IDF/military buildings are near civilian areas, considering that IDF is buying bombs to kill civilians (definition of terrorism), do you think it is okay to bomb civilian buildings located near IDF buildings?
I changed the word "pager" to "building"
I changed the word "pager" to "building"
1. a goal in and of itself (ie. they want civilians dead)
2. being aware of the costs (ie. they only want hamas dead, but don't mind if some civilians are killed)
tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1, whereas HDThoreaun claims it's only #2.
No, I didn't, I only asked a question by replacing words Hezbollah with IDF, pager with building. When pagers got blown up, there were civilians near by
Recently we had what may have been a targeted hit in crowded public space in Alabama. When those individuals are caught, I hope it is understood that you don't choose to open fire in a crowd and only choose to shoot one person. You choose it all.
In such a world how do we make a decision? By judging that the price is right. Why did innocent people die when thousands of bombs blew up in public spaces? Because the price was right. That should be the center of discussion, not whether we'd like to blow up thousands of bombs in public places without paying the price.
Iraq and Afghanistan had worse figures, by many reports even the drone part of GWOT was worse.
And those were generally fought in more permissive environments.
For the most part the single largest casualty cohort in any conflict are civilians achieving a 1:1 to 1:2 ratio depending on which figures you go by while tragic is actually quite impressive for a lack of a better word.
There are tons of videos, none of them show drones chasing children. Some show injured children which unfortunately is unavoidable. Some are children injured by hamas themselves to manufacture a narrative.
Hearsay, no. A doctor has a professional certification, and is specifically certified to make pronouncements of exactly this sort.
That doesn't make them unsusceptible to biases, pressure or corruption. But their testimony definitely does not fall into the category of "hearsay".
If anything it should be taken as sufficient grounds to initiate a proper judicial investigation.
More than sufficient grounds - an imperative, in fact.
And remember, no one will admit in official documents that they have deliberately targeted civilians, not even countries officially recognized as executing a genocide. Not a single one will have any official document saying: target innocent civilians. You can derive it from their actions