a guide for morality. They solely limit the maximum of cruelty during war.