• Flying SquidM
    link
    English
    66 months ago

    If it was proportional? If it didn’t involve innocents? Yes.

    • @TheFonz
      link
      English
      -66 months ago

      Is there any war-ever in history- that didn’t involve civilian casualties? Any?

      • Flying SquidM
        link
        English
        46 months ago

        Is there any war ever in history that all actions on either are morally justified?

        • @FlowVoid
          link
          English
          -16 months ago

          In war, you are allowed to kill innocents if necessary to achieve a valid military objective.

          In this war, the IDF’s objective is to destroy Hamas.

          • Flying SquidM
            link
            English
            36 months ago

            “Allowed” by whom? “Necessary” by whose metric?

            If their objective is to destroy Hamas and they determine that the only way to do that is wipe out the Palestinian people from the face of the Earth, you’re saying that’s justified because it’s their necessary military objective?

            • @FlowVoid
              link
              English
              -16 months ago

              Allowed by international law.

              Necessary according to their military capabilities, which can be judged by observers.

              Most observers don’t think destroying Hamas requires wiping out all Palestinians, but at the same time it’s impossible to destroy Hamas without civilian casualties.

              • Flying SquidM
                link
                English
                36 months ago

                Okay, well observers are saying Israel is committing genocide, so I’m not sure what your issue is.

                Also, I’m not sure why you think what is legal is the same as what is moral.

                • @FlowVoid
                  link
                  English
                  -2
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  Legal isn’t the same as moral, but there is no consensus on the morality of war. Some people are pacifists and believe all war is immoral. Most people believe war is justified if it has a legitimate casus belli.

                  Whether or not Israel is committing genocide is a separate question from whether a military action is morally permissible, because genocide involves actions with no military purpose. In other words it’s possible that strikes like these are morally permissible even if a government is also doing things that are illegal, like blocking aid delivery.

                  • Flying SquidM
                    link
                    English
                    46 months ago

                    Once again- if Israel determines that wiping out every last Palestinian has a military purpose, that, according to you, is not genocide and is also justified.

                    You have a very strange idea about what is or is not justified in this world. You seem to think Dresden was justified and that killing thousands of children in Gaza is justified because things happen in war.

                    Please do contact the parents of dead Gazan children and let them know those deaths were justified. Let me know how it goes.

          • Natanael
            link
            fedilink
            English
            16 months ago

            You’re not allowed to target civilians at all.

            You can target military objectives like certain infrastructure to disable it, but you’re not allowed to target civilians. The rules of war just says when civilian casualties aren’t punishable. You have to take measures to ensure attacks are as precise as you can make them and with as little collateral damage as possible.

            “eliminate every human because they might be an enemy” is not a valid military objective.

            • @FlowVoid
              link
              English
              06 months ago

              That’s true, you cannot target civilians. But you can destroy a military objective even if you know it will kill civilians. Per ICC:

              Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur.

              “Eliminate every human” is not a valid objective, but “eliminate Hamas” is.

              • Natanael
                link
                fedilink
                English
                26 months ago

                proportionate attacks

                There’s the problem

                • @FlowVoid
                  link
                  English
                  -26 months ago

                  Possibly, but the civilian-combatant casualty ratios so far seem to be in keeping with proportionality.

                  • Natanael
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    2
                    edit-2
                    6 months ago

                    Even if they somehow were accurate, these numbers only cover the direct deaths from attacks, the totals you cite include all deaths from starvation and disease and more. The attacks on the hospital system and infrastructure and access to food will cause the ratio to get much much worse. Famine is indiscriminate.

            • capital
              link
              English
              06 months ago

              Did you think others reading the thread wouldn’t notice you adding the word “target”?

          • @cosmicrookie
            link
            English
            06 months ago

            Yet everyone except Israelites can see that it is a cover up excuse to exterminate the people who they have been trying to get rid off for more than half a century