Nobody expects the state to relinquish power without violence, but that doesn't mean it's OK to cheer clips of massive explosions within lethal range of civilian houses.

I have yet to see anyone share hard evidence that these are targeted at military areas, let alone actually hitting them. Just a bunch of equivocation about military reserves and public opinion polls. Isreal rightfully caught shit for their pager attack being too indiscriminate but an explosion clearing half a city block isn't?

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I think you're forgetting differences in military capabilities.

Israel can be more selective in it's targets in Gaza, but they deliberately chose hospitals. Iran, the nation defending itself, has to send large missile barrages to try and break through the iron dome defense. Those will be less precise

[–] shoo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 52 minutes ago)

I don't see how that makes a difference? Israel bombing civilians with precision doesn't make imprecise bombing of civilians more acceptable. Everyone ends up just as dead. It just makes it more palatable for people who value retribution above civilian lives.

To put it another way: if you want to hit a military target but can't do so without outsized collateral damage, you don't have ethical grounds to make the attack. You don't see people defending the USA's use of Agent Orange in Vietnam just because it was the only feasible way to clear foliage.