• NoneOfUrBusiness
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    67% civilian casualties is a universally abhorrent figure

    Is it? I mean civilians getting killed is bad no matter the number, and I’m not denying Hamas soldiers committed war crimes, but for example in Iraq the US coalition’s percentage was 77%.

    • @QuaternionsRock
      link
      2
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because everyone is so happy that Iraq happened? Here, fixed:

      77% civilian casualties is also a universally abhorrent figure

      • NoneOfUrBusiness
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Yeah I’m not saying 67% civilians is a good number, only that it’s a normal number.

        • @QuaternionsRock
          link
          111 months ago

          Ah, I see what you’re saying now. Unfortunately yes, 67% it isn’t particularly out of the ordinary. Perhaps I’m in a bit of a bubble, but I think/hope the vast majority of people consider this historical “normal” to be “abhorrent” these days. Such would be a positive change for society.

          Perhaps I should also clarify that by “universal”, I don’t mean “everyone agrees”, but rather “regardless of the circumstances”. I included this to suggest that I think the civilian casualty rate in Palestine is also abhorrent, and I don’t think the October 7 attacks justify it in the slightest.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness
            link
            fedilink
            0
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Perhaps I’m in a bit of a bubble, but I think/hope the vast majority of people consider this historical “normal” to be “abhorrent” these days.

            That’s true. Normally I’d talk about not even close to all the civilian casualties are Hamas-inflicted, but mostly I wanted to point out that the popular Israeli narrative of “they entered our villages and indiscriminately killed our people in a brutal terrorist attack” is wrong even going by the 67% alone.