zlacker

Let us imagine a residential building with about 100 people living there, and let us imagine that there is information that some enemy combatants are living among them. A decision is made to strike at the building in order to eliminate the combatants. Consider two different approaches:

1) An air strike at the building, destroying it and killing most of its inhabitants, and leaving a minority of them wounded.

2) A squad of soldiers enters the building and executes most of the inhabitants at close range, and wounds and leaves alive a minority of them.

Most people would call scenario 2) a deliberate massacre that cannot be justified. Many people would, however, call scenario 1) a legitimate military strategy with unfortunate collateral damage that cannot be avoided. Question is, why? The outcome is the same, but for some reason the impersonality of striking from distance (air strikes, missiles, or artillery fire) seems to make it acceptable in many bystanders' eyes.

>>C6JEsQ+(OP)
You seem to have rejected 3: do nothing at all.

Nowhere in any civilised state in the world do the authorities just go in and kill everyone in a building to get to a few.

It's beyond insane.

The fiction you've created to rationilise this is that there is a "war", but there is no fucking war. It's an occupying force slaughtering its hostages to punish a relative handful among them.

>>markdo+DZ4
Wow, hello hyperbole and loaded terms. If we can’t even agree on basic facts like the very existence of a war, then there’s simply no point in discussion.

>>selest+o67
I agree. So long as all you know is Israeli propaganda, you're blinded to the truth and there's no point in discussion.

If there's a war, where is the army that the IDF is fighting? How many losses have the IDF had? Where is the front-line of this war? Where is the footage of this so called "war"?

>>markdo+qp7
The Hamas military is embedded in the civilian population, as everyone knows. IDF has sustained minimal losses after getting their act together after Oct 7th, but if your definition of war precludes one sided casualties, then I guess operation Desert Storm wasn’t part of a war. If you need a very explicit front line, then I guess the Vietnam and Iraq wars weren’t wars either.

These answers are obvious. You would’ve been able to answer your questions yourself if you were earnestly looking to do so.

>>markdo+DZ4
I am not in favour of striking, and you have misunderstood my message. You can see that if you read my replies to the other person who replied to me.