Imagine unironically using the words “good thing” to describe a number of civilian casualties above 0, let alone above half of total casualties.
That’s wild man.
Civilian casualties of war aren’t just a statistic. Those are real people that just wanted to live happy lives. Less than 1% of any number over 100 is a number I’m not happy about, and anyone with a heart should be furious about the number of civilians dying in Gaza. Especially when those numbers are such a high percentage. If you can’t fight a war without that kind of casualty count, then you either don’t fight the war or you accept that what you are doing is a genocide, not a war. IDF has very clearly made their choice on this.
If someone invades my home, 75% of people in my home are my family including the invader. So if in response, I only kill 50% of my family, by your logic I would have done very well.
The fact that they are killing a percentage of civilians that’s less than the overall percentage of civilians in a region is irrelevant to determining how effectively civilian harm is being minimised, it just means they are doing slightly better than killing people completely at random. I think you’d agree that’s quite a low bar you’re setting there.
Imagine unironically using the words “good thing” to describe a number of civilian casualties above 0, let alone above half of total casualties.
That’s wild man.
Civilian casualties of war aren’t just a statistic. Those are real people that just wanted to live happy lives. Less than 1% of any number over 100 is a number I’m not happy about, and anyone with a heart should be furious about the number of civilians dying in Gaza. Especially when those numbers are such a high percentage. If you can’t fight a war without that kind of casualty count, then you either don’t fight the war or you accept that what you are doing is a genocide, not a war. IDF has very clearly made their choice on this.
Removed by mod
If someone invades my home, 75% of people in my home are my family including the invader. So if in response, I only kill 50% of my family, by your logic I would have done very well.
The fact that they are killing a percentage of civilians that’s less than the overall percentage of civilians in a region is irrelevant to determining how effectively civilian harm is being minimised, it just means they are doing slightly better than killing people completely at random. I think you’d agree that’s quite a low bar you’re setting there.
Removed by mod