I mean, I’m sure plenty were. There are outright racial supremacists in the government. They had barely won a majority in the knesset, failed to gain a majority of votes, and were facing serious opposition because of stuff like this:
But that being said, this is also simply the nature of urban warfare. Grozny, Bahkmut, Mosul, Baghdad, … This is what urban warfare looks like. Someone shooting from the appartment building? Bomb the building.
It’s not like an American war movie, but that’s the reality of war. It’s utterly horrific.
Not necessarily a war crime either. You’re allowed to accidentally kill civilians, as long as you were proportional in your response to violence. And obviously people disagree on what is or isn’t proportional, depending on which side they’re on. International law probably needs to change, but it’s not as if it’s that relevant anyway. Might makes right is still the most important principle of international relations.
A lot of this is precision bombing. Carpet bombing would have looked and been 10x worse.
Oh, and not to be a bummer, but this? This is nothing compared to what comes next if Israel decides to launch a ground invasion.
IRC the civilian death toll recapturing Mosul from ISIS was 40,000. And that was after they allowed civilians to evacuate. Gaza is 2.5 million living on an area the size of a postage stamp, on top of a network of tunnels filled with explosives. Not as if either side give too much of a shit about civilian casulties either. The death toll will be absurdly high.
“Precision” bombing was always a bit of a euphemism to disguise the cold reality, just like “collateral damage”. A bit of propaganda speak to make it all seem more palatable to audiences who want to believe in fairy tails.
It’s more precise than carpet bombing the entire neighbourhood, but you can’t bomb a building and expect the shockwave to stop just past the windows. But hey, ‘only’ killing a hundred civilians is more precise than inadvertently killing a thousand. You did your best, so arguably you tried to be proportional in your response, and not hurt too many civilians. Arguably nice and legal, according to international law.
The initial 2003 invasion/bombing of Iraq was basically a set of coordinated surgical strikes. Shock and Awe. IRC that killed ‘only’ 7000 civilians. Doubt ordinary Iraqis were as impressed as US media, but oh well.
Hell, just look at the twin towers. No bomb. No shockwave. The collapse of the towers still destroyed many of the surrounding buildings anyway.
This is what war looks like, behind all the newspeak designed to inhibit critical thinking.
I mean, I’m sure plenty were. There are outright racial supremacists in the government. They had barely won a majority in the knesset, failed to gain a majority of votes, and were facing serious opposition because of stuff like this:
But that being said, this is also simply the nature of urban warfare. Grozny, Bahkmut, Mosul, Baghdad, … This is what urban warfare looks like. Someone shooting from the appartment building? Bomb the building.
It’s not like an American war movie, but that’s the reality of war. It’s utterly horrific.
Not necessarily a war crime either. You’re allowed to accidentally kill civilians, as long as you were proportional in your response to violence. And obviously people disagree on what is or isn’t proportional, depending on which side they’re on. International law probably needs to change, but it’s not as if it’s that relevant anyway. Might makes right is still the most important principle of international relations.
A lot of this is precision bombing. Carpet bombing would have looked and been 10x worse.
Oh, and not to be a bummer, but this? This is nothing compared to what comes next if Israel decides to launch a ground invasion.
IRC the civilian death toll recapturing Mosul from ISIS was 40,000. And that was after they allowed civilians to evacuate. Gaza is 2.5 million living on an area the size of a postage stamp, on top of a network of tunnels filled with explosives. Not as if either side give too much of a shit about civilian casulties either. The death toll will be absurdly high.
deleted by creator
I don’t know what to tell you.
“Precision” bombing was always a bit of a euphemism to disguise the cold reality, just like “collateral damage”. A bit of propaganda speak to make it all seem more palatable to audiences who want to believe in fairy tails.
It’s more precise than carpet bombing the entire neighbourhood, but you can’t bomb a building and expect the shockwave to stop just past the windows. But hey, ‘only’ killing a hundred civilians is more precise than inadvertently killing a thousand. You did your best, so arguably you tried to be proportional in your response, and not hurt too many civilians. Arguably nice and legal, according to international law.
The initial 2003 invasion/bombing of Iraq was basically a set of coordinated surgical strikes. Shock and Awe. IRC that killed ‘only’ 7000 civilians. Doubt ordinary Iraqis were as impressed as US media, but oh well.
Hell, just look at the twin towers. No bomb. No shockwave. The collapse of the towers still destroyed many of the surrounding buildings anyway.
This is what war looks like, behind all the newspeak designed to inhibit critical thinking.