this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
466 points (94.1% liked)
World News
32079 readers
772 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 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What argument are you making here? Your first paragraph implies you believe that Isreal is justified in it's approach based on the US's failed conflicts with Guerilla warfare. But then your second paragraph implies that Isreal is not justified for exactly that reason, which is like.. Yeah.. That's correct lol.
I feel like it shouldn't be a controversial opinion to say that if you are unable to conduct a war without massive civilian casualties then you shouldn't be conducting that war. If you do anyway you are, at the very best, a war criminal.
This is, actually, an absurd opinion. Massive civilian casualties are inseparable from war, and you will be hard pressed to find a war without them.
The laws of war are built around, and exist because of, this assumption. They exist to give a framework that sets forth principles by which the loss of life can be evaluated.
Otherwise, by your definition, every warring faction ever is a war criminal.
Wow, that is an insanely obtuse interpretation of what I said.
Of course there are always civilian casualties In war. Of course that is why war crimes exist in the first place.
"Massive" literally means "Large in comparison to what is typical". So when I say massive civilian cassualties forgive me for assuming you'd understand I was using that word for it's intended purpose.
Bombing a hospital full of civilians is absolutely a war crime.